KingT731
Member
I'm not speaking in any type of certainty because "business" can and will change.
-
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
PaintTinJr
Member
Less so with the EC, and the FTC are sadly operating in an extreme lobbying environment as far as I can tell to get a fair chance to protect consumers by protecting competition in the market, but since we've left the EU it feels like to assert our market position on the world our CMA is happy to take down the odd hydra like the Nvidia ARM deal or making Meta reverse its acquisition. The CMA blocking this deal purely on the basis of the SLC they identified in Cloud and a sense of another SLC they can't prove in the console space isn't beyond the realms of possibility IMO. No easier way to tell mega corporations to watch their step in your market than letting them lose a $2-3b stake. Which ironically would be evidence of just how much Microsoft could afford to lose in a foreclosure strategy before they'd be worse off than what they were prepared to lose from entering into this acquisition.
$3 billion equating to ATVI losses from withholding the game from PlayStation is an interesting time equation. unless I'm mistaken If we currently say PlayStation earns $1b per year for its 30% (0.3) of CoD, then 0.7*(1/0.3) = $2.33B for ATVI gains each year, meaning that the $3b potential loss from this being blocked is already a free (3/2.3)*12 = 15months that Microsoft could withhold CoD from PlayStation without anyone moving platforms or any additional benefits - which isn't accurate as the exisiting yearly gaming would still be earning MTX for them and revenue split from cross-play - and they would still only have lost their stake for gambling on this acquisition.
If that 15months came after the PS5 marketing deal ends - by which time the CoD community are already considering moving because of the new ownership - the impact of that 15month lossless withholding at that point is likely to be enough and have cost them virtually nothing from where they stand today,, and still leave the door open to withhold for much longer and still not feel the losses from continued revenues of existing games' MTX and all the other captured players, LTV benefits, etc the CMA already analysed.
feynoob
Banned
Business can change, but companies aren't stupid to incur losses, when there is a profit on the line.
Most people here are underestimating the power of MTX.
Why do you think Sony is making those live action games? It's because of mtx.
Microsoft will gain more money from mtx, compared to locking the game on their system.
In a world of Fortnite and their user generated worlds/games, I wouldn't be pulling COD from PS even if the loss of money wasn't a concern. Losing the marketshare is probably more frightening to me but ehh, who knows.
Wasn't expecting the CMA to change their mind on the SLC regarding consoles once, less so twice but it could theoretically happen. I would still more money on the SLC's on cloud not being resolved but not so mcuh.
Wasn't expecting the CMA to change their mind on the SLC regarding consoles once, less so twice but it could theoretically happen. I would still more money on the SLC's on cloud not being resolved but not so mcuh.
Last edited:
KingT731
Member
Im not arguing against anything. I'm just saying what makes sense can change.
feynoob
Banned
The sleeping giant is PC gamepass.
MS will gain a lot of PC gamepass users due to COD and other activitision/blizzard games.
Since PC has no boundaries, there is no slc in that field.
MS can allow COD on PS and cloud, while reaping the benefits on PC users.
SneakersSO
Member
The regulators are being purposefully dense if they cannot identify a foreclosure strategy that is plain as day in front of their face. Heck, the CMA themselves were the ones who originally pointed out that MS' situation with Bethesda, when MS told regulators/EC that they had no financial incentive to remove Zenimax publishing support from PS then did so anyway. They were the ones who originally stated that MS' strategy around studio acquisitions was a foreclosure strategy, so yeah, MS must have presented some very ridiculous study stating that UK consumers just wouldn't move at all if CoD became Xbox exclusive.
SneakersSO
Member
Yeah, thats the gamble, but if we're being serious, the chances of a Federal Judge maintaining the Injunction once MS appeals it would be pretty low, especially if Sony would've signed a deal with MS, which I imagine will probably happen should the EC and CMA fully approve the deal come this time next month. The FTC could still move to fully block the deal through their own court, that could still be the end result of all this, but MS knows that at that point without an injunction, the FTC would basically be undoing an already conducted merger; it would be infinitely harder to block and undo all of this at that point. So sure, on some level, the scenario where the injunction does or does not get filed for this could be the end game for all of this, at least with regards to the FTC.
Sanepar
Member
It will be fun if even with this aquisition Xbox install base doesn't expand.
