feynoob
Member
The only casuality of this deal.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
HoofHearted
Member
WTHF ..... only 20 pages???
Clearly some of you are not living up to your full potential - expect this to be on your performance reviews... 800 pages was an EASY target..
What'd I miss?
Clearly some of you are not living up to your full potential - expect this to be on your performance reviews... 800 pages was an EASY target..
What'd I miss?
Last edited:
Yoboman
Member
Let's not try and rewrite history now. Sega opened up some good support to Xbox but they also supported Nintendo with exclusives like Super Monkey Ball, Skies of Arcadia, Billy Hatcher. And PS2 got its own batch of Sega exclusives like Virtual Fighter 4, Shinobi, Yakuza, Rez.
That's just what publishers did at the time, give a couple games to everyone and they were a lot of the time exclusives
sainraja
Member
Ah, so Microsoft should just be able to buy the industry while they are at it, since, you know, they can "afford" it and Sony can't. You seem to be calling out Naughty dog here, what IPs did Sony get with their acquisition that were multi-platform at the time of buying them? Hell, Crash, one of the IPs they worked on is under Microsoft now. ND was **pretty much** working on games for Sony anyway. Sony's acquisition of Bungie is also not quite the same; whether you like it or not, their games, including future ones, will remain multi-platform (I know you didn't say you liked that/or disliked that).
As for scale, well, yeah, are you saying it is the same? It is not right? So why is that wrong of someone to point out? I dunno how you can think they are at the same scale. Also, the reason you didn't hear much of a fuss with Bungie's purchase is simply due to Bungie and Sony both publishing that all Bungie's current and future games will be multi-platform.
The key thing you are forgetting here, when questioning others over A&B and trying to pull a "what-about-ism", is that MS has not only purchased studios (Ninja Theory/Double Fine, etc.), but they have also purchased another publisher (Bethesda) prior to this. What they are doing, have done just this one generation, is not even remotely the same as what Sony or Nintendo have done/could do. It is simply due to the deep pockets of Xbox's parent company.
I remember when Microsoft first entered gaming, many said they would just buy the industry. Many pushed back on this, but here we are. I am still hopeful that they might surprise us all and do things a little differently than we're use to in gaming and Game Pass is certainly an example of that (Game Pass is also the reason for this being done so that is not lost on me). You don't need to be defending this.
Sure, any company with MS's pocket might try to do the same. It still won't make it right. Not sure why you think so.
Last edited:
It is clear what the CMA says, and yes, MS will still have to convince the CMA in that aspect of cloudgaming...... That does not mean that eliminating the console market from among the concerns is not a positive sign for the possibilities of MS to obtain the final YES of the CMA.
But I repeat, my post was only to indicate the possible conspiracy theory that GHG thinks but does not want to discover. I did not affirm anything.
But I repeat, my post was only to indicate the possible conspiracy theory that GHG thinks but does not want to discover. I did not affirm anything.
feynoob
Member
WTHF ..... only 20 pages???
Clearly some of you are not living up to your full potential - expect this to be on your performance reviews... 800 pages was an EASY target..
What'd I miss?
wait for approval. Once they approve it, it will be a caravan of posts.
Unknown Soldier
Member
I'm still legit amazed that Disney/Fox was allowed to go through. That was beyond insane, The Walt Disney Company already controlled a vast amount of American media before they took possession of 20th Century fox.
Maybe I shouldn't be though. Nvidia-ARM is actually the only big acquisition that somehow hasn't been allowed in the past decade, I can't think of another one that was blocked.
RickMasters
Member
You what? im speaking as a sega fan who was making my choice at the time on what a post sega console world choice will be for me....when that initial batch of sega games was announced for DC....VF4, shinobi etc. were not even announced...I remember because I eventually bought a PS2 for those games...but at the time when JSFR, gun valkyrie etc was announced they had NOTHING for PS let alone gamecube....... and you accuse me of rewriting history....If you owned a DC in 2000 and wanted to know where to play the next batch of sega games, they were only being announced for xbox initially. JSFR and gun valkyrie in particular being former DC games that even had DC footage in magazines....this was long before VF4, which by the way is a fighting game I still adore to this day...so no...I didnt forget they released games on PS and GC..I omnwed sega games on those consoles too....I DO remember which console sega announced its next releases for first though....
feynoob
Member
Entertainment content can come and go, unlike real infrastructure. Plus anyone can make comics like marvel and disney contents.
Look at entertainment content since the invention of tvs and comics. We have plethora of those content.
