• 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.

Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT|

GHG

Member
Who has a track record of honoring gaming contracts? Microsoft.

Who will not foreclose Call of Duty if this deal goes through? Microsoft.

See, that was easy.

Maybe if we were to live in cloud cuckoo land, but here in the real world the regulators are treating them as a whole entity and that entity happens to be called Microsoft.

Therefore they will be judged based on their actions as a whole, and rightly so.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Maybe if we were to live in cloud cuckoo land, but here in the real world the regulators are treating them as a whole entity and that entity happens to be called Microsoft.

Therefore they will be judged based on their actions as a whole, and rightly so.

Literally no issue with regulators judging them and coming to agreements on remedies.

Just find it puzzling that a few folks here are 100% convinced that MS will absolutely certainly unanimously breach contracts if the deal goes through.
 

graywolf323

Member
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.
Deathloop and Ghostwire aren’t Call of Duty
 

GHG

Member
Literally no issue with regulators judging them and coming to agreements on remedies.

Just find it puzzling that a few folks here are 100% convinced that MS will absolutely certainly unanimously breach contracts if the deal goes through.

I would agree with you if not for their history as a business as a whole. There's a lot of money on the line here this represents the biggest acquisition in Microsoft's history. Therefore it needs to be viewed and assessed as such.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Literally no issue with regulators judging them and coming to agreements on remedies.

Just find it puzzling that a few folks here are 100% convinced that MS will absolutely certainly unanimously breach contracts if the deal goes through.
Equally strange for people to bring up the shitty root kit fiasco when Sony is not the one under the acquisition microscope at the moment. Irrelevant and all that malarkey.
 

Three

Member
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.
Question is would they have been desperate enough to pay the contract fine? Would it have been better than whatever sales they would have got from deathloop being exclusive? I would think not considering it only had 2M players after sales on both and being on a sub. It wasn’t that lucrative.
 
Last edited:

feynoob

Member
I hope this deals outcome is done soon.
73e020f56c4a86221823bc32113b4316d2-25-ben-affleck-sad-smoke.w710.jpg
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I would agree with you if not for their history as a business as a whole. There's a lot of money on the line here this represents the biggest acquisition in Microsoft's history. Therefore it needs to be viewed and assessed as such.

Oh yeah, I think it's safe to assume ensuring they keep a hand on that PS revenue is one of the biggest reasons they're happy to offer damn near universal concessions. It's probably also one guaranteed way to bolster MS's gaming divisions revenue extremely well and not just have game pass being the one thing that continuously keeps it going in light of a slow release schedule for big first party content.
 

ToadMan

Member
RFQNRpQ.jpg

Looks at Brad Smith signed contracts.

Yes I raised an eyebrow reading this.

The story we’ve heard from MS is that they’ve been desperate to work something out, but here’s Sony saying they had no meaningful engagement until regulators stepped in and it seems still not meaningful even after.

Which rather justifies Sony presenting their case to the regulators in the first place then.
 
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.
Yes, I had missed adding the other screenshots. I have now added those to my original comment.

The CMA is not counting those 10-year agreements because (1) Sony hasn't signed yet and (2) CMA believes those are not sufficient. Therefore, those 10-year agreements, even if were signed, would not affect the Merged Entity's ability to foreclose.

LMWd5Gg.jpg

20bc3Q2.jpg
 

NickFire

Member
Literally no issue with regulators judging them and coming to agreements on remedies.

Just find it puzzling that a few folks here are 100% convinced that MS will absolutely certainly unanimously breach contracts if the deal goes through.
I don't need to be certain they will break the deal to say I don't trust them to honor it.

Are you really suggesting we should let the fox guard the chickens just because the fox claims to be vegan?
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I don't need to be certain they will break the deal to say I don't trust them to honor it.

Are you really suggesting we should let the fox guard the chickens just because the fox claims to be vegan?

I don't think this is an apt analogy at all in this scenario.

