Support NeoGAF

[bitbydeath]

technicality its dead, if you wanna be pedantic, but its really not. This new deal will achieve the same effect. MS owning ABK. If the deal is dead, MS can't own ABK. Their is no indication the deal is dead. sorry.

The first deal is dead.
CMA shut it down for good.
MS created a new deal.

 

[bitbydeath]

They didn't reject the same solution last time.
After the CMA released its findings that the aquisition would not pose a problem with thr console space, everyone including MS thought it was a done deal. Then, out of nowhere they blocked it on cloud concerns.
MS made no concessions about selling off streaming rights to their games last time around.

For the CMA to go against the rules and ask the judge for an adornment, so they could work to see if MS can come up with a new deal, it signalled they were open to it.
Another thing is that MS and ABK would have been in ongoing consultation with the CMA all the way the through these negotiations. MS would have been well aware of what the CMA would be happy with before they presented this.

From the way I read it, and of course anything is possible, I think the CMA will accept it.

They rejected the requirement of timed deals because they didn’t want to monitor it.

 

[ReBurn]

The FTC appealed on deal 1, deal 1 is now dead so they’ll also be reassessing deal 2.

The FTC can assess all they want, but the deal doesn't require the FTC's approval to move forward. Unless they can get a judge to issue an injunction, which they weren't able to do before, the FTC is out of the picture.

 

[bitbydeath]

The FTC can assess all they want, but the deal doesn't require the FTC's approval to move forward. Unless they can get a judge to issue an injunction, which they weren't able to do before, the FTC is out of the picture.

The US is Xbox’s biggest market.
MS aren’t going to pull out to get the deal through, it is required.

 

[Ginzeen]

The first deal is dead.
CMA shut it down for good.
MS created a new deal.

MS is getting ABK still

 

[In Cold Blood]

They rejected the requirement of timed deals because they didn’t want to monitor it.

The only time the notion of timed deals came up was with COD and a 10 year contract with everyone.
However, as the CMA didn't see any issue with the console space, it was never a factor that the CMA ruled on.

In no part did MS mention a timed period for the divestiture of their cloud gaming rights.
On top of that, in the offer that MS put forward about the 10 year deal with COD, MS would have still been in charge of COD, and so could have changed their minds down the track.
In this case, MS is actually selling off their rights to a third party in Ubisoft, so MS wont be able to change their mind in a few years. There will be a binding contractual agreement with them, which no doubt they have already sent to the CMA.
They are two wildly different scenarios.

 

[bitbydeath]

The only time the notion of timed deals came up was with COD and a 10 year contract with everyone.
However, as the CMA didn't see any issue with the console space, it was never a factor that the CMA ruled on.

In no part did MS mention a timed period for the divestiture of their cloud gaming rights.
On top of that, in the offer that MS put forward about the 10 year deal with COD, MS would have still been in charge of COD, and so could have changed their minds down the track.
In this case, MS is actually selling off their rights to a third party in Ubisoft, so MS wont be able to change their mind in a few years. There will be a binding contractual agreement with them, which no doubt they have already sent to the CMA.
They are two wildly different scenarios.

CMA included it in their April rejection. It’s been discussed here easily over 100 if not a thousand times.

 

[ReBurn]

The US is Xbox’s biggest market.
MS aren’t going to pull out to get the deal through, it is required.

Why would Microsoft need to pull out of the US to close the deal? They already have clearance to close in the US. Just because the UK wants to start over from the beginning and pretend it's an entirely new deal doesn't mean every regulator who has already approved it will.

They could try to go back to court and argue that the cloud rights change is more harmful to consumers than before but anyone can see that it isn't. Microsoft can't use ABK games to influence the development of the cloud market for 15 years. When that time is up they can't pull games released during those 15 years away from other services. What could the FTC possibly argue differently a second time?

 

[bitbydeath]

MS is getting ABK still

And you thought the last one would go through without issue.

 

[bitbydeath]

Why would Microsoft need to pull out of the US to close the deal? They already have clearance to close in the US. Just because the UK wants to start over from the beginning and pretend it's an entirely new deal doesn't mean every regulator who has already approved it will.

They could try to go back to court and argue that the cloud rights change is more harmful to consumers than before but anyone can see that it isn't. Microsoft can't use ABK games to influence the development of the cloud market for 15 years. When that time is up they can't pull games released during those 15 years away from other services. What could the FTC possibly argue differently a second time?

