Support NeoGAF

[GhostOfTsu]

This post really highlights just how disingenuous those arguing against Nintendo being a competitor really are.

Every. single. person. that is trying to claim Nintendo doesn't count... has made a statement that's along the lines of "Xbox is in third place" or "that's why Xbox is always in 3rd place every gen".

Despite the fact that the 360 finished that gen ahead of PS3, the narrative that "Xbox always finishes 3rd" is almost taken as gospel here at this point due to how often it's repeated here. Yet now that it doesn't suite some people's narrative, all of the sudden... Nintendo doesn't count, and it's been a two horse race this entire time.

You literally couldn't make this stuff up. It's just that ridiculous at this point.

The gaming industry is not on trial right now. Only Activision so they're looking at the impact of Activision on Nintendo. There is none. Nintendo is irrelevant here.

Thanks for trying.

 

[feynoob]

These are the top 20 games Nintendo consumers bought last year.

Top 10 from 2020

2019

2018

Two third party games have cracked the top 10 (or 20 this year) over the last four years.

This should be enough prove for these people. Even CMA and EU can see this.

Pretty self evident. Why do people keep arguing about this stuff then. Pretty "disingenuously" if you ask me.

They only see numbers. They don't see the data behind those numbers.

 

[feynoob]

The gaming industry is not on trial right now. Only Activision so they're looking at the impact of Activision on Nintendo. There is none. Nintendo is irrelevant here.

Thanks for trying.

Nintendo didn't have a COD for a long time. And this gen, switch lost alot of big 3rd party games.

 

[poppabk]

You don't seem to have an understanding of the most basic facts here.

To be clear, "Phase 2" was initiated because when asked for remedies to market concerns, Microsoft refused to make a submission to the CMA. "Phase 2" is not an automatically triggered as part of an acquisition.

Secondly, the bolded. Over several posts you keep claiming that

A. Microsoft won't take COD of PS platforms
B. Microsoft does not have to keep COD on PS platforms

Without realizing that the two statements can't legally exist at the same time. Again, if XBOX execs PR actually matched their intentions with COD the deal would have been done a long time ago. ie

"We have zero intention to remove COD, the deal is really about ATVI employees and mobile."

Behind the scenes, the deal they offered was "Totally inadequate" according to Sony Playstation. Giving them access to the game for 3 years.


You gotta read the submissions instead of fanboying blindly on behalf of MS.

Guaranteeing access for 3 years not giving access. There is no way that anyone is going to agree to supporting a platform indefinitely, its not like Activision would have guaranteed CoD on playstation forever before all this. The next playstation could be a standalone VR headset for all anyone knows, or it could be a WiiU level flop.

 

[DarkMage619]

Nintendo isn't really a competitor to Xbox and PS in term of new 3rd party games. Switch has to wait for a proper port or cloud version for those games.

It's only a competitor for those games, which can be ported to switch day1, or in term of exclusives and hardware sales.

Nintendo needs a strong switch, which can handle those games. Maybe switch 2 can be that console, if it's powerful enough.

And Xbox isn't a competitor to PlayStation because of VR. Xbox isn't a competitor to Nintendo and Sony because you can play Xbox games without buying an Xbox at all. You can always just make an arbitrary factor to say company X isn't competing with company Y. Makes way more sense to treat all game platform holders as competitors.

Neither is android, what about tablets? The fact that it's a 'phone', 'tablet', portable or whatever OS isn't relevant it's that the market doesn't overlap on the consumer side which is relevant . The Switch is a portable games machine too btw, so should it not be a whole new category too just like your 'portable' OS?

Android isn't a phone OS?! You have never heard of Android on mobile phones? Seriously? The place the OS is used is relevant. Apple has complete control of their operating system system on phones and tablets in particular. Android is very similar but they do have a bit more flexibility than IOS. Apple has a monopoly on who can operate a store on their platform. MS does NOT do that with Windows. Again MS does not own the biggest storefronts on Windows so again there is no comparison.

Not sure why you are concentrating on the store. Google and Android may be forced by the commission to offer alternative stores but that's not relevant to them being considered an OS duopoly. That's just a possible abuse of said fact.

The storefront is relevant because that is the reason regulators are looking at Android and IOS to open up their platforms something regulators are not doing with MS because MS isn't doing the same things as Apple and Google. In fact part of the reason MS wants Activision is to build a store than can be put on IOS and Android. I'm sure it will beef up their own Windows storefront too seeing how Steam is stomping all over them currently.

Not many people decide between buying a samsung galaxy/tab or a macbook pro even though both can perform mostly the same functions, browse, game, work, whatever. When judging competing markets the comission doesn't look at functionality in a vacuum and say this performs the same function therefor it is the same. They look at what the consumer market is doing. The commission would have to determine if many people are making a choice between a Switch and one of the other consoles or if it's largely a different audience. The idea that they are not competing isn't farfetched though. Especially as it is a portable hybrid which many buy in addition to.

People make decisions on Android and IOS based on the ecosystem they are most heavily invested in. If you have mostly IOS apps you are sticking with Apple otherwise Android. It is only magnified when the platform holder is only place to buy the apps for that platform. It is another reason to check out Apple in particular with their monopolistic tactics with their OS. Again MS is not doing this.

CADE looked at all three platforms holders and concluded they were competitors. This is the only logical conclusion.

Yes and unfortunately in the console space they didn't have much luck with the N64, Gamecube and Wii U. They carved out and went after a different audience with the Wii, DS, and Switch though.

Nintendo adjusted tactics to compete in the gaming market yes. The audience claim is bunk. Adults and children play Nintendo games. Just like Xbox and PlayStation by the way.

Nobody is saying nintendo isn't in the industry but if we go by the idea that functionality is what determines whether something is competing then even your own idea that:

"selling games on fixed platform devices that can all connect to televisions"

Means a lot are. you can connect anything to a television and play games on a a closed platform including tablets, phones, appletv, some android stick, etc. Do they become competing devices now? Should we be talking about 6th instead of 3rd?

Nintendo, Sony, and MS operate closed platforms with stores that sell unique software for their platforms on said store. They designed the development kits and the hardware used to play those titles. They also all charge license fees for third parties to put games on their systems as well. ALL THREE DO. The only thing different is their game libraries and that isn't not a reason to claim they are no longer competing with each other. You aren't really making a serious argument with 'anything can be connected to a television' statement. The three platforms are competing for the reasons I mentioned above in addition to the way you can play the games on those systems.

Of course not. The commission determines where consumer buying habits are to determine whether something is competing. Nobody is sat there debating between an appleTV/tablet or PS5 even though, using your definition, based purely on functionality they are competing devices.

Why not? PlayStation has VR so clearly they are in market by themselves right? People make all sorts of arbitrary rationales to try to show Xbox is both losing to and not competing with Nintendo at the same time. You can try and change the subject but I am talking specifically about gaming consoles. I did not mention Apple TV you did.

CADE got this right. Nintendo has used their innovative and thoughtful engineers to create a platform that can compete against companies many times their size. That should be commended and used as an example of how Sony and Microsoft could hypothetically alter their businesses to compete in an ever changing business landscape. Picking random reasons to argue Xbox is third out of two is quite silly.

 

[feynoob]

And Xbox isn't a competitor to PlayStation because of VR. Xbox isn't a competitor to Nintendo and Sony because you can play Xbox games without buying an Xbox at all. You can always just make an arbitrary factor to say company X isn't competing with company Y. Makes way more sense to treat all game platform holders as competitors.

Read this. #6,699

 

[Topher]

Read this. #6,699

 

[DarkMage619]

Read this. #6,699

Read this.

 

[Banjo64]

Sowrry I didn't made those arguments.

So,your "Every. single. person'" is wrong.

Perhaps you should point out the people who did make those arguments rather than say "every single person" has. I know these are not arguments I have made so......who is making them?

Me neither

 

[Banjo64]

Brazil approved after a long period of questioning other publishers and third parties,

Just to point out that the UK/EU also consulted with other publishers and third parties as part of their phase ones.

 

[Topher]

Read this.

Isn't this entire argument based on how CADE referenced Nintendo in rendering their opinion?

 

[adamsapple]

Just to point out that the UK/EU also consulted with other publishers and third parties as part of their phase ones.

I'm sure they're still doing it as part of phase 2.

 

[Three]

And Xbox isn't a competitor to PlayStation because of VR. Xbox isn't a competitor to Nintendo and Sony because you can play Xbox games without buying an Xbox at all. You can always just make an arbitrary factor to say company X isn't competing with company Y. Makes way more sense to treat all game platform holders as competitors.

VR is a peripheral sold separately, I'm not sure where you are even going with this. The fact that xbox doesn't sell a peripheral has nothing to do with anything at all. Xbox as a console is a competitor to PlayStation based on consumer spending habits, nothing more, nothing less. A lot buy either/or and buy third party games on one or the other. Gamepass as a platform agnostic service is a competitor to other multigame subscription services, things like stadia pro or Geforce now, etc. Where is this going? I'm not sure why you are trying to fling mud into the water.

Android isn't a phone OS?! You have never heard of Android on mobile phones? Seriously?

Is it!? No! I'm shocked. Way to completely miss the point. Android is on tablets, it's not a 'phone' OS.

The place the OS is used is relevant.

so if I use my switch as a portable it becames relevant too? Different market right?
Did you know some windows machines have eSIMs and can place calls? Who determines what becomes a new device? Say if I had a laptop with wifi and one without are they considered different markets now because I can communicate with one and not the other?

Again the commission do not concentrate on functionality, it's based purely on consumer buying habits. If you buy both and show that they do not compete it doesn't matter the function. If it's shown you buy one or the other they compete.

Apple has complete control of their operating system system on phones and tablets in particular. Android is very similar but they do have a bit more flexibility than IOS. Apple has a monopoly on who can operate a store on their platform. MS does NOT do that with Windows. Again MS does not own the biggest storefronts on Windows so again there is no comparison.

Calm down, nobody is saying MS is breaking antitrust laws with windows. I'm only pointing out that the commission considers Apple and Google a duopoly and often MS a monopoly in different markets based on consumer spending behaviour and not on functionality. Even though say an android and windows OS perform the same functions the consumer decides whether they are competing based on their buying. The only reason you are calling it a 'phone OS' is based again on consumer spending habits. it's not a phone os, it runs on tablets that have no phone functions too. People often buy a phone and a laptop, they can play games, work, browse on both yet they are considered separate markets based purely on consumer buying habits even if function can often determine consumer buying habits.

The storefront is relevant because that is the reason regulators are looking at Android and IOS to open up their platforms something regulators are not doing with MS because MS isn't doing the same things as Apple and Google. In fact part of the reason MS wants Activision is to build a store than can be put on IOS and Android. I'm sure it will beef up their own Windows storefront too seeing how Steam is stomping all over them currently.

For the regulators the storefront is a possible antitrust case, along with browers in Android and iOS. This isn't relevant to what I'm saying though.

It is another reason to check out Apple in particular with their monopolistic tactics with their OS. Again MS is not doing this.

No need to keep defending MS, nobody is saying they are breaking antitrust laws only that consumer spending habits is what matters and not functionality in determining different markets.

Nintendo adjusted tactics to compete in the gaming market yes. The audience claim is bunk. Adults and children play Nintendo games. Just like Xbox and PlayStation by the way.

The audience is relevant, and even when they are the same audience, what people buy matters when determining if it's a different market.

You aren't really making a serious argument with 'anything can be connected to a television' statement. The three platforms are competing for the reasons I mentioned above in addition to the way you can play the games on those systems.

Why not? The argument is simple, you can connect to a TV and can play games on your appletv, your tablet and your phone, all with a controller and a store so why your emphasis on 3 competitors only? Could it be because you are arbitrarily determining it based on your choices and ignoring your own idea that functionality determines it?

If the consumer decides they need an appleTV, phone, tablet and a console it's because that's what they've bought and shown not to compete. Consumer buying habits matter and not functionality.

Why not? PlayStation has VR so clearly they are in market by themselves right?People make all sorts of arbitrary rationales to try to show Xbox is both losing to and not competing with Nintendo at the same time. You can try and change the subject but I am talking specifically about gaming consoles. I did not mention Apple TV you did.

I mentioned appletv to show that your definition of 'the same market' based on functionality alone doesn't work. That it's only based on consumer buying habits and nothing else. I don't know why you are bringing up VR peripherals. In the same vein would an LTE adaptor put laptops in the same category as phones too? I'm not arguing for functionality determining markets, I'm doing the opposite so I'm not sure why you are saying peripherals for added functionality would separate it. It wouldn't.

Nintendo has used their innovative and thoughtful engineers to create a platform that can compete against companies many times their size. That should be commended and used as an example of how Sony and Microsoft could hypothetically alter their businesses to compete in an ever changing business landscape. Picking random reasons to argue Xbox is third out of two is quite silly.

It's great but not everyone had a product as successful as the 3/DS to release a handheld hybrid. Nobody is arguing random reasons why anybody is 3rd, 6th or otherwise. You brought that up when determining who is a competitor for you.

 

[BeardGawd]

The videogame industry is exceptionally toxic. Even if COD went exclusive (which I don't think it will) it would make the market more competitive because just like Nintendo, Playstation has a legion of hardcore fans that would refuse to switch systems. If anything it would encourage more multiplatform owners again like during the 360/PS3 (HD Twins) days. And with Playstation publishing on PC now and ramping up the cloud. Even if a few did switch they would still make money from people buying and playing their games on other platforms.

This whole thing highlights how Europe regulators can be influenced by hardcore fanboys (with Europe being Sony Land a few regulators maybe be fanboys themselves). From a pure business perspective from revenue to install base there is absolutely no reason this shouldn't go through. There shouldn't be any concessions needed at all.

Yes let's protect the sacrad Playstation from any competition. God forbid they lose a few games out of thousands!

 

[feynoob]

Read this.

Sometimes, talking to you feel like this

 

[TheGodfather07]

Sometimes, talking to you feel like this

you just realised? as soon as i see his avatar, i scroll straight through it. theres no discussing anything with him. all he does is act as a police officer for xbox. the law he upholds is to protect xbox at any and all costs. speaking against xbox is like blasphemy.

 

[DarkMage619]

VR is a peripheral sold separately, I'm not sure where you are even going with this. The fact that xbox doesn't sell a peripheral has nothing to do with anything at all. Xbox as a console is a competitor to PlayStation based on consumer spending habits, nothing more, nothing less. A lot buy either/or and buy third party games on one or the other. Gamepass as a platform agnostic service is a competitor to other multigame subscription services, things like stadia pro or Geforce now, etc. Where is this going? I'm not sure why you are trying to fling mud into the water.

I don't know where you are going because you are the one bringing up Apple, Google, Windows, GeForce, and Stadia. I'm arguing that Nintendo is a competitor in the video game market just like Sony and Microsoft. I am not moving from that point. The fact they have different games is irrelevant seeing how they all have different games. Nintendo ALSO has a multi game subscription service just like Xbox and just like PlayStation. Difference being the games offered. Geforce Now and Stadia were not like the console services and I don't think they are relevant to this discussion.

Is it!? No! I'm shocked. Way to completely miss the point. Android is on tablets, it's not a 'phone' OS.

The point is Windows is NOT. MS does not control stores on their OS. Apple does and Google controls the biggest one with an assortment of exclusive apps. You seemed to have missed the point because it never made sense to compare Windows to IOS and Android. Or Apple and Google either.

so if I use my switch as a portable it becames relevant too? Different market right?
Did you know some windows machines have eSIMs and can place calls? Who determines what becomes a new device? Say if I had a laptop with wifi and one without are they considered different markets now because I can communicate with one and not the other?

What does any of this have to do with Nintendo competing with Sony and MS in video games? I'm sticking with that.

Again the commission do not concentrate on functionality, it's based purely on consumer buying habits. If you buy both and show that they do not compete it doesn't matter the function. If it's shown you buy one or the other they compete.

Do you have evidence that the money consumers spend on games is distributed differently based on platform? Does Nintendo take a different currency over the other game consoles? Are Nintendo consoles and games counted separately from Xbox and PlayStation games? Can I play multiple game consoles simultaneously? If a parent can only buy their kid one console does it really matter which it is if only one can be purchased? If I buy Sonic Frontiers on Switch will that offer me a materially different experience than if I bought it on Xbox or PlayStation? I don't think so. It's just another game on a video game system. People have finite resources and since the Switch costs about the same as the other systems there is an equal chance of any one getting picked up based on game library preference. Doesn't mean they aren't competitive with each other.

Calm down, nobody is saying MS is breaking antitrust laws with windows. I'm only pointing out that the commission considers Apple and Google a duopoly and often MS a monopoly in different markets based on consumer spending behaviour and not on functionality. Even though say an android and windows OS perform the same functions the consumer decides whether they are competing based on their buying. The only reason you are calling it a 'phone OS' is based again on consumer spending habits. it's not a phone os, it runs on tablets that have no phone functions too. People often buy a phone and a laptop, they can play games, work, browse on both yet they are considered separate markets based purely on consumer buying habits even if function can often determine consumer buying habits.

OK.

For the regulators the storefront is a possible antitrust case, along with browers in Android and iOS. This isn't relevant to what I'm saying though.

OK.

No need to keep defending MS, nobody is saying they are breaking antitrust laws only that consumer spending habits is what matters and not functionality in determining different markets.

MS doesn't need any defense. Like you acknowledged they aren't breaking the law.

The audience is relevant, and even when they are the same audience, what people buy matters when determining if it's a different market.

The audience is consumers with money looking for video game entertainment. Nintendo isn't selling sandwiches or video streaming they are offering games just like Sony and MS. It's silly to argue they aren't in the same market or will we have to go back to the PlayStation VR silliness again. Different games doesn't mean different markets. God of War not being on Xbox doesn't mean PlayStation is in a different market.

Why not? The argument is simple, you can connect to a TV and can play games on your appletv, your tablet and your phone, all with a controller and a store so why your emphasis on 3 competitors only? Could it be because you are arbitrarily determining it based on your choices and ignoring your own idea that functionality determines it?

I'm sticking with console gaming. That is what CADE and the other regulators are focusing on. That is what this whole acquisition is about. MS is planning on putting CoD on the Switch, a game console, not Apple TV so there is no point in obfuscating the point.

If the consumer decides they need an appleTV, phone, tablet and a console it's because that's what they've bought and shown not to compete. Consumer buying habits matter and not functionality.

In this case functionality is the point. This is all about video games on several different competing platforms. Consumers will buy games where they can find them and MS is planning on expanding CoD to more places including Switch they have never mentioned Apple TV. Historically they put Ori and Minecraft on Switch. I haven't seen Apple TV versions of those titles.

I mentioned appletv to show that your definition of 'the same market' based on functionality alone doesn't work. That it's only based on consumer buying habits and nothing else. I don't know why you are bringing up VR peripherals. In the same vein would an LTE adaptor put laptops in the same category as phones too? I'm not arguing for functionality determining markets, I'm doing the opposite so I'm not sure why you are saying peripherals for added functionality would separate it. It wouldn't.

I am not talking about Apple TV and it's pretty obvious that that device is isn't anything like Xbox, PlayStation, or Switch so I don't see the point in discussing it.

It's great but not everyone had a product as successful as the 3/DS to release a handheld hybrid. Nobody is arguing random reasons why anybody is 3rd, 6th or otherwise. You brought that up when determining who is a competitor for you.

Shocked you missed the numerous gifs and memes laughing at Xbox's 3rd place finish in console gaming. It is a convenient oversight. Still doesn't change reality. Xbox has not sold as well as the other two older, more popular video game brands. They have adjusted to the market to find more success just like Nintendo and I'm positive Sony could too.

Sometimes, talking to you feel like this

You are free to disagree with CADE but I'd take their analysis over random forum members. People here predicted Switch's failure too so there isn't the best track record.

Isn't this entire argument based on how CADE referenced Nintendo in rendering their opinion?

I clearly think CADE is right because otherwise we are arguing that Nintendo isn't a competitor in the gaming industry and Xbox is 3rd out of two which I think makes no sense.

you just realised? as soon as i see his avatar, i scroll straight through it. theres no discussing anything with him. all he does is act as a police officer for xbox. the law he upholds is to protect xbox at any and all costs. speaking against xbox is like blasphemy.

There are people here who defend Sony and Nintendo as well. There was a thread celebrating PlayStation price increases as a bold move. I'm sure you jumped in there and shut that down right? I stayed out of it.

Since many of the people trash talking Xbox don't know what they are talking about I don't mind setting the record straight. It has nothing to do with policing anything. We simply disagree and that's OK. Just find it curious that the console a person dislikes attracts so much attention. How does one find the time with so many wonderful experiences elsewhere?

