-
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
PaintTinJr
Member
Yeah, PS5 definitely is, pretty sure cross-gen Spiderman on PC with RT shows this is the case even with the PC using more memory, a new full desktop CPUs -rather than console mobile enhanced variants - but even on XsX, where it effectively loses half or more of its BVH acceleration performance in texturing heavy rendering, because it is either Texture unit or BVH unit per clock on XsX, and it has 2060 level fillrate, unlike the PS5 which is pushing 3070ti level.
But, either way, the point is regardless of lack of optimisation both consoles(and XsS) support FSR2.0, the frame-rate can be 20fps using triple buffering for MC RT and still be good enough, and the native rendering resolution feeding FSR2.0 could be in the 720-1080p range on PS5/XsX, and 480-720p on XsS, and the game with RT will still look 1million times better than normal MC without RT. Yes, if Insomniac did it for Mojang then PS5 would be 1080p native, scaled to 4K and locked at 30fps, but MC is technically such an unimpressive visual game - relying solely on it abstract visual fidelity that adding RT, even compromised on both consoles to XsX parity is still the lesser of two evils.
I don’t recall any lies from Jim or Phil. But “perception”.
Topher
Gold Member
Some potential inconsistencies, maybe, but flat-out intentional lies? No, I don't think so.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Bojanglez
The Amiga Brotherhood
In what way? I'm pretty sure these are the effect same 3 points people have been talking about for the last couple of weeks?
DaGwaphics
Member
It still reads ass backwards. LOL at them investigating the availability of Activision games on other consoles vs. them investigating the impact to other consoles (if the games ceased to be available).
Last edited:
phil_t98
#SonyToo
Yeah so my point is that it will be the same game but different to avoid the licences
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I don't usually follow the CMA but do they tweet this frequently about other stuff as well ?
It seems like they're also milking it for its worth and getting as much exposure as possible.
It seems like they're also milking it for its worth and getting as much exposure as possible.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
You must have missed the Gamecube and WiiU. Both systems had the same quality Nintendo backed first party and were not successful consoles. The Wii was the effort to correct issues with Gamecube and Switch was in response to WiiU.
It takes more than just good first party to be successful. That is why Nintendo adapted to the market and continued to compete. Sony is more than capable of doing that especially with their superior mindshare, excellent IP and undying fanbase.
Your numbers are just on PlayStation? No PC or Xbox in them at all? Again I never claimed CoD was meaningless to PlayStation only that Sony didn't need the title to compete in the video game market. Nintendo has shown they can compete without CoD and Xbox has shown having CoD didn't make them more successful than Nintendo without it.
Lying may be too strong a term but certainly misleading.
Banjo64
mentioned them earlier in this thread.
Last edited:
feynoob
Member
later that year, PS become the dominant sales for that game. So the breakdown is somewhat around 40/30/30.
Nintendo are handheld. They have no competiton in that department. And their games dont have competition.
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
Last edited:
feynoob
Member
They closed down the public hearings. So I expect them to stay quite, unless they have new info.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
My point still remains.
They are a hybrid console today. That is where their adaptations have led them.
I disagree that their games have no competition. There are only so many gaming dollars out there. Some people want Nintendo games some do not. Like any thing else. They remain one competitor in a space full of options.
Poltz
Member
They tweet about everything they look into. People are just overly sensitive.
Poltz
Member
EU to launch advanced Microsoft-Activision probe
US tech giant opts not to file remedies to Brussels’ antitrust enforcers.
www.politico.eu
The European Commission is set to launch an in-depth investigation into Microsoft’s record $69 billion splash on games developer Activision-Blizzard after the U.S. tech giant opted not to file remedies to the EU’s antitrust enforcers, people familiar with the matter told POLITICO.
Microsoft had a deadline of midnight tonight to submit commitments placating the concerns of the EU’s competition department, but the company chose not to do so, according to two individuals close to the matter who spoke to POLITICO on condition of anonymity due to the confidential nature of the case.
The European Commission has a deadline of November 8 to formally announce its intention to launch a so-called Phase 2 investigation into the deal.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I think it's a bit of column A and a bit of column B. The examples
Topher
has posted above are fairly standard "this is what happened, check out this link for more"The tweets about this MSxActi thing are more like what you'd expect from trendy twitter folks with a lot of emoticons and 'twitter stories'.
ChorizoPicozo
Gold Member
How many 69 billionNice deals are there?I think it's a bit of column A and a bit of column B. The examples
The tweets about this MSxActi thing are more like what you'd expect from trendy twitter folks with a lot of emoticons and 'twitter stories'.
Topher
Gold Member
I think it's a bit of column A and a bit of column B. The examples
The tweets about this MSxActi thing are more like what you'd expect from trendy twitter folks with a lot of emoticons and 'twitter stories'.
It is a big deal and one that has more attention than anything else they have going on. People are asking questions and they are giving answers while still addressing the other matters in front of them.
You are making something out of nothing.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Hence I asked if this is normal SOP for them or not. Most of GAF, or at least the non UK ones, didn't even know what the CMA is before this.
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
Ok...that's fine. Seemed like you had already concluded they were milking it for all its worth though.
feynoob
Member
But the comparison doesnt make any sense.
Nintendo doesnt the games that are on the 2 platforms. They survived, because they went in to handheld model. Without that, they would have lost the race. Just like how sega lost the race, due to their hardware.
PS 1st party is like 20% of their business. That is not enough to run a business. and its not sustainable in the longer run, if you took a money printer like COD from that system.
For example, if PS can manage to sell 10m of COD on their system at $50, they would generate $500m-0.30=$150m for that year. and if they generate $50 mtx for 1 year from 5m userbase, they would earn $75m. a total of $225m. That is 1 year profit for Sony. Their first party rarely generate that much profit, since their games is expensive to make. That is how much they would lose.
By the way, that money makes games for them. Without that money, they would have a hard time investing on their system.
Which brings to the main point. PS wwould have a hard time competing, if they lose that revenue.
ChorizoPicozo
Gold Member
SenjutsuSage
Banned
A lot of people are going to find out, in my opinion, they got "worked" by the CMA. The CMA has no intention of blocking the deal and never did. They just wanted to have the public appearance of a legitimate, highly critical and deep dive investigation that wasn't rubber-stamping a deal of this massive size. They know how high the bar is for proving a likely significant lessening of competition as a result of the 3 areas they're focused on.
The legal standard phase 2 follows is the 'balance of probabilities.' A legal standard where a dispute must be decided in the favor of the party whose claims are more likely to be true. There is no way based on what the CMA is reviewing that any of that will fall in Sony's favor, or in a direction that makes Microsoft's arguments weaker than Sony's. But removing Sony from the equation, there is no way the 3 areas being focused on fall in a direction that leads to a blocking of the deal.
Many of their concerns, particularly on partial foreclosure involving Call of Duty, have already thoroughly been tested in the games industry. Both consoles have had exclusive perks for years and competition has continued on just fine. Game Pass has been around since 2017 and in all that time it hasn't created anywhere the kind of disruption to the industry or on the sales of other competitors. Even adding Bethesda and Activision Blizzard titles, what evidence is there that the trend will be any different from the trend already present in Day One Game Pass titles like MLB: The Show or Outriders, where the games still sold better on Playstation consoles despite being on Game Pass?
At the end of the day, this will come down to the real data and the numbers that the parties have. And the numbers say Activision Blizzard titles are less than 10% of the global market share across all devices, less than 10% of the global market share across consoles, and less than 10% of the global market share on PC. The scariest part of the 3 areas being looked at for Microsoft is the console part, and that is an automatic no brainer simply based on Sony's strength in the market. No credible claim can be made that they'll be unable to compete, especially with Microsoft committing to giving them call of duty, same as what they do with Minecraft. The big concern isn't Game Pass and it isn't Cloud Gaming.
