Support NeoGAF

[MarkMe2525]

Nobody is referring to that quote. Read the EC documents.

You are right, no one is referring to the quote where he clarifies his (MS's lawyers) statements that were missrepresented.

 

[drganon]

I find it interesting that that these people devote so much time warring about gaming platforms all day in GAF, particularly they seem to have more interest in platforms of the people they are warring with then the ones they own. They have so much free time to attack anyone they see on the internet whose choices in platform does not allign with them, that it sometimes bothers if this is some kind of real job. Now these people have the nerve to tell me I have mental illness.
If you step back and think, the very fact that someone devotes so much time all day to talk about a platform he does not invest in and getting trigerred over anyone not having the same platform choices as him, should be more of a cause of concern then me replying to posts saying "Phil Spencer is lying because Bethesda is exclusive".

Says the weirdo stalking anyone who doesn't agree with him. Go get some therapy.

 

[MarkMe2525]

Nobody is referring to that quote. Read the EC documents.

You are right, no one is referring to the quote where he clarifies his (actually MS's lawyers) statements that were missrepresented.

T Three "The notifying party submits that Microsoft has strong incentives to continue to make Zenimax games available on rival consoles (and their storefronts). "

Are Zenimax games not available on rival consoles?

Edit: I meant to edit last post. Not double post..... My bad

 

[ToadMan]

Why would a direct quote from a third-party help convince me more than the actual EC document? Here you go:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021M10001&qid=1677718087174&from=EN

The "Notifying Party" is defined as Microsoft. The EC's own website shows that:

1. Microsoft did claim that they have no incentive to cease or limit making ZeniMax games available for purchase on rival consoles (section 114 specifically, but really all of 107 through 114).
2. The EC actually DID consider this information during the acquisition (section 115).

I kept the page numbers I was on in the screenshots I took as well. Just to help you find the info yourself in case you think that's somehow doctored or that I'm cherry picking.

Which goes to show that while MS claimed (and I believe them) that there would be a hit to their revenue by going exclusive, they are prepared to take the hit to coerce gamers to their platform (attempting to form a monopoly by the FTC definition).

So the part about no incentive to foreclose certainly is (and probably was prior to the Zeni acquisition) just a smoke screen by MS as it is now for ABK.

As the CMA pointed out, prior to the Zeni acquisition, there had been 26 games of which 24 were multiplat. Contrast to post acquisition…


Actually looking at the CMA and FTC analysis I’m wondering if this is why MS stealth dropped Hi Fi Rush. That would have been yet another mutliplat cancelled to exclusive to rack up against them.

Not that it matters now, but both the FTC and CMA docs specifically refer to ES6, Redfall and Starfield as examples of post acquisition behavior. Add a fourth title to that list for Hi Fi rush and suddenly that 24/26 prior to acquisition has become 4/4 post acquisition.

Not really in keeping with the “no incentives to take games exclusive” claim.

 

[ToadMan]

MS removed Zenimax games from other platform store fronts after the purchase?

That wasn’t the issue at stake.

 

[Three]

You are right, no one is referring to the quote where he clarifies his statements that were missrepresented.

T Three "The notifying party submits that Microsoft has strong incentives to continue to make Zenimax games available on rival consoles (and their storefronts). "

Are Zenimax games not available on rival consoles?

Not sure why you posted twice but if you honestly think that profitability for MS becomes implausible over the lifetime of the" newly released console" based on old games getting patches I don't know what to tell you. Those games would barely be making anything in comparison and it wouldn't be a strong incentive. They could remove them tomorrow and barely make a dent to profitability.

"Continue to make Zenimax games available" isn't referring to old games but you choose to read it that way. The regulators didn't read it that way either and raised this issue in their court case.

 

[Gobjuduck]

GAF knows more than Microsoft’s lawyers.

Microsoft didn’t deceive the EC.

If you want to play starfield on your PS5, call and ask Sony to allow gamepass on their platform.

 

[Bernardougf]

Delusional apologists.... people have so little integrity that is baffling

 

[Topher]

If you want to play starfield on your PS5, call and ask Sony to allow gamepass on their platform.

Then why is it that Starfield will be available on Steam?

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

So Sony exclusive deals that aren't known....?

Some indie titles and maybe BioShock? I doubt there's anything too major tbh.

 

[DForce]

GAF knows more than Microsoft’s lawyers.

Microsoft didn’t deceive the EC.

If you want to play starfield on your PS5, call and ask Sony to allow gamepass on their platform.

They did.

There's a reason why they're bringing up Zenimax.

This conversation about Starfield wouldn't be a topic if XboxGAF wasn't too busy damage controlling for Microsoft. You guys think people are dumb enough to believe your excuses lol

 

[Gobjuduck]

Then why is it that Starfield will be available on Steam?

Because : )

 

[ToadMan]

Franchises are not protected from going exclusive, unless that was set before the deal, which it never was (nothing binding was set, except this vague statement from xbox didnt SWAY the legal process). TES 6 wasn't promised to any platform before the deal.

From the regulatory perspective this all doesnt matter.

Before acquisition Zeni had 24 out of 26 games release as mutliplat.

After acquisition they are 4/4 MS exclusive despite MS saying they’d have no incentive to take this content exclusive and even saying they’d need a lot of players to come to xbox to make it fiscally rational. Yet they made them exclusive anyway - are MS fiscally irrational or was that just bluff to get the deal passed?

Now project that to ABK. That’s why the deal is blocked pending suitable remediation by MS. They’re either irrational or prone to bluffing the regulators - choose which you prefer.

MS made a rod for their own backs either way.

 

[Gobjuduck]

They did.

Find me a source where the European Comission says they were deceived.

Not some misinterpretation from the outside.

 

[MarkMe2525]

Not sure why you posted twice but if you honestly think that profitability for MS becomes implausible over the lifetime of the" newly released console" based on old games getting patches I don't know what to tell you. Those games would barely be making anything in comparison and it wouldn't be a strong incentive. They could remove them tomorrow and barely make a dent to profitability.

"Continue to make Zenimax games available" isn't referring to old games but you choose to read it that way. The regulators didn't read it that way either and raised this issue in their court case.

First off, you are right that a false argument was presented by a FTC lawyer. They misinterpreted the statement, much like yourself. That is why the EC, which had no confusion on the matter, corrected them.

Secondly. That's exactly what it says. What you want it to say is "Continue to make all future games available", but it doesn't. There is just no other way to put it other than you are wrong. There are Zenimax games available on other store fronts and there will continue to be. They very well could have pulled all content, not under contract, and made it exclusive to Xbox and game pass, but they assured the appropriate parties that they would not. Edit: They did not assure they would not, they stated they didn't have much of an incentive to do so.

This is a document for a legal preceding. They say exactly what they mean. There are Zenimax games available on other store fronts and there will continue to be. Who knows, they may even release more, but in no way did they aledge that they would do this for all if any games.

That wasn’t the issue at stake.

I'm aware, I was raising a point

 

[Topher]

Because : )

Exactly

 

[Gobjuduck]

Exactly

Software platform is different than hardware. Also steam is a large asset for supporting the longevity of Bethesda’s big games.

Why are we always talking about Sony. Why doesn’t gaf cry about starfield on switch.

 

[DForce]

Find me a source where the European Comission says they were deceived.

Not some misinterpretation from the outside.

"Not some misinterpretation."

The FTC and the CMA are misinterpreting the report? It's in the report in MS' words, they don't need to state it specifically when it's there.

 

[bitbydeath]

Find me a source where the European Comission says they were deceived.

Not some misinterpretation from the outside.

Let’s be honest, you still wouldn’t believe it.

 

[Gobjuduck]

Let’s be honest, you still wouldn’t believe it.

lol. It doesn’t exist, so yea.

 

[Topher]

Software platform is different than hardware. Also steam is a large asset for supporting the longevity of Bethesda’s big games.

