-
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
Helghan
Member
This actually makes a lot of sense. Microsoft wanted to grow in the market through Game Pass. Sony saw this happening and made blocking deals for games so they can’t get on Game Pass. The solution that makes most business sense for Microsoft is to then to buy those companies and make sure those deals can’t be made so their first strategy still works while making some extra money.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
So it should be totes, no big deal with divestment then, eh?
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
Just "COD devs". Not the publisher of COD. So not the same thing.
Ornoku
Member
It's the other way around.
Smoke6
Member
It’s not gonna do much! Most the devs are gonna move on and away from this and start their own studios or join others elsewhere! We’re seeing it now with a few here and there leaving and it’s being announced in a way to make you think they’re few and far between! That’s why Sony gave up and extra billion to keep the devs they have with bungie!
Warablo
Member
If I was Microsoft, I wouldn't mind a divestment if they got CoD devs and rights. They would probably want King too. They would then have Candy Crush and CoD Mobile for their mobile start up.
Last edited:
Ornoku
Member
Exactly. The only games that were dedicated were games like Battlefield by EA. Something like Killzone used dedicated servers to start matchmaking but once in the game were P2P. Xbox 360 had more games running on dedicated servers earlier than PS3. Even a lot of PS4 games were running p2p.
mansoor1980
Member
so are they a monopoly or not?
Iced Arcade
Member
Man I loved being host with gears
Gobjuduck
Banned
MAG had dedicated servers if I remember. Games was fun for 1 day.
Warablo
Member
They never said that in that quote you listed. No idea why you posted that to try and prove your point. I doubt Microsoft would ever say Sony is a monopoly.
Last edited:
mansoor1980
Member
Anti-competitive behaviour is used by business and governments to lessen competition within the markets so that monopolies and dominant firms can generate supernormal profits and deter competitors from the market. Therefore, it is heavily regulated and punishable by law in cases where it substantially affects the market.
microsoft with the counter claim that sony has anti-competitive practices in the industry,,,,,,,,,,,,,
anti-competitive behaviour=monopoly
Last edited:
Iced Arcade
Member
Most games that gen were P2P, games that were not... Those games had very short lifespans (besides EA Games).
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
If I'm not mistaken, Battlefield 3 did.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Dick Jones
Gold Member
Was there a word or ten autocorrected as it sounds like there would be no divestment in your divestment.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
The proof is the current slate of games Activision is making for Nintendo is the proof. As I've stated numerous times no title is guaranteed on any platform. Case and point.The burden of proof isn’t on me. Activision have published plenty of great games on the Switch. If you’re suggesting they were just going to stop that stone dead, then you should provide proof
Four was on Xbox so of course Five will be right? Activision has no current plans on making Nintendo games right now and there is no guarantee that will happen in the future. MS has provided Nintendo a contract to get that guarantee for their biggest IP. It's OK to acknowledge that this deal benefits multiple parties not just MS.
It is objectively true that more parties will gain access to CoD and Activision employees will benefit than if this deal does not happen. You want to talk proof? Show that the multiple points I mentioned earlier would all still happen should this deal be blocked. This is much bigger than Sony and PlayStation. A platform, I might add, that will also still receive CoD by the way.
How convenient.
Banjo64
cumsessed
You’re like a cute puppyThe proof is the current slate of games Activision is making for Nintendo is the proof. As I've stated numerous times no title is guaranteed on any platform. Case and point.
Four was on Xbox so of course Five will be right? Activision has no current plans on making Nintendo games right now and there is no guarantee that will happen in the future. MS has provided Nintendo a contract to get that guarantee for their biggest IP. It's OK to acknowledge that this deal benefits multiple parties not just MS.
It is objectively true that more parties will gain access to CoD and Activision employees will benefit than if this deal does not happen. You want to talk proof? Show that the multiple points I mentioned earlier would all still happen should this deal be blocked. This is much bigger than Sony and PlayStation. A platform, I might add, that will also still receive CoD by the way.
How convenient.
Yeah, there’s not many but that’s a good one. Someone had said that XBL was worth it in the 360 era due to the dedicated servers which is just revisionism. I paid for Gold but only because I liked Gears and Halo. The voice chat, messaging, parties etc were a league above PS3. Whether that’s worth £40 a year was down to the individual but game play wise the 360 and PS3 offered a near identical experience for online games.
GHG
Member
Imagine being this hurt about SFV after all these years.