I know people THINK Microsoft needs to be worried about Game Pass, but that tells you they haven't really looked into this as deeply as they could have, and had they done so they would have known better. Deal is 100% getting approved. Not once have I ever doubted it this entire time.
This fact was confirmed to me when it was revealed by Microsoft that the CMA intentionally didn't allow Microsoft during Phase 1 to actually explain and correct a lot of the incorrect assumptions made about the business, Game Pass, their cloud services, and a whole bunch of other stuff. That's a pretty big admission right there. Why would they not even allow Microsoft the chance to walk them through all the details and internal data? Because CMA knew that they had to go to phase 2 no matter what, and if they got the full picture too early it would have looked a lot less credible with the facts as they have them.
So yea. My confidence hasn't moved an inch.
HoofHearted
Member
That is basically what it is.
Is thestill available for share?
oldergamer
Member
Riiight.i guess you still believe in generations.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Is Flight Simulator on Switch or PlayStation? How many RTSes are on those consoles? What about a game like Immortality? Different platforms have different software libraries. Just because they offer different games does not mean they aren't competing in the gaming market.
We can just agree to disagree. I think with Sony's market power and killer IP they can easily compete against whatever MS and Xbox can do. Again it's funny to see people laugh at MS for being a failure in consoles and complain that they are also monopolistic and anticompetitive. We've already seen Phil be called a liar for positive Xbox news and a truth teller for perceived negative stuff. Can't make this stuff up.
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
And that was a "lie".....how? Stupid PR at worse, but a lie? Come on.
Seriously, folks need to take a step back from calling anything/everything a "lie" when it comes out of the mouth of <insert evil CEO name here>.
Last edited:
DaGwaphics
Member
Was pretty much guaranteed from the start that all major jurisdictions were doing a deeper dive on this since it's $70b.
feynoob
Member
This is a 3rd party game, which MS purchased. Its one of the best selling game. It cant be compared to something minor like flight simulator.
Skyrim managed to sold 30+ in 10 years. COD did that in 1 year for 2 game.
Its not comparable to anything.
Menzies
Banned
Not sure anyone here is of the view that Sony isn't affected by this, to what degree is very debatable, as is the success of future CoD titles.
The problem with your argument is that it's not the regulator's concern. They don't need to overtly empathise with PlayStation's plight after eliminating this as a foreclosure concern. Activision is not responsible for the remaining 80% of Sony's business.
Will Sony cease to exist without CoD?
Brazil doesn't think so; “In turn, Sony has several predicates – strength of the world’s leading brand for more than 20 years, extensive experience in the sector, largest user base, largest installed base of consoles, robust catalog of exclusive games, partnerships with multiple third-party publishers, brand loyal consumers, etc – which should contribute to maintaining the competitiveness of PlayStation in a possible post-transaction scenario, even in the face of the possible loss of access to Activision Blizzard content.”
feynoob
Member
Each regulators have their own interpertation, as to what the impact would be.
COD in UK is big. As such, the CMA is arguing that this move, might harm PS, since UK gamers buy COD on PS and xbox. and If MS buys activision, UK gamers are forced to buy this product on Xbox only. As such, PS ability to compete in UK would be hard.
That is what CMA is concerned.
Last edited:
Hero of Spielberg
Gold Member
Looks like damage control in Tweet form.
Hero of Spielberg
Gold Member
Sounds like Phil Spencer has ruled out going exclusive with COD so that part should be put to bed fairly soon I’d say.
DaGwaphics
Member
For one thing, PS isn't a protected entity and competition by design causes competitors to "harm" each other in the process of normal competition. That second part just isn't realistic. Is CoD popular, sure. But, if we look at how small of a percentage CoD would represent of the overall PS business you'd be hard pressed to say this move would turn the tide in a significant way.
CoD isn't the end all of the video game industry. It's one successful title among many, even if it is the most successful individual game.
Menzies
Banned
Of course, it will. Microsoft would tell you to your face it will. Harming rivals is the definition of competition.
The concern is will PlayStation be able to compete. I don't think 'reasonable minds may differ' applies here, the answer is clearly yes.
I didn't see Nintendo have any concerned regulator fight for their cause when they were forced to pivot from once being the home of third-party games. They chose their differentiator for survival. Microsoft in kind are looking towards GamePass and content. Fact is regulators don't give a shit until 'Big Tech' makes an acquisition.
Topher
Gold Member
Nintendo did not have to "pivot" due to mergers and acquisitions such as these that changed the landscape of the industry. Nintendo adapted to make their product more appealing to consumers.
Last edited:
DaGwaphics
Member
It would be hard to say that Nintendo's changes in business model (namely the move away from chasing the standard for "power" each gen and the third-party support that cost them) were not the result of the actions of their competitors around them. They could no longer compete in the hardware race against tech companies that could out R&D them while simultaneously taking big losses on hardware upfront. Nintendo had a choice, die like Sega (figuratively speaking in the console space) or accept their limitations and get creative. They adapted well to the changes around them. Sony would do the same.
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
That's all fine, but it was entirely consumer led. Sega "died" because consumers choose different products. This is not comparable to what we are talking about in mergers and acquisitions at all. Again, I'm not saying Sony will not be able to compete in this new power structure that we will have, but this constant comparison to Nintendo is just a false equivalency on many levels.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Gold Member
You also could call it...wait for it:
Inadequate.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Just curious where would you place Xbox Series consoles in order of sales compared to other consoles?
Menzies
Banned
The relevancy is that rivals in competition regularly force competitors to adapt. Without competition why would Nintendo make a risk by releasing the Wii?
There is commonality at a high-level. Fierce competition is what made Nintendo differentiate.
thismeinteil
Member
And this is why Spencer recently talked about expanding the amount of time COD is on PS. Granted he still hasn't nailed down anything permanent. Just talk of his "intent." Which in PR terms means jack. It can be his intent, but "things change" or "someone else is running the show" are easy cop outs. There's also no question that it's going to affect the last two.
On a side note, not a good look that Spencer refused to file anything addressing the EU's concerns at this point.
yurinka
Member
I guess you didn't read the 'we believe in generations' interview, where Jim Ryan didn't say at all that they weren't going to do crossgen games. Instead he explained there that they will going to continue supporting PS4 during several years and explained the reasons of why they were going to continue releasing games there for a while.
Last edited:
Menzies
Banned
To what pinky-swear blood-pact must they be beholden that will satisfy everyone?
If a hypothetical PS7 features the 'Cell 2', or other unique architecture that 5 people of the planet know how to code for, they're still on the hook?
If a hypothetical 3 successive CoD's completely erase all popularity of the series, Microsoft still needs to make annualised CoD games?
ChorizoPicozo
Gold Member
Yes and yes
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Every major jurisdiction was going to phase 2. Activision and Microsoft told everybody from the start this thing will close in Microsoft's Fiscal Year 2023. Meaning it will close no later than June 30th, 2023. Microsoft's Fiscal Year 2023 began July 1st, 2022.
Everything about this entire process thus far has gone exactly according to the timeline Microsoft planned for and expected from the outset. Why did Microsoft set that timeframe? They have experts that know the regulatory process, know each major regulator, know what they'll encounter, they've done it before, and they know all the timelines. It's not impossible it could extend beyond this because deals of this size have had that happen before. But the situation is far from being as complicated in this situation. This is a very simple and straightforward deal to assess. Deals well below this price tag see scrutiny, but especially with this price tag, the deal will get heavy scrutiny.
bender
What time is it?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked