-
If you have been following the news, you should be aware that the people of Lebanon have been under a violent bombardment that has recently escalated. Please consider donating to help them if you can or trying to spread word of the fundraiser.
-
Asheville and Western North Carolina at large are in crisis after Helene, please consider contributing to these local organizations and helping the people whose lives have been destroyed.
The Microsoft / Activision Blizzard acquisition |OT| Antitrust Simulator (completed; discussing post-merger issues)
- Thread starter Idas
- Start date
- OT
Well between that and Nintendo being doomed, it's going to be a single arrogant console maker left standing!
Oh my, in my opinion this message from Microsoft has been posted just at the right time. They can now reference to this message when in talks with the CMA to show that this will positivily influence the market and it's players. Call of Duty via the Azure Cloud on your Switch!
I really could care less about CoD, I want the studios behind Call of Duty and even Toys for Bob to be able to make games they want to make (like Tango with Hi Fi Rush). Imagine Raven being able to make a Wolverine game, oh wait...
This thread was made because every other update thread was full of people dogpiling people who wanted to discuss the actual process and laws around the merger and mechanisms etc
The whole "I feel this is bad for x" doesn't make sense in a thread about actual legal definitions and regulatory processes (and their sticking to / deviation from conventional understanding of markets and vertical integration mergers)
Well at least that's what I thought the tread was started for
I don't think the MS/Nintendo agreement is going to sway the CMA at all given the initial report for them dismissing Nintendo as being in the same market as Sony/MS.
The pertinent fact against the narrative that this thread 'doesn't allow those opposed to the deal', is that no one has come up with a fully considered and legitimate reason why this deal shouldn't go ahead. That is why these takes are meeting the resistance they have.
I have yet to see a fully considered argument as to why this is bad for consumers, and the market, but I'm fully open to being proven wrong on that.
I think this is a variation of "Sony shot themself in the foot" 😁
What would gamepass have to do with price parity?
The price of ownership will likely be the same across all platforms
OP
OP
Small update from MLex:
- Ahead of the meeting and talking with the press, Brad Smith said that: "We are more than willing, given our strategy, to address the concerns that others have". "Whether it is by contracts, like the one we did with Nintendo this morning, or by regulatory undertakings, as we have consistently been open to".
- Original version:MLex understands that although Sony has refuted the idea that licensing deals will ease competition concerns, it is engaged in talks with the Xbox maker on potential remedies.
- Updated version: While Sony has held talks with Microsoft on platform access, it has stressed that licensing deals won't ease competition concerns.
- The Statement of Objections is still pursuing all three theories of harm against Microsoft that were mentioned in November (OS and subscription services included, then).
- Ahead of the meeting and talking with the press, Brad Smith said that: "We are more than willing, given our strategy, to address the concerns that others have". "Whether it is by contracts, like the one we did with Nintendo this morning, or by regulatory undertakings, as we have consistently been open to".
- Original version:
- Updated version: While Sony has held talks with Microsoft on platform access, it has stressed that licensing deals won't ease competition concerns.
- The Statement of Objections is still pursuing all three theories of harm against Microsoft that were mentioned in November (OS and subscription services included, then).
Last edited:
I think folks can be against it without having the legal knowledge to argue why. It could be as simple as wanting the deal to fail because they want ABK to stay multiplatform. I'm sure crash fans would like all crash games to stay multiplatform if they only plan to buy a ps or switch.
Oh so the EC haven't dropped subscription services like the CMA did. And the still have OS issues. That seems bad for MS.
If the deal doesn't go through, the industry isn't healthy anymore? How so?
Nice PR spin. I mean you don't even own ABK yet, this is simply "pinky swear".
I would just hope it's in good faith, and not just to appease any concern that they weren't even willing to consider MS proposals.
Nintendo wouldn't have signed the agreement if it was streaming-only just for the sake of holding that version back. The only three options are:
- This includes the current Switch and Nintendo accepts streaming-only because they know there's no reasonable way to port them to handheld hardware from 2017 without cutting back features like player counts and other essential elements.
- This deal is expected to cover a timeframe that starts with the Switch 2 and they have negotiated with MS that the Switch 2 will have sufficient power to natively run the next decade of CoD releases.
- This deal is for Switch and/or Switch 2 but includes some combination of running natively and through streaming, as both parties are in agreement based on the technical specs and the expected scope of future CoD games.
Do you know how many developers already work on COD in it's current state?
I'm actually interested in how MS goes about this when the acquisition is done, the man power to port COD to switch yearly surely can't match the reward if you ask me
Which is fine, we all have a personal stance, but the issue is when these are made as definitive statements, i.e. 'this deal shouldn't go through', instead of ' I don't want the deal to go through', the former bringing justified scrutiny.
That's an encouraging update. still hoping the deal goes through.
MS should have invited Nintendo over too. I'm sure they'll have a lot to say.
I think what he was trying to say is that the FTC cannot block a merger or approve for that matter. When they "move to block", they're asking the courts to block it. In the US a merger can only be deemed illegal thru the courts.
I don't 100% understand the OS complaint unless its specifically about the streaming/server OS. Even the CMA dropped that one.
There are behavioural solutions here imo but unsure whether they make sense for MS. I don't know what is the $ revenue amount is driven by Windows Client OS licensing within Azure.
Sets a bad precedent that will hamper the ability to compete and will help greatly Sony to maintain current status quo, also will stagnate the industry in their progress to become more democratic and platform agnostic thanks to services such as game pass. Also people at ABK are way worse without it.
Last edited:
Kotick just had a meeting with Jim Ryan and told him that the deal with Microsoft is extremely kind on his pocket. So if Sony doesn't side with the deal, Kotick promises that as long as he can control Activison's decisions, there will be no other exclusivity deal with Sony.
Just kidding....
Just kidding....
MS can only compete and change the status quo by buying a publisher for $69 billion? Nintendo went from flop (GameCube) to hit (Wii) to flop (WiiU) to hit (Switch) with pure innovation. This deal isn't going to drive innovation, quite the opposite, imo. And ABK employees are the last thing MS thinks about.
Would Nintendo not sign this no matter what? It's free money for them, especially when the first game launches and people buy it out of curiosity.
No it is not. It is a contract and therefore an obligation. Of course, this only comes into effect after a successful takeover.
Both Nintendo and Sony have managed too turn things around when things haven't been going good for them without buy pubs.
It's all about starting too deliver good games that people want now for Xbox, they have the studios needed for it already.
Well if Microsoft is going to prove that "behavioral remedies will work" for the CMA, these are the kinds of moves they need to make. An unprecedented binding contract to not only continue bringing CoD to PS and Steam, but to new platforms like Switch and possibly Nvidia's geforcenow. It's no skin off anyone's nose if the deal falls through, but now if the CMA's biggest argument is that CoD is "essential", MS has now legal bound themselves to bring that essential product to more devices. If the contract has an option for Nintendo/Sony/Valve/etc to extend, and Microsoft commits to signing similar deals with any new competitors to wish to have that "essential input" it should cover all angles for the CMA's biggest objection.
This is either a hail Mary play if you think the CMA has all but closed the door on the deal, and if you think MS and the CMA are negotiating to get the deal approved this is likely what the CMA said needed to happen.
Why would that be bad for Microsoft? The European Commission needs to find evidence for their claims. At the latest in court, should they block the takeover.(which is unlikely)
Industry is consolidating, big names are making acquisitions so the way to compete now is like this. Also it's not fair to compare MS and Nintendo, they are totally different cases. Nintendo is a well established and beloved company with strong brand recognition and IPs, Microsoft lacks that and it's not something you can build overnight. Their innovation push is to change the industry business model from the old backwards one that allows Sony to charge 70 dollars per game, to one subscription service based that will unlock games for current and new players anywhere. This deal will allow for ABK games to reach new platforms and to give a big push to this vision. And it doesn't matter if MS is not doing this for ABK employees, if the deal benefits them who fucking cares.
Feature and content parity are different from graphical/technical parity. Also from contracts that we have seen they all seem to have a stipulation referring to parity within the technical limits of the device it's being developed for. I would also say if they could make a playable version of COD for the Wii U, they can definitely get a feature and content parity version running on the Switch.
I doubt it, they know MS wants to show this to regulators to help support their argument for a $70 billion acquisition so I assume they will ask for some basics in terms of just getting decent ports. If they wanted to be aggressive, they could ask for a marketing deal equal to what Sony got but just making sure the ports are on as equal ground as possible seems like an easy ask.
Yeah because when people come in with what is said below, if you want to call people calling out dumb shit as "dog piling" then so be it. I haven't seen much flat out abuse to anyone with a logical or sensible comment, but when people say stupid shit people are going to call them out and that is fair, communication goes both ways and isn't limited to just comment and receive no feedback on said comment.
The people who get dogpiled are the ones who post nonsense. Latching on to whatever article or press release that feeds their narrative, while conveniently ignoring any established information that goes against it.
Most of the people in this thread are here because they genuinely find the process of this potential Actiblizz deal fascinating, and want to keep themselves updated - people larding up the post count with console partisan bullshit aren't contributing anything.
The agreement isn't to promote Nintendo as an equal competitor, it's more to show that they are doing what they said they would in making it available on platforms that it doesn't currently exist and basically remove the foreclosure argument.
This right here is the problem. You've automatically lumped together all people who aren't for the deal as console warriors.
I'm not going to engage any further to avoid any further derail, but that's not what I said at all.
So, you are saying the subscription model is the best way forward and the only way to achieve it is buying publishers for billions? That doesn't look sustainable to me. Especially if only four or five companies worldwide can pull something like that off. Does the deal actually benefit ABK employees now and in the future? How do you know that? Imo, the industry will grow and innovate with or without this deal.
Honestly it's hard to see the position of people opposing this deal as any other than "I want Sony to keep their current status". But you tell me.
No, I'm saying the subscription model is a way to move the industry forward making games more accesible for everyone. They might be other ways of innovating, but this is the one they are pushing for and greatly benefits me as a player AND consumer. As for its sustainability, I don't think there will be many acquisitions as big as this one, since Activision is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) third party publisher out there. And it's precisely the magnitude of this deal that will make enough shockwaves to drive this business model shift. Kinda like when Sony dropped Nintendo and did their own thing, remember?
Last edited:
other than to not have to buy any ActiBlizz game in the future I now want this deal to pass to see what the hell cod looks like and plays like on Switch
They could absolutely develop a version that would run on switch. It wouldn't be a scaled down version of the PC. Think more like cod done in the same engine used for cod mobile. They could do content and feature parity on a mobile engine rather than the modified id Tech engine they use for PC and console.
I wouldn't say "anymore". I think the current status quo of the market is already not healthy competitively.
This is an overly binary view imo. Nintendo has never lacked quality first party output at all, so it's clearly not just a case of "make good games" when a sizable amount of the content that's selling tens of millions on Switch was also available in almost the same form on their worst selling console by far.
Nintendo's current "turn around" with the Switch is in no small part a result of it consolidating the handheld market that they've always held an uncontested dominance in. People just seem to forget that Nintendo had two hardware lines prior to this gen, and one of them had literally never lost a direct battle, ever.
No they didn't. They pointed out that posts that get "dogpiled" aren't a result of being against the deal. They get dogpiled for being daft and overly dramatic, or thinly veiled console war posts.
Over the course of the previous few pages the participants in this thread are largely split on those that are for or against the deal, and only one poster saw any kind of "dogpile". You notice any difference in their post that may have been responsible for that?