I don't know if banned users can still see posts.
However if they can't then
However if they can't then
Yep. They've also written the playbook for their rivals to getting anything through.Its crazy how MS was able to get the CMA back on their page and working with them again. People said the CMA wouldnt buckle. But they did. MS aint no joke.
Some people have interpreted this as the CMA losing its nerve. Joost Rietveld, an associate professor at University College London who specializes in platforms and gaming, suggests the agency doesn’t want to be seen as a lone wolf. “At a time when the UK is struggling to keep up its reputation as an economic powerhouse, as well as being a fertile breeding ground for tech startups, it doesn’t look good if its competition regulator is the only one left taking issue with such a high-profile deal,” he says.
Others say the CMA may be on the verge of winning its showdown with one of the world’s most powerful corporations. “Rather than considering this a U-turn on the part of the CMA, it could be that Microsoft has realized that its appeal is unlikely to succeed,” says Anne Witt, a professor of law and a member of the EDHEC Augmented Law Institute in France.
“Yeah, yes.”Yeah, no. They may have low-level employees who are left-wing, progressive, socialist etc. but the actual people who own the companies, their board of directors, many of their shareholders etc. are generally right-of-center on socio-economic issues, if not even more right-leaning than that.
A lot of the DEI (Diversity, Equality, & Inclusion) stuff you see from these Big Tech companies is virtue-signaling so they can boost their ESG scores with massive investment firms like BlackRock, and look "safer" for investors in general. The big brass at the Big Tech companies don't actually give a crap about or even genuinely support the DEI stuff.
The unfortunate part is these companies (and others like Disney) basically virtue-signal DEI paired with genuinely bad stories and writing, so people conflate DEI stuff now with bad products, as if there haven't been trash shows/games/music/movies etc. that have also 100% lacked any DEI (and continue to). I don't know if that conflation has come about accidentally or if it's been an intentional thing, though, knowing the ease many low-level thinkers in consumer markets can be manipulated through misdirection, to engineer dislike for something that is inherently neither good NOR bad. Like many other things, DEI is inherently neutral. It can be good or bad depending on the intentions and talent of those who push for it in their works.
But I think this is veering a bit off from MS/ABK in particular, so I'll stop here.
I get what you're saying. And one thing 100% right about Big Tech is that they want to control everything. In that sense, they thrive off of an authoritative environment, and have gotten many cues from governments like the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
But I'd still say in terms of the personal beliefs of the company founders, and their biggest investors and board members...when it come to socio-economic things they are probably right-of-center, though in some cases they may be just to grift and virtue-signal to right-wing people (and honestly, they virtue-signal to pretty much everyone). They are fiscally 100% against things like socialism, though.
SoloKingRobert is mad.
Judge Corley apparently said so:
As a game publisher, Sony’s PlayStation Studios, is responsible for blockbuster hits like
God of War, The Last of Us, and Spider-Man, the vast majority of which can be played only on
PlayStation. (See PX7053 (Ryan Dep. Tr. Vol. I) at 20:16–20:23; RX5055 at 015–016.) And as a
purchaser of third-party games,
(PX7054 (Ryan Dep. Tr. Vol. II) at 107:10–18.; Dkt. No. 283,
6/23/23 Tr. (Spencer) at 357:12–16.)
Sony views exclusive content as crucial to PlayStation’s continued success and to
“differentiate [their] platform.” (PX7053 (Ryan Dep. Tr. Vol. I) at 212:19–23; RX0079.) As a
result, Sony offers far more exclusive first- and third- party titles than Xbox. (PX7053 (Ryan Dep.
Tr.) at 169:24–170:2; Dkt. No. 283, 6/23/23 Tr. (Spencer) at 362:17–23.) Sony also enjoys “an
enormous competitive advantage” because it can draw on the intellectual property of “Sony
Music, Sony TV, and Sony’s film library” for its game development. (Dkt. No. 285, 6/28/23 Tr.
(Kotick) at 723:13-16.) The number of exclusive games available on PlayStation dwarfs the
number available on Xbox, with eight exclusive games on PlayStation for every one on Xbox.
(RX2098-001 (“Overall, for every 1 exclusive Microsoft game, PlayStation has 8 of them.”); see
Dkt. No. 284, 6/27/23 Tr. (Bailey) at 684:3–25; RX5055 at 018–019, Exs. 11A, 11B; Dkt. No. 285,
6/28/23 Tr. (Nadella) at 849:1–8 (“The dominant player [i.e., Sony] there has defined market
competition using exclusives and so that’s the world we live in.”).)
Sony has often paid third-party studios to “skip” Xbox—either entirely or to delay a title’s
release on Xbox. (Dkt. No. 283, 6/23/23 Tr. (Spencer) at 313:4–8.) For example, on June 22,
2023, while this trial was happening, Square Enix released Final Fantasy XVI, the latest release in
the iconic Final Fantasy franchise, exclusive to PlayStation 5. Previous versions of Final Fantasy
shipped on Xbox, but the reason Final Fantasy XVI is a PlayStation exclusive is because Sony
“pa[id] to exclude Xbox.” (Id. at 312:20–313:8, 441:18–443:1.) ZeniMax, too, was paid by Sony not to ship Deathloop or Ghostwire for Xbox, and one of the reasons Microsoft bought ZeniMax
was concern Sony would also arrange for Starfield to go exclusive and skip Xbox. (Id. at 314:16–
24.)
The cat is out the bag. We always knew she would rule in favour of Microsoft.
I feel sorry for the judge really. It’s the US system that’s at fault.This reads like a terrible opinion. No thought put into it whatsoever, and just parroted Microsoft.
SoloKingRobert is mad.
Judge Corley apparently said so:
As a game publisher, Sony’s PlayStation Studios, is responsible for blockbuster hits like
God of War, The Last of Us, and Spider-Man, the vast majority of which can be played only on
PlayStation. (See PX7053 (Ryan Dep. Tr. Vol. I) at 20:16–20:23; RX5055 at 015–016.) And as a
purchaser of third-party games,
(PX7054 (Ryan Dep. Tr. Vol. II) at 107:10–18.; Dkt. No. 283,
6/23/23 Tr. (Spencer) at 357:12–16.)
Sony views exclusive content as crucial to PlayStation’s continued success and to
“differentiate [their] platform.” (PX7053 (Ryan Dep. Tr. Vol. I) at 212:19–23; RX0079.) As a
result, Sony offers far more exclusive first- and third- party titles than Xbox. (PX7053 (Ryan Dep.
Tr.) at 169:24–170:2; Dkt. No. 283, 6/23/23 Tr. (Spencer) at 362:17–23.) Sony also enjoys “an
enormous competitive advantage” because it can draw on the intellectual property of “Sony
Music, Sony TV, and Sony’s film library” for its game development. (Dkt. No. 285, 6/28/23 Tr.
(Kotick) at 723:13-16.) The number of exclusive games available on PlayStation dwarfs the
number available on Xbox, with eight exclusive games on PlayStation for every one on Xbox.
(RX2098-001 (“Overall, for every 1 exclusive Microsoft game, PlayStation has 8 of them.”); see
Dkt. No. 284, 6/27/23 Tr. (Bailey) at 684:3–25; RX5055 at 018–019, Exs. 11A, 11B; Dkt. No. 285,
6/28/23 Tr. (Nadella) at 849:1–8 (“The dominant player [i.e., Sony] there has defined market
competition using exclusives and so that’s the world we live in.”).)
Sony has often paid third-party studios to “skip” Xbox—either entirely or to delay a title’s
release on Xbox. (Dkt. No. 283, 6/23/23 Tr. (Spencer) at 313:4–8.) For example, on June 22,
2023, while this trial was happening, Square Enix released Final Fantasy XVI, the latest release in
the iconic Final Fantasy franchise, exclusive to PlayStation 5. Previous versions of Final Fantasy
shipped on Xbox, but the reason Final Fantasy XVI is a PlayStation exclusive is because Sony
“pa[id] to exclude Xbox.” (Id. at 312:20–313:8, 441:18–443:1.) ZeniMax, too, was paid by Sony not to ship Deathloop or Ghostwire for Xbox, and one of the reasons Microsoft bought ZeniMax
was concern Sony would also arrange for Starfield to go exclusive and skip Xbox. (Id. at 314:16–
24.)
The cat is out the bag. We always knew she would rule in favour of Microsoft.
Look at who MS' cloud contracts are targeted at: bring your own game providers - you buy it on an MS platform or MS takes a cut and then you spend money letting people stream a game they already have through an inferior distribution method that runs on Azure while not making a dime off microtransactions because the contract forbids it. These aren't competitors. Where are Google's and Amazon's contracts?after all of this is over, I bet abk games will release on Nintendo consoles regardless of contracts as they are not direct competition whereas Sony is.
Even though Microsoft said this was about Google and Amazon
The wildest thing is how MS have gaslight everyone into thinking that 3rd party timed exclusives is some unique practice to Sony that only they employ. The judge even fell for the 8 to 1 figure even though the majority of that is Japanese devs that don't see an Xbox version as worth it.This reads like a terrible opinion. No thought put into it whatsoever, and just parroted Microsoft.
Crooks the lot of them, most people who watch this will have no idea how they bent over for microsoft during the CAT hearing on monday. This is all a public facade, they've obviously made up their minds.
Sarah Cardell of the CMA addressing accusations that her team has caved in to pressure from Microsoft. Skip ahead to 7:30.
Sarah Cardell of the CMA addressing accusations that her team has caved in to pressure from Microsoft. Skip ahead to 7:30.
Because she is giving very surface level answers, technically right now it is blocked, but that ignores all the shit they said they are trying to do during the CAT hearing. If the reporter actually started digging deeper her bullshit would be exposed.This doesn’t make any sense. She says the deal is still blocked. Then why in the court hearing was the CMA saying they want to move forward and cancel the appeal? They were trying so bad to get appeal cancelled and the deal passed. Bumbling themselves all over the place.
SoloKingRobert is mad.
Judge Corley apparently said so:
As a game publisher, Sony’s PlayStation Studios, is responsible for blockbuster hits like
God of War, The Last of Us, and Spider-Man, the vast majority of which can be played only on
PlayStation. (See PX7053 (Ryan Dep. Tr. Vol. I) at 20:16–20:23; RX5055 at 015–016.) And as a
purchaser of third-party games,
(PX7054 (Ryan Dep. Tr. Vol. II) at 107:10–18.; Dkt. No. 283,
6/23/23 Tr. (Spencer) at 357:12–16.)
Sony views exclusive content as crucial to PlayStation’s continued success and to
“differentiate [their] platform.” (PX7053 (Ryan Dep. Tr. Vol. I) at 212:19–23; RX0079.) As a
result, Sony offers far more exclusive first- and third- party titles than Xbox. (PX7053 (Ryan Dep.
Tr.) at 169:24–170:2; Dkt. No. 283, 6/23/23 Tr. (Spencer) at 362:17–23.) Sony also enjoys “an
enormous competitive advantage” because it can draw on the intellectual property of “Sony
Music, Sony TV, and Sony’s film library” for its game development. (Dkt. No. 285, 6/28/23 Tr.
(Kotick) at 723:13-16.) The number of exclusive games available on PlayStation dwarfs the
number available on Xbox, with eight exclusive games on PlayStation for every one on Xbox.
(RX2098-001 (“Overall, for every 1 exclusive Microsoft game, PlayStation has 8 of them.”); see
Dkt. No. 284, 6/27/23 Tr. (Bailey) at 684:3–25; RX5055 at 018–019, Exs. 11A, 11B; Dkt. No. 285,
6/28/23 Tr. (Nadella) at 849:1–8 (“The dominant player [i.e., Sony] there has defined market
competition using exclusives and so that’s the world we live in.”).)
Sony has often paid third-party studios to “skip” Xbox—either entirely or to delay a title’s
release on Xbox. (Dkt. No. 283, 6/23/23 Tr. (Spencer) at 313:4–8.) For example, on June 22,
2023, while this trial was happening, Square Enix released Final Fantasy XVI, the latest release in
the iconic Final Fantasy franchise, exclusive to PlayStation 5. Previous versions of Final Fantasy
shipped on Xbox, but the reason Final Fantasy XVI is a PlayStation exclusive is because Sony
“pa[id] to exclude Xbox.” (Id. at 312:20–313:8, 441:18–443:1.) ZeniMax, too, was paid by Sony not to ship Deathloop or Ghostwire for Xbox, and one of the reasons Microsoft bought ZeniMax
was concern Sony would also arrange for Starfield to go exclusive and skip Xbox. (Id. at 314:16–
24.)
The cat is out the bag. We always knew she would rule in favour of Microsoft.