jm89
Member
Why are you restricting this to video game agreements?
Trust the contract? Have you seen the contract that you want people to trust?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Trust the contract? Have you seen the contract that you want people to trust?
Company's don't run themselves. Management does.
And going even further the initial ruling was bullshit as iOS, Android and even Mac OS had default browsers. Goes to show the regulators get shit wrong all the time.
In the end the EU was satisfied with the results:
Microsoft nixes EU browser ballot screen
Microsoft has pulled the plug on the browser ballot screen it was forced to display in the aftermath of a threat by the European Union's antitrust agency five years ago.
DrFigs
Member
Man they went Goblin mode on the buzzwords with this one.
Drell
Member
Wake me up the day safari on mac os is used by 90% of the population.Company's don't run themselves. Management does.
And going even further the initial ruling was bullshit as iOS, Android and even Mac OS had default browsers. Goes to show the regulators get shit wrong all the time.
In the end the EU was satisfied with the results:
Microsoft nixes EU browser ballot screen
Microsoft has pulled the plug on the browser ballot screen it was forced to display in the aftermath of a threat by the European Union's antitrust agency five years ago.www.computerworld.com
Heisenberg007
Member
Still relevant because it's the same company buying ABK and making promises (again).Stuff from a decade ago, a different product and different managementand they didn't even get away with it. Fined $2 Billion
As for "didn't even get away with it. Fined $2 Billion,", Sony has addressed it.
TheGodfather07
Member
What are the chances of CMA approving with behavioral remedies?
jm89
Member
Whether the regulators gets it wrong or right is a seperate discussion.
The point is they have gone against their word to the regulators.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Still relevant because it's the same company buying ABK and making promises (again).
As for "didn't even get away with it. Fined $2 Billion,", Sony has addressed it.
We should really be past the "immediately foreclosed" now.
Heisenberg007
Member
There's nothing new from the CMA as of yet. But based on what Microsoft suggested in this response, I'd say 0.01%.
Microsoft's arguments are extremely weak and do not meet the criteria that the CMA requested.
ToTTenTranz
Member
Phil Spencer has been leading Xbox Studios since March 2014. That's 9 years now.
When are you going to stop manufacturing apologies for almost a decade of Phil Spencer running the show on everything Xbox?
Let me guess, you think all the failures on Halo Infinite after being delayed for a full year, Fable being in development hell and having nothing to show after 5 years in the making, Perfect Dark having nothing to show 3 years after the first official teaser trailer, The Coalition not having anything to show 4 years after Gears 5, Starfield getting delayed by (at least) a year, etc. and Phil Spencer apologizing and promising "this year was bad but next year is going to be great" for 7 years straight.. was all Don Mattrick's fault.
No, you're missing the point. Throwing money is what Microsoft has been doing to buy new studios with established IPs, while being shit at managing their studios. They need to stop being shit at managing their studios because then they wouldn't even need to throw more money at new studios.
They'd stop being shit at managing their studios if they changed their culture of massive usage of subcontractors, which messes with task continuity and knowledge retention, and over-reliance on government subsidies / public funding which messes with milestones because they stall waiting for call results. This has been reported by several former developers that worked for Xbox Studios.
It's a corporate culture of maximizing returns on cheaper development (public funding) and low risk (subcontractors) that messes with any form of project management, and Phil Spencer is very much guilty of following that culture for 9 years.
And if you think this isn't going to infect Activision's studios the same way it's already begun infecting Bethesda's, because of all those "lifetime achievement awards" that Phil Spencer keeps
Looks at Brad Smith signed contracts.
Wow.. where is this paragraph coming from? I wouldn't think the CMA would use the term "dragging their feet" on any official note.
Yes, the wording was carefully chosen to appease twitter devotees and mainstream videogame media over regulators.
DrFigs
Member
Do you think Sony has been making stronger arguments? Just reading those last documents, i would say they also have very weak arguments. Or is it just that Microsoft's arguments don't actually address the CMA's concerns?
MasterCornholio
Member
No one has a clue imo. I suspect that there might have to be a couple more from this document from two weeks ago.
Has there ever been a FRAND license for a product? I honestly don't know how that would work. I've seen them for SEPs but never a media product.
It would be a lot more than a $21 loss too because they would be paying Activision for the rest of the 70% and be in the negative. The only way they could do that is if they had critical mass for their MGS that would make it possible, where they funnel your subscription money to paying Activision for that 100% loss in per unit not sold.
The example they came up with is stupidly specific. I suspect they came up with this example to try and emphasis the fact that nobody is going to sit and play the entire game to check compliance of 'a lesser version' but it was a wierd example.
Last edited:
"Irreparably damaging their ability to compete"? And you expect us to take that statement seriously? It's asinine. MS isn't going to pay to develop a game to then sabotage it (for no benefit as 98% of users won't switch) and then have to pay Billions in fines.Still relevant because it's the same company buying ABK and making promises (again).
As for "didn't even get away with it. Fined $2 Billion,", Sony has addressed it.
Heisenberg007
Member
Why?
The CMA concluded that the Merged Entity will have an incentive to foreclose rival consoles as well as competitor Cloud gaming services. And nothing has changed since then.
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Member
Yes, it has already been established by the CMA. Why do you think they suggested divestment or prohibition?
Please read CMA's documents again.
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
They are clearly lying and trying to manipulate regulators with this nonsense.
Heisenberg007
Member
Both, in my opinion.
- Microsoft's responses do not really address the CMA's concerns, and
- Sony's arguments are very good at the same time. They gave hard data (although redacted) that favors their case, shown Microsoft's examples of past behavior when they did not comply with behavioral remedies and had to be fined, among other things.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
They've already offered remedies about not foreclosing in direct response to the concerns being brought up.
DForce
Member
Stuff from a decade ago, a different product and different management
Yeah, I'm sure Microsoft found the lord and then stopped doing shady practices.
All major corporations will try to find loopholes.
DarkMage619
Member
This deal is about Activision, a video game company, isn't it? Back to my question. We have Ghostwire Toyko and Deathloop as recent MS video game agreements. Do you have know of any violations with those deals?
dotnotbot
Member
Why would they violate anything before the deal is complete?
jm89
Member
Lol no not back to your silly question.
The point is the company itself has shown to violate commitments to the regulators, restricting it to video game company is not gonna work here when the company buying it is who? Microsoft! And what did microsoft do in the past? You guessed it.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Except the "they'll deliberately gimp the final level in CoD" one which is rightly being lampooned online.
jm89
Member
Which remedies?
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
That they won't forclose, Sony can release on PS+ day 1 if they want, and at minimum a 10 year guarantee of release and content/feature parity.
They are offering to make and honor a contract. But companies breach contracts every single day and breaching contracts is not illegal in most instances. It's just a type of behavior for which liability attaches. And in a case like this, the monetary liability would be unlikely to offset the damage to consumers who are affected. Sure, Sony might get a payment 10 years later when appeals end, but the consumers will have been long since screwed and forgotten.
GHG
Member
If you want to try and be smart and treat the gaming division as if it's some separate entity not tied to Microsoft as a whole, then how about we also restrict the gaming division to only being able to make purchases using money the division itself has earned?
Fair?
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
You're turning it into way bigger of a Bond conspiracy theory than anything has indicated.
Heisenberg007
Member
lol is it the gaming division buying ABK? The "gaming division" is not even an entity.
It's Microsoft buying ABK -- the same Microsoft that was fined for breaching behavioral remedies in the past.
jm89
Member
Nothing what you said won't stop foreclosure.
If you think there is a conspiracy theory in what I just wrote, well, son, you should not be commentating on anything involving contracts and breaches of contracts.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Have MS breached any gaming contract so far that you can point to?
DarkMage619
Member
Why is there an unsubstantiated argument that MS suddenly will start violating formal contracts? This is pretty silly.
Any relating to their video game acquisitions? Anything in recent history?
Good question!
Heisenberg007
Member
And the CMA has discarded that. That's what I was telling you in my previous comment. Those 10-year deals do not matter.
Why?
The CMA concluded that the Merged Entity will have an incentive to foreclose rival consoles as well as competitor Cloud gaming services. And nothing has changed since then.
In addition to the above, this one:
And Microsoft keeps offering 10-year deals, as if they haven't even read CMA's concerns.
Last edited:
GHG
Member
You really need to quit this nonsense.
This isn't Xbox vs the FTC/CMA/EC.
It's Microsoft vs the FTC/CMA/EC.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
And the CMA has discarded that. That's what I was telling you in my previous comment. Those 10-year deals do not matter.
In addition to the above, this one:
And Microsoft keeps offering 10-year deals, as if they haven't even read CMA's concerns.
That is talking about the current agreement between SIE and Activision, which i-e was the current marketing agreement that ends next year.
Not playing the game of gaming contracts are different.
Also, my comments about contracts being broken every day is not specific to MS. That is how the world works. The part specific to MS is that any money they pay Sony post-lawsuit wouldn't benefit consumers who lost access. That is just a fact. You and I will not get a check if MS breaches and pays Sony a check after the lawsuit ends.
Heisenberg007
Member
Yeah, I took the wrong screenshot. But they have also said the same thing about Microsoft's proposed 10 year agreements. It's in the same doc.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
But that's missing the point. MS honored Bethesda's exclusivity deals for Deathloop and Ghostwire, they didn't breach any contract in favor of paying fines for it.
Why do you assume they won't do the same in this case? Especially since in this case they've made way more commitments than anything with Bethesda.
It just doesn't make sense.
See above.
splattered
Member
Initial findings are just that... initial. We all know things may change pending further investigation.
Last edited by a moderator:
GHG
Member
There is nothing to see above.
Whose lawyers have been working on this deal? Microsoft's.
Who have the regulators been addressing throughout this acquisition? Microsoft.
Which company's name is on all of the official documentation? Microsoft.
Which company does Xbox belong to? Microsoft.
What is the name of the company that Phil Spencer works for? Microsoft.
Whose CEO has spoken out about this deal and addressed the regulators? Microsoft's.
Return to base, do not collect $100, draw a new Microsoft PR card, roll again.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
There is an argument that MS may violate regulatory remedies and just pay the fine. it also wouldn't be a "start".
However people like you are turning that into "gaming" and "exclusive game contractual obligations" which weren't even that lucrative.
If you read it you would see the CMA is referring to the 2 years left in the Activision Sony contract which they acknowledge would help but isn't long enough. MS is now offering 10 years.And the CMA has discarded that. That's what I was telling you in my previous comment. Those 10-year deals do not matter.
In addition to the above, this one:
And Microsoft keeps offering 10-year deals, as if they haven't even read CMA's concerns.
Last edited:
No it's not missing any point. Companies decide to break contracts when the benefits outweigh the negatives all the time. And it's perfectly legal, albeit with liability attached.
Pointing to those two games is deflection, plain and simple. There were not in sufficient demand to make the downsides of a contractual breach worth the upsides to MS. Very few people would change current gen plans for those two games.
Also - there would not have been any fines for breaching those deals. Any payments would have been for damages. There is a difference.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Ok, but my original point stands. Why are some users here so hell bent on believing that MS *WILL* breach the contract? What is leading you to believe that ?
CMA's initial findings are not a rosetta stone, it's their findings which MS are discussing to remedy with them so they don't feel that way anymore.
Last edited:
Considering Microsoft was desperate for exclusives it would of been just as easy to break both agreements to make those games exclusive. They stuck with both agreements to the letter period.