• 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)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?


  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

analog_future

Resident Crybaby
I'm so bored of this conversation. I just want it to end one way or another. Are we still on pace to potentially hear some news in November or is this going to be next year?
 

Ansphn

Member
You brought up first party titles as some sort of differentiator. I'll keep it really simple. Sony doesn't need CoD to be competitive. They are the market leader and they will remain so regardless of this acquisition. Nintendo proves a game company can be successful without CoD. It is basically CADE's take. I agree with CADE. If you disagree with them you could have provided them with an email voicing your disapproval.


CADE and I say Sony doesn't need CoD to be competitive. Nintendo proves that to be true. I even tossed in that Xbox has CoD and Nintendo beats them in console sales. CoD does not determine what platform is successful or not. It's not terribly complicated.

Neither of you guys need to worry. Phil has repeatedly said CoD would remain on PlayStation so it's moot.


Do you think he was lying about potential Xbox price increases?
No he is not lying this time because its a gain for him. The price increase will make him more money.
 

feynoob

Member
I'm so bored of this conversation. I just want it to end one way or another. Are we still on pace to potentially hear some news in November or is this going to be next year?
This November would be great for this topic.
You would have EU and US speaking about this deal.
As of now, expect the boring stuff.
 

Kvally

Banned
I'm so bored of this conversation. I just want it to end one way or another. Are we still on pace to potentially hear some news in November or is this going to be next year?
The funny thing is, no matter what happens, any of us here that want to play Activision games will continue to play them whether MS owns them or not. From what I can tell everyone here has a console and a PC/console. I have a PS5 and an Xbox Series X. I am all covered. Makes no difference to me if MS owns them, Sony owns them or if Activision stays self sufficient.
 

phil_t98

#SonyToo
That is how contract basically is.
Jimbo is making problems for them. His goal is infinite contract for PS, which he is managed to do it. Phil stated what Jimbo wanted.

no contract Phil just said he will continue as long as PS is there. just rename the game Medal of Duty and problem solved lol
 

feynoob

Member
The funny thing is, no matter what happens, any of us here that want to play Activision games will continue to play them whether MS owns them or not. From what I can tell everyone here has a console and a PC/console. I have a PS5 and an Xbox Series X. I am all covered. Makes no difference to me if MS owns them, Sony owns them or if Activision stays self sufficient.
Every deal has their ups and downs. This is a mega deal, which can disrupt the market. One of the biggest game in gaming history, is for sale.
 

feynoob

Member
no contract Phil just said he will continue as long as PS is there. just rename the game Medal of Duty and problem solved lol
You cant rename COD. Just like how you can't rename fifa and fortnite.

COD is a household name. Changing the name, won't do any good.
 

Topher

Gold Member
You brought up first party titles as some sort of differentiator. I'll keep it really simple. Sony doesn't need CoD to be competitive. They are the market leader and they will remain so regardless of this acquisition. Nintendo proves a game company can be successful without CoD. It is basically CADE's take. I agree with CADE. If you disagree with them you could have provided them with an email voicing your disapproval.

Again, Nintendo's first party versus Sony/MS third party dependency. I shouldn't have to repeat that over and over. I never said Sony needs CoD to be competitive. I said Nintendo doesn't prove that point either way and it doesn't. You disagree with that and this is fine. I'll leave it at that.

As far as CADE is concerned I'm so naive to believe my view matters to them especially when I'm only talking about the justification for one specific point that I find lacking. I've never said I necessarily disagree with overall decision and that remains the case. I've said repeatedly that this deal will eventually go through.

Neither of you guys need to worry. Phil has repeatedly said CoD would remain on PlayStation so it's moot.

Well....you have been arguing a moot point just as much as either of us so....
 

The_Mike

I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
What’s this about?
My quote below, referring to this article.
  • Regulators are likely to stop listening to Sony as it has a direct interest in disrupting the deal.
That comment had me chuckle.

the simpsons sheep GIF

no contract Phil just said he will continue as long as PS is there. just rename the game Medal of Duty and problem solved lol
As long as Warzone and previous Cods are on playstation, then cod will continue to be on playstation as long as there's PlayStations out there.
 
Last edited:

analog_future

Resident Crybaby
The funny thing is, no matter what happens, any of us here that want to play Activision games will continue to play them whether MS owns them or not. From what I can tell everyone here has a console and a PC/console. I have a PS5 and an Xbox Series X. I am all covered. Makes no difference to me if MS owns them, Sony owns them or if Activision stays self sufficient.

It makes a pretty huge difference for Game Pass subscribers (but probably not for a few years if Sony paying to keep games off of Game Pass is true).
 

Ansphn

Member
I read through all those. Didn't see any lies. Saw a lot of PR bullshit though.
I guess my definition of lies are different from yours. If someone tells me they will have VR on their System but VR don't work on there. To me that's an outright lie to sell consoles.

You love being lied to?
 
Last edited:

Kvally

Banned
I guess my definition of lies are different from yours. If someone tells me they will have VR on their System but VR don't work on there. To me that's an outright lie to sell consoles.

You love being lied to?
The good thing is, he never once said VR will be on Xbox. Though a typical PR move, he did say that the Xbox is VR capable back in 2016, as well as 2017. Then in 2019, they found that nobody wanted VR on Xbox.
 

Ansphn

Member
The good thing is, he never once said VR will be on Xbox. Though a typical PR move, he did say that the Xbox is VR capable back in 2016, as well as 2017. Then in 2019, they found that nobody wanted VR on Xbox.
Its still a freaking lie. You cant twist words and fool people.

Why are you defending lies and manipulation?
 

Ansphn

Member
Well first, quoting someone from "systemwars.net" is just absurd. Second, they are taking some massive liberties with the word "lies" which points right back to the reason why you should quote people on "systemwars.net".
The source dont matter. All the things they said can be verified.
 

Kvally

Banned
Recording everything the man says, and justifying as a lie.

Head companies Exaggerate their products. It's a PR words.
And sometimes it comes down to "things change".



Did they lie? No. That was their belief at the time. Why put them on a cross when circumstances change. Hell, my first wife said she would be with me forever. 20 years later she dumped me like yesterdays news. Things changed.
 

The_Mike

I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
So, just confirmation bias lol
Call me biased, but I think it's silly a competitor can block competition like that.

I would feel the same way no matter who buys what.

I would also have found it silly if Microsoft had something to say about sonys purchase of Bungie, which they didn't.

I would also have found it silly if Sony had something to say about Bethesda, which they didn't.
 

Ansphn

Member
Recording everything the man says, and justifying as a lie.

Head companies Exaggerate their products. It's a PR words.
Its still false hope and manipulation. So I'm suppose to be okay with that?

If a guy continue to manipulate people with hype, false hope and lies, I'm not suppose to call him a liar cause you like him and like being lied to?
 

Ansphn

Member
And sometimes it comes down to "things change".



Did they lie? No. That was their belief at the time. Why put them on a cross when circumstances change. Hell, my first wife said she would be with me forever. 20 years later she dumped me like yesterdays news. Things changed.

That's not a good example unless you can give me examples of Insomniac doing stuff like this over the years.

Phil has "consistently" been doing stuff like that. Eventually, the trust will be gone when you keep B.Sing people every year.
 

feynoob

Member
And sometimes it comes down to "things change".



Did they lie? No. That was their belief at the time. Why put them on a cross when circumstances change. Hell, my first wife said she would be with me forever. 20 years later she dumped me like yesterdays news. Things changed.

There is no doubt, that MS has the means to make that possible, considering they have xcloud, which is working on browser, tvs and mobile. And they could be possible be porting to switch.

Still, they own Xbox, and PS is the rival of xbox. As long as that exist, it presents an issue.
 
Last edited:

Kvally

Banned
Its still a freaking lie. You cant twist words and fool people.

Why are you defending lies and manipulation?
I am not defending lies. I call it PR. Same with Jim Ryan and "we believe in generations". I looked at it as PR. Things changed. They saw a massive desire for 117 million PS4 owners to be supported and they changed their stance. Probably to make more money, but it also was a consumer friendly decision. Things change man. Not everything is black and white.

To me, PR isn't "lies" per se. But a lot of stretching. I don't hold Jim or Phil guilty of promoting their companies. It's their jobs. Now if they came out and blatantly lied, then that would be bad. Like if Jim or Phil said "we sold X number of consoles as of July 1", but then their actual numbers were "Y", that is bad.

I remember when Todd said that Starfield was PEN/INK for 11/11/22. Is that a lie? Or was that "things change"?
 

feynoob

Member
Its still false hope and manipulation. So I'm suppose to be okay with that?

If a guy continue to manipulate people with hype, false hope and lies, I'm not suppose to call him a liar cause you like him and like being lied to?
PR statements is open for interpretation. It's why it's called PR. It relies on public perception.

For you, it's a lie, but for others it isn't.

Phil uses those words, to not get himself in trouble. Its a grey area, and you need to provide evidence that he is lying.
 
Last edited:

Kvally

Banned
That's not a good example unless you can give me examples of Insomniac doing stuff like this over the years.

Phil has "consistently" been doing stuff like that. Eventually, the trust will be gone when you keep B.Sing people every year.
Well your opinion has been duly noted 👊 We will have to agree to disagree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom