Microsoft's acquisition of Activison Blizzard

riesgoyfortuna

Veteran
4 Jul 2022
1,369
1,819
About that guy, prof not only its a expert lawyer with thousands of cases, its also a Activision shareolder too, man this bots have little talent to lie

Screenshot_2023-05-21-02-33-53-846_com.android.chrome.jpg Screenshot_2023-05-21-02-34-40-239_com.android.chrome.jpg
 
OP
OP
Darth Vader

Darth Vader

I find your lack of faith disturbing
Founder
20 Jun 2022
7,365
10,933
Its prof the New Perry mason on the thread, also its cute how there New users with no avatar Just appear from nowhere in that thread, i mean Just read this View attachment 1420

Even if this person is indeed a lawyer in the US, their experience is valued at exactly fuck all in the UK. With his Murican law degree he'd be serving fries at McDonalds in Regent Street.

The thing is, he's not a lawyer. He's probably not even a real person. He's an avatar, an NPC, sponsored by the corporate bot farm of professional astroturfers.
 

Yurinka

Veteran
VIP
21 Jun 2022
7,718
6,603
Remember that this is to secure their marketing investment, not out of spite. If Sony was promoting the game but MS was able to just put it on GP, the return on those marketing dollars would be diminished. First right of refusal and exclusive negotiation windows are also pretty standard contract terms.

In short, a nothingburger.
Yep. In this deal (I have the full document) Sony paid a certain amount of millions in addition to support its marketing in different ways via different channels. In exchange, Sony secures it's released the same day, with the same content, with the same quality plus gets exclusivity of potential VR version and its console bundles, and gets this preference to negotiate the inclusion on their game sub securing a time window during which the game isn't included in rival game subs.

So yes, they block the game from being in GP during some time to protect the investment they made in the game.
 

Swift_Star

Veteran
2 Jul 2022
4,137
6,038
Here's the full game subs section without the important parts you removed. In addition to this 1 year of "exclusive negotiation window", they have 120 days to negotiate exclusively with Sony. If they don't have an agreement, then they can negotiate with other platform (like MS) to include it in a non-Sony game sub. Then Sony has at least 60 days more to negotiate/match that offer. If after these 60 days they don't get an agreement with Sony then they can sign with the other one (MS).

So if Sony tells them to negotiate a this a few days before the year ends, means that during 1 year and 5 months (plus the time they spend to negotiate with MS in the middle) it won't be on GP.

image.png


This means that if Sony wants, can keep the game for up to almost a year and a half outside GP and that would be without signing it for PS+. Obviously, if they sign it for PS+ they may make a separate deal, where they could say that during a certain period of time more it won't be in rival game subs.

And yes, both MS and Nintendo also have their own marketing deals or timed exclusivity deals where they also forbid from marketing the game in the booths of direct competitors at events like E3/Gamescom/TGS/etc, including it on rival game subs during a certain period of time etc.

I remember the gross case of -I think it was- Resident Evil 5, where MS got the marketing and the game got originally only announced for Xbox in the first press release, didn't mention PlayStation even if the game got released the same day in both platforms.
RE fanbase is mostly on PlayStation anyway, so…
 
  • they're_right_you_know
Reactions: Edmund

Nitro

Active member
10 Apr 2023
214
573
North Pole
So, Sony could theoretically delay the games appearance on a competing subscription service if they exercise their negotiating right on the final day and enter into bad faith negations with Capcom by feigning interest in featuring Village on PS Plus and hoping for a counter offer to manifest before dragging out the process further before finally dropping out and saying "nah, we good." The other thing to consider is, if such an agreement did not exist, how likely is it that these AAA games would appear on a competing subscription service day 1 or at some point within the first 12 months? The asking price would be astronomical. CoD aside, I highly doubt Sony are blocking something Microsoft or any other platform holder would be unwilling to pay for in the first place.
 

Swift_Star

Veteran
2 Jul 2022
4,137
6,038
So, Sony could theoretically delay the games appearance on a competing subscription service if they exercise their negotiating right on the final day and enter into bad faith negations with Capcom by feigning interest in featuring Village on PS Plus and hoping for a counter offer to manifest before dragging out the process further before finally dropping out and saying "nah, we good." The other thing to consider is, if such an agreement did not exist, how likely is it that these AAA games would appear on a competing subscription service day 1 or at some point within the first 12 months? The asking price would be astronomical. CoD aside, I highly doubt Sony are blocking something Microsoft or any other platform holder would be unwilling to pay for in the first place.
0.
No major third party publisher will put their games day one on any of the subscription services.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nitro

FatKaz

Veteran
16 Jul 2022
2,253
4,248
About that guy, prof not only its a expert lawyer with thousands of cases, its also a Activision shareolder too, man this bots have little talent to lie

View attachment 1421View attachment 1422
I posted this earlier in the thread, heres an actual M&A lawyer in the uk and his take on appeals.


Also there was another M&A lawyer from uk who appeared on gameondaily podcast. It's an xbox focused podcast, but they had him speak on stuff like the likelihood of this deal going through, and the silly notion of MS somehow going ahead with the merger without the UK. The pro acquistion nutters won't like his take.