Its funny how in the same thread on Ree where they have been saying for a few months now this will have no impact on Sony, they are now watching for their stock price to fall
I based it on Bungie's entire history of leaving when the group they are with don't keep their word. It's fairly obvious.Were you there? In the room with them when they signed the deal?
Sorry didn't know we had a Bungie board member on the forum with us
Individuals leaving is not the same as Bungie leaving, I'm sure you know that though.
Where did this narrative of Bungie leaving because someone didn't keep their word come from?I based it on Bungie's entire history of leaving when the group they are with don't keep their word. It's fairly obvious.
You don't have to be in the room where you read the statements Sony and Bungie released. It's the same statements they gave the regulators.
What's the fucking point of buying Bungie if the experience leaves. Christ!
The masks are off. They want Sony to go down. They are too "dominant" in their made up world. Microsoft is the small underdog that will save us.Its funny how in the same thread on Ree where they have been saying for a few months now this will have no impact on Sony, they are now watching for their stock price to fall
It's BS. The previous assessment was accurate, not this one. The impact of loss of access to CoD is the motivation behind the whole deal in the first place.However, this is just a correction of one of CMA's previous statements, based on them not properly calculating the impact of the userbase on losing access to COD.
No Microsoft just want to spend $70 billion for funsiesIt's BS. The previous assessment was accurate, not this one. The impact of loss of access to CoD is the motivation behind the whole deal in the first place.
Would be funny if it was still rejected and Sony had nothing to do with itI had a read of the updated provisional findings - nowhere in there do they state that the recommended remedies of divestiture and prohibition are no longer their recommendatinlons, nor that the situation is now one in which behavioural remedies could be a primary remedy. What's the read on this?
I had a read of the updated provisional findings - nowhere in there do they state that the recommended remedies of divestiture and prohibition are no longer their recommendations, nor that the situation is now one in which behavioural remedies could be a primary remedy. They've asked for input on how the removal of the console SLC could affect its recommended remedies, however. The cloud SLC is still very much in play, and 10 year deals with existing BYO entrants don't cut it as per the CMA guidelines.
What's the read on this?
Damn it would be hella funny, if it gets surprisingly blocked or approved with heavy concessions. Microsoft biased media would have a meltdown. xDI had a read of the updated provisional findings - nowhere in there do they state that the recommended remedies of divestiture and prohibition are no longer their recommendations, nor that the situation is now one in which behavioural remedies could be a primary remedy. They've asked for input on how the removal of the console SLC could affect its recommended remedies, however. The cloud SLC is still very much in play, and 10 year deals with existing BYO entrants don't cut it as per the CMA guidelines.
What's the read on this?
The dream is that they still ask for divestiture because of the Cloud. Maybe MS owning Azure is a big enough concern but how plausible is that?I had a read of the updated provisional findings - nowhere in there do they state that the recommended remedies of divestiture and prohibition are no longer their recommendations, nor that the situation is now one in which behavioural remedies could be a primary remedy. They've asked for input on how the removal of the console SLC could affect its recommended remedies, however. The cloud SLC is still very much in play, and 10 year deals with existing BYO entrants don't cut it as per the CMA guidelines.
What's the read on this?
Interesting thought. Maybe Microsoft knows that Sony will buy Square Enix and they are desperate about it? Could explain this political attack on Japan.Tin foil hat: It’s obvious Microsoft made an offer that can’t be refused one way or another to the cma. So with that as the context do You guys think that senator commenting on Japan was a preemptive from Microsoft to try and prevent a Sony response acquisition in Japan?
Or is this the preemptive seeds of the narrative a year or 2 down the road when Microsoft goes after a Japanese company they already have it on record that Sony is 98 percent of the high end market?
It seems extremely random she would say this (of course Ms told her what to say) but the timing of it.
I thought they were having this senator say that because they were just grasping at straws but with More information it’s almost like a preemptive of something.Interesting thought. Maybe Microsoft knows that Sony will buy Square Enix and they are desperate about it? Could explain this political attack on Japan.
Depends how long that hearing was/those talks were scheduled for. Senator shillington was always going to shill for MS at their behest. Timing may be a coincidence.Tin foil hat: It’s obvious Microsoft made an offer that can’t be refused one way or another to the cma. So with that as the context do You guys think that senator commenting on Japan was a preemptive from Microsoft to try and prevent a Sony response acquisition in Japan?
Or is this the preemptive seeds of the narrative a year or 2 down the road when Microsoft goes after a Japanese company they already have it on record that Sony is 98 percent of the high end market?
It seems extremely random she would say this (of course Ms told her what to say) but the timing of it.
I agree CDPR, Sony is pretty much locked out of western RPG’s wholesale. Only EA and CDPR are remaining in the sector, EA needs to prove themselves after recent times.Square is not needed at all. No brain power goes into that acquisition. It's Fromsoftware or Capcom or bust as far as Japan goes. Maybe acquire Konami IP's on the cheap as a small side deal as well. No Japanese Publisher of worth is at risk in Japan - it won't happen, it has never happened - it's politics, not just business.
It's the EU that should be poached, if possible. CDPR in particular atm. Warner gaming is no longer out there on the market per say. Ubi is too bloated, and a managerial mess.