DonJimbo
Member
Ok so it means that Phil is lying to the public about COD and PS or did they change their strategy
Last edited:
-
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.
ToadMan
Member
That’s not fair - MS did go one step further and commit to putting all their AAA content out day and date on GP.
That’s not the innovation though.
The innovation is making that commitment, and then not releasing any AAA games…
X-Wing
Member
That quote is from a time ago, Microsoft may have offered a better deal after...
Banjo64
cumsessed
DonJimbo
Member
But still Jimbo is not accepting it
Yeah. This is an ongoing issue with Microsoft and they tried to make some half steps around trying to placate some of the complaints but basically ignored the bigger cloud service providers. I suspect that they may have to improve their offer and apply it for everyone including Amazon, Google and the big Chinese one.
That's what they initially offered hoping there would be no issues with the regulators because of that preemptive offer. They then changed it when they had pushback and it was clear that deal was inadequate.
MasterCornholio
Member
I don't believe the CMA accepts it either. Some pretty big concessions will be made to appease them.
At the time, don't think we had any specifics of the deal except Phil Spencer said something that alluded it was long term. Jim Ryan clarified it by basically telling us it was a 5 year deal (2 of which was already covered by the existing deal)
Then they have come back with a new deal after regulatory pushback.
Cheezewizz
Member
It was a poor choice to counter him in the first place, as it's obvious his point is ridiculous and doesn't merit discussion in the first place.
But if you insist on debating the reasons why the US won't invade Britain. Then you're on the right track with the NATO bit. Them being one of if not the closest ally the US has, as well as the fact that wherever one of us goes, so goes the other, as well as the fact that the US was born from them are all better counters than simply "We have bases there".
X-Wing
Member
Why would he? Such deals mean nothing since Microsoft can just breach it, pay the fine and move on. The only positive scenario for PlayStation is the deal being blocked or Microsoft being forced to divest Activision or Call of Duty.
DonJimbo
Member
Thanks guys
MS really overestimated themselves this time after the easy acquisition of Zenimax
I hope they learn from this failure and collect themselves to finally release some first party titles and invest more in a wide range of genres from their studios and not rely only on acquisitions and Halo, Gears and Forza
Last edited:
Cheezewizz
Member
Well... MS did also introduce the ability to download games as well, which Sony promptly copied.
It doesn't really matter which one came first or who copied who though. Because however similar they might have been, only one was ultimately successful. The other failed to gain more than a few million subscribers and ended up being thrown into Sony's other service plan... which they also copied from MS.
MasterCornholio
Member
OK now I understand you. Thought you were saying my points were bad. Your right it was dumb to respond to that argument in the first place.
We have bases in many countries that are a part of NATO. Italy, Spain, Germany and the UK are the ones that I know of. We also work with the Netherlands and Poland. All of those are countries belonging to NATO. If it wasn't for NATO to begin with, we probably wouldn't have bases in those nations to begin with.
"We have bases" does seem like a dumb argument but there's a reason why they are there in the first place.
MasterCornholio
Member
Just look at their messaging from the beginning of the deal to where they are now.
They started extremely confident and were not worried at all. Heck they thought it would be a done deal. But their messaging now shows they are not sure of where this is going to go. They certainly underestimated the difficulty with this.
TheGodfather07
Member
microsoft probably knew there was a risk of the deal failing but thought they would have a good enough chance that it would be worth taking that risk. theres no way they thought it would be easy with no isses. its the biggest acquisition in their history. it was always going to be looked at very closely. some xbox fans though! i remember reading " the deal will go through with no concessions" anytime someone would even mention the possibility of there being problems. they were so confident and cocky about it in the beginning.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
Well it could be true that they knew it was going to be this difficult. But if they did I'm wondering why they haven't met the CMA requirements yet.
The concessions started off pretty minor but overtime they have gotten much bigger.
El Pistolero
Member
Yeah, that's not what he said. He said that he wants the consumers to find the PS3 so desirable, they would get a second job to get it, which is different to what you implied. Even I, for whom English is the third language, can grasp the difference. And how is setting up a price $200 to $300 lower than cost anti-competitive? Like many on forum boards, you use words that you clearly don't understand the meaning of, to describe situations that you fail to properly guage. If anything, producing an over-engineered piece of hardware, and bleeding money in the process, enabled MS to get the upper hand the first half of that generation. That's anti-competitive to you? Please explain...
Last edited:
Shakka43
Member
Technically, Sony didn't copy MS with PS+, it eventually became similar with the launch of the PS4. But at first PS+ was a very lite version of what Extra/GamePass have become today, you subscribed to the service and received a bunch of PS1 games plus 3 PS3 games a month, game trials and discounts, Then MS added the Games with Gold benefits to Live and the two services became pretty much the same feature wise.
Last edited:
El Pistolero
Member
I remember the quote, my friend...and it says exactly what I suggested: An innocuous statement touting the perceived value of the product by its maker; A product he believed consumers would covet and put money aside to buy...Unfortunately for him, many did not. I honestly never understood the fuss about this particular statement: Had the PS3 been priced above cost, I would have understood, but it was in the red for years. If anything, it almost sunk the group. What is clear, however, is that its design philosophy was quite badly approached...and by quite, I mean astonishingly.
Last edited:
jm89
Member
They defintley underestimated it, this is probably retreading old ground but the financial time interviewed satya a year ago and this is what they said.
"But Nadella suggested that Microsoft should not need to make any formal concessions to win regulatory approval for the deal, because it would still be too small to have an anti-competitive impact."
Then they went from offering 3 year deal to a 10 year deal to offering nintendo a 10 year deal, and now they are blindly throwing the kitchen sink at it.
This is why we laugh at the people who say "it's all going according to plan"
They didn't just underestimate the regulators the underestimated sony who has outplayed them at every turn.
MasterCornholio
Member
The CMA though.
They definitely didn't expect that to happen. Like Nadella said they thought they only needed minor concessions at the most. Now the CMA is telling them to split COD from the company and that's one IP they don't want to lose.
How did Sony outplayed them? This is the fanboy shit that people are so tired of. You're acting as if this was a 3D chess game. Sony just said they don't want this to happen, because it's not good for their platform and gamers. Wow what a move, Microsoft definitely didn't expect Sony to say that... Microsoft only miscalculated the response of regulators.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
I think he's talking about Sony not accepting the deal and allowing regulators to state their conditions.
I can imagine it would be different if Sony accepted the first deal that Microsoft offered them.
Not trying to console war or act like a rabid fanboy. Not going to say Sony outplayed Microsoft but they made some good decisions regarding this.
jm89
Member
Microsoft have been enticing them with deals, if sony did end up signing MS would effectivley take out the biggest oppostion to the deal. Alone it still wouldn't be enough as CMA isn't just concerned about sony, but it would neuter some of the CMAs PF. Sony rejecting MS desperate offers has got this deal to the brink, obviously regulators are the ultimate deciders but having oppostion has helped.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
I know he had a stroke. But then again this situation has been pretty intense. I'm not surprised he's a bit bummed out right now either due to his recovery or trying to explain all this madness.
Gone
Member
I talked about this before and I'll talk about it again
The CMA decision to stop what should be a good deal for at least half the users is still amusing to me.
So what if few of playstation users decided to move to the other platform because their offering is better? Isn't that the whole essence of competition?
The idea that, me (a Gamepass subscriber) shouldn't have CoD and other Activision games on my subscription service because Sony doesn't want to sacrifice their 70$ a game business is baffling, In what world is that protecting the consumers?
The CMA decision to stop what should be a good deal for at least half the users is still amusing to me.
So what if few of playstation users decided to move to the other platform because their offering is better? Isn't that the whole essence of competition?
The idea that, me (a Gamepass subscriber) shouldn't have CoD and other Activision games on my subscription service because Sony doesn't want to sacrifice their 70$ a game business is baffling, In what world is that protecting the consumers?
X-Wing
Member
What users are you referring to?
Gone
Member
Gamers.
X-Wing
Member
lol... So which group of "gamers" would benefit from the acquisition in ways that wouldn't be possible without the acquisition?
In a world where CMA/EU/FTC have said that Sony completely dominating MS is the natural order of things and they dont want it disrupted.
MS lowering the cost and increasing the accessibility of gaming are the bad guys, arrogant Sony building up the walls of their garden and moneyhatting content are the heroes.
All gamers who can now access the same content at a lower cost.
Its like paying $5 for each rental at the video store or getting all of them for $5 per month.
Last edited:
X-Wing
Member
Funny, since Microsoft is lowering the cost by moneyhatting a business model in which they try to be loss leaders.
Buying a studio isnt moneyhatting, and GP isnt losing money?
Satansblade
Member
Halo Infinite, Forza Horizon 5, Psychonauts 2, MS Flight Simulator, Pentiment. Just this generation.
At least 3 1st party games this year.
The Hyperbole is getting to be a bit much.
Satansblade
Member
Obviously PC and XBox gamers. Why do you even need that explained?
Satansblade
Member
Didn't you know, everything Phil says is a lie? Even though a CEO lying about a service being profitable is incredibly illegal.
Last edited:
Gone
Member
Lol, they would pay much less for the same games. Isn't that better for the consumers the CMA pretend to care about?
X-Wing
Member
Again, Microsoft can negotiate that with Activision, that doesn't require an acquisition.
Satansblade
Member
Or they can just acquire it, as they will be in the coming months.
Goalus
Member
It does because Sony exists.
Satansblade
Member
The CMA is about to approve the deal on MS's promise not to wall up CoD for 10 years. The CMA will not be blocking this, and the FTC definitely cannot win this in court.
ToadMan
Member
jm89
Member
Show me the receipt where it says CMA is about to approve it? As has been mentioned a hundred times that 10 year deal is weak and won't satisfy the CMA.
Last edited:
CMA wants Microsoft to sell COD or they'll block. It's what they stated clearly.
You're a bit out of the loop...
Clintizzle
Lord of Edge.
Because Microsoft as a company exists to make decisions based how it will effect playstation gamers right?
While an aquisition makes business sense for them, keeping gamers not in the Xbox ecosystem happy is their No.1 priority.
Satya Nadella wants be remembered as the CEO that allowed a company to have an 80% dominance in a market stay that way for the foreseeable future.
Thirty7ven
Sony make cringe trainers.
Yes he did.
X-Wing
Member
What does any of that shizzle have to do with the argument the other person was making?