jshaver488
Member
This is true. Their average review since the new consoles launched is in the top 5%. That’s top tier
-
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
Bojanglez
The Amiga Brotherhood
Likewise it's possible to not interact with fans and make games. All people really care about is the games either way
azertydu91
Hard to Kill
And then there's Konami ... doing neither.Likewise it's possible to not interact with fans and make games. All people really care about is the games either way
GHG
Member
No need to be sorry, what you need is something to back up what you're claiming here.
This was the first document we got from the CMA containing any information from Microsoft/Sony regarding the deal. If you can point me towards a statement or a document where Sony states what you are asserting that is dated prior to the date the CMA document was published then I'd be more than interested in taking a look.
What you will find is that this was the sequence of events:
- The CMA made it clear that they did not consider Nintendo to be a close competitor of Microsoft and Sony and thus discounted them from much of their considerations due to them (Nintendo) operating in a different segment of the market.
- The CMA backed this up by referencing Microsoft's own internal documents that were provided to them along with questioning other 3rd party industry participants on the matter.
- Sony then agreed with the above information, solidifying the CMA's stance to discount Nintendo and further claimed that Microsoft wanted to "turn them into Nintendo".
Here is the document I've quoted in the screenshot above:
https://assets.publishing.service.g...533/MSFT.ABK_phase_1_decision_-_1.09.2022.pdf
Dated 12th October 2022 in terms of when it became public.
Let me know what you find.
Last edited:
Unknown Soldier
Member
Kotick already said he isn't going anywhere.
Imagine wanting the guy who made ATVI consistently very profitable in an industry famous for boom and bust cycles gone lol
avin
Member
All people really care about is the games either way
Even a cursory look at this board, and at this thread, would indicate that can't be true.
avin
GHG
Member
Ok so you just want to ignore the facts at hand. Got it. I've shown you how the market definition came about in this case from it's inception but you're choosing to ignore it.
Always the same, always reinforced by the same people. It's unfortunate but not unexpected, feelings over facts, always.
Edit:
And as always, citation needed. The results might surprise you in terms of who it was that said this.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
They would outright block it if “cloud gaming” is their most pressing concern.
feynoob
Member
Wont happen. Cloud is a nascent market.
Doing a behavioral remedies would benefit that market, compared to blocking this deal.
https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2023/02/23/geforce-now-thursday-feb-23/
This is type of deal that is very beneficial to this market.
Warablo
Member
Ok so you just want to ignore the facts at hand. Got it. I've shown you how the market definition came about in this case from it's inception but you're choosing to ignore it.
Always the same, always reinforced by the same people. It's unfortunate but not unexpected, feelings over facts, always.
Edit:
And as always, citation needed. The results might surprise you in terms of who it was that said this.
Sony to CMA
Page 7, number 13 https://assets.publishing.service.g...6b8043d8cd/Sony_Interactive_Entertainment.pdf
Last edited:
GHG
Member
Are you trying to trigger people?
Look, if people get triggered by facts then so be it.
Hero of Spielberg
Member
You mean Phil isn’t working away on Starfield at his desk when he gets a tap on the shoulder asking him to do some PR … ‘game development can wait Phil, we need you out there talking to the people! And take out the trash while you’re at it’ then Phil sets his status to ‘All MS game development on hold’ as he gets up to leave the office?
GHG
Member
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Yeah, they’re soft, we know.
Yoboman
Member
I'm consistently amazed how none of you have actually read the complaints.
You don't need a monopoly to have anti competitive effects.
feynoob
Member
Wonder if ftc can be bribed?
They are huge obstacle in the US and can drag this shit for too long.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Plenty of fans appreciate the interaction with people who are responsible for supporting their hobby. I've seen many PlayStation fans wish for more interaction. Game making and fan interaction are not mutually exclusive.Likewise it's possible to not interact with fans and make games. All people really care about is the games either way
GHG
Member
Exactly, this is dated after the the CMA's findings (in fact, it is a response to the CMA's findings regarding Nintendo and their standing in the market). Please read it and tell me who is saying what. What is "The Decision" that they clearly reference and whom does "The Decision" originate from?:
Embarrassing.
feynoob
Member
MS can theoritically do a long term contract with big publishers for gamepass day1, and that will seriously harm Sony business for a long term.I'm consistently amazed how none of you have actually read the complaints.
You don't need a monopoly to have anti competitive effects.
They dont need monopoly position to harm them.
This is people shouting on a fancy word that they dont understand.
feynoob
Member
I would just leave this here.Exactly, this is dated after the the CMA's findings (in fact, it is a response to the CMA's findings regarding Nintendo and their standing in the market). Please read it and tell me who is saying what. What is "The Decision" that they clearly reference and whom does "The Decision" originate from?:
Embarrassing.
Yoboman
Member
Are you arguing that Microsoft didn't?
Why is this even an argument, it's the only definition that makes any sense when talking about COD
GHG
Member
This isn't about whether or not Sony agreed with it. Of course they agreed with it, it was to their benefit to do so and I've already stated as such.
Where did the market definition originate from? This was your original statement:
Based on the evidence above who was it that brought up Nintendo not being in the market and whom did they cite upon making said decision/statement?
Last edited:
Warablo
Member
I think any rational person would argue that Nintendo is in the console market.
Thought it was Sony (because of Microsoft citing Nintendo), then reaffirming between the CMA and them, but I don't have the documents on hand. Where are the statements before the CMA findings?
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
Exactly. Why the hell would Sony even be the one to bring Nintendo up? Revisionist nonsense.
BTW.....everyone wave to
Hendrick's
. He is on emoji duty. 
Yoboman
Member
Nintendo hasn't had a COD game in a decade. If they were concerned with every game ABK makes them they would use the console market, but they've only ever been concerned about COD
GHG
Member
All of the relevant documents have been linked and/or have had screenshots taken of the relevant excerpts throughout this discussion.
Hint: it wasn't Sony. It was the CMA, primarily due to Microsoft's internal documents disregarding them and secondarily due to quizzing third party market participants on the matter.
Last edited:
Warablo
Member
Didn't Sony have statements before the CMA findings?
I agree that they chose to ignore Nintendo because COD currently isn't on it.
Last edited:
Yoboman
Member
Yes glad we agree, what's the problem?
GHG
Member
There was no Sony statement beforehand.
Which is why I previously asked you to provide said fictional statement from Sony regarding Nintendo that predates the CMA's findings.
Warablo
Member
Would be interesting to know how that compares to Sony or Nintendo
Something 70-30 so probably Nintendo then Sony?
Who would be 90% in cloud gaming? Mobile? Sony? Nintendo(do they even have that)?
Last edited:
GHG
Member
Where and when?
Mr Moose
Member
KK社.
Warablo
Member
I listed my evidence, but he says it's farce because it was after the CMA.Bro just wants you to provide his evidence for him
Sorry if I was mistaken
POKEYCLYDE
Member
Microsoft would have had an easier time convincing the regulators that CoD did not have the ability to foreclose a console competitor by making CoD exclusive if Nintendo were counted as a competitor in the relevant market.
The regulators narrow the market as much as they can to try and build a case. The less competitors there are the higher the chance that material differences occur from the acquisition.
Microsoft had the easiest path forward by stating CoD isn't on Nintendo, so therefore CoD isn't important enough that losing access to it will foreclose competitors.
Instead, the regulators limited the console market to Playstation and Xbox, where Microsoft can show how dominant the Playstation is over the Xbox.
If the relevant market included Nintendo, the console SLC would have been gone a long time ago. So Microsoft fought to have Nintendo included in the relevant market, regulators narrowed it down to Sony and Microsoft using internal documents from Microsoft, whilst Sony praised the regulators on their correct market definition.
I don't really see how the console market definition is still playing a role as the console SLC has seemingly been dropped. We in the clouds now baby.
The regulators narrow the market as much as they can to try and build a case. The less competitors there are the higher the chance that material differences occur from the acquisition.
Microsoft had the easiest path forward by stating CoD isn't on Nintendo, so therefore CoD isn't important enough that losing access to it will foreclose competitors.
Instead, the regulators limited the console market to Playstation and Xbox, where Microsoft can show how dominant the Playstation is over the Xbox.
If the relevant market included Nintendo, the console SLC would have been gone a long time ago. So Microsoft fought to have Nintendo included in the relevant market, regulators narrowed it down to Sony and Microsoft using internal documents from Microsoft, whilst Sony praised the regulators on their correct market definition.
I don't really see how the console market definition is still playing a role as the console SLC has seemingly been dropped. We in the clouds now baby.
Topher
Gold Member
That's just the facts, dude. All good.
Bernardougf
Gold Member
You will play pachinko and you will like it!!!
Warablo
Member
This is a good summary why both parties wanted the market definition the way they wanted.
Last edited:
3liteDragon
Member
I actually forgot about this & didn't go through the updated PF recently from the CMA but did they remove their divestiture remedy recommendation in the updated findings?
Last edited:
feynoob
Member
If they didnt find any issue in the console market, then there is little incentive for divestment.
POKEYCLYDE
Member
Not too sure about the whole process, if a revision would include changes to their remedies. But I don't believe they mentioned any revised remedies.
I will say this though, behavioral remedies were always on the table, and Microsoft will have an easier time getting the CMA to accept behavioral remedies around the cloud than the console.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked