The Microsoft / Activision Blizzard acquisition |OT| Antitrust Simulator (completed; discussing post-merger issues)

soul creator · Jan 17, 2023

Vonterribad said:
No idea what you are trying to say here, I don't see how regulators fought for a 10 year deal. That concession has not validated by any regulatory body, it was simply a ploy to try and speed up the process from MS's end. One which Sony still deems inadequate.

And as mentioned numerous times, the 10 year "concession" is like 99% likely a thing Microsoft was gonna do anyway, lol. And it's not because Microsoft is nice or that they're good guys, but it's because it's good business to keep a highly multiplayer-focused, crossplay, community oriented game on multiple platforms (like Minecraft), rather than trying to use it as exclusive content to sell a console (which may not even work).

That kind of experiment works better with something that's single-player focused and doesn't already exist on current platforms...like a Starfield.

Theonlytman2 · Jan 17, 2023

ozumas said:
I just don't like people calling FTC or other regulators as uneducated. And even if they are not educated, they need to hire people educated not you accept the deal just because Microsoft or some companies that are not direct competitors agree with, though some companies like Steam make sense to be take in consideration given in some form are a direct competition.

I would differenciate market variety betwen publishers or developers and hardware manufacturers like Xbox or Sony (and even Nvidia with their cloud services). Supergiant, for example, doesn't compete with Microsoft because there are not direct competition between games but you only play Hades in one piece of hardware. So my point, videogames, as software, are very diverse and that is great but also is great if Microsoft could be able to position against Sony better, buying Activision Blizzard, offering better services etc... So Sony is forced to improve their offers and services.

And that 10 year-deal for COD was made because regulators and Sony (and competition) fought for that, if they wouldn't be any complain, Microsoft wouldn't have to make that concession so even uneducated regulatros can make good deals.

Which is exactly what the CMA and EC have done. They surveyed people of all fronts to see what they view of the acquisition. The UK public has come out in support. The CMA made sure to list both supporting and opposing arguments in its report. Nothing on the EC yet, but it is important to know that the gaming industry's acquisitions are fairly new and unheard of. It was once a niche hobby, now the biggest media industry in the world. They asked, and the majority of voices are in favor, including unions, game publishers, game studios, and players, all of which have claimed they'd directly benefit. The market leaders were loud and protestive.

I'm not directly comparing smaller publishers to Microsoft or Sony. What i'm saying is that any game whether it be small or big developer, can explode in popularity at any moment to fill a gap in case another franchise declines or gets restricted. Elder Scrolls is no longer on PlayStation? Genshin Impact fills in the gap with comparable revenue and more players. Call of Duty is declining in Latin America as interest goes to Fortnite and Apex Legends. Supergiant's Hades became a Game of the Year contender and sparked more developers to follow its formula and engaging gameplay. We do seem to argee that video games are very competitive in terms of what people want, and it is still a diverse industry. It's certainly more diverse than the film industry which regulators barely even glanced at. Disney with 40% of the box office, Sony with 90% of anime distribution outside of Japan? Both got phase 1 reviews. I say that's honestly unfair. I do agree that this merger needs a Phase 2 review, and from what I seen, there is plenty of timing for competitors to respond, and it adds competition to mobile fronts.

There's a bit of half-truth. Microsoft and Sony did agree to a 3-year deal at first, until Sony came to regulators claiming it would hurt their profits and player base. Microsoft extended this to not just 10 years, but also Valve and Nintendo, which they both agreed to. This may have been due to the pressure, but the way I see it, COD was gonna be multi-platform no matter what. Warzone is a top 5 played game, it makes more money on PlayStation and it makes more sales. It's more logical to treat the $30 billion dollar franchise like the best-selling game ever, Minecraft. They benefit from being everywhere, and they benefit from as many players as possible via crossplay. In-case you wonder about Bethesda exclusives, those are single-players with the intent of attracting consumers to get a console. It's no coincidence that Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft's exclusives are single-player based.

vixolus · Jan 17, 2023

Theonlytman2 said:
Which is exactly what the CMA and EC have done. They surveyed people of all fronts to see what they view of the acquisition. The UK public has come out in support. The CMA made sure to list both supporting and opposing arguments in its report. Nothing on the EC yet, but it is important to know that the gaming industry's acquisitions are fairly new and unheard of. It was once a niche hobby, now the biggest media industry in the world. They asked, and the majority of voices are in favor, including unions, game publishers, game studios, and players, all of which have claimed they'd directly benefit. The market leaders were loud and protestive.

I'm not directly comparing smaller publishers to Microsoft or Sony. What i'm saying is that any game whether it be small or big developer, can explode in popularity at any moment to fill a gap in case another franchise declines or gets restricted. Elder Scrolls is no longer on PlayStation? Genshin Impact fills in the gap with comparable revenue and more players. Call of Duty is declining in Latin America as interest goes to Fortnite and Apex Legends. Supergiant's Hades became a Game of the Year contender and sparked more developers to follow its formula and engaging gameplay. We do seem to argee that video games are very competitive in terms of what people want, and it is still a diverse industry. It's certainly more diverse than the film industry which regulators barely even glanced at. Disney with 40% of the box office, Sony with 90% of anime distribution outside of Japan? Both got phase 1 reviews. I say that's honestly unfair. I do agree that this merger needs a Phase 2 review, and from what I seen, there is plenty of timing for competitors to respond, and it adds competition to mobile fronts.

There's a bit of half-truth. Microsoft and Sony did agree to a 3-year deal at first, until Sony came to regulators claiming it would hurt their profits and player base. Microsoft extended this to not just 10 years, but also Valve and Nintendo, which they both agreed to. This may have been due to the pressure, but the way I see it, COD was gonna be multi-platform no matter what. Warzone is a top 5 played game, it makes more money on PlayStation and it makes more sales. It's more logical to treat the $30 billion dollar franchise like the best-selling game ever, Minecraft. They benefit from being everywhere, and they benefit from as many players as possible via crossplay. In-case you wonder about Bethesda exclusives, those are single-players with the intent of attracting consumers to get a console. It's no coincidence that Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft's exclusives are single-player based.

Sony never agreed to a 3 year deal with MS, it was just what was offered to them by MS at the start.

Theonlytman2 · Jan 17, 2023

vixolus said:
Sony never agreed to a 3 year deal with MS, it was just what was offered to them by MS at the start.

Gotcha. I do wonder now, what does this say about next-gen consoles though? Would entry titles be locked to Xbox? I do believe Microsoft will still agree to port due to Warzone popularity as well as billions of dollars from PlayStation. People usually buy a PlayStation for God of War, Last of Us, or Spider-Man. People buy an Xbox for Game Pass. I'm curious for how it'll all line up for these upcoming years.

vixolus · Jan 17, 2023

Theonlytman2 said:
Gotcha. I do wonder now, what does this say about next-gen consoles though? Would entry titles be locked to Xbox? I do believe Microsoft will still agree to port due to Warzone popularity as well as billions of dollars from PlayStation. People usually buy a PlayStation for God of War, Last of Us, or Spider-Man. People buy an Xbox for Game Pass. I'm curious for how it'll all line up for these upcoming years.

The ten year deal would cover next gen, at least part of it. But Phil has started it's not about pulling the rug on PlayStation 6 or 7 after that time is up, they will release COD on PlayStation as long as there is a PlayStation to port to.

Iron Eddie · Jan 17, 2023

ozumas said:
But whetever Microsoft wants or not, people owns playstation and has game bought there so in order for people to consume Gamepass they need people to buy and Xbox console, use the PC as a gaming station or use xCloud that at the moment is not a massive market (at least in countries with not so developed internet network). So they still have to fight the console territory

I'm not sure I understand your point. Microsoft is giving you more options than you have now. In it's current state PlayStation owners will be buying the game like they normally have, if this deal goes through you will also have the option to subscribe to Game Pass on PC or Xbox or stream on mobile. So again, how does that hurt you as a PlayStation owner? You're not gaining or losing anything. Do you want the FTC to protect Sony's interest or the consumers?

Expy said:
Assuming they have the disposable income to do so, sure.

Isn't Game Pass and Series S a more affordable option than a PS5? Microsoft is also talking about at least 10 years of support, plenty of time to choose what platform to buy by then.

ozumas · Jan 17, 2023

Vonterribad said:
No idea what you are trying to say here, I don't see how regulators fought for a 10 year deal. That concession has not validated by any regulatory body, it was simply a ploy to try and speed up the process from MS's end. One which Sony still deems inadequate.

If they weren't regulators Microsoft for sure wouldn't make that concession. My point is in a world without regulators this deal would be already done and no body would assure you Microsoft would make that concession.

Iron Eddie said:
I'm not sure I understand your point. Microsoft is giving you more options than you have now. In it's current state PlayStation owners will be buying the game like they normally have, if this deal goes through you will also have the option to subscribe to Game Pass on PC or Xbox or stream on mobile. So again, how does that hurt you as a PlayStation owner? You're not gaining or losing anything. Do you want the FTC to protect Sony's interest or the consumers?

Why me argumenting something means I don't want this deal to be done? I am a PC owner, I could buy an Xbox no problem, I would do If I wouldn't have a PC.

And I don't understand why you quote specific that phrase of mine. I was saying even though Microsoft is focusing on live services and cloud services, they still need to compete against playstation for the places people play games (consoles) because there is no sign that gamepass is going to run on playstation (Sony haven't implemented a fully feature browser in PS5, I wonder why) or Nintendo Switch so they need people to be able to consume gamepass in their own devices or PC. At least until xcloud is fully usable worldwide that I suspect won't be anytime soon.

T0kenAussie · Jan 17, 2023

Expy said:
Assuming they have the disposable income to do so, sure.

always funny to see the exclusivity double standards in this thread lmao

Iron Eddie · Jan 17, 2023

ozumas said:
If they weren't regulators Microsoft for sure wouldn't make that concession. My point is in a world without regulators this deal would be already done and no body would assure you Microsoft would make that concession.

Why me argumenting something means I don't want this deal to be done? I am a PC owner, I could buy an Xbox no problem, I would do If I wouldn't have a PC.

And I don't understand why you quote specific that phrase of mine. I was saying even though Microsoft is focusing on live services and cloud services, they still need to compete against playstation for the places people play games (consoles) because there is no sign that gamepass is going to run on playstation (Sony haven't implemented a fully feature browser in PS5, I wonder why) or Nintendo Switch so they need people to be able to consume gamepass in their own devices or PC. At least until xcloud is fully usable worldwide that I suspect won't be anytime soon.

My reply cut off half of what you said by accident. The point is there is no reason to dumb down the PS5 version compared to the Xbox version. You are sabotaging the brand at that point. Microsoft is fully supportive of crossplay too.

This is what others mean about no real rebuttal as to why this deal shouldn't go through. Having the games come to Game Pass has no impact to PlayStation owners now or if they do come to Game Pass in the future. Sony already has marketing deals to promote the IP, yet they are being hypocrites to suggest this is their worry something Microsoft may or may not do in the future. I think their real worry is competing with Game Pass, but again this is not hurting the PlayStation user. It is just Sony who doesn't want to lose it's lead in software sales.

Trup1aya · Jan 17, 2023

ozumas said:
But AFAIK the deal has been regulated in 4 minor countries in the videogame industry isn't it? Not saying UK or EU wouldn't come to same conclusions and 4 countries agreeing to the deal is a good reference but not an indicator that every country or group of countries would reach to the same conclussions because there are different size of market. We know in the US and UK Xbox is bigger than, for example, Chile, and same research wouldn't apply to those countries.

I don't think that Xbox being bigger in these larger regions changes the calculus much when it comes to the behavior of people who play COD though. Someone who loves playing COD on PS5 in the UK is going to have similar reasons to stay with PS as someone who plays in LATAM.

I think regulators work is to listen to every party interested in and Sony's work, obviously, is look for their own interest so they're keep going to ask for concessions or stop the deal but does not mean regulators would listen to that and that all concessions Sony is asking are reasonables.

But I don't agree with the simple argument that Sony could compite with Microsoft Cloud services just investing more money, Sony doesn't have an infrastructure in the cloud to begin with, they would be in disadvantage, they couldn't compete at the same level unless Sony make a deal with an infrastructure provider like AWS or Google. Or invest into infrastructure that is obviously not cheap. Given that said, I don't think that is bad necesarily, because at the moment cloud is not a relevant market but Microsoft is winning the race because they have the software and the hardware.

1st of all, Sony competes with Xbox in cloud right now. Iirc correctly their catalog was larger for much of xclouds existence. The main differences between the two services is 1) Sony charges more 2) Sony doesn't launch their big first party titles onto it and 3) Sony doesn't support browsers. None of these choices have anything to do with an infrastructure disadvantage. Sony also spent a lot of time letting the old PSNow business model languish despite it not being attractive to consumers rather than trying to innovate.

Regarding MS infrastructure, i don't see how this dynamic is problematic in any way. When there are multiple participants , each of them Having different strengths and weakness is an inherent part of competition.

Sony had a whole generation headstart on game streaming. They bought two gamestreaming companies and as a result had technology advantage that it took MS a long time to catchup up to.

Knowing MS owned their own cloud infrastructure, Sony opted not to take the Nvidia approach and build out a network in favor of working with providers. They also never really had more than one foot in the door, and watched as xbox eventually decided to go all in. There's nothing wrong with Sony having to sleep in that bed. It's not like Sony doesn't enjoy plenty of advantages that MS lacks.

ozumas · Jan 17, 2023

Trup1aya said:
I don't think that Xbox being bigger in these larger regions changes the calculus much when it comes to the behavior of people who play COD though. Someone who loves playing COD on PS5 in the UK is going to have similar reasons to stay with PS as someone who plays in LATAM.

But that is still speculation, people in LATAM still suffers for economy more than someone in the UK or Europe so are less probably to buy a new piece of hardware than someone from UK (and this is too speculation for my part)

Trup1aya said:
I don't see how this dynamic is problematic in any way. When there are multiple participants , each of them Having different strengths and weakness is an inherent part of competition.

Sony had a whole generation headstart on game streaming. They bought two gamestreaming companies and as a result had technology that it took MS a long time to catchup up.

Knowing MS owned their own cloud infrastructure, Sony opted not to take the Nvidia approach and build out a network in favor of working with providers. They also never really had more than one foot in the door, and xbox eventually decided to go all in. There's nothing wrong with Sony having to sleep in that bed. It's not like Sony doesn't enjoy plenty of advantages that MS lacks.

I agree with you that Sony should've invest in cloud and this is not me saying "poor Sony they are in clear disadvantage in xloud services" but who could compete against Microsoft in a couple of decades while they're so far behind the rest (because they own infrastructure AND software).
Is speculation but that can be problematic in the future. Of course Google or Amazon could join the party but we both knows that the gaming industry is hard to get into being a hardward provider.

Iron Eddie said:
My reply cut off half of what you said by accident. The point is there is no reason to dumb down the PS5 version compared to the Xbox version. You are sabotaging the brand at that point. Microsoft is fully supportive of crossplay too.

This is what others mean about no real rebuttal as to why this deal shouldn't go through. Having the games come to Game Pass has no impact to PlayStation owners now or if they do come to Game Pass in the future. Sony already has marketing deals to promote the IP, yet they are being hypocrites to suggest this is their worry something Microsoft may or may not do in the future. I think their real worry is competing with Game Pass, but again this is not hurting the PlayStation user. It is just Sony who doesn't want to lose it's lead in software sales.

I am full on Playstation spending the money they need to compete against Microsoft and I agree with you but Microsoft has way more money than Sony and can allow themselves to do more aggresive investments losing money or not being so profitable. Again, I am ok with this but Microsoft has more resources to be able to risk money profit to gain market share and that is undeniable so whether the competition is even I don't care.

Me as a consumer wouldn't change a thing, me wanting the deal or no to be done (I want to the deal to be done) doesn't matter what my opinion or argument are about the deal if that makes sense

vixolus · Jan 17, 2023

ozumas said:
But that is still speculation, people in LATAM still suffers for economy more than someone in the UK or Europe so are less probably to buy a new piece of hardware than someone from UK (and this is too speculation for my part)

I agree with you that Sony should've invest in cloud and this is not me saying "poor Sony they are in clear disadvantage in xloud services" but who could compete against Microsoft in a couple of decades while they're so far behind the rest (because they own infrastructure AND software).
Is speculation but that can be problematic in the future. Of course Google or Amazon could join the party but we both knows that the gaming industry is hard to get into being a hardward provider.

It's true that multihoming in Chile may be less likely due to the economic conditions rather than just consumer preference (Chile said something like 18% of users multihome consoles IIRC), compared to the UK. But, if the UK audience is more likely to own multiple consoles or have the means to own multiple consoles comfortably, wouldn't that make it even less of a problem in the market compared to LATAM?

ozumas · Jan 17, 2023

vixolus said:
It's true that multihoming in Chile may be less likely due to the economic conditions rather than just consumer preference (Chile said something like 18% of users multihome consoles IIRC), compared to the UK. But, if the UK audience is more likely to own multiple consoles or have the means to own multiple consoles comfortably, wouldn't that make it even less of a problem in the market compared to LATAM?

Yes I think so but is different to talk about people having multiple consoles than people be able to afford a second one if they'd need to.
This is an hyperbolic case, absurd and speculative so take this with a grain of salt: Let's say you are from the UK and have a PS5 and you mainly play COD, then suddenly next COD is only available in Xbox series X, you could buy a Xbox Series X (or not, like Trup1aya mention, data indicate you would play another games). Now next generation come and you don't need a PS6 because your favourite game is in the new xbox system.

This is not indicative of nothing but I know that If Final Fantasy 17 would come only on Xbox systems (and I wouldn't have a PC) I would buy instant the new Xbox system.

T0kenAussie · Jan 17, 2023

ozumas said:
Yes I think so but is different to talk about people having multiple consoles than people be able to afford a second one if they'd need to.
This is an hyperbolic case, absurd and speculative so take this with a grain of salt: Let's say you are from the UK and have a PS5 and you mainly play COD, then suddenly next COD is only available in Xbox series X, you could buy a Xbox Series X (or not, like Trup1aya mention, data indicate you would play another games). Now next generation come and you don't need a PS6 because your favourite game is in the new xbox system.

This is not indicative of nothing but I know that If Final Fantasy 17 would come only on Xbox systems (and I wouldn't have a PC) I would buy instant the new Xbox system.

Just to acknowledge that while frustrating none of this is illegal and a lot of the console industries whole Schtick has been exclusive software offerings driving hardware purchases

POKEYCLYDE · Jan 17, 2023

ozumas said:
This is not indicative of nothing but I know that If Final Fantasy 17 would come only on Xbox systems (and I wouldn't have a PC) I would buy instant the new Xbox system.

When Ni No Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch came out on PS3, I needed to buy a PS3. When Spiderman came out on PS4, I needed a PS4. If FF9 remake comes exclusively to PS5, I would drop 2 grand on a PS5 ahaha. But I'll probably have a PS5 before then for Spiderman 2/Wolverine.

These are things a lot of Xbox gamers have had to deal with over the years and something Playstation users probably aren't use to. They'll have to seriously consider grabbing an Xbox if they want to play things like ES6 or FO5.

bitcloudrzr · Jan 17, 2023

POKEYCLYDE said:
When Ni No Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch came out on PS3, I needed to buy a PS3. When Spiderman came out on PS4, I needed a PS4. If FF9 remake comes exclusively to PS5, I would drop 2 grand on a PS5 ahaha. But I'll probably have a PS5 before then for Spiderman 2/Wolverine.

These are things a lot of Xbox gamers have had to deal with over the years and something Playstation users probably aren't use to. They'll have to seriously consider grabbing an Xbox if they want to play things like ES6 or FO5.

There is a difference between first party developed games, a third party choosing to only release the game on certain platforms, Sony/MS paying for timed exclusivity for an independent third party, and buying out a large multiplatform third party publisher and no cutting off one platform.

POKEYCLYDE · Jan 17, 2023

bitcloudrzr said:
There is a difference between first party developed games, a third party choosing to only release the game on certain platforms, Sony/MS paying for timed exclusivity for an independent third party, and buying out a large multiplatform third party publisher and no cutting off one platform.

Outside of timed exclusivity (knowing that a game will eventually come to your preferred platform), what are the differences to the consumer?

bitcloudrzr · Jan 17, 2023

POKEYCLYDE said:
Outside of timed exclusivity (knowing that a game will eventually come to your preferred platform), what are the differences to the consumer?

A publisher that used to release games for your platform is now locked away, which is true for Bethesda.

Iron Eddie · Jan 18, 2023

ozumas said:
But that is still speculation, people in LATAM still suffers for economy more than someone in the UK or Europe so are less probably to buy a new piece of hardware than someone from UK (and this is too speculation for my part)

I agree with you that Sony should've invest in cloud and this is not me saying "poor Sony they are in clear disadvantage in xloud services" but who could compete against Microsoft in a couple of decades while they're so far behind the rest (because they own infrastructure AND software).
Is speculation but that can be problematic in the future. Of course Google or Amazon could join the party but we both knows that the gaming industry is hard to get into being a hardward provider.

I am full on Playstation spending the money they need to compete against Microsoft and I agree with you but Microsoft has way more money than Sony and can allow themselves to do more aggresive investments losing money or not being so profitable. Again, I am ok with this but Microsoft has more resources to be able to risk money profit to gain market share and that is undeniable so whether the competition is even I don't care.

Me as a consumer wouldn't change a thing, me wanting the deal or no to be done (I want to the deal to be done) doesn't matter what my opinion or argument are about the deal if that makes sense

My comments are in general, not directed at you. It's a huge investment, personally I could see it spend elsewhere but then again I don't really care about mobile gaming and that part of the deal could be half the value right there.

What I do know is what Microsoft was doing before simply wasn't working for them, so they had to change course and look at the bigger market instead of fighting it out with Nintendo and especially Sony trying to go after the same consumer. Sony has it's brand and history in gaming, Microsoft has it's own resources which is financial backing and the ability to broaden games beyond consoles.

Sony is going to protect it's own interest first and foremost, Microsoft is trying to change the landscape for better or worse. Right now I see it as the better but not much support to argue for the worse.

Lant_War · Jan 18, 2023

POKEYCLYDE said:
Outside of timed exclusivity (knowing that a game will eventually come to your preferred platform), what are the differences to the consumer?

Outside of the differences, what are the differences?

POKEYCLYDE · Jan 18, 2023

bitcloudrzr said:
A publisher that used to release games for your platform is now locked away, which is true for Bethesda.

When a company buys a studio or publisher, those studios become first party. If a game's exclusivity is bought, regardless of how it is done, the end result for the consumer is the same.

Functionally there's no difference to the consumer if Microsoft bought exclusivity of Starfield or purchased Bethesda. Well, the only difference is consumers don't have to wait with baited breath, wondering if XYZ title from Bethesda is coming to their platform or not.

bitcloudrzr · Jan 18, 2023

POKEYCLYDE said:
When a company buys a studio or publisher, those studios become first party. If a game's exclusivity is bought, regardless of how it is done, the end result for the consumer is the same.

Functionally there's no difference to the consumer if Microsoft bought exclusivity of Starfield or purchased Bethesda. Well, the only difference is consumers don't have to wait with baited breath, wondering if XYZ title from Bethesda is coming to their platform or not.

There is a difference from the point of view from the consumer that used to purchase several games from a multiplatform publisher that is no longer available on said platform.

POKEYCLYDE · Jan 18, 2023

bitcloudrzr said:
There is a difference from the point of view from the consumer that used to purchase several games from a multiplatform publisher that is no longer available on said platform.

I bought Final Fantasy 15 on Xbox One. It's a shame I can't buy 16 on my preferred platform. Functionally the fact I can't get FF16, and a Playstation user can't get Starfield on Playstation is the same.

reksveks · Jan 18, 2023

Just to note, re timed exclusives. In most cases consumers don't actually 'know' whether its a timed exclusive and if so, for how long. A part of the deal is typically not talking about the other platforms.

We may assume via the marketing deals but obviously those marketing deals may get renewed or extended.

bitcloudrzr · Jan 18, 2023

POKEYCLYDE said:
I bought Final Fantasy 15 on Xbox One. It's a shame I can't buy 16 on my preferred platform. Functionally the fact I can't get FF16, and a Playstation user can't get Starfield on Playstation is the same.

I am not saying timed exclusive deals with unclear or vague timelines is somehow good way to go about it either.

craven68 · Jan 18, 2023

bitcloudrzr said:
I am not saying timed exclusive deals with unclear or vague timelines is somehow good way to go about it either.

I think in today standard, square enix game are almost equivalent as bethesda even without being bought.
For xbox player at least, there is no ff7 remake, no tactic ogre, no ff16 ( it can be like ff7 remake, we don't know until it will release), no octopath 2 (even if the first one release on it), no forspoken. If you look at switch square enix release also, there is no harvestella, no dragon quest remake ( the hd 2d), no live a live etc...etc...

Xbox doesn't get any square enix release beside star ocean, duofield and that all ? ( the japanese one), we still don't know about kingdom heart 4 i think ?
I m not against exclusivity, since i buy every platform because of this...but people should accept that a platform can get somes games, and the others no.
Not every games have to be on playstation because somes peoples want to play only on it. The same as for xbox players, if they want somes games ( like the japanese one ....)they have to look at others platforms.

Console makers buying publishers, and studios is not that bad.
Starfield i m sure if it wasn't because microsoft was behind, the game was going to be already out and would have been bug.
It's an exemple, but if sony is going to look at ubisoft, it can be awesome, looking at it...ubisoft games like assassin creed could get some experience from others studios of sony and i would have been happy about it too.

For activision blizzard, if it can help them to take more times, making news games etc...it's awesome.

Kaesebrot · Jan 18, 2023

Iron Eddie said:
What I do know is what Microsoft was doing before simply wasn't working for them, so they had to change course and look at the bigger market instead of fighting it out with Nintendo and especially Sony trying to go after the same consumer. Sony has it's brand and history in gaming, Microsoft has it's own resources which is financial backing and the ability to broaden games beyond consoles.

The problem is the gaming market in developed countries is already pretty much saturated and you can only grow by swooping your competitor's customers or/and exploting exiting ones, hence why the biggest resistance to this deal comes from agencies in US, UK and EU. That is probably one reason why MS decided to just buy some of the biggest gaming IPs in the world (and with them their communities) instead of creating new ones. For gamers however, it would be better if MS just created some new killer IPs with that money like Sony did with the PS3 when they were at their lowest.

Lant_War · Jan 18, 2023

craven68 said:
I think in today standard, square enix game are almost equivalent as bethesda even without being bought.
For xbox player at least, there is no ff7 remake, no tactic ogre, no ff16 ( it can be like ff7 remake, we don't know until it will release), no octopath 2 (even if the first one release on it), no forspoken. If you look at switch square enix release also, there is no harvestella, no dragon quest remake ( the hd 2d), no live a live etc...etc...

Xbox doesn't get any square enix release beside star ocean, duofield and that all ? ( the japanese one), we still don't know about kingdom heart 4 i think ?
I m not against exclusivity, since i buy every platform because of this...but people should accept that a platform can get somes games, and the others no.
Not every games have to be on playstation because somes peoples want to play only on it. The same as for xbox players, if they want somes games ( like the japanese one ....)they have to look at others platforms.

If you ignore the games Square releases for Xbox, they do have no Xbox releases indeed. Clearly it would be better to have them locked to one platform instead of having them release games for all platforms /s

Vonterribad · Jan 18, 2023

Kaesebrot said:
The problem is the gaming market in developed countries is already pretty much saturated and you can only grow by swooping your competitor's customers or/and exploting exiting ones, hence why the biggest resistance to this deal comes from agencies in US, UK and EU. That is probably one reason why MS decided to just buy some of the biggest gaming IPs in the world (and with them their communities) instead of creating new ones. For gamers however, it would be better if MS just created some new killer IPs with that money like Sony did with the PS3 when they were at their lowest.

They can do both. A large chunk of their releases have been new IPs. I don't see how one precludes the other.

Dingo · Jan 18, 2023

Kaesebrot said:
The problem is the gaming market in developed countries is already pretty much saturated and you can only grow by swooping your competitor's customers or/and exploting exiting ones, hence why the biggest resistance to this deal comes from agencies in US, UK and EU. That is probably one reason why MS decided to just buy some of the biggest gaming IPs in the world (and with them their communities) instead of creating new ones. For gamers however, it would be better if MS just created some new killer IPs with that money like Sony did with the PS3 when they were at their lowest.

New ips take 5 plus years these days. Anyway microsoft is investing in in new ips inxile/doublefine/obsidian/arkane/the coalition/zenimax online/compulsion games etc

The main benefit of this deal to gamers is gamepass, games that are owned outright stay on the service

soul creator · Jan 18, 2023

I find trying to parse the relative "morality" of exclusive software kind of…odd? At the end of the day, it's "software being exclusive to a platform for business reasons, so buy that platform if you want it", the thing that's been the status quo in console gaming for the entirety of its history.

If we want games accessible to as many people as possible, and that exclusivity is a bad thing, I don't even really disagree, but that implicates the entire business model of console gaming, not one particular company or acquisition. I don't see one type of first party game as somehow "better" than another type of first party (unless we're including external factors like labor rights at one place versus another or something like that). "Sony bought a company 20 years ago and had them make exclusive games" isn't somehow more virtuous in my eyes than "Microsoft bought a company 2 years ago that had a game in some early stage of development and then had them make it exclusive before it released"

Then again, maybe part of the disconnect is that a lot of people make assumptions about future games based on past games, so in their minds, an unreleased game like Starfield is always interpreted as a "current" multi platform release, even though it's obviously never been available publicly for anyone. Hell, Morrowind was Xbox and PC only, and Microsoft and Bethesda have a long time relationship, so does that give Starfield more "virtuous" first party points?

Generally, the main argument for why first party development is good for consumers in other contexts is that it allows focus on fewer platforms and taking advantage of specific hardware or whatever with more resources behind it. And if that's accepted as true in the case of God of War or Zelda or Forza, then it seems like the same thing is true of Starfield regardless of how the "first partyness" came about.

Kaesebrot · Jan 18, 2023

Dingo said:
New ips take 5 plus years these days. Anyway microsoft is investing in in new ips inxile/doublefine/obsidian/arkane/the coalition/zenimax online/compulsion games etc

Most of these were independent developers that would create new IPs anyway. With that money MS could have created dozens of new studios and take the risk (yeah, no accountant will allow that, but it'd have been nice).

Dingo said:
The main benefit of this deal to gamers is gamepass, games that are owned outright stay on the service

If you have access to a GP compatible machine or have the infrastructure for Xcloud (and are willing to use cloud gaming).

Dingo · Jan 18, 2023

Kaesebrot said:
Most of these were independent developers that would create new IPs anyway. With that money MS could have created dozens of new studios and take the risk (yeah, no accountant will allow that, but it'd have been nice).
So not only new ips now it's new studios. Add another 2 years for that to get off the ground

If you have access to a GP compatible machine or have the infrastructure for Xcloud (and are willing to use cloud gaming).

Yeah well that's always has been the case for every generation. You have to choose which game box you want.

And with new studios why does Microsoft have to be the one to build these dozen studios? Why not nintendo or sony?. These purity tests are always exhausting.

Idas · Jan 18, 2023

If you want something new to read about the case, the most recent FTCWatch has an opinion piece by Neil Averitt, someone who has practiced law at the FTC for 37 years.

It's under subscription, but there you go:

The high-wire act of the Activision case

The Biden administration has given us a series of high-risk, potentially game-changing antitrust initiatives, but this effort to rein in Big Tech is on the highest wire so far. The Federal Trade Commission's challenge to the Microsoft/Activision combination is based, amazingly enough, on the contention that acquiring a video game franchise is enough to confer market power. And even more amazingly, it's possible this is true.

The case promises a series of thrills and near-falls. It starts out on a tricky note, as a challenge to a vertical merger. But perhaps that may work. Microsoft's distribution system is very strong and if it's combined with Activision's popular game content, it may be hard for others to compete against it. But wait! That's a static view of the world, and other distributors can surely come up with alternative games that will keep them in business. Seen this way, the FTC case seems like a distinct long shot. But wait again! No one's that risk-inclined. Perhaps the agency is playing an alternative game and can prevail on some basis other than a conventional Clayton Act theory.

But none of this is a sure thing.

The proposed acquisition was announced Jan. 18, 2022, as a predominately vertical merger. Microsoft is a software creator and distribution company. It makes the popular Xbox gaming consoles, and is rolling out subscription services to allow game players to download titles from a central library, or to play games in the cloud and stream the images to a variety of relatively simple devices, including smartphones. The firm had total revenues in FY2022 of $198 billion, and gaming revenues of $16 billion. With this acquisition, it will be gaining popular material to put through these distribution systems. Activision makes several immensely popular games, including Call of Duty and Candy Crush. Titles in the Call of Duty series made up 10 of the top 15 console games sold in a recent 10-year period. Activision's annual revenue is approximately $9 billion. The overall deal is valued at a startling $69 billion — the largest ever in the video gaming industry.

The FTC has so far declined to seek an injunction in federal court (although that action is authorized), and has instead issued an administrative complaint for internal adjudication. Quite probably the agency hopes proceedings in the EU will freeze the situation anyway. It seems to be aiming to write its own decision, where it will have more control over the analysis of an innovative theory.

At first glance, the FTC's case does not seem all that innovative; it speaks in the established language of vertical foreclosure. By acquiring Activision, the complaint says, Microsoft can reverse its current policy of universal distribution and instead make its games exclusive to Microsoft, or it can degrade their quality to others. If the revenue to be gained by doing so exceeds the losses caused by giving up distribution through other channels, Microsoft may do just that. This is likely to harm consumers through higher prices, less variety, and the like. And, crucially, the competing distribution firms such as Sony will not be able to counter this move, because without equal access to Activision products — and to Call of Duty in particular — they can't be competitive in the videogaming market.

The innovation lies in how very hard the FTC will have to work to sustain these contentions.

For one thing, Microsoft's actual financial incentives will depend on the diversion ratios seen in response to various possible actions, and those will surely be open to dispute.

A bigger problem is the contention that Activision games are an essential resource, a must-have product. This implies an unrealistically static view of the market. Video games are not a finite asset; they can be created by raising money and assembling the necessary designers. The lack of particular games is therefore not a clear entry barrier. Other competitors of Microsoft — Sony, Nintendo, and perhaps firms like Amazon, Netflix and Valve, have the resources to develop or acquire games of their own.

The complaint recognizes at least five other suppliers, in addition to Microsoft and Activision, that currently make the highest-quality ("AAA") games. These include Electronic Arts (FIFA), Take-Two (Grand Theft Auto), Ubisoft (Assassin's Creed), Epic Games (Fortnite), and Sony (God of War). Surely some AA studios could up their game as well.

Other numbers tell a similar story. Microsoft ranks only No. 2 or No. 3 in the console business, behind Sony and probably also Nintendo. A combined Microsoft and Activision would control 11% of the global game business, according to the Wall Street Journal. The Call of Duty franchise, according to figures in the FTC complaint, averaged sales of $1.5 billion per year through 2020, fairly small in relation to a global gaming market that is now $170 billion per year — five times the value of all motion pictures.

To be sure, the antitrust markets might be argued more narrowly ("high-performance consoles," "AAA games," or "US only") and the resulting concentration figures might become higher. Still, none of this really looks like the obvious foreclosures seen in successful vertical cases such as Lockheed/Aerojet, Nvidia/Arm or LiveNation/Ticketmaster.

The one number that solidly supports the FTC concerns is the $69 billion purchase price for Activision. That's a lot of money — more than twice the value of Kroger/Albertsons — and Microsoft surely thinks it is getting some useable competitive value for it. It will be interesting to learn what's in the company's ordinary-course documents.

There's a decent chance, however, that Microsoft's goal is exactly what the firm says it is: to develop a popular, profitable (and addictive) ecosystem that offers gamers a variety of new, Internet-based ways to access games. These will be increasingly based on subscriptions or on cloud gaming, and not limited to traditional consoles, and will offer a mix of games, some being proprietary and others universally available.

Such a model is likely to move the gaming world toward a limited number of powerful distributors. That may be worrisome in the greater concentration it brings to the industry, but, given that Activision isn't really an essential input, it's hard to argue that competition will be harmed in any traditional Clayton Act sense as a result of this merger.

So at this point, the FTC complaint looks like a high-risk effort indeed.

But that's not necessarily right. This is a flagship litigation for the agency. It's more likely that the agency is hoping to prevail on one of three alternative, nontraditional approaches.

First, it may hope that the delay and bad publicity will persuade Microsoft to simply abandon the transaction.

Second, the FTC may be raising the costs to Microsoft in the hopes of getting a more generous settlement. Until recently, Microsoft had offered conspicuously little. The precise terms continue to evolve, but Microsoft has now undertaken to make Call of Duty available to Sony and Nintendo hardware (and perhaps also to Valve) for a 10-year period. This is helpful, but it doesn't address the FTC's main concerns, which extend to other programs beyond Call of Duty, and to newer distribution methods, such as the subscription services and cloud gaming. However, recent reports say the FTC isn't much interested in negotiating a deal, particularly one involving complex behavioral remedies. (See Microsoft-Activision remedy talks not welcome by FTC, Dec. 5, 2022.) That would bring us to the last option.

Third, the agency may be aiming to prevail by establishing some new, non-traditional principles of vertical mergers. Illumina/Grail provides a model. The case would not emphasize the existing, largely competitive market for consoles, but rather the emerging siloed markets for subscription services (where some calculate Microsoft already has a 60 percent share) and for cloud computing (where only a few big firms are likely to remain). That limited number of firms is perhaps enough to keep the market price-competitive. However, it could be challenged as insufficient to sustain the kind of flexibility, innovation, and nonprice competition that would have existed without the merger.

The complaint cites Section 5 of the FTC Act as well as Section 7 of the Clayton Act. If an aggressive theory aimed at anticipated future lines of commerce can't be squared with Clayton Act case law, the agency might choose to pursue it as an incipiency case under Section 5. Even if Activision isn't strictly essential to Microsoft's rivals, in other words, its acquisition could be an important first step toward a reasonably foreseeable world in which few competitors will remain. Serial acquisitions and salami tactics must be stopped somewhere.

That's not a totally safe litigation course, because it would use Section 5 to alter rather than just supplement Clayton Act standards. But it still involves a defensible construction of the statute, and the current leadership of the FTC is determined to get a handle on concentration in the world of Big Tech.

Dingo · Jan 18, 2023

So the subscription/cloud angle is their big hail mary. Does it include ps plus and xbox live subs tho?
Also activision was pretty adverse from putting their games on any cloud subscription before the buyout so I don't know how that argument will play out.

The few rivals remaining is funny to. It's always been the big 3 and steam. Any other player would come in the form of another megaCorp I.e amazon or tencent.
And even then tencent is one of the biggest players in gaming they just don't sell a videogame box.
So if apple bought acti/blizz how would the ftc argue. It's all so convoluted.

It just comes down to the ftc needing the buyouts to stop I guess but it all feels 20 years too late.

Tigerfish419 · Jan 18, 2023

ozumas said:
Yes I think so but is different to talk about people having multiple consoles than people be able to afford a second one if they'd need to.
This is an hyperbolic case, absurd and speculative so take this with a grain of salt: Let's say you are from the UK and have a PS5 and you mainly play COD, then suddenly next COD is only available in Xbox series X, you could buy a Xbox Series X (or not, like Trup1aya mention, data indicate you would play another games). Now next generation come and you don't need a PS6 because your favourite game is in the new xbox system.

This is not indicative of nothing but I know that If Final Fantasy 17 would come only on Xbox systems (and I wouldn't have a PC) I would buy instant the new Xbox system.

All I see is healthy compilation between two platforms, people might not like it because they have to buy something they don't want but if the game was so important to one then they'll just put up with it. This is video games not a food or water source, people can go without a game if they must insist on not buying another device than the one they own. You are also missing out on the fact you can just get a PC, Series S, use a mobile phone or any tablet/pc/Samsung TVs to stream the game.

Matter of fact if one doesn't want to miss out on any games then buying a PC and Switch is the best and smartest idea, dont even need a PS5 or Xbox realistically.

reksveks · Jan 18, 2023

Does current practices and precedence support subscriptions services being it's own market? I have doubts.

cyrribrae · Jan 18, 2023

reksveks said:
Does current practices and precedence support subscriptions services being it's own market? I have doubts.

Nah. But that's the point, isn't it? Breaking new ground and creating new "law". (And to be fair, everyone is kinda moving in that direction of trying to peer into the future and decide what will be a success/problem in the future. A bit fraught, especially with the totally open way that FTC has gone about it with primarily innuendo and implication.. but, not unimaginable.)

reksveks · Jan 18, 2023

cyrribrae said:
Nah. But that's the point, isn't it? Breaking new ground and creating new "law".

Yeah, true. Only works if the courts agree with your interpretation but it may or may not get the far.

Trup1aya · Jan 18, 2023

ozumas said:
But that is still speculation, people in LATAM still suffers for economy more than someone in the UK or Europe so are less probably to buy a new piece of hardware than someone from UK (and this is too speculation for my part)

I don't see how someone in UK, maybe having more expendable income would increase the prospects of them LEAVING Sony for Xbox. Perhaps it increases the likelihood of them buying an Xbox in addition to playstation. It is speculation for sure, but the influence of Sony's catalog strength and platform lock-in are in effect in the UK just as they are in Chile - encouraging people to stay. Also, there still aren't enough COD players in the UK to create a massive disparity in PS install base, even if every single one of these players bought Xboxes and Sold their PlayStations.

I agree with you that Sony should've invest in cloud and this is not me saying "poor Sony they are in clear disadvantage in xloud services" but who could compete against Microsoft in a couple of decades while they're so far behind the rest (because they own infrastructure AND software).
Is speculation but that can be problematic in the future. Of course Google or Amazon could join the party but we both knows that the gaming industry is hard to get into being a hardward provider.

MS' infrastructure ownership doesn't shut out the competition in any way. 10 years from now, if cloud gaming continues to mature as a market segment, Sony will still have cloud companies competing for Sony's business, offering Sony competitive prices to host Sony's cloud gaming offering.

If South Korea is any indication, we'll even see ISPs offering their infrastructure to platform holders or even directly to publishers. Sony won't need to compete w/ MS in cloud infrastructure in order to offer a competitive cloud gaming product.

Just look at how many companies compete with Amazon in streaming video. Amazon owning the infrastructure hasn't lead to them dominating the video streaming market.

Also, we don't necessarily need another hardware provider. Sony for sure offers their cloud service currently by building custom, Playstation-based server hardware that is installed in 3rd Party data centers. Nintendo can do the same. Google, Amazon are already in the cloud gaming party as backend providers. There's Nvidia as well.

The notion that MS owning Activision would give MS an insurmountable lead in cloud gaming really isn't born of understanding the cloud market generally nor how it promises to grow in the future. Microsoft is doing the early legwork to prove a market segment that will likely fragment quickly as other parties become convinced of viability.

Despite not owning infrastructure, Sony could close MS' lead on cloud users overnight if they'd commit to putting their latest games on the service and supporting browsers.

I am full on Playstation spending the money they need to compete against Microsoft and I agree with you but Microsoft has way more money than Sony and can allow themselves to do more aggresive investments losing money or not being so profitable. Again, I am ok with this but Microsoft has more resources to be able to risk money profit to gain market share and that is undeniable so whether the competition is even I don't care.

Me as a consumer wouldn't change a thing, me wanting the deal or no to be done (I want to the deal to be done) doesn't matter what my opinion or argument are about the deal if that makes sense

Microsoft has always had more money than Sony, and that hasn't stopped Sony from dominating Xbox for the better part of 2 decades. Cash in the bank is certainly one advantage MS enjoys. Sony enjoys a consistently more efficient global hardware supply chain, a dominant console market position in regions Xbox still struggles to gain a foothold, and stronger negotiating power for 3rd party deals. Ultimately, I don't feel like it's regulator's job to arbitrarily manage disparities in spending power- especially when that only serves to preserve The status quo in favor of the market leader.

DukeBlueBall · Jan 18, 2023

Idas said:
...and for cloud computing (where only a few big firms are likely to remain). That limited number of firms is perhaps enough to keep the market price-competitive. However, it could be challenged as insufficient to sustain the kind of flexibility, innovation, and nonprice competition that would have existed without the merger.

Lost me on this one. I don't see a world where the AKB merger would have any effect on the number of cloud computing providers. That market would be about as impacted as the market for mobile phone operating Systems.

Sinjatheninja · Jan 18, 2023

Trying to catch up here, I'm gathering it's not looking good for the merger to complete?

Dingo · Jan 18, 2023

Sinjatheninja said:
Trying to catch up here, I'm gathering it's not looking good for the merger to complete?

At this point wait 2 months if it's passed by the Cma and Eu then it favours microsoft to pull through

BlackheartVinyl · Jan 18, 2023

Kaesebrot said:
With that money MS could have created dozens of new studios and take the risk

Where do you think the staff comes from to start a new studio? The answer is picking them off from existing studios. New studio or old, it's all people from the same talent pool. I've never understood why this is an important distinction for some people. They can't grow developers in a lab.

Kaesebrot · Jan 18, 2023

Dingo said:
And with new studios why does Microsoft have to be the one to build these dozen studios? Why not nintendo or sony?. These purity tests are always exhausting.

Because MS has 69+ billion dollars (that's more than Nintendo is worth) readily available to invest in their gaming business and because Nintendo and Sony's development pipelines are (from a critical and econmical standpoint) more successful. Which was the last critically and economical acclaimed MS game? Forza 5?

Dingo · Jan 18, 2023

Kaesebrot said:
Because MS has 69+ billion dollars (that's more than Nintendo is worth) readily available to invest in their gaming business and because Nintendo and Sony's development pipelines are (from a critical and econmical standpoint) more successful. Which was the last critically and economical acclaimed MS game? Forza 5?

But they are investing in xboxs future just not In the way you agree with.
Again if sony or nintendo don't have to do it neither does xbox.

BlackheartVinyl · Jan 18, 2023

Kaesebrot said:
Because MS has 69+ billion dollars (that's more than Nintendo is worth) readily available to invest in their gaming business and because Nintendo and Sony's development pipelines are (from a critical and econmical standpoint) more successful. Which was the last critically and economical acclaimed MS game? Forza 5?

Not really relevant.

Kaesebrot · Jan 18, 2023

BlackheartVinyl said:
Where do you think the staff comes from to start a new studio? The answer is picking them off from existing studios. New studio or old, it's all people from the same talent pool. I've never understood why this is an important distinction for some people. They can't grow developers in a lab.

They can train new developers, improve efficiency, invest in small unknown developers and raise them, invest in developing countries with untapped talent pools, and - of course - buy the best talents from existing studios. With that much money they can do a lot of things.

BlackheartVinyl · Jan 18, 2023

Kaesebrot said:
They can train new developers, improve efficiency, invest in small unknown developers and raise them, invest in developing countries with untapped talent pools, and - of course - buy the best talents from existing studios. With that much money they can do a lot of things.

This is… not how games work at all. You can't say train brand new devs and increase efficiency in the same breath. This is incredibly inefficient. Not to mention, you were just on their case for quality. What do you think a team of all rookies is gonna produce?

Be realistic. The industry works in a cycle. New studios are popping up all the time, and that's where new devs will cut their teeth. But big players like Xbox and Sony, those are the major leagues of game development, not generally the place for rookies to learn what they're doing. Not to mention, they can't wait 10 years to get something produced.

Trup1aya · Jan 18, 2023

Kaesebrot said:
They can train new developers, improve efficiency, invest in small unknown developers and raise them, invest in developing countries with untapped talent pools, and - of course - buy the best talents from existing studios. With that much money they can do a lot of things.

I'm not sure why you think this would make more business sense than buying the best talents from existing studios through merger and acquisition.

How is a staff of new developers going to compete with Nintendo and Sony's in-house studios?

For sure they can create new studios like they did with 343 and The Coalition and Playgrounds second Studio - but those are largely staffed with talent poached from other studios anyway.

And it's not like their newly acquired studios are barred from hiring up and coming developers. As someone else mentioned, the talent pool is what it is. It's going to be the same people shuffling around whether the studio isbrand new or preexisting

The Microsoft / Activision Blizzard acquisition |OT| Antitrust Simulator (completed; discussing post-merger issues)

Prophet of Truth

Prophet of Truth

Born to be Wise and Corrupted by Vengeance

Literally a train safety expert

Born to be Wise and Corrupted by Vengeance

Prophet of Truth

Born to be Wise and Corrupted by Vengeance

Classic Anus Game

Alt Account

Classic Anus Game

Alt Account

Antitrusting By Keyboard

Chicken Chaser

Literally a train safety expert

Alt Account

Alt Account

Literally a train safety expert