I’m not arguing their case for them but a new deal means they can reopen.

 

[Ginzeen]

And you thought the last one would go through without issue.

Nope. I just said the deal will pass. And it will.

 

[ReBurn]

I’m not arguing their case for them but a new deal means they can reopen.

What you're not understanding is that whether they reopen or not the FTC does not have the power to stop it. It's not like the FTC approved it last time. They were just powerless to stop it. Unless the government has somehow given them new power in the past few months there's not much chance they would be able to stop it this time.

 

[bitbydeath]

Nope. I just said the deal will pass. And it will.

It didn’t though.

 

[bitbydeath]

What you're not understanding is that whether they reopen or not the FTC does not have the power to stop it. It's not like the FTC approved it last time. They were just powerless to stop it. Unless the government has somehow given them new power in the past few months there's not much chance they would be able to stop it this time.

True, their best power would be to stall.

 

[Ginzeen]

It didn’t though.

Because it's on going.

 

[Lunnarre]

Ginzeen bitbydeath

You two right now.

 

[X-Wing]

Major win? They should be focusing on their own shit and not rely on temporarily holding the bag for MS.

Just another sign of how badly run Ubisoft is.

Ubisoft has an excellent line up coming soon. Avatar, Prince of Persia, Star Wars. They just signed a deal that will give them content for their services for next 15 years without having to toss any development costs.
But sure, they should be doing something else because some random thinks so.

 

[jroc74]

Yeah, that's what a middle man is. Ubisoft selling Microsoft's product on PlayStation. And streaming only.

I stand by my original opinion. I really don't give a shit personally if Sony makes a bad deal, but if I was advising them I'd say beware of Greeks bearing gifts

MS will also have to go thru Ubisoft....Do we need to bust out the Xibit meme?

Narrator: It didn’t.

I honestly don't think this will be enough.

We shall soon see.

 

[Pelta88]

Because it's on going.

Actually, no.

The deal you're referring to was blocked. We're onto a new deal.

 

[Bernardougf]

At this point does anyone care anymore?

The CMA will accept the new deal, claiming they have saved cloud gaming from being monopoly, when all they have done is gimp one of the only companies who are trying to create it.
Even the most ardent Sony fans who don't want the deal to go through know that there is no big game streaming industry, that it's a long way off, and fuck all people actually use it.

This will just slow down MSs investment in it, which will make them knuckle down on the existing console and PC markets.

 

[adamsapple]

Ubisoft has an excellent line up coming soon. Avatar, Prince of Persia, Star Wars. They just signed a deal that will give them content for their services for next 15 years without having to toss any development costs.
But sure, they should be doing something else because some random thinks so.

.

 

[The Alien]

Only for 15 years of content, after that all future content is 100% MS’s.

Crazy this isn't good enough for the UK.
Who gives out 15 year deals int he gaming industry. Think about where the industry was in 2008....now imagine having things from 2008 locked in today.

 

[ReBurn]

.

Sands of Time remake being in turmoil breaks my heart.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Crazy this isn't good enough for the UK.
Who gives out 15 year deals int he gaming industry. Think about where the industry was in 2008....now imagine having things from 2008 locked in today.

Whoever buys an independent multiplatform publisher for $70 billion.

 

[rickybooby87]

Not only did Sony lock in 10 years for the only game that Activision actually makes these days (COD) I am still going to get access to everything else that ABK doesn't makes today and for the next 15 years via BoobiSoft?

 

[Negotiator101]

It sounds like you do.
We’ve heard that a million times before.

Pot, kettle, black.

 

[HoofHearted]

A lot of arguing going on here about this silly exercise to allow CMA to save face ….

 

[Macaron]

Look M Macaron get in here, he’s offending British people

No one cares though because it’s funny… and true, and a joke

Yes, his joke is soooo comparable to you going in threads of games you haven't played and shitting on them.

Get out of your feelings and stop tagging me in random posts

 

[Deleted member 848825]

about this silly exercise to allow CMA to save face

Well the one thing I've learned about the CMA in all of this, is not to assume anything. Agree with their take and decisions or not. They've shown more resolve than most.

 

[Zok310]

It seemed that in the original deal the CMA didn't want to have to actively monitor behaviour for 10 years, they wanted divestment. The worry will be that this deal is not true divestment and will require the monitoring of not only Microsoft but now Ubisoft's activities too, for 15 years.

We are blind to the actual wording of the deal, but a lot of questions and concerns arise from this proposal.

• Are MS 'picking winners' by choosing Ubisoft, what was the process for this
• Why weren't rights sold to an entity with no current relationship with cloud gaming or MS in any way?
• Was the Ubisoft deal sweetened in any way that may lead to lack of competition (like MS did with Nvidia using Windows licenses)
• Are there any restrictions on costs MS can charge to port to Windows alternatives? (how is this monitored or regulated)
• Would Ubisoft be independent enough to be in a position to make exclusive deals for streaming games to rival platforms?
• Would Ubisoft be independent enough to be able to dictate that a game could (or could not) appear on subscriptions and pay to own streaming services?
• Would Ubisoft be independent enough to sell off rights completely on the same terms to another entity? (presumably measures would be put in place to stop MS gaining these 15 years worth of titles rights back within or after the 15 years)
• What happens if Ubisoft is acquired by another party within the 15 years?
• What happens if Ubisoft ceases to exist within the next 15 years?

I hope the CMA fully scrutinise this, but I fear they will just wave it through now as they can say that they rejected the initial one but this one is different and satisfies them. Let's wait and see I guess.

I think it gets rejected again and requires full divestment by the cma. The new deal pretty turns ubisoft into a ms subsidiary, possibly allowing ms to have say over what will now be ubisoft biggest revenue generating software lineup. With this new deal ms have pretty much removed ubi and abk as competitors as i cant see ubi biting the hands that feed.
My money is on a second prohibition or full divestment.

 

[DeepEnigma]

The new deal pretty turns ubisoft into a ms subsidiary

 

[gothmog]

Why? They argued that the merger would give MS too much power in the emerging cloud market. Shouldn't cloud gaming be out of the emerging state in 15 years? The CMA did not have any issues with consoles and the 10 year deals seemed to help that. The point is, MS would not have any control over this large IP for streaming until we are in the middle of the PS7 generation, which will also be the first generation where MS could conceivably have pulled CoD from other platforms because it hates making money.

If it was a permanent divestment then Microsoft would have to acquire the rights later in the market and not by some clock expiring. This is just yet another behavioral remedy with a time limit.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

There's a lot of confusion around how long Ubisoft will have these cloud streaming rights. People seem to think after 15 years everything returns to Microsoft so they can dominate once more.

But:

The only ABK cloud content Microsoft would be able to have exclusive to it's own service would be anything made by ABK after 15 years.

 

[mayham2199]

There's a lot of confusion around how long Ubisoft will have these cloud streaming rights. People seem to think after 15 years everything returns to Microsoft so they can dominate once more.

But:

The only ABK cloud content Microsoft would be able to have exclusive to it's own service would be anything made by ABK after 15 years.

I thought it was clear that Ubisoft keeps everything released in the next 15 years forever.

 

[sainraja]

Could be some weirdness in 2033 when Diablo V comes out. Possible Xbox exclusive, but PS6 has it on cloud only through Ubisoft+. Just a ridiculous situation all around lol.

Aw, cute. Look how happy you are.

I see what MS is trying to do, hopefully the CMA sees it too. Smh

I think they are all working to get it passed one way or another — CMA probably just wants to be able to explain the "why".

 

[gothmog]

There's a lot of confusion around how long Ubisoft will have these cloud streaming rights. People seem to think after 15 years everything returns to Microsoft so they can dominate once more.

But:

The only ABK cloud content Microsoft would be able to have exclusive to it's own service would be anything made by ABK after 15 years.

Thanks for that. I guess that's not a bad deal. It's like Marvel selling off their movie rights for certain characters decades ago. If they want them back they would have to make a deal on the market.

 

[Ronin_7]

There's a lot of confusion around how long Ubisoft will have these cloud streaming rights. People seem to think after 15 years everything returns to Microsoft so they can dominate once more.

But:

The only ABK cloud content Microsoft would be able to have exclusive to it's own service would be anything made by ABK after 15 years.

Ubisoft will own everything produced until 2038, nothing produced between 2023 & 2038 will transfer to Microsoft.

Excludes Europe Zone.

 

[Stardust_Dragon]

I don't get why some people, both here and elsewhere, are trying to downplay the attractiveness of cloud-only versions of non-COD ABK games for PlayStation gamers. Like, yeah cloud versions of games up to this point haven't been very popular to play on, that is true indeed. However, this is also a fairly unique situation in that there has never been, to my knowledge, cloud-only games for PlayStation gamers (or Xbox gamers for that matter), unless you're counting the non-backward compatible PS3 era games which I don't think is really comparable to this situation. Up to this point, of course people would much rather have a native download version for games since cloud-version of games have always been offered as an alternative, not as the only option.

Would people on PlayStation rather have a native local download version of those non-COD ABK games? Sure, they would, but not to the point of wanting to spend hundreds of dollars to buy another piece of hardware or to spend hundreds of dollars annually for a separate subscription plan to play on their phone/browser/wherever. So if Ubisoft and Sony can work out a deal to where they can get these non-COD ABK games on PlayStation for the next 15 years via PS Plus Extra and/or Premium membership tiers, then I'd think Sony would be happy with that outcome, or at least feeling much better than that garbage 3 year offer Phil originally offered to Jim in 2022.

This is why Colt Eastwood was pissed in his social media posts, because he knows this development will likely keep both plenty of PlayStation players satisfied with sticking with their console and not looking for an Xbox to buy in the foreseeable future, as well as making the choice for those who have yet to upgrade to this console generation a lot simpler/easier, as well as for the entire PS6 generation starting in 2028 and even the beginning of the PS7 generation far into the future.

 

[Timberwolf25]

Why be pissed? It's a win for MS if people play their first party games no matter what platform they play it on. Unless it's pirated of course.

Edit: Especially for any games that have dlc, battlepass or any sort of mtx

 

[Negotiator101]

Ubisoft will own everything produced until 2038, nothing produced between 2023 & 2038 will transfer to Microsoft.

Excludes Europe Zone.

Yeah like I said this should placate the CMA and get the deal done. The timing of the new deal speaks volumes IMO. Microsoft obviously knew the deal would get blocked again so they had been working with Ubisoft behind the scenes to present this new deal.

This type of deal is presumably not worked out in a few days, and it seems like Microsoft used the time it took the CMA to look at the previous deal and subsequently block it to get this Ubisoft deal done.

Microsoft get the deadline extension to October and the CMA will render their verdict on the new deal the very same month, coincidental?

 

[devilNprada]

Just curious, have any companies or products ever gotten better after being under Microsoft ownership?

I would argue for Dynamix, but also got more expensive!

 

[Heisenberg007]

Why be pissed? It's a win for MS if people play their first party games no matter what platform they play it on. Unless it's pirated of course.

Edit: Especially for any games that have dlc, battlepass or any sort of mtx

Because Microsoft's actions so far seems like it is the opposite outcome they want.

Otherwise, they'd have released Hi-Fi Rush, Redfall, and Starfield on PlayStation if Microsoft really considered it a win. They even estimated that Starfield would sell 10 million copies on PlayStation and still decided not to release the game on PS5.

 

[Timberwolf25]

Because Microsoft's actions so far seems like it is the opposite outcome they want.

Otherwise, they'd have released Hi-Fi Rush, Redfall, and Starfield on PlayStation if Microsoft really considered it a win. They even estimated that Starfield would sell 10 million copies on PlayStation and still decided not to release the game on PS5.

Some games exclusive is way different than having a game that sells at the top of the charts every year exclusive. And I would love to see Hi-Fi Rush and Starfield on every platform (maybe not Redfall). I'd also love to see every 3rd party game on every platform.

My comment being a win for MS is that they get money from those games regardless of whether Ubi or anyone else puts in on cloud. Not as much as if they did it themselves though.

 

[Bridges]

Activision games for the next 15 years will have their cloud versions owned by Ubisoft in perpetuity.

Does that mean games made by Activision or games made based on Activision IP, or both?

Like, if Hexen comes back but is made by Id, does that count? If Treyarch makes a Halo game, does that count?

It'll be interesting to see. Either way, it's odd that people are framing this as a major L to Microsoft. At the end of the day they are going to be getting 70% or 80% of revenue on every game and microtransaction from the biggest title in the industry, and there is still nothing stopping them from putting all of Activision's current and future titles on Game Pass, xcloud will just take a few more steps.

They are perfectly willing to trade away streaming rights for CoD4 for that.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Some games exclusive is way different than having a game that sells at the top of the charts every year exclusive. And I would love to see Hi-Fi Rush and Starfield on every platform (maybe not Redfall). I'd also love to see every 3rd party game on every platform.

My comment being a win for MS is that they get money from those games regardless of whether Ubi or anyone else puts in on cloud. Not as much as if they did it themselves though.

Yes, but as I was saying, short-term money is not the driving force of Microsoft/Xbox at this point. That's why it is not really a win for them because it doesn't align with their long-term strategy -- which is about making games exclusive, not generating higher revenue by selling games on competing platforms.

 

[Horseganador]

The victory for MS was to buy ABK quickly, remove COD from Sony in 3 years and all the other games now, have to extend the deadline for the deal, have to give COD 10 years to Nintendo, PS, etc... and give it up the cloud business to Ubi was surely not in their plans when they made an offer of almost 70 billion.

 

[havoc00]

The Microsoft / Activision Blizzard acquisition |OT| Antitrust Simulator (completed; discussing post-merger issues) OT

https://twitter.com/JezCorden/status/1693885261610971475?t=ogAp26NQVA_63nm6_VQDKw&s=19 WTF? Is that correct? Or another Jez shit posting?

www.resetera.com

Although the original article has been updated since then, MS knew since day one after the pause (July 12th) that this was a #TeamOctober play:

One person familiar with the negotiations suggested that the CMA and the companies would now enter a three-month period of talks. The person said there was a period of time "to discuss what the CMA really wants", adding that it was "way too early to speculate what's on the table".
The Financial Times also knew about it but maybe MS wasn't happy about the info been shared so soon and that's why the article was changed.

Anyway, very interesting development. And lots of complexity to manage the cloud gaming rights for MS and ABK in the future.

If I got all the info right, this would the situation in October (if the deal is approved):

- Xbox Studios (XGS) and Bethesda games can be on PC, console (they can be exclusive) and Xcloud (they can be exclusive too, excluding the agreements that MS has signed with Nvidia, Boosteroid, Ubitus, Nware and EE).

- ABK games can be on PC and console (they could be exclusive to Xbox). The cloud gaming rights are sold to Ubisoft worldwide, who would be the exclusive owner but excluding the EEA countries, where MS/ABK would be the owner.

- In the EEA countries, and for 10 years, MS/ABK would license the cloud gaming rights to Nvidia, Boosteroid, Ubitus, Nware and EE and now Ubisoft+ too. As well as any other cloud gaming provider requesting it (if they comply with the EC commitments).

- In the rest of the world (that would include countries like Australia, Canada or even the US, where regulators still have concerns about the deal), Ubisoft would commercialise the cloud gaming rights of ABK games for 15 years. MS, Sony, Nintendo or whoever would have to negotiate with them. The games could be on xCloud but MS would have to pay Ubisoft. I guess that Nvidia, Boosteroid, Ubitus, Nware and maybe EE could be excluded from this due to the previous commercial agreements with MS, that I guess were worldwide (maybe the one with EE was for UK only).

- MS has to develop special versions of the ABK games (for example, a Linux version) if Ubisoft wants to license the games to non-Windows cloud gaming providers. That special version should also have to be provided to the EEA cloud gaming providers, according to the commitments with the EC.

- MS would get money from Ubisoft through the usage of the games + the initial payment.

- By 2033, MS/ABK would regain the cloud gaming rights in the EEA countries. By 2038, MS/ABK would regain the cloud gaming rights worlwide. Ubisoft would keep the cloud gaming rights of all the games managed during those 15 years.

- By 2033 in the EEA countries and 2038 in the rest of the world, any cloud gaming agreements would have to be renegotiated and MS/ABK could decide to terminate them.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

- MS has to develop special versions of the ABK games (for example, a Linux version) if Ubisoft wants to license the games to non-Windows cloud gaming providers. That special version should also have to be provided to the EEA cloud gaming providers, according to the commitments with the EC.

Just to add on to this; Ubisoft would have to pay Microsoft to make these special versions, the example being a "Linux Version".

 

[Bojanglez]

Just to add on to this; Ubisoft would have to pay Microsoft to make these special versions, the example being a "Linux Version".

Yeah imagine having to police this. It has disaster written all over it. Again, it puts the ball back in MS's court to dictate the landscape of cloud gaming by being able to charge obtuse amounts for non Windows based versions.

 

[StealthGoblin]

Given the CMA didn’t want to have to police the original deal, this one requires more policing.