The posters at REEE are reeeeeally mad about sonys response. I guess they thought sony was just going to roll over and take it?
Microsoft's acquisition of Activison Blizzard
- Thread starter Darth Vader
- Start date
Yep. It's probably not going to change anything, but I do like seeing those clowns upset.
If the arguments hold merit they will have to u turn again, allegedly sony can appeal as well so the CMA can't shy away from it.
CMA folks must be sweating bullets right now, but maybe deservedly so for not seeing why a trillion dollar company who makes 10s of billions can't easily foreclose.
Google come into picture too now.
That all U-turn sounded like shill respond, ignoring basic m$ tactics like lie and pay peanut fines and keep destroying businesses and sectors. You can't even make an excuse for xbox because xbox is m$ in this case, so they will keep doing what they done for years where they were sued over it multiple times.
Amusing to watch the copium still being huffed since the CMA turnaround - you're grasping at straws fellas - and Sony's latest response looks unprofessional and desperate!
As opposed to the highly professional tantrum MS throws whenever their poor little corporation is threatened.
But yeah, the CMA is all bark and this will change nothing. They didn't need this new info to know MS can and will make games exclusive. They had the entirety of their previous acquisition to go off of and they ignored it.
Last edited:
Yeah, there's been nothing professional about MS, Lulu and Bobby's behavior during this ordeal either, lol. You do what's best for your business in this situation.
Regarding Sony appealing to CAT.
This sentence makes it seem like they might be angling towards that.
This sentence makes it seem like they might be angling towards that.
Irrational is one of the conditions that CAT needs to find with the CMA PF to possibly challenge it. Maybe I'm reading to much here, but that specific word makes me think.
I agree. if CMA doesn't still suggest to divest based on the cloud then I think Sony has every right to appeal, because that reversal is unheard of and goes against their previous findings.
Best case scenario: deal gets blocked and Xbox finally dies.
Second best case scenario: deal is approved and MS runs ABK to the ground.
Second best case scenario: deal is approved and MS runs ABK to the ground.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a response from the CMA in their updated findings that they were aware of the RedFall & Starfield stuff, but considered them "inconsequential"? I could be misremembering. I'm not necessarily keeping up with this stuff as much as before.
Now, I can kind of see why RedFall being made at some point for PS5 but then cancelled would be "inconsequential" to the CMA in determining a foreclosure strategy by Microsoft on PlayStation with COD. RedFall, in all honesty, looks like it's DOA, and has about as much an impact as, at most, Deathloop and Ghostwire if it turns out to have some life to it. I doubt either of those games generated a lot of revenue, or were big sellers, and that tends to be the case with Arkane games. So RedFall is the sort of Zenimax game Microsoft would probably try making console-exclusive in the hopes it could be used to bolster Game Pass or just say to the Xbox owners "Hey! You've got a new console exclusive!!". It's not like they are leaving a lot of money on the table by dropping the PS5 version of a game that would probably not sell very well regardless even if it were multiplat.
Now, it was CMA saying MS doing the same thing with STARFIELD being "inconsequential" that sent up red flags. Big ones. There is no universe where RedFall and Starfield are on the same level. Even if Starfield seemed kind of rough with the last gameplay shown, it will completely obliterate RedFall in players and sales with almost no effort. Todd Howard has talked about Starfield like it's their next magnum opus, following in the tradition of Skyrim and Fallout 4. Both of which were MASSIVE games in sales and console-wise did at least 50/50 between Xbox and PlayStation. So let's just be simple for a second and say that for roughly 30 million copies of Skyrim sold, 10 million were on Xbox platforms, 10 million were on PlayStation platforms and the last 10 million were on PC.
Starfield is, for Bethesda, their next Skyrim/Fallout 4 style magnum opus. And it's not coming to PlayStation. So a game following up a 30+ million style seller (at least 50 million seller when including both Skyrim and Fallout 4), and you're cutting out the most popular console brand? That is at least a good 10 - 15 million copies theoretically lost right then and there, AKA the equivalent to (or near about) a yearly COD release. And Microsoft are just cutting that out completely from the picture. The CMA were completely idiotic in coming to a conclusion that Microsoft making Starfield console-exclusive was not suggestive of a consequential foreclosure strategy of COD on PlayStation, because Starfield is probably the one game Microsoft have made exclusive, which best suggests that yes, Microsoft could justify reasons to remove COD from PlayStation and eat the losses, if they felt they could make them up through gains for their own platform and services ecosystem.
All things considered, this is most likely how it'll end up playing out. Even if the CMA were factually wrong for their sudden change in the console SLC findings when they did their updated provisional findings, they aren't going to acknowledge it. They don't want to be made to look like a fool twice, even if it is of their own doing. But if they truly were wrong in their decision there, as Sony are pointing out, they could still quietly use that to reinforce a decision on the cloud side of things.
Otherwise, Sony better be arranging for a couple key Japanese 3P acquisitions and getting ready to buy shares & make investments in as many key 3P partners as possible. Which honestly, they should probably do anyway even if the ABK deal falls apart.
Now, I can kind of see why RedFall being made at some point for PS5 but then cancelled would be "inconsequential" to the CMA in determining a foreclosure strategy by Microsoft on PlayStation with COD. RedFall, in all honesty, looks like it's DOA, and has about as much an impact as, at most, Deathloop and Ghostwire if it turns out to have some life to it. I doubt either of those games generated a lot of revenue, or were big sellers, and that tends to be the case with Arkane games. So RedFall is the sort of Zenimax game Microsoft would probably try making console-exclusive in the hopes it could be used to bolster Game Pass or just say to the Xbox owners "Hey! You've got a new console exclusive!!". It's not like they are leaving a lot of money on the table by dropping the PS5 version of a game that would probably not sell very well regardless even if it were multiplat.
Now, it was CMA saying MS doing the same thing with STARFIELD being "inconsequential" that sent up red flags. Big ones. There is no universe where RedFall and Starfield are on the same level. Even if Starfield seemed kind of rough with the last gameplay shown, it will completely obliterate RedFall in players and sales with almost no effort. Todd Howard has talked about Starfield like it's their next magnum opus, following in the tradition of Skyrim and Fallout 4. Both of which were MASSIVE games in sales and console-wise did at least 50/50 between Xbox and PlayStation. So let's just be simple for a second and say that for roughly 30 million copies of Skyrim sold, 10 million were on Xbox platforms, 10 million were on PlayStation platforms and the last 10 million were on PC.
Starfield is, for Bethesda, their next Skyrim/Fallout 4 style magnum opus. And it's not coming to PlayStation. So a game following up a 30+ million style seller (at least 50 million seller when including both Skyrim and Fallout 4), and you're cutting out the most popular console brand? That is at least a good 10 - 15 million copies theoretically lost right then and there, AKA the equivalent to (or near about) a yearly COD release. And Microsoft are just cutting that out completely from the picture. The CMA were completely idiotic in coming to a conclusion that Microsoft making Starfield console-exclusive was not suggestive of a consequential foreclosure strategy of COD on PlayStation, because Starfield is probably the one game Microsoft have made exclusive, which best suggests that yes, Microsoft could justify reasons to remove COD from PlayStation and eat the losses, if they felt they could make them up through gains for their own platform and services ecosystem.
All things considered, this is most likely how it'll end up playing out. Even if the CMA were factually wrong for their sudden change in the console SLC findings when they did their updated provisional findings, they aren't going to acknowledge it. They don't want to be made to look like a fool twice, even if it is of their own doing. But if they truly were wrong in their decision there, as Sony are pointing out, they could still quietly use that to reinforce a decision on the cloud side of things.
Otherwise, Sony better be arranging for a couple key Japanese 3P acquisitions and getting ready to buy shares & make investments in as many key 3P partners as possible. Which honestly, they should probably do anyway even if the ABK deal falls apart.
Can I ask what is with the insistence that Sony acquire a JP publisher (ie Capcom, Square Enix) as a response to this acquisition? Not just from you but the internet at large. Japan is a lost market for both home consoles but especially Xbox, so I don't see why they would need to get defensive there. And there is no Japanese publisher except Kadokawa, because of From/Elden Ring, that can compare to the level of sales of COD. Their money would be better spent worrying about keeping EA and Epic titles safe since those are the ones casuals care about.
So whose ResetERA account are you the spawn of?
Well it's one thing to just look at an individual IP and in that regard, yeah, Elden Ring is the only one with the selling power of COD. But we also don't know if that is a sustainable selling power i.e will Elden Ring 2 have a similar performance or will it drop? We don't know yet and won't know for several years. But that IP still has to "prove" itself in terms of having big selling power beyond a single entry.
Realistically, while you're right that Japan itself is a bit of a lost cause for non-mobile game software (unless you're Nintendo), the truth is Capcom, Square-Enix etc. have games that resonate REALLY strongly with Western audiences and that's a bit reason why I think Sony should secure those publishers so should the opportunity arise. It doesn't matter if Street Fighter 6 does like 250K lifetime in Japan when it could do 8+ million lifetime outside of Japan, but the point is it comes from Capcom, a Japanese 3P publisher.
And IMO, when you cumulatively look at a lot of the IP some of these Japanese publishers have, and look at not just the sales but also cultural cache they have in gaming and even in the mainstream, it doesn't matter if a single one individually can't go up against COD; just a few of them combined can do so on one or several metrics, and for a lot of people, almost any one of those IP are more exciting for them than COD. Again just sticking with Capcom as an example, you have Resident Evil, Street Fighter, Devil May Cry, Monster Hunter, Ghouls 'n Ghosts and then when you dig further back into the vault, Onimusha, Rival Schools, Breath of Fire, 1945 etc.
IIRC, each of the RE remakes have done at least 8 million copies average, and the new RE games have done like 10 million if not more in sales. That's great sales revenue there, not to mention these are all known for being high-quality games, and they've building on a nostalgia cache that's been forming since 1996. That's market value in both tangible and non-tangible forms. There are other Japanese publishers with similar qualities IMO, like Square-Enix, Sega, Bandai-Namco etc. Also IMO, there's added value in that many of them have been with PlayStation since the beginning and some are very much responsible for a lot of the build in early brand value and fandom for the PlayStation brand as a whole.
So those are my reasons for why I think, if it comes to Sony needing to make some acquisitions, they need to target at least a couple of prominent Japanese 3P publishers, and IMO the two best fits would be Capcom and Square-Enix, if they're willing to sell. I don't personally think many Western publishers are worth buying for them, not to mention the few who would be, like Take-Two, just would command too much a price and Sony would be better off buying shares into those companies and investing into them as much as possible, kind of like what they've been doing with Epic.
EA doesn't even have the FIFA license anymore so that really cuts into their value, plus they're kind of in Take-Two territory where it'd command a bit too much plus Sony could do just as well simply buying shares into them. I doubt Epic are going to get acquired by anyone, certainly not another platform holder, and in any case Sony have a good amount of shares in them and can buy more into the future. Epic are also way too involved with their UE5 push into all areas of entertainment to ever consider locking down games like Fortnite exclusively to any one platform, or play favorites in terms of content for one platform, even if they were acquired. They clearly don't want to fracture their fanbase with that type of stuff.
I know some people say Sony could go after Ubisoft and/or CDPR, but I think both of those would be redundant, plus Ubisoft have a TON of staff and in the case of an M&A, lots of redundancy to cut. CDPR are very talented but Cyberpunk didn't perform the way it should've and the only other game they have is The Witcher. They also seem overvalued in the market, so there's also that.
Last edited:
There are rumors that MS intends to buy something Japanese after they're done with ABK, and it would be wise of Sony to protect their access to some of the best talent and IPs in the industry. Also, a Japanese developer that could make RPGs would be more of a response to Zenimax than ABK.
Supposing they could get through the Japanese regulators, i'm not seeing which Japanese games that are so important to protect there that are doing huge numbers. That money would be better spent following the Netflix/Nintendo strategy of increasing their first party output so they can have multiple GoW, Spiderman selling franchises.
Also, Sony is a Japanese company with only two Japanese studios getting their ass handled to them by Nintendo in Japan for decades.
It's about preventing Playstation from losing access to beloved franchises. I don't care if Persona or Final Fantasy do COD numbers, I just want to be able to keep playing them on PlayStation because I like those games. Also, if Sony adds these publishers/devs to their first party, they could potentially grow those franchises to those levels like they have with GOW and TLOU.