• 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?

  • Yes, will be approved without changes.

    Votes: 221 24.9%

  • Yes, will be approved but with structural changes to ABK.

    Votes: 102 11.5%

  • Yes, will be approved but only with behavioral concessions.

    Votes: 262 29.6%

  • No, will not be approved.

    Votes: 301 34.0%
  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pelta88

Pelta88

Member
splattered said:
I think Topher is smart enough to see that both Microsoft and Sony are master class bullshitters and lie to us day in and day out stabbing each other in the back constantly in hopes of winning their way into our wallets. So yeah, MS was obviously never the good guy but that doesn't mean I will ever "side" against them cause the grass is just as poisonous on the other side of the fence.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm not seeing it so I'll just go ahead and ask for posterity reasons.

Can you list these "Sony lies" for the community?

Phil's public statements about XBOX and XBOX's destructive intentions in private, I'm struggling to reconcile the two philosophies as being one and the same.
 
Last edited:
Topher

Topher

Gold Member
tryDEATH said:
Now you're acting willfully ignorant. The amount of times I have read from PS folks the excuse that a game didn't ship on Xbox because it doesn't sell well, it has no audience, Xbox gamers don't play those games all at as legitimate reason why a game didn't ship on Xbox is where that BS originates as a sort of veil that is meant to make the exclusivity as acceptable and turn it almost into a non-exclusivity but shift it onto a developer decision.

The amount of times I have had to read about SFV not shipping on Xbox because its not were the competitive scene is so why ship it to Xbox or how fighters period aren't popular on Xbox in an attempt to disguise the actual Sony exclusivity. If you haven't read those comments I can't do anything for you. Its these sort of comments that are suppose to obscure the practice.
Click to expand...

I get it now. You are just drudging up console warrior bullshit arguments that no one in this thread is making.

mrmustard said:
When you are done here, in this thread are many more "you guys" guys that owe us names.
Click to expand...


I pointed out his use of "you guys" because I thought he was talking about people in this thread. Turns out he is just talking shit.
 
Last edited:
DeepEnigma

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
tryDEATH said:
Now you're acting willfully ignorant. The amount of times I have read from PS folks the excuse that a game didn't ship on Xbox because it doesn't sell well, it has no audience, Xbox gamers don't play those games all at as legitimate reason why a game didn't ship on Xbox is where that BS originates as a sort of veil that is meant to make the exclusivity as acceptable and turn it almost into a non-exclusivity but shift it onto a developer decision.

The amount of times I have had to read about SFV not shipping on Xbox because its not were the competitive scene is so why ship it to Xbox or how fighters period aren't popular on Xbox in an attempt to disguise the actual Sony exclusivity. If you haven't read those comments I can't do anything for you. Its these sort of comments that are suppose to obscure the practice.
Click to expand...
Stop being a fantard.

MS chose Dead Rising

Sony chose SFV

The end.
 
tryDEATH

tryDEATH

Member
Topher said:
I get it now. You are just drudging up console warrior bullshit arguments that no one in this thread is making.



I pointed out his use of "you guys" because I thought he was talking about people in this thread. Turns out he is just talking shit.
Click to expand...
My initial post had nothing to do with console warring it got dragged into that direction, but you chose to ignore how it got to that and now act shocked and dismissive. Just ignore me and move on with your day.
 
DeepEnigma

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
tryDEATH said:
I have no issue with that, but there were people arguing that SFV themselves choose to be exclusive for a myriad of reasons besides it being a paid exclusive, which applied to many other games.
Click to expand...
I Have No Idea Whatever GIF by Shalita Grant
 
laynelane

laynelane

Member
Heisenberg007 said:
True. Everybody brushed that bombshell under the rug.

Only no-name websites covered this, which went under the radar.

www.aroged.com

Minecraft Dungeons, an exclusive for a while: Xbox didn't want to release the game elsewhere

%
www.aroged.com www.aroged.com
Click to expand...

Good find. It's been difficult to find any reporting on this topic. Another thing that has been difficult to find is details on the contract. I remember, when MS purchased Minecraft, reading that the game will remain multi-platform. It was a stipulation of the sale from Notch and MS agreed to it - even stating they wanted to keep the game available to as many gamers as possible. Those articles have also been difficult to track down.
 