Disney/Fox issue was sport section. That is a no no, since that content cant be replicated due to license and it contains a risk of price gouging.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Really? I would love to hear your take on it.
The Nvidia-ARM acquisition was blocked for political reasons, not because of any actual economic or technical reasons after all. China objected because they didn't want their stolen Chinese ARM company cut off, the UK objected because they didn't want an American company taking control of a British firm. There was not one single argument against Nvidia and ARM that wasn't political.
I might add that Microsoft objected to the Nvidia and ARM tie-up because, get this, they didn't want Nvidia to have a monopoly on that technology and not have a potential competitive advantage as a company that owned the core IP but also was a licensed customer. They were worried that Nvidia would favor themselves with licence terms or even foreclose competitors by refusing to license to some companies. The joke writes itself.
The whole argument is stupid AF..... idk how people dont understand a simple concept as marketing rights and not being on a competitors sub service. How stupid would you be as a company paying a ton of money to get marketing rights and then your competitor can just promote the game on their sub service day 1 basically trumping your own marketing on your console. This also doesnt take into account the actual publisher of the game might not want to put it on a sub service and wants game sales first
Last edited:
Thirty7ven
Banned
WTHF ..... only 20 pages???
Clearly some of you are not living up to your full potential - expect this to be on your performance reviews... 800 pages was an EASY target..
What'd I miss?
MS bought the UK.
feynoob
Member
Do you know what arm is?
The entire world depends on those technology. You cant allow 2 companies in that field to merge and have majority of control. That is bad for any future technology.
DaGwaphics
Member
But is literally anyone actually saying that? The decision is weeks away.
Quotes of these posters saying they love the CMA, just out of curiosity, such a weird thing to feel positivity towards, yeah for bureaucracy.
Last edited:
Yoboman
Member
You must have a faulty memory. You know checking dates isn't hard? Super Monkey Ball and Rez was 2001. SMB was a GameCube launch title. Virtua Fighter 4, Shinobi, Skies of Arcadia, Gunvalkyrie, JSRF were all 2002.
If anything you could say they had pretty equal support in the first few years after Dreamcast died, but Sega slowly came around to supporting PS the modt
D
Deleted member 471617
Unconfirmed Member
Excellent news for me. This deal can finally close and we can all move on to getting ABK games on Game Pass once legally finalized and best of all, Diablo IV has a great chance at being on Game Pass day one!!! Let's go baby!!!
sainraja
Member
WTHF ..... only 20 pages???
Clearly some of you are not living up to your full potential - expect this to be on your performance reviews... 800 pages was an EASY target..
What'd I miss?
Most people discussing this understood that the deal would go through (there were a select few individuals, giving life to this thread, who were the ones spending time reading the documents and sharing what was being said). So, if it hadn't gone through or had been blocked, well, you'd have your 800 pages by now most likely.
Last edited:
I think you should actually take a look at some REAL history in terms of Sega... tired of this BS narrative. My first console was a genesis and I loved alot of the gamesYeah. All of that. Plus Sony pretty much destroyed SEGA back in the day, and it's time they get what's been coming for decades!
Last edited:
I think they might consider going this route
Cash it out (50-60B$+), letting the other big fish handle the headache while having $$ to buy Bandai Namco and making it Sony’s official venture into gaming
Having PS Plus wrapped up into Prime would uterly obliterate gamepass. This is something I dont really see people talk about. If Sony kind of loses its value and starts to sink a little whats to stop them from selling Playstation or Sony itself to Amazon, GOOGLE or Apple. I have to imagine that is a scenario MS ABSOLUTELY does not want to see. They even stated their real competion is those sorts of companies in the past.
mansoor1980
Gold Member
Last edited:
Unknown Soldier
Member
Oh, I know exactly what ARM is. I've been an investor longer than most people in this forum.
The entire world depends on Windows, you know. >95% of the world's computers run it. It's the de-facto operating system of the entire world's computers. And yet nobody seems to be slightly disturbed that Microsoft continues to try and extend into new monopolies. I'm surprised they let Microsoft try and dominate the nascent mobile phones market the way they did, in the end it only worked out because Microsoft wasn't able to compete against Apple and Google there.
Speaking of bad for future technology, did you know that Microsoft now controls a significant stake of OpenAI, the creators of GPT? We're now allowing Microsoft to have a majority of control over a new emerging class of Generative AI. Is that also bad for future technology? Why doesn't anyone try to stop Microsoft there either?
Not to mention it was Nintendo ACTUALLY fucking over Sony that cause Sony to come out with its own console to begin withGTFOH with that FUD. Sony didn't "destroy" SEGA; SEGA killed themselves. SEGA were the ones stupid enough to sell a $299 Sega CD in the West with nothing but mediocre FMV games. SEGA were the ones stupid enough to feel they needed a "response" to the Jaguar in the 32X, a $150 add-on that was dead six months after it came out, instead of investing in the SVP chip for more graphically-intensive software on stock Genesis to compete with DKC, Super Metroid, Chrono Trigger and other late SNES releases.
SEGA were the ones that rushed the Saturn to NA in May with no marketing and barely any software, simply to try getting a leg-up on PS1. SEGA were the ones that pissed off retailers like KB Toys, who refused to stock Saturns because of that rushed May release leaving them out of the loop. SEGA are the ones that pronounced the Saturn publicly dead at E3 1997.
You don't even know a fraction of what really happened, and somehow think Microsoft acquiring ABK is "revenge" for a company that didn't need any help neutering themselves as a platform holder in the industry thanks to some of the dumbest self-inflicted business decisions ever made. But go ahead, keep blaming all of SEGA's shortcomings during that era on Sony; never mind it was Nintendo who ate up a huge portion of Sega's Western audience with the N64 but I don't see the same vitriol towards them. Wonder why
Alex Scott
Member
I didn't expect a complete 180 from CMA. I thought they would atleast ask for discounted price for Sony so they put it on PS+ at a reasonable price. Lets see in a month what remedies has CMA agreed to.
Sony now has to ask themselves this: Do they want to accquire major third party studios/publishers or sell the PS division?
Sony now has to ask themselves this: Do they want to accquire major third party studios/publishers or sell the PS division?
Last edited:
feynoob
Member
MS almost got broken because of it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.
You said it yourself, emerging technology.
Regulators would make a case for that once they deemed it dangerous.
But these are not close to arm. Arm+Nvidia is bad for the industry because of how important chips are. Every piece of smart technology need a chip. Imagine the damage arm+Nvidia would do if both were allowed to merge.
That is why people were opposed to. Not some political bullshit.
Punished Miku
Gold Member
Zero chance.
Its also about the IP. Its not like Sony bought Naughty DOG and then got the Uncharted and Last of US IP... The argument is so disingenuous whenever its brought up as if its the same between PS and XBOX in terms of Acquisitions.
Unknown Soldier
Member
I'm also aware of MS's antritrust history, having actually lived through those times while growing up in California. It's possible that I'm more sympathetic to Silicon Valley than Redmond because of where I grew up, but yes I do know that MS faced an antitrust trial and survived. Today they are not a broken up company, instead they are the world's second most valuable by market cap.
You still haven't offered a case for what kind of damage Nvidia-ARM would have caused. I'm interested in hearing it, even though it's getting kind of OT for this thread.
mansoor1980
Gold Member
i knew this would happen
Again with the licensing. The deals aren't comparable because the companies sit in very different portions of their industries. A very simple example: How would Microsoft making Activision games exclusive prevent Sony from making games or consoles? How could NVIDIA withholding licenses or advanced ARM tech affect any competitor requiring chips? The difference is night and day if you have a cursory understanding of the chip industry. Sony doesn't need Activision games to exist as a company. ARM designs are essential to much of the computing market.
Microsoft's objections are not a contradiction either. Microsoft objected to ARM because it is a major purchaser of chips because of Azure. It objected like most of the industry because of the potential for reduced competition and increased prices due to the acqusition. Nvidia would essentially be the chip industry had the deal went through. Buying Activision has practically no chance of creating a monopoly. Regulator concerns about the IP creating an insurmountable lead for cloud gaming services are well founded. Those are more easily addressed by behavioral remedies similar to how many countries disallow exclusive content like sports to be tied to internet or television providers without fair access. No behavioral remedy would stop Nvidia from keeping the best shit for its designs and its products being able to sell at a lower costs because it doesn't need to pay royalties.
Unknown Soldier
Member
I'm actually in agreement with you. However Sony has no options left if Microsoft is basically allowed to buy the industry up to crush PlayStation.
Well, there is one option, but the Japanese government would never allow it. If Sony would begin to shop themselves around for acquisition, they could survive as a part of a much larger company. A company like Apple, which has previously tried and failed to break into gaming, would probably be very interested in acquiring Sony for instance. However, as I said, Japan's government would never allow such an acquisition, at least not now while Sony is still apparently healthy.
