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
Microsoft's acquisition of Activison Blizzard
- Thread starter Satoru
- Start date
OP
OP
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.
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.
The CMA's ruling still stood in the meta/gify case, what is he on about?
RE fanbase is mostly on PlayStation anyway, so…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.
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.
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.
Buddy is saying he argued in front of SCOTUS
. No lawyer who has reached that level or had the opportunity has time to be posting on Era.
0.
No major third party publisher will put their games day one on any of the subscription services.
Even if it’s true, he’s American, so his knowledge and experience means shit to the UK.Buddy is saying he argued in front of SCOTUS
I posted this earlier in the thread, heres an actual M&A lawyer in the uk and his take on appeals.
Microsoft's acquisition of Activison Blizzard
It looks like the loons on Reee and Installbase are hinging on the hopes that the CAT will erroneously determine cloud to be a distribution model rather than a market, despite the fact that all major regulators agreeing there is an SLC in the cloud gaming market as a result of this proposed...
icon-era.com
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.
Love to see it how this Xbox fanatics still have a meltdown. I am proud of the British.
That article just seems like they want the CMA to ignore the cloud market and use their authority to help the Xbox beat the Playstation, lol.
Ah, yes, the neoliberalism of no regulation that makes the US the paradise it is… lmao
Mergers shouldn’t even be allowed anymore. Disney needs to be broken to pieces along with Microsoft and other companies.
Xbots nervous about Starfield and already ready with excuses
