MasterCornholio
Member
Don't you mean gamepass users?
Seriously doubt that 50% of gamers use gamepass or plan on using it.
-
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.
Seriously doubt that 50% of gamers use gamepass or plan on using it.
DenchDeckard
Member
From someone who had a stroke at 39 years old. He is doing amazing trust me.
It's like he has had a shotgun blast to the brain and his brain is recovering. To see him this good after only 3 months is incredible. The amount of fatigue and effort it takes to do anything this early on can not be stressed. It took me a few months to he able to take a bin out.
X-Wing
Member
You two must be the champions of the debate club at your high schools.
Bernardougf
Member
A world where not everybody is a blind fanboy warrior that cant see the hidden lines in things and cant think two stepps ahead of something to see what the future may look like if some things fall into place ... goody goody MS is buying COD so you can have free/cheap ABK games for life... believe that all you want but not everybody got shit for brains
reinking
Member
Activision currently owns CoD and other Activision games and are the ones that have been holding them from Game Pass. If the deal fails, and those games remain off of Game Pass, it is still Activision keeping them off of the service.
Last edited:
Rivet
Member
On the long run, that deal would harm consumers, even Xbox users. All the money MS is wasting now would be paid by you. They're in for big profits, they're not your friend. Like on Netflix, price would gradually go up and quality would gradually go down.
The idea that consumers will pay less when publishers get bought left and right is idiotic. No cartel or monopoly has ever benefited customers.
They'll pay less only at first, then they'll pay a lot more. That's what's hilarious about all those people cheerleading for MS trying to buy the market and get a monopoly here. They don't understand they're digging their own grave.
Last edited:
Sanepar
Member
Doesn't matter how many times we say this xbox fanboys can't think a inch ahead. They think this deal will be free. That MS is a goodguy and gamepass will be having deals for $1 or live conversion forever. They can't understand who will pay this $69 bn
demigod
Member
Jesus fanboys need to stop with this shit. Buying another company and removing the game from your competitor is *not* competition, it’s anti-consumer. And yes after the deal is up, ms will 100% remove the game.
Drell
Member
We've talked about this before and we'll talk about it again.
The little profit you make has no interrest here. May it be for the people here or for the regulators. We're not here to talk about if your egocentric ass can have CoD for free, we're here to talk about if MS, a trillion dollars monopolistic multinational tech company can cheat its way to the first place buy using its infinite money left and right to buy everything.
knocksky
Member
Before the regulators started talking, the discourse was that Microsoft would never remove cod because of the money left on the table.
Now though, a certain set of forumites have changed their tune and at the first opportunity Microsoft are going to remove cod.
What happened to all the money getting left on the table?
3liteDragon
Member
This is actually news to me, you have a source on this?
Mibu no ookami
Member
They make way more money in the grand scheme of things by pushing CoD toward their objectives.
MasterCornholio
Member
Same.
I haven't heard anything about the CMA letting Microsoft keep COD. Would definitely like to see the source if true.
Time to deliver if you got proof of this. Its a pretty big breakthrough in my opinion. If it's inside information maybe you should have a mod vet it.
Last edited:
Bumblebeetuna
Member
Yes. The difference being that in the span of that generation, Sony was able to fix that problem because they had a huge stable of studios and they got those studios all working on great games. Sony really saved the PS3 by putting out unique and high quality games.
Id argue that during the PS4 era they got lazy. They put out less games and took way less risks with games. They relied more on the de facto user base advantage they received from MS fucking the Xbone launch up so bad and rolled that into third party deals while relying way more on third party in general. So far theyre doing the same with PS5, we will see if it changes.
On the other hand MS did nothing last gen to fix their first party output after they had such huge success with the 360. Hell they only had a tiny handful of studios most of the gen and had an underpowered turd console. It wasn’t until Phil was in charge that we saw the One X and acquisitions/studio creation. They have a chance now to do what Sony did during the PS3 and rebound with games.
GHG
Member
Leaking insider information on an acquisition/merger that involves publicly traded firms is a criminal offense.
So I'll let you deduce how likely it is that someone who has brought us posts like this is likely to a) be privy to such information, and b) decide that this is how they want to end up in jail.
Last edited:
El Pistolero
Member
Oh wow! I watched a few bits and he looked and sounded tired, which I interpreted as him having a cold! I hope he's doing better...
MasterCornholio
Member
FalsettoVibe
Member
Has this been posted? This guy is 100% on point.
CuNi
Member
Hell, I've seen a coworker be out of office for half a year and when he came back he was where Hoeg was.
Age probably plays a huge role as my coworker was in his 50s when it happened but still, see him recover already to this point is, at least to me, amazing.
Still some way to go obviously and I hope he doesn't put too much strain on himself by trying to go back to reporting and deciphering all this legal speak so soon.
Last edited:
ManaByte
Member
He was saying you can’t remove COD from Activision due to how most of Activision’s studios work on COD. The only mention of Blizzard he made was how he thought it didn’t make sense for the CMA to suggest they remove Blizzard but keep King because no one has objected to Blizzard being bought despite WoW.
Thirty7ven
Sony make cringe trainers.
And then he says it wouldn’t be feasible anyway because while you can legally enforce it wouldn’t be so in practice because COD also depends on them. Throughout the video he makes the same argument again but then only refers to Activision. However his argument that you can’t feasibly separate Activision from Blizzard and King rests solely on his false assertion around COD.
Last edited:
Topher
Member
Incorrect. Hoeg says all of ABK is involved in the making of COD.
"The divestiture and/or prohibition of this particular company is perhaps not feasible because Activision Blizzard King is in the Call of Duty business"
"It is interesting to see the CMA say divestiture or prohibition seems to be feasible, in the strictest sense that is true, in that you can say you can't have Activision, you can't have Call of Duty but the whole company is basically making a single product"
Timestamped
![[Sigma]](/data/avatars/m/701/701747.jpg?1644526483){kind=avatar}
[Sigma]
Member
I watched it(on youtube). Til 27:32(the video is a couple hours long so I watched the first 27:32 up til his conclusion). 23:00-27:32 was his conclusion that's why I stopped there. Before that he presented the facts and the coverage of information. He's right in his conclusion. In a way this case mirrors our politics and it's practically impossible to stop in current form imo.
Last edited:
knocksky
Member
The guy talking like the CMA are going to approve it is talking out of his arseEither way it's his funeral.
When people claim to have inside information they should provide us with proof. Otherwise its better for then to say nothing at all because they are either lying to us on this site or breaking laws.
Last edited:
Flutta
My tears. Exclusive to gamepass. Forever.
MasterCornholio
Member
They can but it seems like they want some serious concessions for that to happen.
What I don't believe is that the CMA will approve it without some serious concessions.
Gone
Member
Ok, 20% of gamers.
What's wrong with giving those the chance to play CoD and all Activision Blizzard games for a lower cost? It's gonna be an extra option, not the only option.
Gone
Member
Good thing the industry have a million publishers and studios.
So Sony can do all that because what? They're the good guys who look out for gamers?
prinz_valium
Member
It's just facts.
Every part of Activision Blizzard is working on CoD.
Activision (developing the game), Blizzard (the PC launcher, account and infrastructure), and King (CoD Mobile
Gone
Member
It's an investment that benefits both Microsoft and the end user.
Or does your shitty brain think that only Sony with its 70$ games will be good for you and the whole industry?
jm89
Member
Because this merger can't be reduced to the entitlement of gamepass subscribers wanting more games.
Last edited:
Drell
Member
Yeah go back to texas cowboy
MasterCornholio
Member
But what if that platform is the only option?
That's the point the regulators are making with COD.
There's nothing wrong with it being on gamepass and it still can be even if this deal doesn't go through.
prinz_valium
Member
Bro:
Richard Hoeg - Experienced Michigan Business Attorney
Richard Hoeg is an experienced Business Law Attorney located in Southeast Michigan. His practice focused on handling legal needs of small businessed & startup companies.
hoeglaw.com
Unless of course you want to imply those credentials are a lie and there is no expertise anyways, even if stated.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
Well I don't see anything wrong with gamers wanting to buy games at launch. Not everyone uses a subscription service to play their games. From what's been said selling games at MSRP still helps support devs a bunch and there's nothing wrong with that. Some devs simply can't afford to put their games on a subscription service and that's fine.
Gone
Member
Except they're not removing it..
They can sign the 10 or 15 years contract and be done with it.
But Sony paying for Final Fantasy, Deathloop and others is okay because they're the little innocent good guys, right?
Gone
Member
That's one of its benefits tho, isn't it?
Or is paying 70$ for each Activision Blizzard game a better option?
IFireflyl
Member
|OT| - Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
Was known Ok so it means that Phil is lying to the public about COD and PS or did they change their strategy
Gone
Member
And the option would be there for you if you prefer that. Microsoft or any studio who put their games on a subscription service know what they're doing. They're getting paid for their investment and the end user enjoys a large library of games.
GHG
Member
Try lower. Much lower.
Topher
Member
It isn't true at all. Activision said it has 8 studios working on Call of Duty.
"Development of Vanguard is led by Sledgehammer Games, with Treyarch handling Zombies and Raven leading Warzone. Additional development support across the two games is coming from Beenox, Demonware, High Moon Studios, Activision Shanghai, and Toys for Bob."
Activision confirms all its core studios are now working on Call of Duty | VGC
Some 2,000 employees are thought to be developing the series…
www.videogameschronicle.com
Call of Duty Mobile is made by TiMi Studio Group, a subsidiary of Tencent.
TiMi Studio Group
www.timistudios.com
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
I was talking about the option to play it on PlayStation.
SneakersSO
Member
With the exception of Hi-fi Rush, all of those Zenimax titles will release on PS, in due time.
They don't even need to drop out of the UK tho. Just simply not act as one company. MS and then whatever owns Activision. Every
Anti-consumer, at what point does something go from doing business to being anti-consumer.
Is HBO buying the rights to a movie and showing it exclusively on its platform it?
Is coca cola being exclusive at McDonalds it?
Is Sony paying for exclusivity it?
Is taking access from a millions of fans from a $500 console but then adding access to potentially anyone with a capable device, it?
Most of these things do have anti-consumer aspects but it's not just black and white. There's a threshold to be met and I guess the world's courts will decide at the end of the day.
MasterCornholio
Member
If COD went exclusive (for example) that would probably affect a lot more gamers.
If I'm not wrong regulators already looked at this.
POKEYCLYDE
Member
What makes you think quality would go down? Other than wrongly equating Gamepass and Netflix.
SneakersSO
Member
This merger does not need to happen in order for you to get CoD or Diablo into Gamepass. Heck, MS could, the day after this deal dies, sign a 10 year subscription exclusivity deal with ATVI for their entire slate.
There are loads of games MS has made deals with for day 1 GP inclusion that they did not buy, at all funding levels.
prinz_valium
Member
Yes studios make a game. And that is not enough to sell and/or maintain a game.It isn't true at all. Activision said it has 8 studios working on Call of Duty.
"Development of Vanguard is led by Sledgehammer Games, with Treyarch handling Zombies and Raven leading Warzone. Additional development support across the two games is coming from Beenox, Demonware, High Moon Studios, Activision Shanghai, and Toys for Bob."
Call of Duty Mobile is made by TiMi Studio Group, a subsidiary of Tencent.
TiMi Studio Group
Point made was everything at Activision Blizzard is interwoven with COD and that is true.
Unlike Microsoft for example, where LinkedIn has NOTHING to do with Xbox.
Last edited:
King?