SneakersSO
Member
The only reason MS will not make CoD exclusive is due to all this pressure. Before regulator pushback, the plan was to make CoD exclusive the first chance they could. Their intention was always that.
Astray
Member
It has the FIFPro license though. That licensor might actually demand multiplatform too, similar to MLB.
Unknown Soldier
Member
There is no way that Xbox market share will not expand when CoD becomes Xbox exclusive. Which is the whole point of this acquisition to begin with...
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
Considering they are doing PC day1, it will be a miracle if they it hit 80+m.
Andodalf
Banned
lmao, Sony provided that data. The data shows Ms would lose a shit ton of money. Which means they can’t do it without getting sued by their shareholders.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
This is why Starfield is such an important barometer for the future
SneakersSO
Member
I mean, the fundamentals for expanding a console marketshare just aren't what MS has to work with. MS has internal data showing them in plain english that unless they give their output some sort of exclusivity window (Xbox with no day 1 PC release), that its just not gonna make the needle on hardware sales. The biggest marketplace in core games right now is Steam, and its growing; if you give consumers a way to circumvent your acquisition funnel which comes at a premium, they will do so.
If I have some form of a gaming PC, then I have no need for an Xbox. For me to be a new consumer in Xbox in that scenario, i'd need to drop somewhere around $250-$500 on HW, controllers, accessories, on top of now having to get XBLG. Sure, I can get a Game Pass Ultimate account, but I still gotta buy the Xbox HW and everything that goes with that. Or I could just buy the game on Steam for full MSRP on day 1, or just sub to PC GP and pay like, $1. And that is what consumers are overwhelmingly choosing to do. MS is fully aware of this, despite Phil's insistence that they still try to compete in the console marketshare race.
SneakersSO
Member
Actually, the original two data sets that the CMA used for their original findings was provided by both a 3rd party polling firm the CMA contracted and Sony.
However, MS did present multiple data queries to the CMA to give them further context on just how much impact this acquisition would have on the console space. The CMA reviewing that is what likely led to them dropping that leg of their PF.
reinking
Gold Member
I believe Xbox on PC will expand signicantly. Console might actually stay in 3rd place. While Sony is bringing games to PC it is typically 12+ months after the console's release. I expect most PS players already have a PC and with the "streaming dream" that Xbox keeps pushing for they might not even need a powerful one. It is going to be interesting to see which is the bigger brand to entice players to a console, COD or PlayStation.
Last edited:
Iced Arcade
Member
Ok ok I was wrong lol. I read a couple foolish doom and gloom posts now.
Last edited:
sainraja
Member
Ignore him. He's probably the biggest fanboy you will come across here.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
you love that?. you are weird.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
The very reason for them to go into their kangaroo court is to delay. If they were to file an injuction - their case would fall apart faster than the gamer's lawsuit.
Whose shareholders? Microsoft's? They don't care about anything that is not azure.
Last edited:
The Tourmaline Gorilla
Banned
I can't believe the amount of people here who think/feel Microsoft or Sony owe them something.
Absolutely delusional. They owe you NOTHING! They offer a service/product, and you're free to pay (that is, exchange your money) for that service or product. That is how it is, and that is how it's always been. You are a consumer, and they provide you with the content to consume, and if you choose to purchase from them (for whatever reason), that makes you their customer. You aren't their friend, and they aren't yours.
If ANY company purchases another company or any intellectual property, they're completely free to do as they please with THEIR new purchase. The purchase wasn't yours. It's not your IP. It's not your business. It's not anything to you, other than something you exchanged money for, in order to access. They literally do not and have not owed you a single thing. Please, get over yourselves. Nothing they do, as it pertains to exclusivity, is immoral. Bolstering their own services and/or removing a service/product from their competitors isn't immoral. That's not where morality lies. Robbing their customers, price gouging, shitty or nonexistent warranties/return policies, ill-treating their employees, stealing from their employees, harassing, bullying customers and employees are real examples of immorality. Those are real displays of villainy, if you want to call it that.
Spending X amount of money, that they earned, to purchase anything from anyone (who wants to sell to them - it's not like Sony or MS had a gun to their heads and forced them to sell), and making that exclusive to their business, isn't immoral and isn't wrong. It isn't anything other than what they think might be best for business, which might be a slight inconvenience to you. Is it always best for business? Sometimes not, but most times it is. That's why they bought it IN THE FIRST PLACE! It's now theirs! And it was never yours to begin with. I give zero fucks what the EU or CMA has to say about it. The roles could be completely reversed, where Sony is the one buying AKB, my stance and principles on the matter wouldn't change. The ONLY real point of consideration/contention is if Sony were the buyers, being the current market leader (and not by a small margin), and purchasing a huge gaming leader like AKB, that could be considered the truest definition of anti-competitive. But guess what...they'd be free to do that. And to be frank, even as the market leaders, they don't owe you anything. And they certainly don't owe their competitors anything. As the leaders, it would only worsen the state of the competitive landscape, but that's about it. And MS, while not being anywhere as successful, has the money to still try and compete. That said, immoral is the last thing I'd call it.
If Sony buys a multi-plat publisher or developer and you no longer have access to their games/services, then go out and buy a PS, if it's that important to you. You don't want to buy a PS; fine...the world won't end, and not playing a particular video game (out of thousands) isn't going to ruin your life, or even your Sunday. If you really want the game that badly, and you can afford, go buy it. You can't afford it; go buy something else. It's really nothing to cry/bitch/moan about. And the same goes for MS; you want to play Xbox games; buy an Xbox (that's ALWAYS BEEN HOW IT IS). You can't afford an Xbox; save for one. You don't want an Xbox; don't buy it. You can't save for one; don't buy it...buy something else. You can't play the game you wanted to play; too fncking bad.
"Ohhh CMA, come save me! Stop big bad Sony and MS from exercising their right to compete in a perfectly legal way, that they see fit, that is...at most, slightly inconvenient to me. Please CMA, help me... Oh God...they're taking away our rights
"
Foh!
I can't believe this is 700+ pages of this whining and corporate teat guzzling. Yes, I am 100% in support of Xbox buying AKB, because I primarily game on Xbox. However, if the roles were reversed, and although I wouldn't like the possibility of AKB being exclusive to Sony, I'd be in support of it as well. At best, I'd have to buy a PS. At worst, I'd be slightly inconvenienced and miss out on a few games. The only time I'm not in support of a company buyout, is when it's for something that is truly needed by consumers, and the new parent company is going to spike prices, exorbitantly, like pharmaceutical drugs, for instance. Anything else, is completely fair game.
Absolutely delusional. They owe you NOTHING! They offer a service/product, and you're free to pay (that is, exchange your money) for that service or product. That is how it is, and that is how it's always been. You are a consumer, and they provide you with the content to consume, and if you choose to purchase from them (for whatever reason), that makes you their customer. You aren't their friend, and they aren't yours.
If ANY company purchases another company or any intellectual property, they're completely free to do as they please with THEIR new purchase. The purchase wasn't yours. It's not your IP. It's not your business. It's not anything to you, other than something you exchanged money for, in order to access. They literally do not and have not owed you a single thing. Please, get over yourselves. Nothing they do, as it pertains to exclusivity, is immoral. Bolstering their own services and/or removing a service/product from their competitors isn't immoral. That's not where morality lies. Robbing their customers, price gouging, shitty or nonexistent warranties/return policies, ill-treating their employees, stealing from their employees, harassing, bullying customers and employees are real examples of immorality. Those are real displays of villainy, if you want to call it that.
Spending X amount of money, that they earned, to purchase anything from anyone (who wants to sell to them - it's not like Sony or MS had a gun to their heads and forced them to sell), and making that exclusive to their business, isn't immoral and isn't wrong. It isn't anything other than what they think might be best for business, which might be a slight inconvenience to you. Is it always best for business? Sometimes not, but most times it is. That's why they bought it IN THE FIRST PLACE! It's now theirs! And it was never yours to begin with. I give zero fucks what the EU or CMA has to say about it. The roles could be completely reversed, where Sony is the one buying AKB, my stance and principles on the matter wouldn't change. The ONLY real point of consideration/contention is if Sony were the buyers, being the current market leader (and not by a small margin), and purchasing a huge gaming leader like AKB, that could be considered the truest definition of anti-competitive. But guess what...they'd be free to do that. And to be frank, even as the market leaders, they don't owe you anything. And they certainly don't owe their competitors anything. As the leaders, it would only worsen the state of the competitive landscape, but that's about it. And MS, while not being anywhere as successful, has the money to still try and compete. That said, immoral is the last thing I'd call it.
If Sony buys a multi-plat publisher or developer and you no longer have access to their games/services, then go out and buy a PS, if it's that important to you. You don't want to buy a PS; fine...the world won't end, and not playing a particular video game (out of thousands) isn't going to ruin your life, or even your Sunday. If you really want the game that badly, and you can afford, go buy it. You can't afford it; go buy something else. It's really nothing to cry/bitch/moan about. And the same goes for MS; you want to play Xbox games; buy an Xbox (that's ALWAYS BEEN HOW IT IS). You can't afford an Xbox; save for one. You don't want an Xbox; don't buy it. You can't save for one; don't buy it...buy something else. You can't play the game you wanted to play; too fncking bad.
"Ohhh CMA, come save me! Stop big bad Sony and MS from exercising their right to compete in a perfectly legal way, that they see fit, that is...at most, slightly inconvenient to me. Please CMA, help me... Oh God...they're taking away our rights
"Foh!
I can't believe this is 700+ pages of this whining and corporate teat guzzling. Yes, I am 100% in support of Xbox buying AKB, because I primarily game on Xbox. However, if the roles were reversed, and although I wouldn't like the possibility of AKB being exclusive to Sony, I'd be in support of it as well. At best, I'd have to buy a PS. At worst, I'd be slightly inconvenienced and miss out on a few games. The only time I'm not in support of a company buyout, is when it's for something that is truly needed by consumers, and the new parent company is going to spike prices, exorbitantly, like pharmaceutical drugs, for instance. Anything else, is completely fair game.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
is copiumI can't believe the amount of people here who think/feel Microsoft or Sony owe them something.
Absolutely delusional. They owe you NOTHING! They offer a service/product, and you're free to pay (that is, exchange your money) for that service or product. That is how it is, and that is how it's always been. You are a consumer, and they provide you with the content to consume, and if you choose to purchase from them (for whatever reason), that makes you their customer. You aren't their friend, and they aren't yours.
If ANY company purchases another company or any intellectual property, they're completely free to do as they please with THEIR new purchase. The purchase wasn't yours. It's not your IP. It's not your business. It's not anything to you, other than something you exchanged money for, in order to access. They literally do not and have not owed you a single thing. Please, get over yourselves. Nothing they do, as it pertains to exclusivity, is immoral. Bolstering their own services and/or removing a service/product from their competitors isn't immoral. That's not where morality lies. Robbing their customers, price gouging, shitty or nonexistent warranties/return policies, ill-treating their employees, stealing from their employees, harassing, bullying customers and employees are real examples of immorality. Those are real displays of villainy, if you want to call it that.
Spending X amount of money, that they earned, to purchase anything from anyone (who wants to sell to them - it's not like Sony or MS had a gun to their heads and forced them to sell), and making that exclusive to their business, isn't immoral and isn't wrong. It isn't anything other than what they think might be best for business, which might be a slight inconvenience to you. Is it always best for business? Sometimes not, but most times it is. That's why they bought it IN THE FIRST PLACE! It's now theirs! And it was never yours to begin with. I give zero fucks what the EU or CMA has to say about it. The roles could be completely reversed, where Sony is the one buying AKB, my stance and principles on the matter wouldn't change. The ONLY real point of consideration/contention is if Sony were the buyers, being the current market leader (and not by a small margin), and purchasing a huge gaming leader like AKB, that could be considered the truest definition of anti-competitive. But guess what...they'd be free to do that. And to be frank, even as the market leaders, they don't owe you anything. And they certainly don't owe their competitors anything. As the leaders, it would only worsen the state of the competitive landscape, but that's about it. And MS, while not being anywhere as successful, has the money to still try and compete. That said, immoral is the last thing I'd call it.
If Sony buys a multi-plat publisher or developer and you no longer have access to their games/services, then go out and buy a PS, if it's that important to you. You don't want to buy a PS; fine...the world won't end, and not playing a particular video game (out of thousands) isn't going to ruin your life, or even your Sunday. If you really want the game that badly, and you can afford, go buy it. You can't afford it; go buy something else. It's really nothing to cry/bitch/moan about. And the same goes for MS; you want to play Xbox games; buy an Xbox (that's ALWAYS BEEN HOW IT IS). You can't afford an Xbox; save for one. You don't want an Xbox; don't buy it. You can't save for one; don't buy it...buy something else. You can't play the game you wanted to play; too fncking bad.
"Ohhh CMA, come save me! Stop big bad Sony and MS from exercising their right to compete in a perfectly legal way, that they see fit, that is...at most, slightly inconvenient to me. Please CMA, help me... Oh God...they're taking away our rights
Foh!
I can't believe this is 700+ pages of this whining and corporate teat guzzling. Yes, I am 100% in support of Xbox buying AKB, because I primarily game on Xbox. However, if the roles were reversed, and although I wouldn't like the possibility of AKB being exclusive to Sony, I'd be in support of it as well. At best, I'd have to buy a PS. At worst, I'd be slightly inconvenienced and miss out on a few games. The only time I'm not in support of a company buyout, is when it's for something that is truly needed by consumers, and the new parent company is going to spike prices, exorbitantly, like pharmaceutical drugs, for instance. Anything else, is completely fair game.
sainraja
Member
I mean, you aren't wrong, but you are also bundling the group of people (ignoring those who are only here to only cause chaos) who were mostly going through documents being put out by both parties and sharing their analysis of them. Sure, this thread has a lot of non-sense being thrown in but it is a hot topic and you can't really fault people for discussing it (for 700 pages or 50 pages).I can't believe the amount of people here who think/feel Microsoft or Sony owe them something.
Absolutely delusional. They owe you NOTHING! They offer a service/product, and you're free to pay (that is, exchange your money) for that service or product. That is how it is, and that is how it's always been. You are a consumer, and they provide you with the content to consume, and if you choose to purchase from them (for whatever reason), that makes you their customer. You aren't their friend, and they aren't yours.
If ANY company purchases another company or any intellectual property, they're completely free to do as they please with THEIR new purchase. The purchase wasn't yours. It's not your IP. It's not your business. It's not anything to you, other than something you exchanged money for, in order to access. They literally do not and have not owed you a single thing. Please, get over yourselves. Nothing they do, as it pertains to exclusivity, is immoral. Bolstering their own services and/or removing a service/product from their competitors isn't immoral. That's not where morality lies. Robbing their customers, price gouging, shitty or nonexistent warranties/return policies, ill-treating their employees, stealing from their employees, harassing, bullying customers and employees are real examples of immorality. Those are real displays of villainy, if you want to call it that.
Spending X amount of money, that they earned, to purchase anything from anyone (who wants to sell to them - it's not like Sony or MS had a gun to their heads and forced them to sell), and making that exclusive to their business, isn't immoral and isn't wrong. It isn't anything other than what they think might be best for business, which might be a slight inconvenience to you. Is it always best for business? Sometimes not, but most times it is. That's why they bought it IN THE FIRST PLACE! It's now theirs! And it was never yours to begin with. I give zero fucks what the EU or CMA has to say about it. The roles could be completely reversed, where Sony is the one buying AKB, my stance and principles on the matter wouldn't change. The ONLY real point of consideration/contention is if Sony were the buyers, being the current market leader (and not by a small margin), and purchasing a huge gaming leader like AKB, that could be considered the truest definition of anti-competitive. But guess what...they'd be free to do that. And to be frank, even as the market leaders, they don't owe you anything. And they certainly don't owe their competitors anything. As the leaders, it would only worsen the state of the competitive landscape, but that's about it. And MS, while not being anywhere as successful, has the money to still try and compete. That said, immoral is the last thing I'd call it.
If Sony buys a multi-plat publisher or developer and you no longer have access to their games/services, then go out and buy a PS, if it's that important to you. You don't want to buy a PS; fine...the world won't end, and not playing a particular video game (out of thousands) isn't going to ruin your life, or even your Sunday. If you really want the game that badly, and you can afford, go buy it. You can't afford it; go buy something else. It's really nothing to cry/bitch/moan about. And the same goes for MS; you want to play Xbox games; buy an Xbox (that's ALWAYS BEEN HOW IT IS). You can't afford an Xbox; save for one. You don't want an Xbox; don't buy it. You can't save for one; don't buy it...buy something else. You can't play the game you wanted to play; too fncking bad.
"Ohhh CMA, come save me! Stop big bad Sony and MS from exercising their right to compete in a perfectly legal way, that they see fit, that is...at most, slightly inconvenient to me. Please CMA, help me... Oh God...they're taking away our rights
Foh!
I can't believe this is 700+ pages of this whining and corporate teat guzzling. Yes, I am 100% in support of Xbox buying AKB, because I primarily game on Xbox. However, if the roles were reversed, and although I wouldn't like the possibility of AKB being exclusive to Sony, I'd be in support of it as well. At best, I'd have to buy a PS. At worst, I'd be slightly inconvenienced and miss out on a few games. The only time I'm not in support of a company buyout, is when it's for something that is truly needed by consumers, and the new parent company is going to spike prices, exorbitantly, like pharmaceutical drugs, for instance. Anything else, is completely fair game.
Varteras
Member
How does this make any sense to you? Gamepass requires games, and it's cheaper for Microsoft to fill in much of the library with first party content. Hence the acquisitions. Did you imagine there was ever any plan for every game developer to put their games on Gamepass? All for the same $10 - $15 price?
"Microsoft has completely failed to show developers that they should put their games on GamePass for free"
Why does your antipathy for Xbox drive you into making posts like this?
We've long heard from MS that there's no hard and fast financial model for Gamepass games. Some devs prefer upfront payments. Some put it on GP in exchange for MS financing some of the development costs. Some, based on projected or measured usage
Read this
Xbox head Phil Spencer details how Xbox Game Pass deals with developers are structured
Phil Spencer has spoken at length about how Xbox Game Pass deals with developers are structured, revealing that deals are usually based on each developer's needs.
And, since Microsoft have completely failed to show to the industry that a subscription model works in terms of revenue to the point where 3P would want to voluntarily provide their content (especially AAA games) to such services Day 1, they are trying to force the subscription model to work by just buying up that 3P content through acquiring the publishers who own it.
Atomic Heart, Wo Long, MLB The Show. All Day 1 third party games on GamePass. Made by devs that Microsoft hasn't acquired.
You should really do more research.
ABK games will still be sold on Steam, retail Xbox and Playstation. Not to mention ports to Nintendo's new console to expand the market. Where's the 'huge dip' coming from?
Source on the underlying data for this calculation?
Subscription services need content. More breaking news at 11
None of the acqusitions for Gamepass content thus far have significantly weakened the independent third party market.
You expect Microsoft to release detailed breakdown of their revenues and deals for GP to convince random people on the Internet? Not sure I understand where you're coming from.
They've since said the service is profitable. And they're clearly able to still strike deals for well regarded 3rd party games.
Not sure how it makes sense for you to compare GamePass with a movie streaming service.
And EA has a service where it puts their games Day One. It's called EA Play Pro (WTF is 'EA Origins'?). Costs $99 a year and you'll get Battlefield, FIFA, Madden et al Day One. It's been running for years now
Source?
Andodalf
Banned
They care about money, and rn azure is seems to be the future. they don’t care that 70 billion in cash is turned to 70 bill of abk, it’s meaningless, but if you massively devalue that 70 billion, they will absolutely care
ChuckeRearmed
Member
They did not bother asking about ABK during any of investor calls.
The thing with big corporations like Microsoft is that they can use money like this just for investments without thinking whether it would affect their company or ROI. And in case of Microsoft they care more about B2B and Azure, though they ask all the time about cloud and not about anything else (don't remember when they asked last time about Windows or Office for example). This time it is gonna be AI and Azure.
Last edited:
SportsFan581
Member
You realize they stated that CoD wasn't going to be exclusive the very day news of the deal broke right? That was before any regulator looked at anything.
ToadMan
Member
Actually he is wrong but I couldn’t be bothered to respond to someone so misinformed.
Corporate entities in the west don’t have “rights” - individual citizens do. Corporate entities operate in accordance with laws which, as it happens, regulators can make.
The government and its various agencies are there to protect public interest - that is our right.
So no, a corporate merger isn’t automatically ok just because they have the money to do it.
sainraja
Member
Yeah, you've got a point there. If these companies could do exactly as they wanted without any laws/rules things would be a lot different.
Warablo
Member
That sure sounds like Sony/PC exclusive to me. Even Xbox PR had puff PR pieces like this.
Anyone wanna take bets if Bungie's new IP comes out on Xbox consoles?
ToadMan
Member
GHG
Gold Member
Yeh, that's exactly what's happening.
TheGodfather07
Member
phil_t98
#SonyToo
So you know better than the regulators on this? Even without seeing all the redacted stuff from both sides of earnings and users lol
POKEYCLYDE
Member
Warablo
Member
Again, do you seriously believe Bungie's next game is coming out on Xbox consoles after being bought by Sony?
Yoboman
Member
Bungie with the subtle burn
Sanepar
Member
Bungie is not even listed on ps studios page.The last sentence
Yoboman
Member
It is, Bungie are self publishing and will operate independently for the time being
It may change in the future but for now they will stick to their word
Better for Sony if they can genuinely build Bungie into the powerhouse they want them to be where an exclusives strategy down the line could have a big impact
POKEYCLYDE
Member
I was talking about Lance Reddick.
Only hoping it goes through without regulators objecting. They said Activision franchises too but now its just COD they were even fighting to remove by sayingbit isn't essential.
Yoboman
Member
Cause they aren't part of PS Studios, they are incorporated under Sony interactive Entertainment. So they report to Jim Ryan not Herman
Barakov
Gold Member
DarkMage619
$MSFT
There are plenty of laws against anti-competitive actions in business. Regulators across the world pushed back against the ARM/Nvidia merger because it was actually harmful to competition and consumers.
This deal doesn't approach anything near that deal and regulators around the world have generally agreed this isn't a major concern. Certainly not one that behavioral remedies could not handle. The market leader and its fans are the biggest opponents of this deal and market leaders do not need protection. The market leader is free to pursue the same track or chart their own path. The industry is big enough for all the platforms to be successful.
After seeing what happened with Destiny 1 I can easily see Sony locking down anything new Bungie comes up and it is absolutely within their right. Bungie is first party and no one other than Sony customers should expect the new content to hit those systems.
Last edited:
Yoboman
Member
I think the CMA is essentially a judge and they are ruling on the strongest arguments made to them in the current time. They have requested responses and may yet again change their mind if new data is compelling enough.
Both Sony and MS\ABK provided data for the average revenue from PS COD users. The data from both more or less lined up
The CMA then compared to updated Xbox LTV figures based on the first two years of Series X lifecycle
From this they concluded that the revenue lost from a foreclosure strategy on PS would far outweigh the expected LTV of Xbox users
The potential areas that may be still flawed and picked at by Sony's side in my estimation:
- The CMA have decided to only use revenue from users who have spent >$100 over an undisclosed time frame. If that time frame is 1-2 years then it's a very flawed model because it basically excludes anyone who doesn't buy MTX
- Sony may be able to expose a flaw in the rationale of using the first two years of Series X data to calculate LTV eg they can demonstrate if LTV increases over a consoles life span
- They don't account for PC Gamepass user LTVs which is another viable switching option for Microsoft
- As far as I can tell they don't account for an increase in Xbox LTV from users switching from PS to Xbox in a total foreclosure strategy. Which would essentially be all COD user revenue + Xbox LTV. This is hard to clarify though as they aren't showing numbets
- They don't account for price increase strategies on Gamepass to increase Xbox user LTVs
- They don't account for the fact that Microsoft have moved their entire business model away from a royalties model and into an upfront licensing model with Gamepass. They are not reliant on point of sale revenue for any of their titles or even games licensed to Gamepass from third parties, so why would they be now?
The whole document is difficult to parse because all the numbers are removed but if I can spot flaws, then Sony lawyers will definitely come back with a response. Whether it sways the CMA at all is yet to be seen
Yoboman
Member
Corporate entities absolutely have rights, I suggest you look up Citizens United which upheld that corporations have the same rights as people
Bit off topic, but it's what had definitely undermined our politics and made it so everyone in Washington can be bought. Which in the context of mergers and acquisitions is why there is so rarely any pushback or you get senators coming out swinging on behalf of Microsoft.
POKEYCLYDE
Member
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Microsoft combine all gaming revenue? Shareholders don't get to look at how individual games sold and what percentage of growth in subscribers is attributed to whatever release.
Microsoft explains how they did this quarter. How their actual profits lined up against their projected profits, same with subscriber numbers, etc.
Micrososft's management would be able to know how much engagement titles are getting, but I don't think Shareholders would be privy to this knowledge outside of Microsoft telling them (which usually only happens to boast).
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked