• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

DopeyFish

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,804
Basically this thread can be locked, right?
The deal is dead, so the concession does not mean anything now.

FTC suing means nothing - they're grandstanding with nothing

they didn't file an injunction because they know it will be denied. they're only playing games with the acquisition.

if MS gets approval from EU and UK, they can still close and the FTC will have to prove their case to unwind the merger. good luck to them on that front lol.
 

ditusjack

Member
Oct 26, 2017
619
Basically this thread can be locked, right?
The deal is dead, so the concession does not mean anything now.

eddie-murphy-yeah-sure.gif
 

Sulik2

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,168
I feel like Sony being so completely disinginous with their arguments is going to back fire on them, where if they had just made a logical consolidation and antitrust case they probably could have given the FTC lawsuit more fuel.
 

Puroresu_kid

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,477
That Sony response is ridiculous.

Since when has an agreement with Nintendo turned into a promise to release COD on the nintendo switch and the Nintendo switch only?

Sony trying to ignore the fact that Nintendo release new platforms and the fact that the switch is coming to the end of its lifespan is quite something.
 

Ushay

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,380
From Idas Response from Sony

A new internal report from MLex says this:

Microsoft's Call of Duty deal with Nintendo is misleading, Sony argues

Sony has criticized Microsoft's deal to make the game Call of Duty available on Nintendo — should its $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard be approved by regulators — as smoke and mirrors, MLex has learned.

Activision Blizzard could supply Call of Duty to Nintendo today, but doesn't, because Nintendo's younger audience is not interested in the first-person shooter and a previous version of the game on its console was a commercial flop, the arch critic of the deal says, MLex understands.

Instead of being a logical business decision, the licensing agreement is a tactic designed to make Microsoft — whose acquisition has drawn concerns in the EU, UK and US — look cooperative with regulators, the argument goes.

Furthermore, Nintendo's Switch could not run Call of Duty easily and may never be able to, Sony argues, MLex understands. Developing a version of the game compatible with the Switch could take years, making a 10-year licensing deal meaningless.

It is easier for Nintendo to enter into such an agreement, Sony says, MLex has learned. Nintendo doesn't need to worry about equal treatment for its subscription service or cloud gaming service as those are not areas where it currently competes aggressively, the argument goes.

I'm speechless at the Sony response, have they even heard of cloud streamed games? How is a 10 year deal with Steam and Nintendo smoke and mirrors.
This whole situation has put Sony in a new light for me personally, they are really desperate to block this deal.
 

Walnut

One Winged Slayer
Member
Nov 2, 2017
887
Austin, TX
I don't understand Sony's strategy with this

They very clearly don't have an argument that will hold up in court. Are they just hoping to bully Microsoft out of the deal by making it too annoying? That doesn't seem like a winning strategy when Microsoft has such deep pockets.

Good luck getting any partnerships done that aren't considered contractually essential in the aftermath of all of this either. They'll keep getting CoD games, but if Microsoft has a big hit IP in the future come from Activison, they can put it on Nintendo and Steam and leave Sony high and dry, and there's nothing they could do about it.
 

aronmayo

Member
Jul 29, 2020
1,830
How is this real? 😂

It's awkward how Sony/MS/Nintendo started building this "we work together" vibe, allowing cross play etc, in the past few years. I know it's all marketing and these are companies and not a friendship group of individuals but it's definitely starting to get quite hostile. Like, it's definitely far more hostile than it has ever been, right?

It's interesting to see Sony claim that they are clearly the market leader, have no real competition and have the best products etc (like to investors and outside of this case) but at the same time act like they are mortally threatened by Microsoft and Game Pass, and essentially claim that Call of Duty is a lifeline for them (to authorities recently and inside this case).
 

Osiris397

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,455
That Sony response is ridiculous.

Since when has an agreement with Nintendo turned into a promise to release COD on the nintendo switch and the Nintendo switch only?

Sony trying to ignore the fact that Nintendo release new platforms and the fact that the switch is coming to the end of its lifespan is quite something.
I don't think Nintendo is getting rid of the Switch or moving on from from for a number of years to come, they seem to like the space they are in.
 

arsene_P5

Prophet of Regret
Member
Apr 17, 2020
15,438
They targeted the biggest publisher and would be gaining the #1 gaming franchise out there not by coincidence. The FTC even stated MS intentionally misled regulators in EU to get Bethesda and went ahead and made games exclusive even after saying they would only do so in ¨implausible scenarios¨. It goes beyond CoD really but it is a painfully obvious problem for one platform holder pushing a gaming subscription service to get a hold of given the brand power and popularity of CoD.
ABK isn't the biggest publisher and FTC got corrected by the CE.
The gap between Switch 2 & current-gen will likely be smaller than Switch vs. PS4/XB1 going by the leaks.
Yeah and Switch 2 could punch above it's weight with DLSS potentially.

You guys are conflating PR speak to what they actually told regulators regarding their intentions. The FTC would not make that up in why they are suing to block the purchase. If you want to see the documents I suggest waiting for the trial, but no one beyond those handling or reviewing the purchase of Bethesda knew it before the FTC announce their lawsuit.
Something didn't add up, because Microsoft PR department made it pretty clear to consumers what they're going to do (let's call it strategy B). In the meantime their legal and M&A department seemingly told EU regulators about their strategy A... . How would that not raise red flags for regulators, who could've read every public response by MS?

Obviously consumer don't need to get every information like regulators would need, but as a company imo you better make sure your public plan and internal plan presented to regulators align in their overall messaging. Anything else would've caused concerns and doubts during the reviewing of the deal imo.
 
Last edited:

Jawmuncher

Crisis Dino
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
38,739
Ibis Island
This thread has run its course and is no longer "New and Impactful" news on this acquisition.

Thus discussion pertaining to these comments can go in the OT now
www.resetera.com

The Microsoft / Activision Blizzard acquisition |OT| Antitrust Simulator (Update: EC responds to FTC's case against ActiBlizz/MS) OT

BREAKING! https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/ftc-seeks-block-microsoft-corps-acquisition-activision-blizzard-inc Latest news - Microsoft Didn't Lie to the EU on ZeniMax Deal Like the FTC Said, According to Sources - Microsoft reaches 10-year deal with Nintendo and...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.