It's more like a bouncer guarding the door to the club and letting people in for 10 years :messenger_grinning_sweat:

Microsoft will bundle CoD with Windows :messenger_tears_of_joy:


They'll probably start bundling game pass for PC with Win 12 and guess what's gonna be on game pass day 1 :p
 
Last edited:

BeardGawd

Member
Yes, I had missed adding the other screenshots. I have now added those to my original comment.

The CMA is not counting those 10-year agreements because (1) Sony hasn't signed yet and (2) CMA believes those are not sufficient. Therefore, those 10-year agreements, even if were signed, would not affect the Merged Entity's ability to foreclose.

LMWd5Gg.jpg

20bc3Q2.jpg
No where in what you've posted has the CMA made a decision on the 10 years for Sony. Their main reasoning is Sony hasn't signed it.
 

ToTTenTranz

Member
"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.

Microsoft already sabotaged Sony by foreclosing Playstation out of every future title from Bethesda's IPs (right after telling the world they weren't planning to), but somehow you're confident that they wouldn't perform a much harder to prove type of sabotage on Playstation after spending 10x more on ABK.
 

Ozriel

Member
Yeah let's just pretend that a trillion dollars monopolistic corporate culture will change just by changing the management.

Yeah, let's just pretend that that isn't exactly what happened with Microsoft.

Management change, and the company that it's former CEO called Linux a 'cancer' now is a major Open Source contributor, has a subscription service for Office, has all its products on competing OSes and devices and has kept to its word following the acquisition of Github.
 

GHG

Member
Oh yeah, I think it's safe to assume ensuring they keep a hand on that PS revenue is one of the biggest reasons they're happy to offer damn near universal concessions. It's probably also one guaranteed way to bolster MS's gaming divisions revenue extremely well and not just have game pass being the one thing that continuously keeps it going in light of a slow release schedule for big first party content.

It's not safe to assume anything. Hence the regulatory approval process.
 

NickFire

Member
Yeah, let's just pretend that that isn't exactly what happened with Microsoft.

Management change, and the company that it's former CEO called Linux a 'cancer' now is a major Open Source contributor, has a subscription service for Office, has all its products on competing OSes and devices and has kept to its word following the acquisition of Github.
I took the leap of faith that they only wanted to make games first or better on Xbox, make GP more attractive, and expand the gaming audience when they bought Bethesda. I was wrong then. What changed so that I won't be fooled twice if I believe it a second time?
 

BeardGawd

Member
Microsoft already sabotaged Sony by foreclosing Playstation out of every future title from Bethesda's IPs (right after telling the world they weren't planning to), but somehow you're confident that they wouldn't perform a much harder to prove type of sabotage on Playstation after spending 10x more on ABK.
When did Zenimax say all future games would be exclusive?

If Starfield wasn't exclusive MS would literally have no AAA exclusive for the console this year beside Forza.

It will be on a game by gane basis and it's far too soon to say they've broken their word.
 

graywolf323

Member
Sometimes I feel that people treat Sony as some indie startup rather than huge conglomerate that failed to grow due to missing a lot of opportunities.
okay, how is that any different from how people act about Xbox on here? they’ve been in gaming for 20+ years and have failed to grow due to missing a lot of opportunities and so that justifies their parent company which is one of the richest in the world purchasing the largest third party publisher?
 
okay, how is that any different from how people act about Xbox on here? they’ve been in gaming for 20+ years and have failed to grow due to missing a lot of opportunities and so that justifies their parent company which is one of the richest in the world purchasing the largest third party publisher?
Playstation itself came from their own parent company. So what's the argument here? It is not like SIE is operating independently either (granted these days SIE is best run Sony's company in a sense).
 
Last edited:

Ozriel

Member
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.

"If you haven't shown anything, it means you have nothing to show and have done absolutely no work on your project"

That's quite the illogical take.

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 ?

Especially when they've kept their promises with Minecraft and existing Bethesda games. Exceeded that, even, with TWO Minecraft spinoffs (Dungeons, Legends) coming to all platforms since 2020. Not to mention being by far the most accommodating with putting games on other platforms.

EU fines are usually very steep, these days. They can demand fines up to 10% of revenue. Shareholders aren't going to accept shrugging off a fine running into billions of dollars for something as trivial as Call of Duty. Beggars belief that people are actually swallowing those arguments from 2009.
 
If the deal gets rejected then to me this signals that exclusive deals to keep content or whole games of other platforms are ok. On the other hand buying a company and keeping the games multiplatform is not ok. How does this benefit the consumer? I can understand MS point of view they don't care about taking games away from other platforms but they would rather own the company outright so over the long run they pay less for providing quality Game Pass content.

If the CMA blocks the deal they would basically be approving exclusive blocking deals. If that is the situation then what is stopping MS from bringing CoD, NBA2k, Madden, FIFA/EA Sports soccer, GTA6 to Gamepass Day 1 and blocking these games from coming to PS Plus. MS could just say well we have a marketing deal and this is part of the deal that it doesn't come to other subscription services like Sony did with their marketing deals that blocked Game Pass access IE with Resident Evil Village.
 

DrFigs

Member
Is it really notable that Microsoft didn't illegally act against contracts that Zenimax agreed to. Is this really something regulators look at and say, "well they could've gone against this multi-million dollar contractual agreement they had with sony, and chose not to. look how good they are". it just seems like it's more notable that there are multiple games that bethesda has published that would have otherwise come to ps5, if Microsoft hadn't stepped in.
 
Last edited:

GHG

Member
If the CMA blocks the deal they would basically be approving exclusive blocking deals. If that is the situation then what is stopping MS from bringing CoD, NBA2k, Madden, FIFA/EA Sports soccer, GTA6 to Gamepass Day 1 and blocking these games from coming to PS Plus. MS could just say well we have a marketing deal and this is part of the deal that it doesn't come to other subscription services like Sony did with their marketing deals that blocked Game Pass access IE with Resident Evil Village.

Those kinds of deals are a two way street. The publishers at the other side of the table need to agree to whatever terms Microsoft are offering for those gamepass/marketing deals.

That's exactly how things work now so what exactly is stopping Microsoft from doing so?

They said Microsoft and ABK are refusing to negotiate. They also said xbox would sabotage PS versions of CoD.

These are just false. Sony is just saying whatever they want to the Uk regulators because there are no legal ramifications, just shows how desperate they are.

Considering they will be able to provide supportive correspondence to prove how much Microsoft have attempted to communicate directly with them regarding this, it's a huge leap to claim that to be false when you have nothing to back that claim up.
 
Last edited:

graywolf323

Member
If the deal gets rejected then to me this signals that exclusive deals to keep content or whole games of other platforms are ok. On the other hand buying a company and keeping the games multiplatform is not ok. How does this benefit the consumer? I can understand MS point of view they don't care about taking games away from other platforms but they would rather own the company outright so over the long run they pay less for providing quality Game Pass content.

If the CMA blocks the deal they would basically be approving exclusive blocking deals. If that is the situation then what is stopping MS from bringing CoD, NBA2k, Madden, FIFA/EA Sports soccer, GTA6 to Gamepass Day 1 and blocking these games from coming to PS Plus. MS could just say well we have a marketing deal and this is part of the deal that it doesn't come to other subscription services like Sony did with their marketing deals that blocked Game Pass access IE with Resident Evil Village.
err, yeah? that’s been going on forever, what’s your point here exactly? Xbox does it too and still does (STALKER 2, etc.) + IIRC they started the practice of keeping content exclusive back on 360? do people not remember the whole play the new Call of Duty map packs first on Xbox 360 marketing?
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
They said Microsoft and ABK are refusing negotiate. They also said xbox would sabotage PS versions of CoD.

These are just false. Sony is just saying whatever they want to the Uk regulators because thrre No legal ramifications, just shows how desperate they are.
The CMA itself said that MS refused to directly negotiate, and chose the public forum press releases, and only decided to when the situation seemed dire. And going by the timeline of events and what MS has been doing, that lines up.

The gave an opinion on what they feel MS could do based on this,

As well as how difficult it is to monitor as a third party regulator.

MS is choosing to sling mud in the public arena, their twitter warriors, and PR. Only one company is doing that currently.

Those are not "lies."
 
Last edited:

Ozriel

Member
Is it really notable that Microsoft didn't illegally act against contracts that Zenimax agreed to. Is this really something regulators look at and say, "well they could've gone against this multi-million dollar contractual agreement they had with sony, and chose not to. look how good they are".

It IS notable, since Sony's argument is that Microsoft will break contracts signed with the CMA and EU to keep Call of Duty exclusive.


it just seems like it's more notable that there are multiple games that bethesda has published that would have otherwise come to ps5, if Microsoft hadn't stepped in.

Not really notable in any way. Regulators only care about games that are 'essential input' that it can be argued that exclusivity will ruin the competitive market for local gamers.
Stuff like FIFA or GTA will fall in that basket.
 

DrFigs

Member
If the deal gets rejected then to me this signals that exclusive deals to keep content or whole games of other platforms are ok. On the other hand buying a company and keeping the games multiplatform is not ok. How does this benefit the consumer? I can understand MS point of view they don't care about taking games away from other platforms but they would rather own the company outright so over the long run they pay less for providing quality Game Pass content.

If the CMA blocks the deal they would basically be approving exclusive blocking deals. If that is the situation then what is stopping MS from bringing CoD, NBA2k, Madden, FIFA/EA Sports soccer, GTA6 to Gamepass Day 1 and blocking these games from coming to PS Plus. MS could just say well we have a marketing deal and this is part of the deal that it doesn't come to other subscription services like Sony did with their marketing deals that blocked Game Pass access IE with Resident Evil Village.
This is a whole can of worms that regulators i suspect don't want to get involved in. They'd have to explain why videogames are special and why exclusive streaming deals, or network t.v. or any other type of media are allowed to have exclusive content. The problem seems to just be that COD in particular is too big of a franchise. Maybe it's burried in the documents, but it seems like no one really cares that Blizzard's games will also likely be exclusive in the future.
 

NickFire

Member
If the CMA blocks the deal they would basically be approving exclusive blocking deals. If that is the situation then what is stopping MS from bringing CoD, NBA2k, Madden, FIFA/EA Sports soccer, GTA6 to Gamepass Day 1 and blocking these games from coming to PS Plus. MS could just say well we have a marketing deal and this is part of the deal that it doesn't come to other subscription services like Sony did with their marketing deals that blocked Game Pass access IE with Resident Evil Village.
If the publisher agrees to accept what MS pays they can do it. But the chances of that happening with any of those specific games are very slim. Maybe one of the sports games without much competition in the wild, but in those cases MS would also need a bunch of other entities permission I bet. And considering MLB doesn't want to lose out on sales from the minority console base, I tend to doubt NFL says it's cool with Madden being exclusive at launch.
 

splattered

Member
With no “loopholes” (they’re not loopholes - MS even promotes the various discounts) subscriber numbers tank.

They would fluctuate, don't know if they would "tank" though.. esp if MS put out the family plan.

That by itself might be enough to push current subscriber numbers up to or beyond where they're at now, but all at full price.
 
Last edited:

Gobjuduck

Member
Considering they will be able to provide supportive correspondence to prove how much Microsoft have attempted to communicate directly with them regarding this, it's a huge leap to claim that to be false when you have nothing to back that claim up.
Bobby literally said they are refusing calls from him lol
 

DrFigs

Member
It IS notable, since Sony's argument is that Microsoft will break contracts signed with the CMA and EU to keep Call of Duty exclusive.




Not really notable in any way. Regulators only care about games that are 'essential input' that it can be argued that exclusivity will ruin the competitive market for local gamers.
Stuff like FIFA or GTA will fall in that basket.
Oh i see. I am missing the contexts of these arguments. Yes if Sony's arguments is that MS likes to break contracts, then yes this is relevant. I get where i was wrong.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom