• 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.

Poldo

Banned
Apr 12, 2022
432
I've added two news questions:

All the countries have to approve it?

Yes, that would be the ideal scenario.

In a cross border transaction like this one the regulators from the different countries or regions are usually coordinated and one of the reasons is to avoid very different outcomes.

For example, maybe the majority of regulators approve the deal without problems but some of them ask for specific remedies for their local market. That could work for MS/ABK.

Or maybe the majority of regulators approve the deal but some minors ones don't. In that case, MS/ABK would probably go to court to appeal the decision and would probably win because courts are usually more favorable to parties than regulators. Although that could take some years, if the market is not too big/important, maybe it could work for MS/ABK.

It could also happen that an important regulator approves the deal (the FTC in US) but another big one rejects it (the EC in Europe). In that case MS/ABK could to go court to appeal the decision but that's going to be a long and tough battle. When that happens the parties usually abandon and cancel the deal.

What happens if the deal doesn't get approved?

The merger agreement says that MS and ABK expect the deal to close in 12 months (January 18th 2023) or less. But the agreement also includes two possible extensions of 3 months each one (until April 18th 2023 and the other one until July 18th 2023). That's why MS says that they expect the deal to close in fiscal year 2023.

Those extensions apply automatically if by January 18th 2023 or April 18th 2023 the transaction is still pending regulatory approval.

The transaction can be terminated by MS or ABK if:
  • Both parties agree.
  • The Activision Blizzard stockholders reject it (it was already approved, so it's doesn't apply anymore).
  • A court or a regulator rejects the deal and there is no way to appeal it.
  • There is a new law that prohibits this kind of deal.
  • By January 18th 2023 or April 18th 2023 the deal is still pending but NOT for regulatory reasons.
The transaction can be terminated by ABK if:
  • There is an infringement of the agreement by MS and during the period to resolve that, MS doesn't do anything.
  • Before the approval by Activision Blizzard stockholders, ABK receives a better offer and pays MS a $2,270,100,000 termination fee.
The transaction can be terminated by MS if:
  • There is an infringement of the agreement by ABK and during the period to resolve that, ABK doesn't do anything.
  • The Activision Blizzard Board of Directors doesn't recommend the deal anymore.
If the deal doesn't happen, someone has to pay for it :p

Activision Blizzard has to pay Microsoft a termination fee of $2,270,100,000 if:
  • MS is still waiting for the ABK stockholders meeting to happen by termination dates.
  • Regulatory conditions were not satisfied and the reason is a breach by ABK.
  • ABK infringes the agreement.
  • The ABK stockholders reject the deal.
  • The Activision Blizzard Board of Directors doesn't recommend the deal anymore.
  • ABK receives a better offer.
Microsoft has to pay Activision Blizzard a termination fee of:
  • $2,000,000,000, if the termination notice is provided prior to January 18th, 2023.
  • $2,500,000,000, if the termination notice is provided after January 18th, 2023 and prior to April 18th, 2023.
  • $3,000,000,000, if the termination notice is provided after April 18th, 2023.
Reasons for this possible termination fee in favor of ABK:
  • A court or a regulator rejects the deal and there is no way to appeal it.
  • There is a new law that prohibits this kind of deal.
  • MS infringes the agreement.
  • Regulatory conditions were not satisfied and the reason is a breach by MS.
Wow.
 

threi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,008
Ontario, Canada
Love the information presented in this thread. Wish there was more like this that go into details of the business workings of the industry.
 
OP
OP
Idas

Idas

Antitrusting By Keyboard
Member
Mar 20, 2022
2,028
I like keeping it all in here. Don't need another thread w/ 20 pages of warring every time Phil or Jim gives a quote.

Also very informative. The one thing I always wonder the most is what if 1 or 2 of the 17 refuses to approve it? What happens then? Would they do something like pull out any of their gaming business operations from that region so that particular approval isn't required? Obviously not feasible for some regions.

What happens if one regulator refects it, but the others accept it? Can one rejection halt the entire process?

I added two new questions to answer that :)

If you said phase 2 lasts 3-6 months and that they are already in phase 2 or 3 in every area, why would it he AT LEAST 6 months to finish the deal? Wouldn't it be at the MOST 6 months?

But some big merger reviews are still pending, for example Europe. If the European Commission goes to Phase 2 this won't close until April/May 2023.

Good thread.

Need some more Street Fighter The Movie references though.

😆

In the Sherman-antirust in the US, the equivalent section would be exclusive dealings.

www.ftc.gov

Exclusive Dealing or Requirements Contracts

Exclusive dealing or requirements contracts between manufacturers and retailers are common and are generally lawful.

