BREAKING: Microsoft Acquired Activision/Blizzard For $70 Billion - Page 16

rewak · 04-03-23, 13:13

It's not like MS don't pay for timed exclusives either, Rise anyone? They paid $100 million to keep that off PS for a year, which practically paid for the development of the game. MS probably could have had SH2 exclusive to them for a year given they already did the exact same thing with The Medium so they already had a working relationship with Bloober. It's a risky road MS are going down here that could very easily blow up in their faces.

jajay119 · 04-03-23, 13:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by rewak

It's not like MS don't pay for timed exclusives either, Rise anyone? They paid $100 million to keep that off PS for a year, which practically paid for the development of the game. MS probably could have had SH2 exclusive to them for a year given they already did the exact same thing with The Medium so they already had a working relationship with Bloober. It's a risky road MS are going down here that could very easily blow up in their faces.

As someone who has always been an impartial console buyer (meaning someone who doesnt buy into the wars, but does buy all the playforms they want if its worth it) as i see it MS have never hidden behind a facade about this which is what Sony are doing at the moment. They're painting themselves as the wronged party that a massive corporation like MS is beating down... all the while making the same types of deals themselves. They're reportedly in talks to buy out Take Two... yet they have issues with MS doing the same thing. Sony sat on their laurels during the PS4 era, quite rightly so given how poorly MS bodged the XBONE launch, but i don't agree with their attitude at the moment and I feel like it's coming back to bite them a bit. They decided to kick this hornets nest and leave MS to get stung... but it seems some of the swarm are keeping up.

As a current Xbox gamer, I couldn't care less if MS isn't allowed to buy AB, just so we are clear. But I do care about Sony's attitude which they deserve to be called out on as they're masking it as victimisation.

rewak · 04-03-23, 14:05

There's a huge difference in one game being a paid for timed exclusive, which MS also do and still do today, to an entire companies output being made exclusive to one platform, and after MS constantly kept saying Bethesda games won't be exclusive before that deal closed then immediatley changing that the literal second the deal went through they deserve to be scrutinised. They also deserve to be scrutinised for how they handle the releases from their now owned studios that were multiplatform due to pre-existing deals. We Happy Few and Psychonauts 2 being ones I've played, they both don't run as well on PS platforms. WHF never got a Pro version but it did get an X Enhanced version. Psychonauts 2 got a native Series X/S version but not a native PS5 version. Even when they do share they kneecap the versions on other platforms. I don't see Sony acting a victim here, they're stating facts. Are they guilty of some of the same things? Sure, but MS are taking it to a point that might be going too far recently. It's like how EA took microtransactions and loot boxes too far, everyone else was doing it but they pushed it past the point of acceptability.

Vaskito · 09-03-23, 13:36

Sony suggests to the CMA that Microsoft could release a buggy version of Call of Duty on PlayStation which could make gamers lose confidence "in PlayStation as a go-to venue to play Call of Duty."

I don’t even have words to measure this embarrassment

rewak · 09-03-23, 17:19

It's actually a smart move to bring this up, think about it beyond the headlines. Sony are seeing the deal is most likely going to go through at this point so hashing out exactly what is expected of MS to keep the peace is clever, it holds MS accountable not only to Sony but to the antitrust organisations. They're not so much saying they believe MS would do this, but they're pointing out the deal currently offered gives no guarantees it couldn't happen. It's about highlighting how many holes there are in whatever deal they've been offered, and how big those holes are. For example the wording on the deal they did with Nintendo, they offered content parity with Xbox but not quality, and they used the broad term Xbox Platforms to describe what it's on parity with. They probably offered Sony the same deal but Xbox Platforms also includes the Series S. Therefor they could release a version on PS5 that performs the same as Series S but not on par with the X version and still be in keeping with the agreement, giving the X the advantage. So bringing up the fact there's zero assurances in the deal that Xbox won't release an inferior version on Sony platforms is smart, they're going for an extreme example because that's what legal teams do to make a point no matter how unlikely the scenario described is, it forces MS to address them and put assurances in that they'll be legally obligated to uphold.

charmedangelin · 09-03-23, 18:04

I honestly would continue to oppose this unless they offered a lifetime contract with Activision titles specifically. Because what's going to happen after those 10 years? Microsoft could then decide everything going forward I'll be 100% exclusive and there will be nothing Nintendo or Sony could do about it.

jajay119 · 11-03-23, 10:57

Activision's Lulu Cheng Meservey claims SIE CEO said "I dont want a new Call of Duty deal. I just want to block your merger

If true, This is increasingly embarrassing for Sony. This comment alone will probably lose them the case as its clearly not even about access the games anymore. Just a vendetta.

"I just don't want it" isn't enough grounds and this has honestly just shown that Sony's intentions have never been as altruistic as they said. Clearly Sony aren't bothered about burning bridges with AB here as their own team are commenting on this and how MS have given Sony a better deal than AB would themselves. Sony are essentially using AB as a pawn and cutting their nose of to spite their face either way.

charmedangelin · 21-03-23, 16:34

I knew it, Xbox plans to make Activision titles 100% exclusive once the contract is up.

https://twitter.com/VGC_News/status/...AnkQmRO4g&s=19

This is why I'm opposed to this deal completely.

rewak · 21-03-23, 17:19

I mean yeah, we all knew that was coming. The wording in their statement is very smart on their end, it plays up the idea they not only want competition but will even give their competitors a head start on making a competing product. That plays right into the CMAs remit, this whole thing is about MS seemingly forcing out competition by buying major chunks of the market, saying that they believe doing that will actually encourage growth in the market is about as corporate smooth talking as it gets.

Quebsenuef · 21-03-23, 17:42

Funny how 10 years is long enough for Sony to create a COD competitor, but apparently Xbox couldn’t do it so they decided to buy COD instead. Very typical of Xbox in their long history of buying studios for games and then running them into the ground.

I think Sony should try SOCOM again. Honestly, COD is still just the same thing repackaged for the last 15 years. Give us something new and fun.

09-03-23, 13:36	#154
Vaskito Tomb Raider Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Portugal Posts: 11,713	Sony suggests to the CMA that Microsoft could release a buggy version of Call of Duty on PlayStation which could make gamers lose confidence "in PlayStation as a go-to venue to play Call of Duty." I don’t even have words to measure this embarrassment __________________ We found each other through brokenness and now look how strong we are

09-03-23, 18:04	#156
charmedangelin Tomb Raider Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Virginia, USA Posts: 22,007	I honestly would continue to oppose this unless they offered a lifetime contract with Activision titles specifically. Because what's going to happen after those 10 years? Microsoft could then decide everything going forward I'll be 100% exclusive and there will be nothing Nintendo or Sony could do about it. __________________ Still music keeps on turning me from the words that haunt my soul.

11-03-23, 10:57	#157
jajay119 Tomb Raider Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 24,237	Activision's Lulu Cheng Meservey claims SIE CEO said "I dont want a new Call of Duty deal. I just want to block your merger If true, This is increasingly embarrassing for Sony. This comment alone will probably lose them the case as its clearly not even about access the games anymore. Just a vendetta. "I just don't want it" isn't enough grounds and this has honestly just shown that Sony's intentions have never been as altruistic as they said. Clearly Sony aren't bothered about burning bridges with AB here as their own team are commenting on this and how MS have given Sony a better deal than AB would themselves. Sony are essentially using AB as a pawn and cutting their nose of to spite their face either way. __________________ ... in my opinion. Last edited by jajay119; 11-03-23 at 11:00.

21-03-23, 16:34	#158
charmedangelin Tomb Raider Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Virginia, USA Posts: 22,007	I knew it, Xbox plans to make Activision titles 100% exclusive once the contract is up. https://twitter.com/VGC_News/status/...AnkQmRO4g&s=19 This is why I'm opposed to this deal completely. __________________ Still music keeps on turning me from the words that haunt my soul.

21-03-23, 17:42	#160
Quebsenuef Tomb Raider Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: In Ryan Gosling’s Arms\|Gender: Pyramid Head\|Superpower: Dirty Tricks Mode\|Quality: Damn Good Posts: 16,591	Funny how 10 years is long enough for Sony to create a COD competitor, but apparently Xbox couldn’t do it so they decided to buy COD instead. Very typical of Xbox in their long history of buying studios for games and then running them into the ground. I think Sony should try SOCOM again. Honestly, COD is still just the same thing repackaged for the last 15 years. Give us something new and fun. __________________ Face and defeat your Guilt

04-03-23, 13:13	#151
rewak Professor Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: UK Posts: 4,585	It's not like MS don't pay for timed exclusives either, Rise anyone? They paid $100 million to keep that off PS for a year, which practically paid for the development of the game. MS probably could have had SH2 exclusive to them for a year given they already did the exact same thing with The Medium so they already had a working relationship with Bloober. It's a risky road MS are going down here that could very easily blow up in their faces.

04-03-23, 14:05	#153
rewak Professor Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: UK Posts: 4,585	There's a huge difference in one game being a paid for timed exclusive, which MS also do and still do today, to an entire companies output being made exclusive to one platform, and after MS constantly kept saying Bethesda games won't be exclusive before that deal closed then immediatley changing that the literal second the deal went through they deserve to be scrutinised. They also deserve to be scrutinised for how they handle the releases from their now owned studios that were multiplatform due to pre-existing deals. We Happy Few and Psychonauts 2 being ones I've played, they both don't run as well on PS platforms. WHF never got a Pro version but it did get an X Enhanced version. Psychonauts 2 got a native Series X/S version but not a native PS5 version. Even when they do share they kneecap the versions on other platforms. I don't see Sony acting a victim here, they're stating facts. Are they guilty of some of the same things? Sure, but MS are taking it to a point that might be going too far recently. It's like how EA took microtransactions and loot boxes too far, everyone else was doing it but they pushed it past the point of acceptability.

09-03-23, 17:19	#155
rewak Professor Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: UK Posts: 4,585	It's actually a smart move to bring this up, think about it beyond the headlines. Sony are seeing the deal is most likely going to go through at this point so hashing out exactly what is expected of MS to keep the peace is clever, it holds MS accountable not only to Sony but to the antitrust organisations. They're not so much saying they believe MS would do this, but they're pointing out the deal currently offered gives no guarantees it couldn't happen. It's about highlighting how many holes there are in whatever deal they've been offered, and how big those holes are. For example the wording on the deal they did with Nintendo, they offered content parity with Xbox but not quality, and they used the broad term Xbox Platforms to describe what it's on parity with. They probably offered Sony the same deal but Xbox Platforms also includes the Series S. Therefor they could release a version on PS5 that performs the same as Series S but not on par with the X version and still be in keeping with the agreement, giving the X the advantage. So bringing up the fact there's zero assurances in the deal that Xbox won't release an inferior version on Sony platforms is smart, they're going for an extreme example because that's what legal teams do to make a point no matter how unlikely the scenario described is, it forces MS to address them and put assurances in that they'll be legally obligated to uphold.

21-03-23, 17:19	#159
rewak Professor Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: UK Posts: 4,585	I mean yeah, we all knew that was coming. The wording in their statement is very smart on their end, it plays up the idea they not only want competition but will even give their competitors a head start on making a competing product. That plays right into the CMAs remit, this whole thing is about MS seemingly forcing out competition by buying major chunks of the market, saying that they believe doing that will actually encourage growth in the market is about as corporate smooth talking as it gets.