As an independent company, I rate Sony's likelihood of survival around 50/50. It is more likely that they will be slowly starved of content by Microsoft as other Western studios and publishers are acquired one by one, and only on the brink of bankruptcy will they be acquired for pennies on the dollar by someone like Apple. By then it will already be too late for the gaming industry, Microsoft will control it as thoroughly as they control computer operating systems with Windows today.
Hero of Spielberg
Member
Go to Konami and bring back a proper PES! Do it FIFA you cowards!
In Cold Blood
Banned
At its core it should never of been blocked.
The fourth player, who before this ABK deal everyone was saying could never compete with Sony, buying a publisher isn't a monopoly. Sony as the market leader buying any publisher like ABK, EA, Ubi, T2 etc would be a monopoly and would absolutely be blocked.
MS wont take COD away, it's only one game. At the end of the existing contract with Sony MS will take over all marketing rights, it will go on GP day and date which will boost its subs.
MS is happy to take all that money from Sony for COD sales, which will help pay off the purchase and fund more exclusive non COD games from Activision.
MS can't lose from it. Having it free on GP is a big enough draw anyway.
If Sony want it on PS+ that's fine as well. Sony would have to pay hundreds of millions to MS for it and then they will lose out on the actual game sales.
All other AB games will be exclusive and maybe MS gets some of the other studios like Toys for Bob to make a new Banjo, Spiro or Crash game for Xbox.
It makes MS a really competitive console player. Make no mistake, MS will sell more consoles with this. GP subs will boom.
MS wont go after any of the other big Western Publishers. Embracer Group is unstastainable with the amount of employees and no name games it has. That would be a millstone around any companies neck.
EA, Ubi and T2 would be out of bounds now for either MS or Sony.
I expect Amazon to buy one of them real soon, possibly followed up Apple getting one.
MS has signalled its intents to buy a Japanese publisher, most likely Sega or Capcom I would think.
You don't have a US politician bringing up the issue in a free trade meeting without it being put on the table by MS.
Outside of that I think MS will tidy up a few things with smaller devs such as Certain Affinity, Squanch, Asobo types.
They might buy Edios and CD as they are both working in MS games and they don't really want to lose that access.
Sony is a little different. We all expect them to buy Square, but I think they aren't desirable at the moment to them. We all agree that they have lost their way getting into NFT and block chain shit, and their last few games have been shit and haven't sold well. Sony would have to take all that shit one and spend years trying to clear out the shit and get them back to what they do beat. Maybe they still do, who knows.
Capcom is too expensive and might not want to sell to either them or MS as they are doing really well now.
Sega would cost them about 4 billion and just like Capcom, who knows if Sammy wants to sell them to either Sony or MS.
Personally I think Sony will try and do something with GTA. Outside of COD, Fortnite and Minecraft, GTA is the biggest franchise and system seller. If they can get a 12 or 6 mo th exclusive on that then I think that would be massive.
Sony just need to keep doing what they have been doing in buying good individual studios. They should target Lucid Games, Blue 12, Sloclap and shift up.
ProtoByte
Member
This bitch. It's actually sickening. I would've preferred the CMA not even bother with the pump faking if we could avoid self satisfied bullshit like this. Ugh.
mansoor1980
Gold Member
she will tweet more im afraid
RickMasters
Member
It’s not the CMAs job to get special deals for Sony.
bitbydeath
Member
It’s obvious Sega couldn’t compete once Xbox was announced, and then Sega threw in the towel, that’s no retcon, it’s legit history.
bitbydeath
Member
Whatever Sony is willing to pay would probably be so low they'd basically be getting it for free. Giving away or even discounting new games isn't a subscriber perk they've shown interest in else they'd have done it already with their own games.
Why is this a shock... Blizzard literally had their own conference... Blizzcon?
ProtoByte
Member
I don't think regulators are that far gone to let Microsoft buy out even more of the few publishers left. Just one ridiculously large acquisition per industry for any given mega conglomerate.
feynoob
Member
I already told you about arm.
The issue with them is licensing of their technology.
That has more serious consequences in the industry.
Arm/Nvidia can decide who can use their license and that can impact the entire industry.
From regulators side, that is a big no no. And from can't companies side, they don't NVidia to have a huge market monopoly as that will affect their business.
Imagine regulators during your era not prosecuting MS practices. A lot of the industry would have suffered by their hands, due to their shit practices. But since US went war with MS, it limited their exploitation behaviors.
Arm/Nvidia is in that vein, but at a bigger market scale. From mobile markets, PC, IO devices, etc. That is what you are dealing with.
One is a limited scope from software side, while the other is the heart and vein of the industry.
mansoor1980
Gold Member
im surprised how a lot of members did not see this coming .
voted for 1 in the poll since it was created
voted for 1 in the poll since it was created
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
Big win for gamers.
In Cold Blood
Banned
Sony made a mistake by making this all about COD, so it became all about COD.
All MS has to do is produce a new IP based totally on COD play dynamics, let's call it "Line of Fire", and release it as an exclusive Xbox game. They could market it as "From the team that gave you COD comes the next big shooter". All those other Activision games like Crash, Tony Hawk, Spiro etc will be Xbox exclusive.
They should have made it all about Activision and got MS to say that all Activision games will be on PS.
Wulfer
Member
This was always the question. What you think you can keep stabbing a trillion dollar company and they wouldn't get tired of it? This was always Sony's next choice whether it was 10 years from now or now.
MScarpa
Member
Have no issue with this thinking either. I agree
feynoob
Member
Only for MS.
Once this deal is approved, Google Amazon and other big boys will go shopping around buying big publishers like EA, take 2 and Ubisoft.
sainraja
Member
Sega was responsible for its own downfall. Microsoft even invested in Sega with the Dreamcast so what you are saying isn't correct. Sega stumbled with how fast they were moving from one product to the next and other factors.
Neither Sony, nor Microsoft are responsible for their downfall but Sega themselves.
Xbox gamers maybe. But gamers in general? Naah.
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
They already bought Bungie for $3B as a reactionary purchase.
As for the other big name companies around, you got a slew of Japanese companies and UBI all around $5-10B. EA is worth $32B and T2 is $20B.
Like all acquisitions, they'd have to offer around a 30% premium to make any company consider taking it. The only time you get acquisitions dirt cheap is if the company getting acquired is in a desperate situation an they sell for a bargain premium like 5% or even sometimes you see 0% (the company is down in the dumps and losing crazy money and will take any offer).
But I dont think any of the remaining big game companies are in that situation. So EA would go for around $45B and T2 $26B to even get a sniff.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Sure, I'm glad you actually replied and did so seriously. So here's what I have to say first about ARM, then about Nvidia.
ARM is not a healthy company. Softbank has been trying to divest, partly because ARM struggles to make a profit, but mainly because Softbank has lost a lot of money in recent years and needs to unload assets as they are bleeding. It was Softbank that shopped ARM around, and it turns out only Nvidia made an offer for that company. ARM is, as you say, essential to the world in much the same way Windows is. But the reality is that ARM was never financially very sound, because the very licensing model which allowed them to become the designs for a vast numbers of the world's microchips also prevented them from profiting from the designs of those very same chips. It's not an exaggeration that the world's successful companies who license ARM designs, including Apple, Qualcomm, Samsung, and yes Microsoft, are in many ways leveraging the fact that ARM is perpetually unable to profit from their designs and near bankruptcy all the time in order to make massive profits themselves. ARM is both essential the world's most valuable companies and also simultaneously treated as serfs who give them their essential designs for basically nothing.
Nvidia is, on the other hand, a very healthy company. In the top 10 of the world's most valuable companies by market cap, as it turns out. They have the financial wherewithal to actually own ARM and not be worried about bankruptcy. In terms of what companies could possibly own ARM and pass antitrust muster: There aren't any. That's why when Softbank shopped ARM around, nobody made an offer except Nvidia. Because they knew they would never be able to complete the acquisition. It was a long shot that Nvidia even made an offer, and accepted the scrutiny that resulted. In the end, Nvidia did not acquire, ARM is still perpetually near bankruptcy, and now apparently Softbank are going to through with an attempt at an IPO.
What would be worse for the chip industry? An ARM held by Nvidia, who have made every promise that they will not favor themselves, change the licensing terms, or do anything unfair? Well, that ship has sailed. So what we have now is an ARM which continues to struggle to survive even though their chip designs are in over 2 billion devices around the world, which is a a patently absurd state of affairs. Softbank really thinks they will IPO it, and get this, ARM is now trying to shore up their finances to look better for IPO by asking Qualcomm et. al to pay a licensing fee based on value per device sold instead of per chip sold. A chip probably sells for $10-40, a device sells for a minimum of $100 and most flagship phones sell for $1000+. So guess what, everyone's now looking at terms which are worse than they would have faced from an ARM being owned and subsidized by Nvidia by orders of magnitude. Quite ironic for the chip industry, wouldn't you agree? Qualcomm and everyone probably shouldn't have objected to the Nvidia acquisition, now ARM is demanding a fair share of profits so they can make a profit and look good for an IPO.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked