Support NeoGAF

[PaintTinJr]

This^ is the thing the smugposters aren't addressing and what some on the thread are getting distracted away from. What comprehensive reason has the CMA given to contradict the points they made previously?
Again, I expected this merger to go through, regulatory pump-faking aside. Because that's all it was from the CMA, and that is certainly all it's going to turn out to be from the FTC. These regulatory bodies are (mostly) there to let corporations know they need to start lobbying, whilst also maintaining the appearance of government authority and integrity to public.

That's not the case in the UK, and I'm still of the opinion that the CMA will outright block this deal without Microsoft agreeing to the structural remedies, because the honeymoon period of mega corporations saying the right thing (Amazon, meta, etc) to get what they want in the UK, only to damage our country is long over and the landscape in the UK is such that no one would hear Microsoft or ATVI's tiny violins if/when the deal gets blocked, just like we couldn't hear Nvidia's, because no one can gain anything by being Pro-acquisition in favour of $2T company in the UK. It is an own goal situation.

Even in the event the deal passes the coverage will be anti-acquisition and distain for weak regulation in a likelihood.

 

[RickMasters]

I don't want to rehash these same arguments. but yeah it's also not good that sony is doing this. but paying for largely timed, temporary exclusives (something which MS does also) is not the same as buying out a publisher and making their games permanently exclusive. that's not even to mention the price tag. also i don't agree that the industry would be worse off if google or apple bought activision. they really don't have an incentive to make their games exclusive, since they're not trying to sell a console. MS does. I never bought this argument from MS fans.

And what happens when apple and/or google get serious about gaming and decide to start making acquisition with the intent to have exclusive content on their platform (being it streaming or otherwise)?


Also....for 70Bn...I dont think there was any doubt that some/most of those games would go exclusive where it makes sense (strategically for xbox/gamepass) .....current games would not be pulled (overwatch, diablo 4, COD etc.)....but for 70Bn id imagine they will make the next spyro, crash, tony hawks etc, go exclusive. to extract some exclusive value from that purchase. Id imagine future new IP developed by any studio under ABK to be exclusive. Ive said before that id expect a new teir of GP that will include WoW and starcraft subs in GP, and that stuff will be Xbox exclusive as far as consoles go.



The incentive is certainly there without doubt and for the most part...COD and current games aside.,......yes...expect them to be exclusive.....after all ....all this fuss was about whether COD would still be on playstation wasnt it? MS have shown they dont pull games that were under contract to be released or have already been released for other platforms. yet here people are still making that argument...I dont buy that.... citing unreleased bethesda games doesnt help their case either and at worst sounds like salty port begging, when xbox owners would have been without ghostwire, deathloop and starfield. three games from a developer that has always been synonymous with xbox as far as consoles...and we are here talking about who would take gamws away from who. Im not sorry for how that turned out. ill be playing starfield in Q4 but in the meantime ill run through series X optimised prey, deathloop, ghost wire and doom eternal on gamepass.... because this could have went differently. Maybe things are not as black and white as MS naysayers make it out to be.....



Its a 70Bn dollar acquisition.....was there honestly any doubt from either xbox or PS fans that some ABK games will be exclusive? who could honestly say otherwise? instead of logic and facts you seem more concerned with the view of a few xbox gamers who probably was trying to just make you feel less angsty about the deal. but lest be honest. Xbox is gonna get a lot of non COD exclusive stuff out of this...... theres your incentive...and and honesty for you from an 'MS fan' (I have a series X, one X, and all bar one of my recording studio computers run on windows...does that make me a windows guy or an xbox guy or an MS fan in your eyes?) I dont know who was trying to convince you that there would be no exclusives but lets get this out the way.....yes.....sure...for 70Bn of course there will be. Its as obvious as water being wet. just that none of them will have the words call of duty on them...but clearly most xbox fans only care that its available on gamepass with every other MS owned IP. Its generally accepted and been repeated to death in this thread that COD is 'to big' and 'too successful' to be an exclusive...I think we all can read and understand that. Id even venture as far as to say, Most MS fans in the real world care a lick for console wars but damn sure are rubbing their hands at the idea of getting COD in service they are already paying for right now every month. I know I dont care for console wars and am most certainly rubbing my hands with glee at the idea of paying zip for COD except the odd battle pass and my usual round of weapon cosmetics. for a game that I only play for my friends sakes It sure does get a fair bit of money out of me as long as its not a WW2/historic COD game

 

[TheGodfather07]

Lol people still think Google, amazon and apple are going to enter the industry in any meaningful way? It's not gonna happen. What can they possibly bring to entice consumers away from what we currently have? They already know its a waste of time.

 

[mansoor1980]

Lol people still think Google, amazon and apple are going to enter the industry in any meaningful way? It's not gonna happen. What can they possibly bring to entice consumers away from what we currently have? They already know its a waste of time.

apple has a bigger war chest than microsoft and since the battle of buyouts is what this industry has turned into (bcuz of this merger) i think its fairgame for any mega corporation to try video games.

 

[TheGodfather07]

apple has a bigger war chest than microsoft and since the battle of buyouts is what this industry has turned into (bcuz of this merger) i think its fairgame for any mega corporation to try video games.

Maybe. You would think regulators would stop a new competitor from doing that but after Activision. I'm not so sure. It defo gives a bad signal.

 

[phil_t98]

That's not the case in the UK, and I'm still of the opinion that the CMA will outright block this deal without Microsoft agreeing to the structural remedies, because the honeymoon period of mega corporations saying the right thing (Amazon, meta, etc) to get what they want in the UK, only to damage our country is long over and the landscape in the UK is such that no one would hear Microsoft or ATVI's tiny violins if/when the deal gets blocked, just like we couldn't hear Nvidia's, because no one can gain anything by being Pro-acquisition in favour of $2T company in the UK. It is an own goal situation.

Even in the event the deal passes the coverage will be anti-acquisition and distain for weak regulation in a likelihood.

So much bias in your post, it shouldn’t be about the value of a company in taking over another games company it should be about if it hurts the consumer. According to the CMA the numbers don’t hurt the consumer.


Everybody was championing the CMA when theY were against this deal and now they redone the numbers and done them wrong people are criticising them. People flip flop about them it’s laughable.

It’s looking more and more likely the deal will go through and 100% call of duty will remain on PlayStation as it should.

In my opinion the mistake Sony made was solely making it about call of duty and not the full library of games . Just my opinion though

 

[Unknown Soldier]

apple has a bigger war chest than microsoft and since the battle of buyouts is what this industry has turned into (bcuz of this merger) i think its fairgame for any mega corporation to try video games.

More to the point, Apple has tried in the past to break into gaming.

 

[mansoor1980]

More to the point, Apple has tried in the past to break into gaming.

noted but no harm in trying again

 

[TheGodfather07]

So much bias in your post, it shouldn’t be about the value of a company in taking over another games company it should be about if it hurts the consumer. According to the CMA the numbers don’t hurt the consumer.


Everybody was championing the CMA when theY were against this deal and now they redone the numbers and done them wrong people are criticising them. People flip flop about them it’s laughable.

It’s looking more and more likely the deal will go through and 100% call of duty will remain on PlayStation as it should.

In my opinion the mistake Sony made was solely making it about call of duty and not the full library of games . Just my opinion though

There is some harm to consumers though. Outside of cod there will be less choices of where to play Activision ip than there is today. In thr future, cod may be included in that too.

 

[In Cold Blood]

Oh I don't think Xbox is going anywhere. I just think the current strategies will be abandoned if they can't get significant market share out of them. That the people who have led the charge on them will be axed because of the amount of money spent to not succeed. It will just lead to Microsoft actually having to do things the traditional way, which takes time. The reality is GamePass has been around for almost 6 years now but the console space hasn't really changed and PC gamers still prefer Steam. This is Microsoft's attempt to change that.

Build it and they will come. Content is king, and MS now has the content. If we are honest, Microsoft will now have more AAA and AA content than Sony does. That's not to downplay the quality of games Sony has, but all those studios MS has bought are going to make good games as well, and in greater numbers.

Once GP is getting the 4 to 5 AAA games dropping every year then it will boom. I would think that once that is the case maybe 80% of xbox users would have GP.

Microsoft has admitted that its actually PC GP that they need to put some more value in to attract gamers. On top of those 4 to 5 AAA games also going into GP, with ABK MS could have some serious PC centric games like Diablo, Starfield, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Starcraft and World of Warcraft. It will also become very hard to ignore for PC players.

 

[Varteras]

Build it and they will come. Content is king, and MS now has the content. If we are honest, Microsoft will now have more AAA and AA content than Sony does. That's not to downplay the quality of games Sony has, but all those studios MS has bought are going to make good games as well, and in greater numbers.

Once GP is getting the 4 to 5 AAA games dropping every year then it will boom. I would think that once that is the case maybe 80% of xbox users would have GP.

Microsoft has admitted that its actually PC GP that they need to put some more value in to attract gamers. On top of those 4 to 5 AAA games also going into GP, with ABK MS could have some serious PC centric games like Diablo, Starfield, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Starcraft and World of Warcraft. It will also become very hard to ignore for PC players.

I guess we'll see. Will be fun to watch and, as always, the meltdowns either way will be glorious.

 

[phil_t98]

There is some harm to consumers though. Outside of cod there will be less choices of where to play Activision ip than there is today. In thr future, cod may be included in that too.

But there will still be a lot of places to play them though and they are bringing call of duty to a wider audience than it has now.

As I said I think Sony made a mistake making it all about Call of duty

I would add that Microsoft do have a better track record then Sony of putting games on other systems.. Minecraft we can use as an example and the newer Minecraft games

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I would add that Microsoft do have a better track record then Sony of putting games on other systems.. Minecraft we can use as an example and the newer Minecraft games

One IP out of dozens they own

How honourable of them

 

[In Cold Blood]

I agree but they have 19 studios. 3 are support studios. Games take 5 years to develop. Release 2-3 exclusivers per year will not be enough. They more studios at least if not publishers.

Ms will have 41 studios after this aquisition.

At the present rate Sony can produce maybe 2-3 exclusives per year, however they will also have a number of AAA third party ones as well. So the short term solution is to go and money hat third parties for exclusivity. If they can get 2 or 3 of those a year, then they are around that 4-6 per year. I think originally MS were saying their goal was to have 4 first party games a year into GP giving them one per qtr.
Sony can match that in the meantime by getting third parties on board.

The interesting thing now is, what is MS and Sony going to really want in their first party studio counts?

 

[Warablo]

so you believe bungie are straight up lying? why? if sony wanted them to make exclusives, they wouldnt have said anything at all. they went out of their way to emphasise that bungie will remain exactly as they are. why? sony never did that with any of their other acquisitions. bungie have zero reason to lie here.

I never said they were lying, they said multiplatform. Which could mean PC and Playstation. No idea why you think after Sony buying a developer they are going to keep making games for Xbox.

 

[wolffy71]

Lol people still think Google, amazon and apple are going to enter the industry in any meaningful way? It's not gonna happen. What can they possibly bring to entice consumers away from what we currently have? They already know its a waste of time.

Apple already makes more money on gaming than anyone.

 

[feynoob]

That's not the case in the UK, and I'm still of the opinion that the CMA will outright block this deal without Microsoft agreeing to the structural remedies, because the honeymoon period of mega corporations saying the right thing (Amazon, meta, etc) to get what they want in the UK, only to damage our country is long over and the landscape in the UK is such that no one would hear Microsoft or ATVI's tiny violins if/when the deal gets blocked, just like we couldn't hear Nvidia's, because no one can gain anything by being Pro-acquisition in favour of $2T company in the UK. It is an own goal situation.

Even in the event the deal passes the coverage will be anti-acquisition and distain for weak regulation in a likelihood.

Are you still in disbelief?
The deal will pass now, because regulators never had any reason to block it in the first reason.
You need actual concrete reason block it.

 

[Sony]

Are you still in disbelief?
The deal will pass now, because regulators never had any reason to block it in the first reason.
You need actual concrete reason block it.

While CMA backtracking is big deal, cloud issues are still on the table. Behavioral remedies have a higher chance of succeeding, but it's still a hurdle for CMA.

 

[feynoob]

While CMA backtracking is big deal, cloud issues are still on the table. Behavioral remedies have a higher chance of succeeding, but it's still a hurdle for CMA.

The issue is that cloud needs MS. Blocking this deal is going to hinder that market.
It's why CMA is open to behavioral remedies for cloud.

Without MS, Activision won't put their games on cloud. So CMA has see whether MS owning Activision would benefit this market or not.

And as far as we know, MS is 100% in this market with their xcloud gamepass.

 

[phil_t98]

One IP out of dozens they own

How honourable of them

How many have Sony put on other consoles? Out of the IP they own?

 

[feynoob]

Sony can put spiderman and wolverine on Xbox, while will put Starfield and elder scrolls on PS.

Its win win for everyone.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

One IP out of dozens they own

How honourable of them

That comes across as a little too personally involved, it might be time to take a break.

#JustSaying

 

[TheGodfather07]

But there will still be a lot of places to play them though and they are bringing call of duty to a wider audience than it has now.

As I said I think Sony made a mistake making it all about Call of duty

I would add that Microsoft do have a better track record then Sony of putting games on other systems.. Minecraft we can use as an example and the newer Minecraft games

Wasn't Microsofts offer only about call of duty? Even the regulators were focused on call of duty. None of the other ip were even in the discussion. It wasn't just Sony making it all about call of duty.

 

[TheGodfather07]

How many have Sony put on other consoles? Out of the IP they own?

How many of the ip Sony own were formerly multiplatform games? Most of their ip was created by them.

 

[Tomeru]

How many have Sony put on other consoles? Out of the IP they own?

Destiny?

 

[PaintTinJr]

So much bias in your post, it shouldn’t be about the value of a company in taking over another games company it should be about if it hurts the consumer. According to the CMA the numbers don’t hurt the consumer.


Everybody was championing the CMA when theY were against this deal and now they redone the numbers and done them wrong people are criticising them. People flip flop about them it’s laughable.

It’s looking more and more likely the deal will go through and 100% call of duty will remain on PlayStation as it should.

In my opinion the mistake Sony made was solely making it about call of duty and not the full library of games . Just my opinion though

You are missing the point, when you claim my bias against mega corporations. Amazon, etc have all done their merry "good for your economy, workers and consumers" routine in the UK only to leave everyone with egg on their face when virtually every historical marketplace in the UK has been diminished by the impact of the mega corporation, workers rights and opportunities reduced and the tax avoidance in full swing being the exact opposite of what anyone on any political side wanted.

It is very naive to suggest that Microsoft of all mega corporations don't operate by a similarly successful MO to have become a mega corporation. This isn't good for competition and it isn't good for UK consumers, and instinctively the CMA know that, as it adds zero value to what already exists for consumers with ATVI as an independent 3rd party publisher, it only stands to diminish competition, by letting the money of a parent company of a failed gaming platform take away games and leverage them against successful platforms and against consumer natural choice.

IMO the deal is no more likely or unlikely in terms of the CMA position after the amendment given that the cloud gaming SLC is the real problem for the CMA and Microsoft can't solve that without divesting what they truly covet - CoD.

Unlike most countries in the world, computing since the beginning has been a key sector in the UK - check the derived history of any modern programming language - so much so that at the 80;s gaming boom we had more computers per household than any other country in the world, and gave birth to much of what gaming is today on par with Japan and the US, heck ARM was a UK government funded company from its early days. The idea that our CMA would pre-emptively give up all the opportunity in the emerging Cloud gaming business for UK based companies so early to unstoppable mega corporation Microsoft, by letting this merger go through with such a major cloud SLC they identified early, and still isn't resolved seems unlikely IMHO.

 

[TheGodfather07]

I never said they were lying, they said multiplatform. Which could mean PC and Playstation. No idea why you think after Sony buying a developer they are going to keep making games for Xbox.

They said anywhere people play games. We can speculate all day but at the moment that's the official stance from bungie. Of course it could mean nothing. We'll have to wait and see. If sony told them to exclude xbox, they would have no choice but to do that.

Apple already makes more money on gaming than anyone.

Exactly. So why would they give a shit about entering the home console market and buying publishers? They are already eating good with what they currently have. There's no evidence whatsoever to support such a claim. There's no threat of apple buying publishers.

 

[feynoob]

IMO the deal is no more likely or unlikely in terms of the CMA position after the amendment given that the cloud gaming SLC is the real problem for the CMA and Microsoft can't solve that without divesting what they truly covet - CoD.

Fellas, remember it's hard to swallow the truth sometimes.
Some people refuse to face the reality.

 

[TrebleShot]

MS got their shoot bang game yet.
They will run the franchise into the ground and it will take like a decade for them to get it right anyway.

Useless but it’s the industry these days.

 

[feynoob]

MS got their shoot bang game yet.
They will run the franchise into the ground and it will take like a decade for them to get it right anyway.

Useless but it’s the industry these days.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Fellas, remember it's hard to swallow the truth sometimes.
Some people refuse to face the reality.

If it is all done in the UK - as you claim - then surely they'd call the approval early, no?

My instinct on this deal is that our currency will likely drop if the deal is approved, because it makes us look weak as a nation to corporations, and we will then expect to get steamrolled by other mega corporation deals - with further drops in Sterling. From a UK self interest point of view there's more value to be had by blocking this deal IMO, and with no one on either political side operating from a position of strength coming out in support of blocking the deal and strong regulation is an opportunity neither side should be letting slip; especially as Microsoft's and ATVI's US type antics to bully the regulator in the press will make regulation look even weaker, and encourage such behaviour by others in future, too

 

[Three]

I never said they were lying, they said multiplatform. Which could mean PC and Playstation. No idea why you think after Sony buying a developer they are going to keep making games for Xbox.

For the same reason you believe MS will. Money, money it needs more than MS.

 

[feynoob]

If it is all done in the UK - as you claim - then surely they'd call the approval early, no?

My instinct on this deal is that our currency will likely drop if the deal is approved, because it makes us look weak as a nation to corporations, and we will then expect to get steamrolled by other mega corporation deals - with further drops in Sterling. From a UK self interest point of view there's more value to be had by blocking this deal IMO, and with no one on either political side operating from a position of strength coming out in support of blocking the deal and strong regulation is an opportunity neither side should be letting slip; especially as Microsoft's and ATVI's US type antics to bully the regulator in the press will make regulation look even weaker, and encourage such behaviour by others in future, too

Slow down son. Don't go full ham flat earth here. Take a breath.

 

[mansoor1980]

 

[Gamezone]

I wonder if we will get games like Starcraft, Diablo and Warcraft on Steam now? Microsoft is basically all in on Steam.

 

[Three]

These are parade accounts.

 

[Three]

I wonder if we will get games like Starcraft, Diablo and Warcraft on Steam now? Microsoft is basically all in on Steam.

CoD MW2 is already on steam and I think it's likely Diablo 4 will be too before the acquisition. Anything after would just be a continuation of that.

 

[SixPin]

While the deal may well be approved with behavioural remedies, Cloud is a nascent , dynamic market and the CMA prefers structural remedies there, given that the SLC is not short-term.

I'm a bit wary of the CMA because they made Meta divest a GIFs platform. GIFs.

 

[Tomeru]

CoD MW2 is already on steam and I think it's likely Diablo 4 will be too before the acquisition. Anything after would just be a continuation of that.

Still gonna need a bnet account I think?

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

That's the gamble. That CoD on GamePass will attract a ton of people not already in that ecosystem and that Sony won't come up with franchises to take the edge off. We really don't know. A whole lot of assumptions but no robust metrics to tell us how many people would leave PlayStation for it or at least also buy Xbox. The heads at Xbox better hope things pan out. Because if not they're gonna be put into a $70 billion guillotine.

In the worst case scenario, Microsoft will shrug it off. Like literally while we were arguing over the approval of the deal this year, the earned the amount they spent on ABK. But due to sheer mobile revenue it will pan out. Mobile is huge.

Maybe. You would think regulators would stop a new competitor from doing that but after Activision. I'm not so sure. It defo gives a bad signal.

Why would a regulator stop new competitor? It is in their interest to allow new competitor to appear.

There is some harm to consumers though. Outside of cod there will be less choices of where to play Activision ip than there is today. In thr future, cod may be included in that too.

I do find it funny how it was not considered harm to Xbox when the games skipped it. In fact people claimed that "games don't sell on Xbox", "too small marketshare" and shrugged it off. Now, when Playstation is under attack (lol) , the exclusives became a problem.

While CMA backtracking is big deal, cloud issues are still on the table. Behavioral remedies have a higher chance of succeeding, but it's still a hurdle for CMA.

Nickname checks

 

[tronied]

If it is all done in the UK - as you claim - then surely they'd call the approval early, no?

My instinct on this deal is that our currency will likely drop if the deal is approved, because it makes us look weak as a nation to corporations, and we will then expect to get steamrolled by other mega corporation deals - with further drops in Sterling. From a UK self interest point of view there's more value to be had by blocking this deal IMO, and with no one on either political side operating from a position of strength coming out in support of blocking the deal and strong regulation is an opportunity neither side should be letting slip; especially as Microsoft's and ATVI's US type antics to bully the regulator in the press will make regulation look even weaker, and encourage such behaviour by others in future, too

This doesn't make any sense to me. Why would sterling drop if this deal goes through? Large corporations will see this as a win as they will see the country being favourable to mergers and acquisitions. This will drive further investment and if anything increase the strength of the currency. As it is though, I don't believe this one deal with affect the currency regardless of which side it goes. The CMA did their due diligence, raised issues and went through a lengthy process to reach a decision. I don't think this makes the UK look stronger or weaker. Just a government body doing what it is supposed to do.

 

[feynoob]

While the deal may well be approved with behavioural remedies, Cloud is a nascent , dynamic market and the CMA prefers structural remedies there, given that the SLC is not short-term.

I'm a bit wary of the CMA because they made Meta divest a GIFs platform. GIFs.

Structural remedies will block those games from those markets.

 

[reksveks]

Not a huge fan of seekingalpha.com but assuming it is a correct reading of citi's view

https://seekingalpha.com/news/39512...-activision-deal-raised-to-70-from-50-at-citi

Still a 30% chance of the deal not closing according to them.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

That comes across as a little too personally involved, it might be time to take a break.

#JustSaying

Lmao what?

 

[feynoob]

Not a huge fan of seekingalpha.com but assuming it is a correct reading of citi's view

https://seekingalpha.com/news/39512...-activision-deal-raised-to-70-from-50-at-citi

Still a 30% chance of the deal not closing according to them.

It's up to EU now.

 

[SixPin]

Structural remedies will block those games from those markets.

The CMA concluded in the PF that Activision would likely put their games on Cloud services in the next five years.

 

[3liteDragon]

Sony can put spiderman and wolverine on Xbox, while will put Starfield and elder scrolls on PS.

Its win win for everyone.

Why put devs through the pain of optimizing for the Series S? The PS5 being the baseline for those games is the best possible thing that can happen for them in terms of development potential, and Microsoft can get a license from Marvel if they want their own Spider-Man & Wolverine that bad, Sony doesn’t own those IPs so nothing was taken away from Xbox. Starfield was being made for PlayStation & Elder Scrolls was a multiplat franchise before the acquisition. Now they’re not, big difference.

 

[feynoob]

The CMA concluded in the PF that Activision would likely put their games on Cloud services in the next five years.

Look at stadia.
Cloud market doesn't have long term, due to low content.
By the time Activision starts putting their games in cloud, alot of those providers would have left the market.

 

[Lasha]

If it is all done in the UK - as you claim - then surely they'd call the approval early, no?

My instinct on this deal is that our currency will likely drop if the deal is approved, because it makes us look weak as a nation to corporations, and we will then expect to get steamrolled by other mega corporation deals - with further drops in Sterling. From a UK self interest point of view there's more value to be had by blocking this deal IMO, and with no one on either political side operating from a position of strength coming out in support of blocking the deal and strong regulation is an opportunity neither side should be letting slip; especially as Microsoft's and ATVI's US type antics to bully the regulator in the press will make regulation look even weaker, and encourage such behaviour by others in future, too

How does rejecting a merger improve the fundamentals of the Pound? Blocking a merger and putting constraints on business would do the opposite of improving the economy. Capital will just move to other more connected jurisdictions which are friendlier to business.

 

[feynoob]

Why put devs through the pain of optimizing for the Series S? The PS5 being the baseline for those games is the best possible thing that can happen for them in terms of development potential, and Microsoft can get a license from Marvel if they want their own Spider-Man & Wolverine that bad, Sony doesn’t own those IPs so nothing was taken away from Xbox. Starfield was being made for PlayStation & Elder Scrolls was a multiplat franchise before the acquisition. Now they’re not, big difference.

Both franchise belongs to their perspective consoles.
If the other console wants those games, it has to offer their games. Nothing is free .