Here, it's $3.65 and runs on a potato, go play it:
https://gg.deals/game/street-fighter-v/
Here, it's $3.65 and runs on a potato, go play it:
https://gg.deals/game/street-fighter-v/
Warablo
Member
I said IF I WAS Microsoft
and if I can't choose which I want out of the company then I simply wouldn't purchase the CoD devs unless I knew for sure I could get all three to continue business as usual.
Don't think Microsoft cares that much about Blizzard, even though they would be beneficial add-ons.
Last edited:
bitbydeath
Gold Member
You’re remembering wrong, Sony was using PS3’s as servers.
MS had nothing like it at the time.
feynoob
Gold Member
How is twitter fight going?
splattered
Member
DrFigs
Member
It was said a lot back then because Xbox gamers needed a justification for paying for online. But the experience was largely the same. With 2 major exceptions.You’re like a cute puppy
Yeah, there’s not many but that’s a good one. Someone had said that XBL was worth it in the 360 era due to the dedicated servers which is just revisionism. I paid for Gold but only because I liked Gears and Halo. The voice chat, messaging, parties etc were a league above PS3. Whether that’s worth £40 a year was down to the individual but game play wise the 360 and PS3 offered a near identical experience for online games.
1. When psn went offline for a while
2. it seemed that cod devs in particular did not care about patching ps3 versions of their games. They became almost immediately unplayable on ps3 once the next game came out, but seemed to do better on 360. But that seems like an Activision problem.
Last edited:
SoloKingRobert
Banned
That's because Microsoft became successful..... If you create something like that you've failed..!You’re remembering wrong, Sony was using PS3’s as servers.
MS had nothing like it at the time.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
What are you talking about?
Dick Jones
Gold Member
He is saying the MS is successful and Sony is a failure.
Also MS needs to buy ABK to compete with Sony.
GHG
Member
My man, if I want to play call of duty I will buy it when I want to play it, even if its at the time of release.
It's funny how all these #notafanboy #iownallconsoles clowns tend to be the ones most butthurt about exclusives. Something doesn't quite add up.
Astray
Member
My friend, no one at Microsoft publicly said that phrase, it was found out via basically the same process that we're all going through now: Regulatory challenge.
I think both Sony and Microsoft will be found to have said worse, but it will all be redacted to us.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
That’s not even the argument. This was about the revisionist history of someone saying Xbox had dedicated servers before PlayStation.
Which is incorrect.
mansoor1980
Member
what is the date for the final hearing
Last edited:
DryvBy
Member
They could maybe put out games people like when it just them? They end up buying companies, the games they're working on launch then they have nothing from the same great studio.
The problem is MS isn't in this to make games. They're in this to make money by charging fees. This is why they keep acquiring big names and doing what I said above.
splattered
Member
GHG
Member
This exactly my issue with them. Their vision for gaming (subscriptions + cloud) doesn't align with what I see as healthy for the industry. I also have serious issues with their management of their games and game studios. When you judge them on games that they developed from scratch that have released over the last decade it doesn't look great. I fully expect them to Rare the shit out of Bethesda and also Activision if they manage to get them.
They got it right with the original console and the 360 but since then it's been steadily downhill. Overall I don't see anything changing until there's a management change at the highest level. A company with their resources should be doing a million times better than they have been in recent times.
You decided to interject. I wasn't talking about you, and I never was. Unless you're going to tell me you've been complaining about SFV all these years too?
Cheezewizz
Banned
You seem really confident here, so let's see how it plays out.
While there were definitely some people who went overboard cheerleading it, the two experiences weren't the same. XBL was exponentially more stable vs PSN, and had more features. PSN wasn't even capable of having party chat. Despite the flaws in their system being pointed out, Sony chose to incompetently do nothing which ultimately lead to PSN being hacked. Not that they did themselves any favors by secretly waiting 2 weeks before they told anybody about it.
Considering the things I mentioned above, it's pretty flimsy to say that MS "told them to start charging for it". While MS was definitely erring on the side of greedy to charge for online play, they at least offered a stable and fully functional service while Sony most certainly did not. When the XB1/PS4 released, Xbox made some mind boggling decisions of which MS felt the immediate results of. Meanwhile the kind of people you're referring to didn't utter so much as peep at Sony announcing that they would now be charging for online having just spent an entire gen utterly failing to provide a even a competent one.
Stupid is nothing more than someone's opinion. So confidently insisting you're right, and calling such large swathes of the general population stupid might not be such a good idea if you immediately follow it with that kind of argument.
nikolino840
Member
I don't how how can be unhealhty...maybe is true but not unhealthy for consumers...
Do you knows the 5 whys for the problem solving? Can you ask 5 times why is unhealthy to try to find the root of the problem? Just an experment maybe is usless this time
but at work the company where I work their are trying to use the "toyota method" to find problems and work betterhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_whys
Cheezewizz
Banned
Well that's one way to prove you weren't gaming during that time. Of course I would chalk it up to you just making an honest mistake, except that you doubled down on the whole thing with your supposed narrative and excuses.
It was exactly the opposite of what you just described. PSN couldn't even implement something as simple as party chat up until the PS4 released. Stability, up time, performance, features, and security were leagues better on XBL compared to PSN.
"When Xbox caught up"
Xbox was caught up the first second they released it.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
Aside from the massive security incident, no.Well that's one way to prove you weren't gaming during that time. Of course I would chalk it up to you just making an honest mistake, except that you doubled down on the whole thing with your supposed narrative and excuses.
It was exactly the opposite of what you just described. PSN couldn't even implement something as simple as party chat up until the PS4 released. Stability, up time, performance, features, and security were leagues better on XBL compared to PSN.
"When Xbox caught up"
Xbox was caught up the first second they released it.
Up time wasn’t an issue, and you avoided my point on dedicated servers, I didn’t mention anything else.
He's right though with regard to dedicated servers. P2P was relatively new and PSN had more dedicated server games. It was behind on everything else though at launch. No trophies, poor party chat, etc.Well that's one way to prove you weren't gaming during that time. Of course I would chalk it up to you just making an honest mistake, except that you doubled down on the whole thing with your supposed narrative and excuses.
It was exactly the opposite of what you just described. PSN couldn't even implement something as simple as party chat up until the PS4 released. Stability, up time, performance, features, and security were leagues better on XBL compared to PSN.
"When Xbox caught up"
Xbox was caught up the first second they released it.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
A reminder that the "gamers" used the same arguments as the FTC. The FTC would be more organized and follow procedure better giving them a longer shelf life in court, but the fate of their similarly weak arguments would meet the same outcome. Just like when the FTC lost to Meta in Federal Court.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Nope! It makes Microsoft's case even stronger. In order for something to be considered a relevant consumer benefit it needs to be merger-specific, something that would not have occurred absent the merger.
Activision goes into detail, calling out multiple instances where the CMA blatantly misrepresents its internal documents and uses one-off remarks by lower-level people to claim that they would embrace cloud gaming despite all top management and decision-makers making it crystal clear in internal documents and all testimony that they believe the increased local processing of mobile devices is a far better strategy for Activision going forward rather than embracing the cloud.
Long story short, the evidence appears overwhelming that Activision does not believe in cloud gaming and would have never put their games onto such services, and the only reason it's happening at all is because Microsoft is buying activision. They have said in their response to the CMA that their internal documents prove overwhelmingly they would have never made the cloud deals Microsoft has. That reality and set of facts makes any attempt by the CMA to block the deal significantly more difficult. It does not make their task, if it is to block, easier.
Topher
Gold Member
Too late and no one cares. Did you get banned from twitter or something?
DarkMage619
$MSFT
You have a time frame of this alleged philosophy? I assume this is pretty recent yes? It obviously isn't part of the Xbox strategy seeing how they've been in third place in console since inception. Maybe they'll extinguish from the back or something.
Still pretty funny to see people argue that Activision would make all these moves absent the acquisition so therefore MS has no reason to purchase them. Alternate reality stuff along with MS putting bugs in PlayStation games to hurt their platform.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Topher
Gold Member
You mean Sen the condescending asshole?
Gee……I don’t know
Edit: I do not know of any other person here who pretends they bless this forum with their presence. Do you? If he were a pro-Sony guy, I guarantee you my attitude would be the same.
Last edited:
BrokenPixels
Banned
Not good industry futureI don't how how can be unhealhty...maybe is true but not unhealthy for consumers...
Do you knows the 5 whys for the problem solving? Can you ask 5 times why is unhealthy to try to find the root of the problem? Just an experment maybe is usless this time
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_whys
Company history consolidation
Direct purchase market
Game quality decline less big games to risk no profit for developers
お金があっても見返りがなければ、リスクを負うことはありません。
Mismanagement studios
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked