Sonys argument that Microsoft may intentionally make COD buggy on PS must be a really good argument for sony because it has xbot zealots enraged.
Microsoft's acquisition of Activison Blizzard
- Thread starter Darth Vader
- Start date
D
Deleted member 417
Guest
That comment sounds familiar. Must be the new MS shill talking point. You're getting famous @Bryank75
OP
OP
It's completely out of context. If you go back to my post about this, you can see how out of context that is.
Yeah, there's a reason they're taking that one out of context.
One of the main arguments for me is how Microsoft could make it extremely difficult for Sony to offer COD at the same price as them. They'd have to sell it at a major loss that only a company like MS could afford to operate at.
D
Deleted member 417
Guest
IIRC didn't Microsoft pay devs to make games look better on the Xbox 360 vs the PS3, that was brushed under the carpet as 'split ram bro'?
OP
OP
MS uses so many words and promises I'm worried they will fool the regulators like they did with the public.
Sony will be forced to pay for COD on PS Plus and lose hundred of millions and then it will be GTA, then Ubisoft and whoever MS wants to buy until Playstation is not able to keep up.
OP
OP
lol Bernd sounds desperate and we all know why.
There's quite a bit of difference between how the CMA looks at these things and how the general public looks at them.
I hope they have the foresight to block it and the EC too.
MS endgame is to force Sony (and the industry) into a subscription future where they own all the biggest IPs.
Sorry I didn't see your reply sooner. I'm not trying anything. I'm just amused because it's so silly all the hate companies receive. They don't care about any of us, yet the loyalty is so strong with a lot of you. And not sure how old everyone is here but NOTHING is fair in life, business is no exception. Continue to vote with your wallet and in the end, it's about GAMES. Supposed to be fun guys. Not fighting and putting people down.
Damn, the CMA are actually savage. No lies detected, though.
Every single time MS has done public rounds showing off contracts to Nintendo, Nvidia, offers to Sony etc, it was right around the time regulators were to make statements of their own. Clearly calculated to maximize exposure of them in the limelight to curry favor with regulators. Which I'm not saying they shouldn't do, but if MS actually cared about these offers or cared about actually extending support to other companies, they'd have done so when it wasn't just convenient for regulators to notice.
Again, they could have easily offered COD to Google Stadia anytime between January 2022 and before Stadia closed down. That offer might've actually helped Google keep Stadia going. But the reason Microsoft offered Google no such deal is because they consider Google a direct competitor, and the last thing they want to do is offer favorable terms to actual competitors especially if they are also Big Tech. It's why they didn't reach out to Amazon for a COD deal in Luna, either. I don't know what they have with Meta but since it's relegated to Quest VR, considering MS don't have anything VR (anymore), they probably do not consider VR a competitor even if Meta as a Big Tech company technically is to Microsoft.
Microsoft only considers Sony a competitor in the sense of the console gaming space but they're hoping, most likely, that by acquiring assets like ABK they can leverage their corporate size with further similar deals and just create a market which companies the size of Sony cannot realistically compete in anymore without completely changing their business model or downsizing. And I think Microsoft want these giant gaming publishers under them so they can effectively lock out other Big Tech companies; if they own the content, they won't care about licensing it to companies they otherwise consider competitors.
It's kind of a reason they are willing to offer Sony a licensing agreement for COD but I am willing to bet if Microsoft didn't feel they needed to make such an offer in order to show a good face to regulators and gain goodwill, they would not be doing such. They would sooner offer those deals to Nintendo (who competes in a completely different slice of console gaming than MS & Sony) and Nvidia (who don't make their own gaming consoles, don't develop games and don't work with 3P devs and pubs anywhere near the level of Sony or MS) than Sony, which in fact they've basically done in essence, but only because of Sony's refusal up to this point.
Which, from Sony's POV, makes 100% sense. MS owning COD and other ABK IP basically makes Sony more of a dependent on a direct competitor of a platform holder, which weakens their ability to be independent enough to provide for 3P developers and publishers. That is always something that happens with consolidations of this scale. MS owning ABK, in a manner where they own Zenimax, means Sony won't be able to negotiate for marketing rights on COD games anymore. They won't be able to get fair rate on COD or other ABK games for PS+, in fact they may have to bleed gaming revenue and pay a charge on top for PS+ access to those games just to compete with MS putting those games into Game Pass Day 1 so should the customer base swing heavily in favor of the service (which on some level, Microsoft would want to happen, and this deal is partly for the benefit of Game Pass). They're either forced to compete on a money-bleeding strategy they don't have the pockets for, or completely change their brand, downsize, and find an alternative segment of the market to stand out in.
Which is both not a guarantee, and would be for reasons unlike any other instance where other platform holders have had to bow out or change tact. Atari stopped making consoles because of failures of their own with systems like the Jaguar. Sega stopped making consoles because of poor business decisions (Sega CD in the West, 32X, Saturn etc.), poor use of money (bad early Saturn campaigns, Gameworks investment, Model 3 not recouping production costs etc.), alienating their fanbase and not answering the needs of developers transitioning to 3D. Nintendo was forced to step away from traditional consoles due to hubris going from SNES to N64 (sticking with carts, releasing late AGAIN, insulting devs like Square), stubbornness with GameCube (still no DVD support, questionable aesthetic, being late to talk with devs on aspects of GameCube design because they got the tech for Dolphin graphics chip relatively late in development) etc.
How would Sony being squeeze out of the market be related to any of those? By all accounts, PS5 meets the needs of developers and customers better than Series S & X. They made very smart use of money & resources designing PS5 for cost reductions and mass volume even during the pandemic (while not hindering long-term platform outlook the way Series S might for Xbox). They're providing the games their customer and fan bases want through great mix of 1P & 3P games. They are pushing PS5 on its own merits and not simply resting on laurels from the PS4 generation (even if PS4 being so successful naturally benefits PS5 to a degree, as it should). They've only had one home console that was in jeopardy of failure (PS3), and they even managed to salvage that towards the end and make it something of a success to help set up PS4, plus released some of their best 1P games on that system (in many ways out of necessity).
So it would look REALLY ODD if Sony were ever put in a situation where they are forced to change business tact or even leave the market as a platform holder because they simply couldn't keep up with Microsoft's spending and subsidization pricing strategies. Going years, even decades, losing money and turning in minuscule net profits from a gaming division strategy where profits barely register 3% of total corporate net profits (at best) means nothing for a company the size of Microsoft. They can still operate as normal in all other areas. That wouldn't be the case for a company like Sony, and it's that type of market shift that regulators don't generally consider the result of "fair competition", hence why they're looking at the possible ramifications of this ABK deal as close and harsh as they are.
As they should.
EDIT: Damnit that was Sony's response, not the CMA's
. Oh well, my points still stand, and it'll be interesting to see where CMA's thoughts land.
OP
OP
Anyone who mentions that game the other night with Man Utd will be banned for LIFE.Good news, football discussion is allowed here!
Quite honestly, I can't bring myself to do a lot of screenshot and upload work for Microsoft's document. It includes the same talking points they've been parroting publicly, an incredible lack of sources, and a lot of misdirection. I believe this is supposed to read to the outside world, not the CMA, and I think it's their way to say "look how bad Sony is from stealing this from you". I'm very (not fully) confident the CMA will strike this deal down by having them divest CoD. Here's one screenshot I could be arsed with:
And the source: https://assets.publishing.service.g...n_-_Response_to_Remedies_Notice_-_NCV__2_.pdf
One thing I immediately notice between this MS excerpts and the Sony ones you posted, is that Sony actually seem willing to source their own claims and data. They're citing actual instances to support their statements, and specific data alongside that.
Microsoft doesn't seem like they're doing much any of that but actually what I think hurts them the most, at least with the quoted part, is that they're still relying on ESG arguments to win the day. If groups like the FTC aren't interested in ESG benefit claims for getting the deal through (anything to the effect of "it saves [redacted] amount of money for the gamers!" would fall into that territory. Claims of worker rights and unionization would similarly fall into such territory), I doubt the CMA or even EC are interested in those, either. At least in any significant capacity.
Microsoft's seems more like an emotionally-driven argument while Sony's seems more data-driven. Usually those with the best mix of both tend to win out but I'd say Sony has a better mix of the two than Microsoft, who's been doing a lot of showboating and grandstanding publicly tugging on the heartstrings of less-informed gamers to gain favor in the public eye for the deal.
Damn, if THAT'S what was redacted? Well, yeah, talk about "under certain conditions"
.Imagine trying to limit COD access on PlayStation through simply Game Pass. Might as well get rid of the PS Store at that point. Who would buy content from there, or even sub to PS+? Especially if they just want COD?
A bit hard to imagine that's what was redacted, but I wouldn't put it past them.
Last edited:
The MS argument reads like PR fluff yet again. That's not how you talk to regulators who hold your balls in their hands.
I've made it through half a page of screeching on Reee and it's all the same 'Schlurm schlurm Sony is embarrassing! *sobs gently as the end draws near*' type of thing.
I've made it through half a page of screeching on Reee and it's all the same 'Schlurm schlurm Sony is embarrassing! *sobs gently as the end draws near*' type of thing.
MS thinks gaining forum and twitter users support is enough to make the deal pass.