 

[DJ12]

Lol at someone putting stock in the decision of one of the most corrupt nations on earth just because it suits them.

 

[MasterCornholio]

you just realised? as soon as i see his avatar, i scroll straight through it. theres no discussing anything with him. all he does is act as a police officer for xbox. the law he upholds is to protect xbox at any and all costs. speaking against xbox is like blasphemy.

An Xbox Super Trooper. That's hilarious.

Edit: Actually that would be a fantastic tag. It sounds awesome.

 

[Negotiator101]

I'm not sure what negotiation you've been following but Sony isn't asking for a contract. The point of contention is that they want COD, a multiplat, to remain a multiplat. Microsoft/XBOX execs have gone on every platform, preaching that they'd never make COD an exclusive. Everywhere except the CMA where they could make that intention legally binding.

When the CMA asked them to provide legal clarification on that point. Microsoft were like

I mean this with all due respect but it seems many, yourself included, don't actually read the submissions and findings. I'm guessing Microsoft's blatant hollow PR smoke is more mailable to your point of view.

They are not required to do anything, they've publicly announced their intentions in regards to PS and Call of Duty. Now weather they change their plans later down the line is entirely their decision.

Business is business, Microsoft are not shelling out 70 billion to just keep Sony happy At some point Microsoft and Sony will have to have discussions and come to an understanding that benefits both sides, you know Business.

 

[Bernkastel]

The videogame industry is exceptionally toxic. Even if COD went exclusive (which I don't think it will) it would make the market more competitive because just like Nintendo, Playstation has a legion of hardcore fans that would refuse to switch systems. If anything it would encourage more multiplatform owners again like during the 360/PS3 (HD Twins) days. And with Playstation publishing on PC now and ramping up the cloud. Even if a few did switch they would still make money from people buying and playing their games on other platforms.

This whole thing highlights how Europe regulators can be influenced by hardcore fanboys (with Europe being Sony Land a few regulators maybe be fanboys themselves). From a pure business perspective from revenue to install base there is absolutely no reason this shouldn't go through. There shouldn't be any concessions needed at all.

Yes let's protect the sacrad Playstation from any competition. God forbid they lose a few games out of thousands!

It's not even that. They don't want COD to lose the association with their platform. They don't want that certain features will not be exclusive for a whole year anymore. They hate that the COD eSports will probably not be played on their platform anymore. COD will be multiplat, but they want to pretend they forced it to be multiplat.

 

[Darsxx82]

Lol at someone putting stock in the decision of one of the most corrupt nations on earth just because it suits them.

LOL someone resorting to prejudice to try to downplay the arguments of a government commission just because they don't like what they say ...

Apart from the fact that CADE is independent of the Government and its members were elected in terms prior to Bolsonaro...If we base ourselves on the country where they come from... then I don't think the UK is being very exemplary with the decisions that its government institutions make lately

The important thing is the weight and reasoning of the argument, not which country it comes from. The fact is that you may or may not like CADE's argument, but it is impeccable. It does not say more than what we all know and accept here like:

- With the acquisition of ACT-Blz, MS is far from becoming a monopoly in a market dominated by PlayStation and will continue to be dominated by it after that acquisition as well.
-Sony can perfectly remain competitive without COD -A commission is not to attend to the concerns of a specific third party but of the users.

-Switch is a video game console just like XBOX and PS. It competes in the same market and is exposed to the same changes and must adapt to be successful.

That is, the reasoning behind the argument exists, makes sense, and is convincing. Where it comes from is secondary.

PS. I remember perfectly when CADE published its first impressions, which were very similar to those of the EU Commission, and no one mentioned its origin to detract from it. It is serious that you only go to its origin when you no longer like your decision.

 

[Pelta88]

They are not required to do anything, they've publicly announced their intentions in regards to PS and Call of Duty. Now weather they change their plans later down the line is entirely their decision.

Business is business,

You claim to understand that business is business but prior to that statement, insinuate that because Microsoft have "publicly announced their intentions." Which means you don't understand that a public statement is legally worth less than the oxygen used to vocalize that statement.

And then say they can change their minds. Again, two statements that can't coexist in the same legal and specific framework being discussed.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Lol at someone putting stock in the decision of one of the most corrupt nations on earth just because it suits them.

You shouldn’t talk about the UK like that!

 

[Negotiator101]

You claim to understand that business is business but prior to that statement, insinuate that because Microsoft have "publicly announced their intentions." Which means you don't understand that a public statement is legally worth less than the oxygen used to vocalize that statement.

And then say they can change their minds. Again, two statements that can't coexist in the same legal and specific framework being discussed.

Exactly what I said, they won't limit the powerful strategic position they'll be in by signing a legally binding agreement, there's 70 billion reasons why they won't.

 

[The_Mike]

I think that's severely outdated now. Since then they have said they intend to continue publishing games as long as the PS platforms exist.

But it will be harder for Jimmy to make exclusive deals now, which is unfair as Sony has dominated with these deals for two generations now.
That's unfair advantage.
At least according to CMA.

Also, holy hell at the level of debating in here.

Someone posts their opinions, someone argues against it, and it becomes a pathetic battle between those two.

Act like your age, instead of 12 year old kids.
If you are 12 years old, remember you violated the rules about your age when signing up for the forum.

 

[DarkMage619]

Exactly what I said, they won't limit the powerful strategic position they'll be in by signing a legally binding agreement, there's 70 billion reasons why they won't.

I actually think MS put their offer to Sony in writing. It just wasn't an agreement in perpetuity. It probably also lacked exclusive content offers and marketing rights to Sony as well which is why Jim Ryan said it 'was inadequate on many levels' . We'll see if regulators will force MS to add those provisions as part of the deal.

 

[Pelta88]

That moment you realize that those arguing in favour have basically boiled down their legal argument to...

"CMA should let the deal go through because Phil Spencer said they would keep COD on PlayStation. But after the deal is done Microsoft should be free to remove COD off the PS platform."

I thought we were learning a great deal from this potential acquisition. Getting a verified and legally binding look behind the curtain and most importantly, discussing this in good faith. Anyone that wants to discuss this on the merits, I'm more than willing to engage with. Anyone suggesting that this deal should go through because "Phil Spencer said" some PR, respectfully, should go find a different thread.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

 

[Pelta88]

I wonder if these sales which are 80-90% on PS here in UK/Europe are strengthening Sony's argument.

 

[feynoob]

Interesting tidbits from ideas.

Today I found out that The Capitol Forum (a site for investors, lawmakers or big law firms to get news and analysis on how policy affects market competition) has been informing about the ABK deal for months.

For example, yesterday they said that the FTC will vote between December and January if the merger is challenged or not:

In October they said that the staff pressed third parties to sign declarations by the end of that month (that could suggest that the staff was preparing to recommend the Commission to challenge the deal after the second request investigation).

Also in October, they mentioned that opponents to the merger were highlighting Stadia shutdown:

I don’t how trustworthy they are, but the service is totally behind paywall and you have to ask for a trial to get access. That usually means that they are not amateurs.

Anyway, if they are right about the FTC, it looks like they could be the first big regulator to clear or reject the deal.

 

[ReBurn]

I wonder if these sales which are 80-90% on PS here in UK/Europe are strengthening Sony's argument.

Probably only if the CMA determines that Sony are somehow entitled to 80%-90% of CoD sales in the UK.

 

[feynoob]

R reksveks
Do you agree with idas?

 

[feynoob]

I wonder if these sales which are 80-90% on PS here in UK/Europe are strengthening Sony's argument.

That was a jab post at xbox Canada error. It had best sold on Ps French error.

 

[reksveks]

R reksveks
Do you agree with idas?

Honestly not sure, I do wonder what the timelines for MS actually offering concessions to each regulators would be.

And whether any regulators would block the deal without any opportunity for MS to offer/negotiate consent decrees.

I have honestly tried to pay a little less attention until jan/Feb so a bit out of the loop.

 

[PharaoTutAnchAmun]

you just realised? as soon as i see his avatar, i scroll straight through it. theres no discussing anything with him. all he does is act as a police officer for xbox. the law he upholds is to protect xbox at any and all costs. speaking against xbox is like blasphemy.

Yeah, i blocked him, he talks like a Xbox ambassador would do. And when i see the reactions on his blocked post by me i can imagion what he was writing

 

[feynoob]

This is just a recap of this week events. Got some new info in the process.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...sion-blizzard-ceo-addresses-microsoft-merger/

Kotick added, in remarks viewed by The Post, “Our own board of directors, they recognized that this was a great cash premium in a very, very tenuous economic environment. You see all around us, companies laying off people.”

It seems MS would keep some people from the top.

Activision Blizzard employees’ biggest question to Kotick was about how the Microsoft deal would affect their work. He responded, “I don’t expect it will be a lot different than when Vivendi owned us. They let us run the business pretty independently. I think that’s largely going to be the case, Microsoft is likely to want to keep almost everybody.”

EU has until march 23 to make a decision.

On Tuesday, the European Commission said it was concerned the deal could hurt the gaming and console distribution markets. It also said users could be less inclined to buy PCs that don’t run Microsoft’s operating systems. The Commission has until March 23 to issue a decision.

Some extra news

“We’re continuing to work with the European Commission on next steps and to address any valid marketplace concerns,” Microsoft spokesperson David Cuddy told The Washington Post. On Tuesday evening, at a New York media panel, Microsoft Gaming head Phil Spencer was asked what he was doing next after the Activision Blizzard merger closed.

“I love that I’m in the process of this $70 billion acquisition and the question is what are you doing after this?” Spencer said to audience laughter. “I’m working really hard to try to close this acquisition … Mobile is the largest gaming platform on the planet. We as Xbox feel we need to have more creative engagement on mobile to be the team that we want to be again, and discussions we’ve had for many, many years. I honestly don’t have a great answer. Maybe I should but I don’t on what happens after that.”

 

[DarkMage619]

Yeah, i blocked him, he talks like a Xbox ambassador would do. And when i see the reactions on his blocked post by me i can imagion what he was writing

It can be really hard hearing an opinion that differs from your own confirmation bias. I can only imagine how much time it would take for me to block all the PlayStation 'ambassadors' around here though. Regardless respectful discourse should be the only way to communicate here.

 

[reksveks]

 

[ReBurn]

EU regulators are fanboys confirmed

 

[feynoob]

EU regulators are fanboys confirmed

That is good argument honestly.
COD should be played by everyone.

I get it that MS said it on the press. But they are still a mega Corp. They aren't your average Joe. They like loopholes.

 

[Pelta88]

The moment you realize that this tweet is actually real

 

[Darsxx82]

Is that person a real member of the EU commission?

"working to make COD playable on "my Playstation"

LOL, can't be serious. What a show of impartiality

 

[Banjo64]

The CMA are in Sony’s pocket brigade right now;

 

[Banjo64]

Is that person a real member of the EU commission?

"working to make COD playable on "my Playstation"

LOL, can't be serious. What a show of impartiality

They don’t have to be impartial. This isn’t a murder trial. They want the game to remain on PlayStation and potential future rival cloud/console competitors. Try and wrap your head around it.

 

[MasterCornholio]

They don’t have to be impartial. This isn’t a murder trial. They want the game to remain on PlayStation and potential future rival cloud/console competitors. Try and wrap your head around it.

They probably know that others feel the same way. There's probably many people that want to continue playing CoD on PlayStation. Don't think there's anything wrong with that. It's not like they are cheering it on being taken away from others.

 

[Pelta88]

Is that person a real member of the EU commission?

"working to make COD playable on "my Playstation"

LOL, can't be serious. What a show of impartiality

Having a PS and playing COD on PS somehow disqualifies his perspective?

Guess which console garners 90% of COD sales here in Europe?

 

[Menzies]

Curious to see what length of time they’re trying to tie them down to and relevant clauses/proviso’s regulators concede.

There’s a scalability concern that Microsoft will argue. While the last few generations had very similar architecture and performance profiles. There’s a possibility that won’t always be the case, and a cost to port ratio disincentive, as we see currently with independent entity Activision choosing not to release on Switch.

While Microsoft knows their own plan, and is able to commit in theory, there’s nothing stopping Sony pivoting to dissimilar design and gameplay mechanics in the future.

 

[ReBurn]

Having a PS and playing COD on PS somehow disqualifies his perspective?

Guess which console garners 90% of COD sales here in Europe?

 

[Banjo64]

Um, EU and UK consumers who their regulatory bodies have a duty to promote?