Oh....I thought it was all about Game Pass. You acted like that was a prerequisite. Seems it is not.

Why are we always talking about Sony. Why doesn’t gaf cry about starfield on switch.

You were the one talking about Sony so ask yourself, "gaf"

 

[Alex Scott]

Oh, so they haven't removed games from other platforms.

Edit: here is the quote.
"And if you go back to the Zenimax titles, all of the Zenimax games that we said are gonna ship on PlayStation, we have shipped on PlayStation. All of the games when we acquired Zenimax that were available on PlayStation, at the time that we acquired them, we have continued to do content updates on PlayStation and PC."
It sounds more like people took what he said out of context... That almost never happens.

That quote is after the acquisition not before. I think that mattes.

 

[MarkMe2525]

That quote is after the acquisition not before. I think that mattes.

I posted the original afterwards. It states that "MS has strong incentives to continue to make Zenimax games available on rival platforms." That's exactly what they have done. No game has been removed from any rival platforms and they continue to make them available.

I just posted this, but the confusion comes from the misinterpretion that it means "continue to make all future Zenimax games" which it does not. MS were referring to a scenario where they bought Zenimax and pulled all the content not under contract from rival storefronts, and make them exclusive to MS platforms. This, of course, then becomes the narrative.

 

[Gobjuduck]

Oh....I thought it was all about Game Pass. You acted like that was a prerequisite. Seems it is not.

By xbox's word, platforms with Game Pass. Steam is a software platform, so the interpretation of platforms can be different. Most steam users are on Microsoft's windows platform. Xbox isnt the only platform that has this weird underlying vagueness revolving around exclusivity. PlayStation is very vague with its exclusivity deals, especially death stranding, FF 7R, and FF16.

"Not some misinterpretation."

The FTC and the CMA are misinterpreting the report?

Yes they are.

 

[DForce]

I posted the original afterwards. It states that "MS has strong incentives to continue to make Zenimax games available on rival platforms." That's exactly what they have done. No game has been removed from any rival platforms and they continue to make them available.

I just posted this, but the confusion comes from the misinterpretion that it means "continue to make all future Zenimax games" which it does not. MS were referring to a scenario where they bought Zenimax and pulled all the content not under contract from rival storefronts. This, of course, then becomes the narrative.

The FTC said MS assured them that they have no incentives to move Starfield and Redfall from PlayStation.

Why is that so difficult to understand? We already know they were going to keep current games available on the console, but they specifically mentioned REDFALL and STARFIELD.

Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[DForce]

Yes they are.

They are? Did you read the report they're referring to?

 

[Three]

First off, you are right that a false argument was presented by a FTC lawyer. They misinterpreted the statement, much like yourself. That is why the EC, which had no confusion on the matter, corrected them.

The EC didn't correct them. The EC told a journalist that MS had not made any commitments but said they would not comment on the paragraph in question.

You also make it seem like just some FTC lawyer "made a false statement and misinterpreted the argument" yet in the CMA provisional findings Feb 8th you also have:

"We note that, in the context of the European Commission merger
investigation in the Microsoft/ZeniMax acquisition whose report was published in March 2021, Microsoft submitted it had strong incentives to continue making ZeniMax games available for rival consoles (and their related storefronts). Microsoft’s decisions described above regarding new titles Starfield and Redfall, and the suggestion of future exclusive releases in the Elder Scrolls franchise on Xbox, which reveal its real-world incentives,
strongly suggest that static incentives analyses developed in the context of a
merger inquiry may fail to capture significant unstated commercial incentives."

Secondly. That's exactly what it says. What you want it to say is "Continue to make all future games available", but it doesn't. There is just no other way to put it other than you are wrong.

If you're still adamant that everybody else is reading it wrong, including 2 regulatory bodies go back and read the MS statement again too. How would old Zenimax games on rival consoles have a significant share of sales over the lifetime of the newly released consoles?

Newly released games like starfield, ES6, Redfall etc would trounce everything old that's barely selling currently.

 

[MarkMe2525]

The FTC said MS assured them that they have no incentives to move Starfield and Redfall from PlayStation.

Why is that so difficult to understand? We already know they were going to keep current games available on the console, but they specifically mentioned REDFALL and STARFIELD.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Nope, an FTC lawyer referred to the quote I posted and argued that MS assured the EU that they would release future games on playstation. This of course was incorrect and the EUC even made a public statement correcting the FTC lawyer of his misinterpretion.

T Three https://gamerant.com/eu-contradicts-ftc-claim-microsoft-activision-blizzard-acquisition/

 

[Alex Scott]

I posted the original afterwards. It states that "MS has strong incentives to continue to make Zenimax games available on rival platforms." That's exactly what they have done. No game has been removed from any rival platforms and they continue to make them available.

I just posted this, but the confusion comes from the misinterpretion that it means "continue to make all future Zenimax games" which it does not. MS were referring to a scenario where they bought Zenimax and pulled all the content not under contract from rival storefronts, and make them exclusive to MS platforms. This, of course, then becomes the narrative.

EU likely was refering to all major future games. EU approved it without any remedies because they thought it wouldn't hurt playstation(likely right). MS did have the incentive to make games exclusive, but EU approved it with this in mind. FTC and CMA are right about MS having the incentive to foreclose games including COD. Both are not misrepresenting EU.



Edit: Grammar

 

[MarkMe2525]

The EC didn't correct them. The EC told a journalist that MS had not made any commitments but said they would not comment on the paragraph in question.

You also make it seem like just some FTC lawyer "made a false statement and misinterpreted the argument" yet in the CMA provisional findings Feb 8th you also have:

"We note that, in the context of the European Commission merger
investigation in the Microsoft/ZeniMax acquisition whose report was published in March 2021, Microsoft submitted it had strong incentives to continue making ZeniMax games available for rival consoles (and their related storefronts).542 Microsoft’s decisions described above regarding new titles Starfield and Redfall, and the suggestion of future exclusive releases in the Elder Scrolls franchise on Xbox, which reveal its real-world incentives,
strongly suggest that static incentives analyses developed in the context of a
merger inquiry may fail to capture significant unstated commercial incentives."



If you're still adamant that everybody else is reading it wrong, including 2 regulatory bodies go back and read the MS statement again too. How would old Zenimax games on rival consoles have a significant share of sales over the lifetime of the newly released consoles?

Newly released games like starfield, ES6, Redfall etc would trounce everything old that's barely selling currently.

https://gamerant.com/eu-contradicts-ftc-claim-microsoft-activision-blizzard-acquisition/ It's right there for you to read. The EU was not confused as you claim. I'm sorry that you let forum users mislead your interpretation of the original MS statement. That's why we should leave this stuff to the lawyers.

What makes this so ridiculous is MS has even followed their statement to the T. Then Phil clarified the incorrect misrepresentation in my original quote I presented you. If it's not clear that you are reading it wrong as of yet, I don't know what to tell you man. It quite literally does not say what you claim it says.

 

[DForce]

Nope, an FTC lawyer referred to the quote I posted and argued that MS assured the EUC that they would release future games on playstation. This of course was incorrect and the EUC even made a public statement correcting the FTC lawyer of his misinterpretion.

No, MS said there was no commitment made and that was backed up by the EUC.

You don't understand the difference, do you? MS didn't deny making that statement, they said there was no commitment. So it basically, "Yeah, we said it, but there was never a commitment."

So you have FTC and CMA pointing out the same exact thing.
Then you have Microsoft basically telling the FTC there was never a commitment made without actually denying making the statement.

 

[feynoob]

So will TES 6 be released on PS5?
Cause you know, there's a playerbase already on PlayStation for the franchise.

I have no dogfight in this shit, but franchises arent tied to a platform.
FF games are missing out on xbox, despite some ff games being on Xbox and have playerbase on that device.

in short, having a playerbase on other device doesnt guarentee you their next installment.

Best example is SF5, now 6 is going back to Xbox.

Its all about the money, and how much money you are going to lose from that platform.

 

[MarkMe2525]

No, MS said there was no commitment made and that was backed up by the EUC.

You don't understand the difference, do you? MS didn't deny making that statement, they said there was no commitment. So it basically, "Yeah, we said it, but there was never a commitment."

So you have FTC and CMA pointing out the same exact thing.
Then you have Microsoft basically telling the FTC there was never a commitment made without actually denying making the statement.

I understand exactly what I'm saying. Unlike your position, I don't have to add implied words to their statement to come to my conclusion. MS stated they would continue to make Zenimax games available, and they have.

 

[Topher]

By xbox's word, platforms with Game Pass. Steam is a software platform, so the interpretation of platforms can be different. Most steam users are on Microsoft's windows platform. Xbox isnt the only platform that has this weird underlying vagueness revolving around exclusivity. PlayStation is very vague with its exclusivity deals, especially death stranding, FF 7R, and FF16.

"Xbox's word" didn't make a distinction between hardware and software platforms at all. Steam is a platform where Game Pass does not exist. And factually, Phil Spencer has reiterated that this will be a "case by case" basis without mentioning Game Pass at all. So no, the answer is Game Pass has nothing to do with it.

 

[Gobjuduck]

EU likely was refering to all major future games. EU approved it without any remedies because they thought it wouldn't hurt playstation(likely right). MS did have the incentive to make games exclusive, but EU approved it with this in mind. FTC and CMA are right about MS having the incentive to foreclose games including COD. Both are not misrepresenting EU.

Xbox has presented a 10-year deal to its competition, which would span about 2 console generations. PlayStation would have 10 years at the least to form studios that can compete in the online FPS market. Sony saying they are not capable is misleading.

The CMA and FTC shouldn't be concerned, because xbox has kept Minecraft and all its side titles multiplatform. Phil said that CoD specifically would remain multiplatform, in the same way minecraft has. In a recent interview he reiterated that he never promised Bethesda games to remain multiplatform indefinitely.

 

[Three]

Nope, an FTC lawyer referred to the quote I posted and argued that MS assured the EU that they would release future games on playstation. This of course was incorrect and the EUC even made a public statement correcting the FTC lawyer of his misinterpretion.

T Three https://gamerant.com/eu-contradicts-ftc-claim-microsoft-activision-blizzard-acquisition/

You're going off incorrect information from gamerant who ironically misinterpreted some comments. The EU said it made no commitments with MS because it didn't see any harm even if it were to do it but did not comment on the paragraph being misleading or not.

"European competition commission says that it has no comment on whether it agrees that Microsoft didn’t stay true to its assurances to the EU on ZeniMax"

Go back and read comments about this:

The EC responded to reporters saying that it made no commitments with MS regarding the Zenimax deal because some people thought that they had turned back on a commitment. The EC made no comment on whether it agrees that Microsoft didn’t stay true to its assurances though.

This isn't the EU backstabbing the FTC. They very likely communicate with the FTC and work closely.

Didn't answer the question too. Do you think a significant share of game sales would be old titles on PS compared to new releases?

I'm sorry that you let forum users mislead your interpretation of the original MS statement. That's why we should leave this stuff to the lawyers.

Why did you ignore the fact that the CMA read it the same as everyone else too like the FTC? They aren't forum users like yourself, they're the lawyers.

 

[DForce]

I understand exactly what I'm saying. Unlike your position, I don't have to add implied words to their statement to come to my conclusion. MS stated they would continue to make Zenimax games available, and they have.

You don't understand what they're saying. That's already been made clear. MS only denied making a commitment and that was obvious from the beginning that a commitment was never made. MS said a lot of things and that's just one of them. You're ignoring that it was reported from the March 2021 report what MS told the EU.

 

[bitbydeath]

lol. It doesn’t exist, so yea.

Notice how you didn’t deny it, that’s my point.

 

[MarkMe2525]

You don't understand what they're saying. That's already been made clear. MS only denied making a commitment and that was obvious from the beginning that a commitment was never made. MS said a lot of things and that's just one of them. You're ignoring that it was reported from the March 2021 report what MS told the EU.

I'm literally quoting the March 2021 document, paragraph 107.
"The notifying party submits that Microsoft has strong incentives to continue to make Zenimax games available on rival consoles (and their storefronts). "

This was misinterpreted generally as "continue to make (all or future) Zenimax games available".

 

[MarkMe2525]

Didn't answer the question too. Do you think a significant share of game sales would be old titles on PS compared to new releases?


Why did you ignore the fact that the CMA read it the same as everyone else too like the FTC? They aren't forum users like yourself, they're the lawyers.

Yes, the lawyers who hastly (general sentiment from gaming industry of course barring Sony) sued MS are misrepresenting their statements.

I'm not really interested in going down some rabbit hole regarding questions that have no bearing on the discussion at hand. The debate is if MS means exactly what they said, or somehow, meant something else. I prefer to go with the published statement that has since been corroborated by the head of Xbox.

 

[MScarpa]

This thread is still going strong. What's the consensus this week?

 

[Topher]

This thread is still going strong. What's the consensus this week?

FTC will approve Microsoft's acquisition of Sega.........on Wednesday.

 

[graywolf323]

the mental gymnastics going on in this thread certainly would have won the gold in Beijing

 

[Raonak]

Best Outcome: MS gets Activision, but then have to release all AB+Bethesda games on PS5.

 

[Three]

Yes, the lawyers who hastly (general sentiment from gaming industry of course barring Sony) sued MS are misrepresenting their statements.

I'm not really interested in going down some rabbit hole regarding questions that have no bearing on the discussion at hand. The debate is if MS means exactly what they said, or somehow, meant something else. I prefer to go with the published statement that has since been corroborated by the head of Xbox.

Except you're ignoring the fact that exactly what they said can and has been interpreted the way the FTC, CMA and I have interpreted it.

"Continue to make Zenimax games available"
makes no reference to old titles but you wish to interpret it that way. That's fine but don't suggest everyone elses interpretation is wrong and yours is correct.

You also said the EC "corrected the FTC", they didn’t. They said they made no commitments but will make no comment on MS' assurances to the EC.

Still haven't answered the question. Would a significant share of Zenimax sales be old titles on PS over the lifetime of the newly released consoles thereby making removal of these titles implausible?

 

[DForce]

I'm literally quoting the March 2021 document, paragraph 107.
"The notifying party submits that Microsoft has strong incentives to continue to make Zenimax games available on rival consoles (and their storefronts). "

This was misinterpreted generally as "continue to make (all or future) Zenimax games available".

[Microsoft’s strategy regarding ZeniMax games].
Therefore, according to the Notifying Party, Microsoft would not have the incentive to cease or limit making ZeniMax games available for purchase on rival consoles.

(123) [Microsoft’s future strategy regarding ZeniMax games]. 128
(124) Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the Commission concludes that the combined entity would not have the incentive to foreclose rival console video game distributors by engaging in a total or partial input foreclosure strategy.

Do you see the difference? You only quoted the part that talks about current games when they're talking about both current AND future Zenimax games.

BOTH instances it has been stated that they have no incentive to remove the titles.

If they were talking about existing games, then they wouldn't talk about the future titles.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

the mental gymnastics going on in this thread certainly would have won the gold in Beijing

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

This thread is still going strong. What's the consensus this week?

Phill is a liar
still arguing about Starfield's exclusivity.
MS is going to sell Xbox if the deal fails
Phil keeps lying.
Sony's dirty laundry is going to get exposed.

 

[Silent Viper]

Let’s be honest, you still wouldn’t believe it.

There's nothing believe. EU clearly said they were not deceived.

They never promised any exclusively.

Some of you all acting stupid just like Sony's Jimbo.

 

[quest]

Best Outcome: MS gets Activision, but then have to release all AB+Bethesda games on PS5.

Sure and Sony has to cancel any agreement with major studios for anything exclusive and can't make them anymore.