Heisenberg007

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
laynelane said:
Good find. It's been difficult to find any reporting on this topic. Another thing that has been difficult to find is details on the contract. I remember, when MS purchased Minecraft, reading that the game will remain multi-platform. It was a stipulation of the sale from Notch and MS agreed to it - even stating they wanted to keep the game available to as many gamers as possible. Those articles have also been difficult to track down.
Click to expand...
I spotted this -- that Phil wants to make Minecraft Dungeons exclusive -- only because I was listening to the hearing live. If I wasn't listening, I'd have never learned about it.

The gaming media is suspiciously silent about it. It's a complete blackout of information.
 
DeepEnigma

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Heisenberg007 said:
I spotted this -- that Phil wants to make Minecraft Dungeons exclusive -- only because I was listening to the hearing live. If I wasn't listening, I'd have never learned about it.

The gaming media is suspiciously silent about it. It's a complete blackout of information.
Click to expand...
The games media are ineffective cunts that only serve as PR extensions. Nothing more.
 
mrmustard

mrmustard

Banned
Topher said:
I pointed out his use of "you guys" because I thought he was talking about people in this thread. Turns out he is just talking shit.
Click to expand...
Used to call out those "But fraction A or B said this", "I bet NOW it's different", "But you/he/she/it said this and that" and many more in my younger years. Just not worth it. 90% already know they are shittalking and can't or don't want to back it up.
 
Last edited:
Heisenberg007

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
Pelta88 said:
I suspect we wont get a clarification.

I think "PlayStation lies" is just a point they make that lacks any real substance.
Click to expand...
Most likely. This rhetoric has gained a lot of traction since Microsoft's internal emails were made public -- but without any substantial evidence so far.

But I believe that all dirt by all companies should be made public and visible. So even if it's from Sony, I'd very much like people to post about the lies they have told. So I'm gonna be cautiously hopeful, waiting for this.
 
Mr Moose

Mr Moose

Member
M

Moridianae

Member
Well, Street Fighter V like...


Sony has a huge stake in EVO, plus fighting games have traditionally always been synonymous with the PlayStation platform, similar to how Square-Enix or other JRPG developers just became that way also since the PS1 era.

For me, it feels like Microsoft has been a little off for the past few years. They dropped the ball(pretty severely) with the Xbox One unveiling.

I'm not as familiar with gaming as a *whole*, but it seems that most friends and folks I talk to aren't interested in constant monetization(GaaS like Sony) or a "Netflix of gaming"(GamePass of Xbox).


Neither of those business models are anything gamers want, but they're being forced.
 
K

Kenshin775

Member
Heisenberg007 said:
So the CMA's argument for filing a postponement is that they don't have the human resources available who were involved in this case:

"The CMA has not been able to instruct leading counsel with previous experience of this matter to appear at the substantive hearing. It has also encountered significant difficulty in obtaining suitable alternative representation but has sought to obtain representation to maintain the existing hearing date so far as practically feasible."
Click to expand...

So what happened all of the CMA lawyers working on this are on vacation or just quit the case? And they can't find anyone else to replace them? Maybe they saw how hard the FTC lawyers were struggling and nobody wants to take on this case now.
 
PaintTinJr

PaintTinJr

Member
adamsapple said:
The CNBC segment the tweet is talking about is real.

He did not make it out of thin air.

seekingalpha.com

UK court filing may be positive for Microsoft deal for Activision - report

A close reading of a UK courts denial of a request by the countrys antitrust regulator to delay a hearing on Microsoft Activision deal could be viewed positively for the deal.
seekingalpha.com seekingalpha.com






@GHG keep chilling.
Click to expand...
The issue was raised with the CAT judge in the first CMC about the lack of suitable representation to defend the public via the CMA findings and the judge was sympathetic to a point, but stressed the importance of being fair to the acquisition to conduct the appeal in as swift a trim frame as fairly possible, and did remark on the quality of talent in the bar that the CMA could select.

The CMA felt this was unfair to the public because they couldn't get any counsel - because they were schedule tied from other cases -that were familiar with the substantive issues of their case in the time frame being suggested, or barristers of suitable standing, without conflicts of interest or prepared to work for the CMA case for the fees they pay.

In the end, it will just mean that the CMA will have to provide reserve team - using a football analogy - counsel to contest the appeal, and hope they are up to speed quick enough.

I guess there's always a chance that Sony or Google, or an interested party in blocking the case could offer up one of their retained barristers to lead the CMA case. But regardless of counsel it isn't likely MSFT's appeal is that much easier.
 
Ogbert

Ogbert

Member
adamsapple said:
Interesting point to note, CAT did not even consider Activision or Microsoft's responses before denying the CMA request (they say they got the MS/Acti responses too late anyway).
Click to expand...
Very short shrift is given to this type of request.

Everyone is insanely busy. Once the dates are set, you really do need to stick to them.

Lack of resource simply isn’t an excuse.
 
Last edited:
adamsapple

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
DeepEnigma said:
Do they include the line that Spencer said? "Been trying to find a way around it [the original contract]"
Click to expand...

Do you have anything from Twitter like Derek Strickland or the other people who were live transcribing confirming he said that ?
 
PaintTinJr

PaintTinJr

Member
I'm not sure if I imagine this, might be a nothingburger, but IIRC the gamers' lawsuit at one point had Microsoft trying to have it shutdown unless they committed to a $3b bond of sorts, with Microsoft saying something along the lines that the losses from the deal failing to close because of temporary litigation hurdles by Ganers' lawsuit would need to be recovered.

Assuming that did go down, and the off chance that the gamers' lawsuit is successful when appended, based on last week's public FTC suit giving them high quality ammo, have Microsoft potentially placed a reasonable damages award for them around the $3b mark, now?

It would be quite unbelievable if ATVI gets $3b, and then the gamers' lawsuit tag them for the same or more, too.
 
Bernardougf

Bernardougf

Gold Member
adamsapple said:
Denying which part ? We all know what he said about Minecraft dungeons, I'm asking if there's anything showing that he said trying to get out of the contract part.

Share it if you've got it.
Click to expand...
Ok I'll bite ... what plausible alternative explanation can you give (outside of a binding contract) for the ceo of xbox and person in charge of deciding wich games are exclusive or not (as the trial made clear) ... not been able to achieve his will and make minecraft dungeons exclusive ?
 
adamsapple

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Bernardougf said:
Ok I'll bite ... what plausible alternative explanation can you give (outside of a binding contract) for the ceo of xbox and person in charge of deciding wich games are exclusive or not (as the trial made clear) ... not been able to achieve his will and make minecraft dungeons exclusive ?
Click to expand...

The part where it was one of the many floated ideas that don't really come to fruition one way or the other, like how they had a file for acquisition targets but they didn't really act on any of them.

But I digress, I can't find a part where he strictly said anything about him trying to wiggle out of a contract to do so.
 
Bernardougf

Bernardougf

Gold Member
adamsapple said:
The part where it was one of the many floated ideas that don't really come to fruition one way or the other, like how they had a file for acquisition targets but they didn't really act on any of them.

But I digress, I can't find a part where he strictly said anything about him trying to wiggle out of a contract to do so.
Click to expand...
There is no direct part ...as usual in the normal bullshit beating around the bushes pr speak/response... but when he said he wanted to do it (exclusivity) but was not been able to find a way "around" .. i think we all no what this "around" means .. it can only mean a contract

But he didnt aay the word contract so you are free to choose whatever explanation suits you
 
Last edited:
FrankWza

FrankWza

Member
Moridianae said:
Neither of those business models are anything gamers want, but they're being forced.
Click to expand...
The difference is that one can be avoided and the other can be used for forced exclusivity as long as they wish once they own enough or all 3rd party IPs.

I see an update has been added to the playbook.
It really is all hypocritical, but some have been acting in here holier-than-thou.
Click to expand...
 
adamsapple

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Slicker than your average said:
I think it's the 3rd time I've seen someone come into the thread and say the same thing . It's that weird I didn't see so did it really happen doubt thing .
Click to expand...

Please go easy on the projection lol, like I said and like multiple websites have reported, the Minecraft Dungeon thing is known, but they ultimately didn't end up doing it anyway. What I'm looking for is the direct quote that other posters have previously alluded to where they imply that he talked about trying to bypass / go around anything.

Phil is supposedly the authority in what stays exclusive and he seemingly allowed MC: Dungeons to not be exclusive, it seems.
 
Pelta88

Pelta88

Member
Copied from another forum but still devastating nonetheless. The peak behind the curtain at Microsoft will reverberate for years. Enjoy this summary.


  • An email written by Matt Booty illustrates their desire to 'Spend Sony out of gaming', note that this was followed by several 3rd party partners of Sony being acquired that year and one of the biggest publishers in the industry being acquired the next year: Zenimax and so on to Activision now.
  • The email also exposed several of Phil Spencers lies about Amazon and Google being the main competition for Microsoft going forward.
  • A list of about 100 developers and publishers was also published from court documents, this showed that mobile may have been a consideration BUT it was certainly not the main concern.... with tens of console only developers and publishers being considered for acquisitions, including Sony and Nintendo themselves.
  • Out of that list Microsoft had gone further and tried to buy Sega and Square and then obviously continued on to Zenimax.... this shows that there is no specific strategy apart from growth by acquisition, growth by taking games away from direct competitors. Growth by offering less choice...contrary to their PR.
  • During the acquisition process Phil Spencer guaranteed gamers that IP's would continue to be published where they had an established audience, however emails between Phil Spencer and Microsofts CFO have revealed that the term 'case by case basis' was used as a smokescreen and Phil Spencer had already decided to make all future games exclusive to Xbox and PC, which are both essentially Microsoft platforms.

From Reddit:
  • Phil Spencer wanting to make Minecraft exclusive ("When everyone plays, we all win")
  • Sensitive Microsoft emails from 2018 forward discussing large scale acquisitions (showing Spencer's excuse for buying ZeniMax to be fiction)
  • Xbox's Matt Bootty floating the idea they can spend Sony "out of bussiness" by taking third-party publishers away from them
  • Phil Spencer email confirming all major ZeniMax games moving forward games will be blocked from PlayStation. Telling his colleagues "We just can't [come out] and say that." Squirming in court. Not recalling critical exchanges.
  • Spencer's email exchanges with Rim Ryan where he refuses to commit to future Activision titles on PlayStation beyond CoD; Ryan coming to the realization Spencer is not a man of his word
  • Xbox misrepresenting the CBB and being exposed
  • Being criticized for flip-flopping on Xbox's business prospects, depending on who their talking to (Xbox is doomed. Xbox has never been stronger. Xbox is doomed)

  • Phil Spencer empowering his disciples: "If we can get them [hardcore Xbox fans] to love it, they will evangelize"; a reference to Microsoft's old astroturfing manual "Evangelism is War".
  • In 2021, Matt Booty wrote there was "no effing way" that Xbox was going to put its original games on competing streaming services. Microsoft switched tracks last minute to placate regulators and appear pro consumer
  • Phil Spencer denied a news report about Microsoft seeking to acquire multiple Japanese developers when he knew the report to be accurate.
 
harry mason 1989

harry mason 1989

Banned
Pelta88 said:
Copied from another forum but still devastating nonetheless. The peak behind the curtain at Microsoft will reverberate for years. Enjoy this summary.


  • An email written by Matt Booty illustrates their desire to 'Spend Sony out of gaming', note that this was followed by several 3rd party partners of Sony being acquired that year and one of the biggest publishers in the industry being acquired the next year: Zenimax and so on to Activision now.
  • The email also exposed several of Phil Spencers lies about Amazon and Google being the main competition for Microsoft going forward.
  • A list of about 100 developers and publishers was also published from court documents, this showed that mobile may have been a consideration BUT it was certainly not the main concern.... with tens of console only developers and publishers being considered for acquisitions, including Sony and Nintendo themselves.
  • Out of that list Microsoft had gone further and tried to buy Sega and Square and then obviously continued on to Zenimax.... this shows that there is no specific strategy apart from growth by acquisition, growth by taking games away from direct competitors. Growth by offering less choice...contrary to their PR.
  • During the acquisition process Phil Spencer guaranteed gamers that IP's would continue to be published where they had an established audience, however emails between Phil Spencer and Microsofts CFO have revealed that the term 'case by case basis' was used as a smokescreen and Phil Spencer had already decided to make all future games exclusive to Xbox and PC, which are both essentially Microsoft platforms.

From Reddit:
  • Phil Spencer wanting to make Minecraft exclusive ("When everyone plays, we all win")
  • Sensitive Microsoft emails from 2018 forward discussing large scale acquisitions (showing Spencer's excuse for buying ZeniMax to be fiction)
  • Xbox's Matt Bootty floating the idea they can spend Sony "out of bussiness" by taking third-party publishers away from them
  • Phil Spencer email confirming all major ZeniMax games moving forward games will be blocked from PlayStation. Telling his colleagues "We just can't [come out] and say that." Squirming in court. Not recalling critical exchanges.
  • Spencer's email exchanges with Rim Ryan where he refuses to commit to future Activision titles on PlayStation beyond CoD; Ryan coming to the realization Spencer is not a man of his word
  • Xbox misrepresenting the CBB and being exposed
  • Being criticized for flip-flopping on Xbox's business prospects, depending on who their talking to (Xbox is doomed. Xbox has never been stronger. Xbox is doomed)

  • Phil Spencer empowering his disciples: "If we can get them [hardcore Xbox fans] to love it, they will evangelize"; a reference to Microsoft's old astroturfing manual "Evangelism is War".
  • In 2021, Matt Booty wrote there was "no effing way" that Xbox was going to put its original games on competing streaming services. Microsoft switched tracks last minute to placate regulators and appear pro consumer
  • Phil Spencer denied a news report about Microsoft seeking to acquire multiple Japanese developers when he knew the report to be accurate.
Click to expand...
Hopefully this deal will be off in July 18
I don't want these dumbfucks to touch any third-party publishers
 
ChorizoPicozo

ChorizoPicozo

Member
Pelta88 said:
Copied from another forum but still devastating nonetheless. The peak behind the curtain at Microsoft will reverberate for years. Enjoy this summary.


  • An email written by Matt Booty illustrates their desire to 'Spend Sony out of gaming', note that this was followed by several 3rd party partners of Sony being acquired that year and one of the biggest publishers in the industry being acquired the next year: Zenimax and so on to Activision now.
  • The email also exposed several of Phil Spencers lies about Amazon and Google being the main competition for Microsoft going forward.
  • A list of about 100 developers and publishers was also published from court documents, this showed that mobile may have been a consideration BUT it was certainly not the main concern.... with tens of console only developers and publishers being considered for acquisitions, including Sony and Nintendo themselves.
  • Out of that list Microsoft had gone further and tried to buy Sega and Square and then obviously continued on to Zenimax.... this shows that there is no specific strategy apart from growth by acquisition, growth by taking games away from direct competitors. Growth by offering less choice...contrary to their PR.
  • During the acquisition process Phil Spencer guaranteed gamers that IP's would continue to be published where they had an established audience, however emails between Phil Spencer and Microsofts CFO have revealed that the term 'case by case basis' was used as a smokescreen and Phil Spencer had already decided to make all future games exclusive to Xbox and PC, which are both essentially Microsoft platforms.

From Reddit:
  • Phil Spencer wanting to make Minecraft exclusive ("When everyone plays, we all win")
  • Sensitive Microsoft emails from 2018 forward discussing large scale acquisitions (showing Spencer's excuse for buying ZeniMax to be fiction)
  • Xbox's Matt Bootty floating the idea they can spend Sony "out of bussiness" by taking third-party publishers away from them
  • Phil Spencer email confirming all major ZeniMax games moving forward games will be blocked from PlayStation. Telling his colleagues "We just can't [come out] and say that." Squirming in court. Not recalling critical exchanges.
  • Spencer's email exchanges with Rim Ryan where he refuses to commit to future Activision titles on PlayStation beyond CoD; Ryan coming to the realization Spencer is not a man of his word
  • Xbox misrepresenting the CBB and being exposed
  • Being criticized for flip-flopping on Xbox's business prospects, depending on who their talking to (Xbox is doomed. Xbox has never been stronger. Xbox is doomed)

  • Phil Spencer empowering his disciples: "If we can get them [hardcore Xbox fans] to love it, they will evangelize"; a reference to Microsoft's old astroturfing manual "Evangelism is War".
  • In 2021, Matt Booty wrote there was "no effing way" that Xbox was going to put its original games on competing streaming services. Microsoft switched tracks last minute to placate regulators and appear pro consumer
  • Phil Spencer denied a news report about Microsoft seeking to acquire multiple Japanese developers when he knew the report to be accurate.
Click to expand...
Do you believe MS/Xbox is bad for the industry?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Microsoft has Closed the Activision Blizzard King Deal
22 23 24 25 26
1K
76K
MasterCornholio replied
Microsoft now says the CMA was ‘tough and fair’ over Activision Blizzard deal
Opinion Business Game Dev
17
2K
DaGwaphics replied
FTC appeals to block already-completed Microsoft-Activision deal
2
63
5K
Mythoclast replied
  • Locked
UK minister defends CMA's decision to block MS/ABK
News
0
774
Daniel_Mallorca1985 replied
  • Locked
Microsoft to sell off Activision cloud gaming rights to Ubisoft in bid for UK approval
News Business 2 3 4
154
14K
Spyxos replied
Top Bottom