At least in the US, AKB games would have to be considered key and necessary ingredients to for a publisher to succeed for the deal to be considered foreclosure. i.e. platform holders / cloud gaming service providers would not be able to succeed with them. IMO, it is a tall order to prove considering its absence on Nintendo, Apple, Google and Steam platforms.

Is that different in the UK / EU?

No, very similar. The important thing here is if regulators are going to understand that: 1) Microsoft has market power (the CMA in UK is pointing to that) 2) some of the inputs acquired by MS (Call of Duty, Candy Crush or WoW) are something unique and very significative to succeed in the video game market.

That's why MS is insisting so much on the idea that the games from ABK are not "must have" or unique (and why Sony is saying the opposite). It's a legal strategy.

The relevant markets defined by regulators are also going to be very important. MS and the majority of publishers are saying that the markets are console + PC and then mobile. But in the legal sphere there are people arguing that regulators should define the relevant markets by genre, for example first person shooters. If that would happen, MS acquiring something like COD is monumentally significative and could require multiple remedies or even be rejected.

As I said, there are some precedents in the industry (Bethesda) but this acquisition it's so big and has so many interesting peculiarities that there are still important uncertainties.

Thanks to staff for asking idas to do this.

Idas can you include a link to the M&A thread in here?

You mean the one with the value of publishers? Yeah, no problem.

Idas if you don't get a tag I don't know what this world has come to

Thank you for all of your work on this, it's much appreciated!

Haha, thanks! :p

Who chooses the tag?

Oh hey nice thread, didn't see this earlier!

What do you think the chances are that Microsoft puts CoD, etc. on to Sony's answer to Game Pass?

If MS is forced to that, they'll say that they want Gamepass on PS. And we know that regulators are already thinking about that because Europe asked MS: "How Microsoft could selectively degrade the compatibility and accessibility of Game Pass on rival platforms".

What kind of prerogatives the EU Commissioners have for being representative of the executive branch ? Is their approbation required in the processs purely administrative ? Because it seems the only case in your exposee where it happens.

It's something established by law. When a transaction has what it's called "EU dimension" (for example because it affects 3 or more Member States or the total turnover of the parties involved goes beyond specific limits) the European Commission is the one that legally has to review the transaction.

It happens on other regions of the world, it's not something unique of Europe.
 

killerrin

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,238
Toronto
Who chooses the tag?

At this point, I think you get to chose the tag and ping a moderator to approve it, because you've been on the ball with it.

If MS is forced to that, they'll say that they want Gamepass on PS. And we know that regulators are already thinking about that because Europe asked MS: "How Microsoft could selectively degrade the compatibility and accessibility of Game Pass on rival platforms".

Now that would be an interesting course of events. From Microsofts perspective they want Game Pass on Playstation, whereas Sony is the one who doesn't. So how could Microsoft even guarentee that they'd be able to accomplish this ask? Its be one thing if PlayStation had a web browser, because then the iOS workaround with cloud streaming would work. But te only browser it has is a secret one hidden behid an exploit.

So maybe instead they could rule that Microsoft has to allow other platforms access to provide Game Pass competitors on Xbox (which they already allow), as well as Streaming Competitors on Xbox, and forcing them to license their games to Game Pass Competitors on other platforms where Game Pass isn't available.
 
Last edited:

Ratuso

Member
Nov 27, 2021
1,196
Now that would be an interesting course of events. From Microsofts perspective they want Game Pass on Playstation, whereas Sony is the one who doesn't.
Does Microsoft really want GP on PS? That would kill the console I think. I personally would have no reason to buy an xbox, given that I could play xbx+ps games on a PlayStation.
 

killerrin

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,238
Toronto
Does Microsoft really want GP on PS? That would kill the console I think. I personally would have no reason to buy an xbox, given that I could play xbx+ps games on a PlayStation.

They say they do. But it could also just be Phil Spensor saying it because he knows Sony will never go for it. I would say at the very least they want Game Pass Streaming on PlayStation as that would keep it within the ecosystem.
 
OP
OP
Idas

Idas

Antitrusting By Keyboard
Member
Mar 20, 2022
2,028
At this point, I think you get to chose the tag and ping a moderator to approve it, because you've been on the ball with it.

Nice! Although right now, I don't know what to suggest :S

I've added a new section:

Related info

- Quantitative Perspectives on Acquisition Targets From An M&A Banker
- Mergers & Acquisitions For Gaming: A Primer Into The Joys of Corporate Combinations We All Love

Forbes published this yesterday:

www.forbes.com

Sony Isn’t Scared Of ‘Call Of Duty’ Exclusivity, Sony Is Scared Of Game Pass

In the wake of Sony continuing to push back against Microsoft’s pending acquisition of Activision Blizzard and Call of Duty for the sake of “PlayStation gamers,” many have pointed out some ironies, like how Sony is curre...

And I think I'm done for the weekend :p xD
 

Governergrimm

Member
Jun 25, 2019
6,572
They say they do. But it could also just be Phil Spensor saying it because he knows Sony will never go for it. I would say at the very least they want Game Pass Streaming on PlayStation as that would keep it within the ecosystem.
I mostly think Sony at most would allow a scaled down version of first party only games. Microsoft on the other hand wants the full ecosystem version. I don't see them finding a middle ground though.

Edit: Idas I also wanted to thank you for being an MVP and explaining this stuff with out the drama and feels people get wrapped up in. You have also managed to explain it in laymen's terms quite well. Greatly appreciate your efforts. Have a great rest of your weekend!
 
Last edited:

Jakisthe

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,606
Nice! Although right now, I don't know what to suggest :S

I've added a new section:

Related info

- Quantitative Perspectives on Acquisition Targets From An M&A Banker
- Mergers & Acquisitions For Gaming: A Primer Into The Joys of Corporate Combinations We All Love

Forbes published this yesterday:



And I think I'm done for the weekend :p xD
Thanks for the plug! I always feel bad about trying to promote my own threads - this'll give me the impetus to update that old one lol

Loving the legal perspective too, of course. Reminds me why I considered my own JD...
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
7,980
Nice! Although right now, I don't know what to suggest :S

I've added a new section:

Related info

- Quantitative Perspectives on Acquisition Targets From An M&A Banker
- Mergers & Acquisitions For Gaming: A Primer Into The Joys of Corporate Combinations We All Love

Forbes published this yesterday:



And I think I'm done for the weekend :p xD
That article makes sense and it's something I've been thinking about. Gamepass is a form of exclusivity, something that, at least with games like COD, Sony will have a hard time competing against
 

Vince Death

Member
Jun 15, 2022
527
Does Microsoft really want GP on PS? That would kill the console I think. I personally would have no reason to buy an xbox, given that I could play xbx+ps games on a PlayStation.

I don't believe for one second that they want gamepass on PlayStation. It would 100% kill their hardware and hand Sony the market.

If they wanted to go 3rd party, they already would have
 

Shoot

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,563
I googled it and this it what the FTC say.

Price fixing is an agreement (written, verbal, or inferred from conduct) among competitors to raise, lower, maintain, or stabilize prices or price levels. Generally, the antitrust laws require that each company establish prices and other competitive terms on its own, without agreeing with a competitor.
Interesting. IIRC the CMA did mention concerns of Microsoft doing price increases as a big point of concern. So it makes sense for them to investigate recent price increases by competitors. Since Activision Blizzard is one of the companies involved they might have access to records on how their decision to go $70 USD was made and if it could qualify as price fixing. Similarly they can see Microsoft's decision process to hold at $60.

It definitely looks like price fixing based on that FTC definition imo so it will be interesting to see if or how regulators rule on that.
Nice! Although right now, I don't know what to suggest :S
Acquisition [Insert related word that starts with b] King

I was thinking the word "baqueano". According to Google it means guide but I think "guiding" makes more sense.

Just one idea. 😅
 

vixolus

Prophet of Truth
Member
Sep 22, 2020
54,817
Interesting. IIRC the CMA did mention concerns of Microsoft doing price increases as a big point of concern. So it makes sense for them to investigate recent price increases by competitors. Since Activision Blizzard is one of the companies involved they might have access to records on how their decision to go $70 USD was made and if it could qualify as price fixing. Similarly they can see Microsoft's decision process to hold at $60.

It definitely looks like price fixing based on that FTC definition imo so it will be interesting to see if or how regulators rule on that.

Acquisition [Insert related word that starts with b] King

I was thinking the word "baqueano". According to Google it means guide but I think "guiding" makes more sense.

Just one idea. 😅
Charging $70 is not price fixing by any means cmon now lol.
 

AzerPhire

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,191
I mostly think Sony at most would allow a scaled down version of first party only games. Microsoft on the other hand wants the full ecosystem version. I don't see them finding a middle ground though.

Edit: Idas I also wanted to thank you for being an MVP and explaining this stuff with out the drama and feels people get wrapped up in. You have also managed to explain it in laymen's terms quite well. Greatly appreciate your efforts. Have a great rest of your weekend!

I don't believe for one second that they want gamepass on PlayStation. It would 100% kill their hardware and hand Sony the market.

If they wanted to go 3rd party, they already would have

Not sure why this comment keeps coming up but the only way GamePass works on a Sony or Nintendo console is through xCloud. You won't see ports of 1st party games coming to either of those consoles.
 

vixolus

Prophet of Truth
Member
Sep 22, 2020
54,817
Why not? It seems that it might be based on the FTC definition.
Because it requires a conspiracy between parties to engage in the behavior. There was no price fixing antitrust concerns when games went from $50 to $60.

The FTC even says "Not all price similarities, or price changes that occur at the same time, are the result of agreements among competitors. On the contrary, they often result from normal market conditions."

It really requires a pretty clear discussion/agreement for change in business behavior.
 

Shoot

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,563
Because it requires a conspiracy between parties to engage in the behavior. There was no price fixing antitrust concerns when games went from $50 to $60.

The FTC even says "Not all price similarities, or price changes that occur at the same time, are the result of agreements among competitors. On the contrary, they often result from normal market conditions."

It really requires a pretty clear discussion/agreement for change in business behavior.
That's why I said they would need to review their decision making processes and documents to see if those discussions or agreements exist.
 

antispin

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,781
I've added two news questions:

All the countries have to approve it?

Yes, that would be the ideal scenario.

In a cross border transaction like this one the regulators from the different countries or regions are usually coordinated and one of the reasons is to avoid very different outcomes.

For example, maybe the majority of regulators approve the deal without problems but some of them ask for specific remedies for their local market. That could work for MS/ABK.

Or maybe the majority of regulators approve the deal but some minors ones don't. In that case, MS/ABK would probably go to court to appeal the decision and would probably win because courts are usually more favorable to parties than regulators. Although that could take some years, if the market is not too big/important, maybe it could work for MS/ABK.

It could also happen that an important regulator approves the deal (the FTC in US) but another big one rejects it (the EC in Europe). In that case MS/ABK could to go court to appeal the decision but that's going to be a long and tough battle. When that happens the parties usually abandon and cancel the deal.

What happens if the deal doesn't get approved?

The merger agreement says that MS and ABK expect the deal to close in 12 months (January 18th 2023) or less. But the agreement also includes two possible extensions of 3 months each one (until April 18th 2023 and the other one until July 18th 2023). That's why MS says that they expect the deal to close in fiscal year 2023.

Those extensions apply automatically if by January 18th 2023 or April 18th 2023 the transaction is still pending regulatory approval.

The transaction can be terminated by MS or ABK if:
  • Both parties agree.
  • The Activision Blizzard stockholders reject it (it was already approved, so it's doesn't apply anymore).
  • A court or a regulator rejects the deal and there is no way to appeal it.
  • There is a new law that prohibits this kind of deal.
  • By January 18th 2023 or April 18th 2023 the deal is still pending but NOT for regulatory reasons.
The transaction can be terminated by ABK if:
  • There is an infringement of the agreement by MS and during the period to resolve that, MS doesn't do anything.
  • Before the approval by Activision Blizzard stockholders, ABK receives a better offer and pays MS a $2,270,100,000 termination fee.
The transaction can be terminated by MS if:
  • There is an infringement of the agreement by ABK and during the period to resolve that, ABK doesn't do anything.
  • The Activision Blizzard Board of Directors doesn't recommend the deal anymore.
If the deal doesn't happen, someone has to pay for it :p

Activision Blizzard has to pay Microsoft a termination fee of $2,270,100,000 if:
  • MS is still waiting for the ABK stockholders meeting to happen by termination dates.
  • Regulatory conditions were not satisfied and the reason is a breach by ABK.
  • ABK infringes the agreement.
  • The ABK stockholders reject the deal.
  • The Activision Blizzard Board of Directors doesn't recommend the deal anymore.
  • ABK receives a better offer.
Microsoft has to pay Activision Blizzard a termination fee of:
  • $2,000,000,000, if the termination notice is provided prior to January 18th, 2023.
  • $2,500,000,000, if the termination notice is provided after January 18th, 2023 and prior to April 18th, 2023.
  • $3,000,000,000, if the termination notice is provided after April 18th, 2023.
Reasons for this possible termination fee in favor of ABK:
  • A court or a regulator rejects the deal and there is no way to appeal it.
  • There is a new law that prohibits this kind of deal.
  • MS infringes the agreement.
  • Regulatory conditions were not satisfied and the reason is a breach by MS.

So if I am reading this right, then MS has to pay ABK 2-3b if the regulators reject the deal by April 18, 2023? Thanks for the OT btw, excellent read.
 
OP
OP
Idas

Idas

Antitrusting By Keyboard
Member
Mar 20, 2022
2,028
I see that New Zealand had un update a few days ago:

Administrative clock stopped (per Mergers and Acquisitions Guidelines at [6.32]

That means:
  1. For the purposes of calculating our output measures, we may "stop-the-clock" and stop counting the number of working days in specific situations that cause delays to our investigation. These delays may arise as a result of:
    1. 6.32.1 the review of the merger by another jurisdiction(s);
    2. 6.32.2 time spent assessing divestment undertakings; or
    3. 6.32.3 the applicant, target or an interested party requesting further time to respond to information requests.
So both, Australia and New Zealand have stopped the clock.

I guess that the same law firm is dealing with both cases and they really need extra time.

Edit: @Idas I also wanted to thank you for being an MVP and explaining this stuff with out the drama and feels people get wrapped up in. You have also managed to explain it in laymen's terms quite well. Greatly appreciate your efforts. Have a great rest of your weekend!

Thanks! Happy that it's easy to understand. :)

Thanks for the plug! I always feel bad about trying to promote my own threads - this'll give me the impetus to update that old one lol

Loving the legal perspective too, of course. Reminds me why I considered my own JD..

You are welcome! Your threads are awesome :)

Acquisition [Insert related word that starts with b] King

I was thinking the word "baqueano". According to Google it means guide but I think "guiding" makes more sense.

Just one idea

Haha! That sounds fun xD

So if I am reading this right, then MS has to pay ABK 2-3b if the regulators reject the deal by April 18, 2023? Thanks for the OT btw, excellent read.

Thanks! Yes, if MS sends a notification to ABK by April 19th 2023 or later saying that they are out and the reason is that regulators reject the transaction and there is no way to appeal it, MS has to pay $3,000,000,000.
 
Oct 27, 2017
152
Given the state of the Modern Warfare 2 beta, and the last few COD's in general, Microsoft should have no problem allowing COD to remain on other platforms. Soulless doesn't even begin to describe it.
 

Vince Death

Member
Jun 15, 2022
527
Not sure why this comment keeps coming up but the only way GamePass works on a Sony or Nintendo console is through xCloud. You won't see ports of 1st party games coming to either of those consoles.
And neither Sony nor Nintendo would accept a halfarsed streaming only service. That is why I am surprised when I see people still talking about gamepass on PlayStation. It ain't happening.
 

groganos

Member
Jan 12, 2018
403
Ohhhhiiiiyyyoooo
I don't believe for one second that they want gamepass on PlayStation. It would 100% kill their hardware and hand Sony the market.

If they wanted to go 3rd party, they already would have
I know you commented about the xcloud version being a half starter which neither Sony nor Nintendo would want in the post above but I'm gonna guess the other reason is they don't want a service offering a bunch of hot new day one releases for a low monthly fee when you're still operating on the traditional release model. That person could just sit there only playing the game pass games and not purchase anything else, when before game pass they would have purchased titles normally.
Not disagreeing with you whatsoever but whether it be a native bespoke & tailored only microsoft published games or xcloud version for either Nintendo or Sony, there's no way they want game pass messing with their ecosystems.
 
Jul 22, 2022
1,867
I don't believe for one second that they want gamepass on PlayStation. It would 100% kill their hardware and hand Sony the market.
The want Game Pass on PS the same way they are pushing for open app store policy - where they provide the whole Xbox ecoystem on Playstation and don't pay Sony for that. Similarly how various laptop vendors do - Steam does not pay Lenovo for having it in Windows. Or Microsoft for that matter.
 

Vince Death

Member
Jun 15, 2022
527
I know you commented about the xcloud version being a half starter which neither Sony nor Nintendo would want in the post above but I'm gonna guess the other reason is they don't want a service offering a bunch of hot new day one releases for a low monthly fee when you're still operating on the traditional release model. That person could just sit there only playing the game pass games and not purchase anything else, when before game pass they would have purchased titles normally.
Not disagreeing with you whatsoever but whether it be a native bespoke & tailored only microsoft published games or xcloud version for either Nintendo or Sony, there's no way they want game pass messing with their ecosystems.
Possibly that too. There's just no scenario where I see it happening. Native Microsoft first party games would kill Xbox and give Sony the market, and a streaming only service I doubt would be acceptable.

It's a head scratcher for me every time I see this pop up
 

Vince Death

Member
Jun 15, 2022
527
The want Game Pass on PS the same way they are pushing for open app store policy - where they provide the whole Xbox ecoystem on Playstation and don't pay Sony for that. Similarly how various laptop vendors do - Steam does not pay Lenovo for having it in Windows. Or Microsoft for that matter.
The whole ecosystem on PlayStation but then don't pay anything? Yeah that ain't ever happening.
 

christocolus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
14,932
I see that New Zealand had un update a few days ago:

Administrative clock stopped (per Mergers and Acquisitions Guidelines at [6.32]

That means:
  1. For the purposes of calculating our output measures, we may "stop-the-clock" and stop counting the number of working days in specific situations that cause delays to our investigation. These delays may arise as a result of:
    1. 6.32.1 the review of the merger by another jurisdiction(s);
    2. 6.32.2 time spent assessing divestment undertakings; or
    3. 6.32.3 the applicant, target or an interested party requesting further time to respond to information requests.
So both, Australia and New Zealand have stopped the clock.

I guess that the same law firm is dealing with both cases and they really need extra time.
Thanks! Yes, if MS sends a notification to ABK by April 19th 2023 or later saying that they are out and the reason is that regulators reject the transaction and there is no way to appeal it, MS has to pay $3,000,000,000.
Thanks for these updates.
 
Jul 22, 2022
1,867
The whole ecosystem on PlayStation but then don't pay anything? Yeah that ain't ever happening.
We don't know if it is ever happening or not. Regulators are certainly interested in breaking up walled gardens and for now they are coming after mobile phones. Eventually they will take a look at other hardware. It is inevitable at this point - granted home console market is relatively small. But Microsoft is preparing for that by pivoting from revenue gained by selling hardware with a walled garden (store) to pure service revenue (via Game Pass across various platforms).
 

phonicjoy

Banned
Jun 19, 2018
4,305
The want Game Pass on PS the same way they are pushing for open app store policy - where they provide the whole Xbox ecoystem on Playstation and don't pay Sony for that. Similarly how various laptop vendors do - Steam does not pay Lenovo for having it in Windows. Or Microsoft for that matter.

Seeing how they defended their margins, I don't think they would actually want that. They would have to open up too. They're a high margin company, and that would def. put downward pressure on margins.

Interesting to think about though, that would be total chaos. How would that even work administratively. And legally, who is responsible for a machine destroying piece of software. Who is going to host the games, and has to do compatibility testing, who would pay for that. That would be the end of consoles I would think. If there's no increased margins to be had, why bother.
 

Astronomer

Member
Aug 22, 2019
1,200
arguing that regulators should define the relevant markets by genre, for example first person shooters. If that would happen, MS acquiring something like COD is monumentally significative and could require multiple remedies or even be rejected.

Great OT and great job! Bravo
But, about this quote, this would be absurd in terms of IP. If we reasoned in this way, Ms should already have the monopoly of wrpg and Sony of 3rd person action adventure. It's not a material good that can only be done by a team, how could they ever prove such a thing? In any case, declaring that you want to release that IP everywhere, legally can a "lifetime" contract be requested? I don't think anyone has ever done or could do it. Contracts must be renegotiated
 

Vince Death

Member
Jun 15, 2022
527
We don't know if it is ever happening or not. Regulators are certainly interested in breaking up walled gardens and for now they are coming after mobile phones. Eventually they will take a look at other hardware. It is inevitable at this point - granted home console market is relatively small. But Microsoft is preparing for that by pivoting from revenue gained by selling hardware with a walled garden (store) to pure service revenue (via Game Pass across various platforms).

Perhaps, but I just don't see them handing Sony the market, 30% of all their console revenue with the added risk that Sony could easily demand more once they are dominant.

Also gamepass has a lot of 3rd party games, if those games were going to go on gp PlayStation, then they would be exposed to a lot more people and thus the price to have them would increase drastically. Further cutting margins. We'll see but if regulators start trying to break up walled gardens then the tv/movie streaming platform holders will be getting looked at too.

I don't, time will tell

Now I get the feeling that I am derailing the thread
 
Jul 22, 2022
1,867
Interesting to think about though, that would be total chaos. How would that even work administratively. And legally, who is responsible for a machine destroying piece of software. Who is going to host the games, and has to do compatibility testing, who would pay for that. That would be the end of consoles I would think. If there's no increased margins to be had, why bother.
No different how it currently works with various PC configurations. After all PC games are able to run on various archictures and sometimes better than on the consoles. But the end of consoles in a way we know them - custom hardware for running specific things - will slowly die out. Modern consoles are becoming much more closer to the PC hardware architectures.

Seeing how they defended their margins, I don't think they would actually want that. They would have to open up too. They're a high margin company, and that would def. put downward pressure on margins.
Obivously they don't want to lose their revenue right now - same with Gold for example - but eventually they will lower 30% cut simple because with Game Pass their revenue streams won't rely on retail sales (they are putting their games Day 1 in a subscription service so it already affects their retail revenue for example). They do all these steps towards that hardware agnostic future.

Perhaps, but I just don't see them handing Sony the market, 30% of all their console revenue with the added risk that Sony could easily demand more once they are dominant.
They of course won't do that when Sony still has its own walled garden.

We'll see but if regulators start trying to break up walled gardens then the tv/movie streaming platform holders will be getting looked at too.
The difference is that tv/movie streaming devices are not the walled gardens - they are just the devices that run the software. Does for example LG gets 30% cut from having Netflix app on their TV?

When subscription services reach the certain threshold - like for example become the only way to consume content - the regulators will also start looking at them. It is just the way it works.

Yeah, I agree let's not derail.
 
Last edited:

Arn

Prophet of Truth
Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,750
Given the state of the Modern Warfare 2 beta, and the last few COD's in general, Microsoft should have no problem allowing COD to remain on other platforms. Soulless doesn't even begin to describe it.
Warzone was one of the defining pieces of popular culture of the last decade, played by over 100 million people in under a year.

This forum and enthusiasts in general are so detached from the reality of the industry. Call of Duty is and will continue to be massive.
 

Vince Death

Member
Jun 15, 2022
527
No different how it currently works with various PC configurations. After all PC games are able to run on various archictures and sometimes better than on the consoles. But the end of consoles in a way we know them - custom hardware for running specific things - will slowly die out. Modern consoles are becoming much more closer to the PC hardware architectures.


Obivously they don't want to lose their revenue right now - same with Gold for example - but eventually they will lower 30% cut simple because with Game Pass their revenue streams won't rely on retail sales (they are putting their games Day 1 in a subscription service so it already affects their retail revenue for example). They do all these steps towards that hardware agnostic future.


They of course won't do that when Sony still has its own walled garden.


The difference is that tv/movie streaming devices are not the walled gardens - they are just the devices that run the software. Does for example LG gets 30% cut from having Netflix app on their TV?

When subscription services reach the certain threshold - like for example become the only way to consume content - the regulators will also start looking at them. It is just the way it works.

Yeah, I agree let's not derail.
Okay , gamepass on a PlayStation storefront, but not on PlayStation hardware. Like on pc or a PlayStation app on tvs?
 

phonicjoy

Banned
Jun 19, 2018
4,305
No different how it currently works with various PC configurations. After all PC games are able to run on various archictures and sometimes better than on the consoles. But the end of consoles in a way we know them - custom hardware for running specific things - will slowly die out. Modern consoles are becoming much more closer to the PC hardware architectures.


They do all these steps towards that hardware agnostic future.

Towards a windows PC future.

PC configs have translation layers though, that are absent in consoles. This wouldnt be as easy as targeting a different CPU or GPU. And right now console stores each have their own requirements and fees that would have to land somewhere.

Also, right now this would mean forcing every dev on gamepass to develop a PS compatible version (or cloud version maybe) increasing costs for xbox devs.

Thinking again that might just the endgame. Basically force a cloud future through regulators.
 

Trup1aya

Literally a train safety expert
Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,406
Interesting. IIRC the CMA did mention concerns of Microsoft doing price increases as a big point of concern. So it makes sense for them to investigate recent price increases by competitors. Since Activision Blizzard is one of the companies involved they might have access to records on how their decision to go $70 USD was made and if it could qualify as price fixing. Similarly they can see Microsoft's decision process to hold at $60.

It definitely looks like price fixing based on that FTC definition imo so it will be interesting to see if or how regulators rule on that.

Acquisition [Insert related word that starts with b] King

I was thinking the word "baqueano". According to Google it means guide but I think "guiding" makes more sense.

Just one idea. 😅

Why do you think it looks like price fixing based on that definition? We haven't seen and agreements between publishers to raise their prices.
 
Sep 13, 2022
6,613
OP maybe you can speak on this
These regulators
Do they know anything about video games?

For example, hate to use as an example again, COD
What do they know about it besides sales numbers and population numbers on consoles.

Do they at least have our enthusiasts levels of knowledge (not that we know truly know much)
 

12Danny123

Member
Jan 31, 2018
1,722
We don't know if it is ever happening or not. Regulators are certainly interested in breaking up walled gardens and for now they are coming after mobile phones. Eventually they will take a look at other hardware. It is inevitable at this point - granted home console market is relatively small. But Microsoft is preparing for that by pivoting from revenue gained by selling hardware with a walled garden (store) to pure service revenue (via Game Pass across various platforms).

Agreed, It does seem that Microsoft is preparing for that exact scenario. If we look at their moves in recent years:
  1. Launch of Game Pass
  2. Release of XCloud
  3. Acquisition of well-known IP via Bethesda and ABK
  4. Streaming your game library
Like you say, they seem the to the best positioned to pivot from a ecosystem that is tied to hardware to a software/cloud-based ecosystem.
 

Trup1aya

Literally a train safety expert
Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,406
I don't believe for one second that they want gamepass on PlayStation. It would 100% kill their hardware and hand Sony the market.

If they wanted to go 3rd party, they already would have

MS' hardware "dying" would mean 10s of millions of PS users subscribed to the service, exposing them to an end-around to play hundreds of games without Sony getting their 30% cut. Once xcloud starts allowing digitally-owned games to be streamed, then MS snags some of that 30% cut for themselves.

The Gamepass app on TVs and streaming sticks means an opportunity to offer the end-around to Sony users, even if Sony doesn't play ball.

MS wants to change the game, so that they can maximize their installed base WITHOUT the customer necessarily buying Xbox hardware.A Series X in a living room can entertain one household at a time. A series X in a server Blade can be rented to dozens of households everyday- all of whom could be making purchases within the Xbox ecosystem. This wouldn't kill their hardware, it just shifts their approach to capitalizing on their hardware.

They'd put Gamepass on PS in a heartbeat. Sony would never allow it to happen though.
 
Last edited:

Vince Death

Member
Jun 15, 2022
527
MS' hardware "dying" would mean 10s of millions of PS users subscribed to the service, exposing them to an end-around to play hundreds of games without Sony getting their 30% cut. Once xcloud starts allowing digitally-owned games to be streamed, then MS snags some of that 30% cut for themselves.

The Gamepass app on TVs and streaming sticks means an opportunity to offer the end-around to Sony users, even if Sony doesn't play ball.

MS wants to change the game, so that they can maximize their installed base WITHOUT the customer necessarily buying Xbox hardware.A Series X in a living room can entertain one household at a time. A series X in a server Blade can be rented to dozens of households everyday- all of whom could be making purchases within the Xbox ecosystem. This wouldn't kill their hardware, it just shifts their approach to capitalizing on their hardware.

They'd put Gamepass on PS in a heartbeat. Sony would never allow it to happen though.

Yeah I understand the cloud push is to get people to subscribe that don't have xboxes. But what I don't get is how that would work without giving Sony 30% (Perhaps I am missing something here?).

As well what are people thinking, just a gp streaming service?
 

vixolus

Prophet of Truth
Member
Sep 22, 2020
54,817
Yeah I understand the cloud push is to get people to subscribe that don't have xboxes. But what I don't get is how that would work without giving Sony 30% (Perhaps I am missing something here?).

As well what are people thinking, just a gp streaming service?
The same way sony doesn't get money from Netflix if you just download the app and watch on your console Using an existing account. They get money if you sign up via the console.
 

Trup1aya

Literally a train safety expert
Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,406
Yeah I understand the cloud push is to get people to subscribe that don't have xboxes. But what I don't get is how that would work without giving Sony 30% (Perhaps I am missing something here?).

As well what are people thinking, just a gp streaming service?

Think about how Gamepass works on Android or iPhone. Any transactions are happening within the Xbox store and the content becomes available to users regardless of what device they are using. So there's no cut to give to any platform holder.

So if Gamepass was on PS5, users would suddenly be entitled to hundreds of games they'd have to pay full price for on psn. They'd also be able to buy games/dlc from the Xbox store via any browser, then they'd be able to stream this content to their ps5.

Yes, I believe hypothetical GP on PlayStation would be limited to Cloud. If the service relied on ports it would less appealing to MS, and Would make even less sense to Sony who already has a similar service full of ps ports.
 
Last edited:

Vince Death

Member
Jun 15, 2022
527
The same way sony doesn't get money from Netflix if you just download the app and watch on your console Using an existing account. They get money if you sign up via the console.

Think about how Gamepass works on Android or iPhone. Any transactions are happening within the Xbox store and the content becomes available to users regardless of what device they are using. So there's no cut to give to any platform holder.

So if Gamepass was on PS5, users would buy Xbox games/dlc via any browser, then
they'd be able to stream these games to their ps5

Okay so you guys are thinking just pure streaming? If so gotcha.

That could work. It wouldn't kill their hardware either probably.

Even though I have a 2Gb fibre connection and when I have used xcloud I ping their azure data centre in Paris at 9ms, I would hesitate to subscribe. But others certainly would.

Sony would never allow that though.

I am wondering if we are detailing the thread by talking about gamepass?
 

Trup1aya

Literally a train safety expert
Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,406
Okay so you guys are thinking just pure streaming? If so gotcha.

That could work. It wouldn't kill their hardware either probably.

Even though I have a 2Gb fibre connection and when I have used xcloud I ping their azure data centre in Paris at 9ms, I would hesitate to subscribe. But others certainly would.

Sony would never allow that though.

I am wondering if we are detailing the thread by talking about gamepass?

Maybe a little bit of a Derail, but Gamepass is a key focus of the regulating bodies and one of the things Sony considers a threat to the market. The things we're talking about is exactly the sort of things they'll be investigating.

Will this deal make it too hard for newcomers to enter the subscription market and/or the cloud market

Will MS offer their products and services to competitors at fair prices

If MS withholds these services and products, would it cause undue harm to competitors