The Microsoft / Activision Blizzard acquisition |OT| Antitrust Simulator (completed; discussing post-merger issues)

Akiba756 · Mar 22, 2023

rscardinals said:
Can we just pick something that this thread hasn't gone back and forth on? We need some creativity in this thread!

- Is Xbox going to make COD exclusive? No, they promise.
- Could they in 10 years? Sure but they promise they have financial incentive to keep it multi-plat
- Is Xbox's promise worth anything? A signed agreement or a promise to a regulator is worth more.
- Is 10 years long enough? - It is equal to the longest CMA behavioral remedy approved to date.
- Does Sony have exclusives (1st and 3rd party) and do Xbox fans dislike that? - Yes
- Does Microsoft buy large publishers and make most future games exclusive and do Sony fans dislike that? - Yes
- Are exclusives and buying large publishers the same thing? - No but regulators and Sony only care about COD. Sorry not sorry.
- Does Microsoft have more money than Sony? - Yes by a large amount
- Does Sony have a market leading position? - Yes by a large amount
- Do Sony and Microsoft have to make financially prudent/wise business decisions? - Yes they do.
- Do Sony and Microsoft view the market differently and view what decisions are good decisions differently? - Yes they do
- Can you have a personal preference and opinion? - Yes
- Does your peronsal preference and opinion impact the law or regulators? - Nope
- When will this be over? - when Idas rings the closing bell or admins lock this thread

What am I missing for the definitive FAQ for this thread?

The "Its so over"/"We are so back" comment rules

Kopite · Mar 22, 2023

If the CMA rejects, MS will go to court to appeal - No
Yeah but ABK will be run independently in the UK then - No
MS will pull out from the UK altogether - No

Dega · Mar 22, 2023

Kopite said:
If the CMA rejects, MS will go to court to appeal - No
Yeah but ABK will be run independently in the UK then - No
MS will pull out from the UK altogether - No

Haven't they pretty much been hinting about appealing if rejected recently?

CottonWolf · Mar 22, 2023

Dega said:
Haven't they pretty much been hinting about appealing if rejected recently?

Yeah. They have. Even if CAT successful appeals almost never lead to the CMA changing their mind, apparently.

Ratuso · Mar 22, 2023

Kopite said:
If the CMA rejects, MS will go to court to appeal - No

I have been thinking on this. I don't think MS would win an appeal and turn the around the case. However, the $2.5B outside date has already passedby the time the CMA decides. So, Microsoft has nothing to lose I guess, except paying their lawyers for more months, which are probably quite expensive to be honest.

On the other hand, the CAT would take several months asseassing the appeal I'd guess, and MS would need to renegotiate the outside date. Would ABK ask for more money, for example $4B or $5B? Then if they lose the appeal (likely IMO) they will have to pay ATVI that quantity of money which is a fuckton

Kopite · Mar 22, 2023

Dega said:
Haven't they pretty much been hinting about appealing if rejected recently?

Sorta but it seems they never change their mind so non-serious FAQ wise it's easier to just say it has to pass the CMA. I mainly added that because that was the prevailing opinion but there were multiple posters who didn't know that,

Mmmmmkay · Mar 22, 2023

bsigg said:
You know what else was planned and even started? Gears of War 3 on PS3.

No GoW3 was never planned for PS. Epic did a tech build of it to test the engine on PlayStation hardware.

Gears of War 3 Was Ported to PS3, But Was Never Going to See Release - IGN

Epic Games built a PS3 version of Gears of War 3, but never had any intention of releasing it.

www.ign.com

leburn98 · Mar 22, 2023

CottonWolf said:
My assumption is that anything already released by the time it closes will get parity of support (so Diablo 4 expansions etc). CoD will get parity with new releases for 10 years then vanish. Nothing else will go to PlayStation.

I still expect that Microsoft will continue to release Call of Duty on PlayStation and Nintendo, particularly if it continues to grow the audience (like Minecraft). I do agree with Diablo 4 and the like. They will continue to support those titles, but I wouldn't necessarily expect Diablo 5 to hit PlayStation/Nintendo.

BassForever · Mar 22, 2023

CottonWolf said:
Yeah. They have. Even if CAT successful appeals almost never lead to the CMA changing their mind, apparently.

Ultimately it comes down to what CAT forces the CMA to throw out. If CAT rejects the CMA's definition of the market (excluding Nintendo) and rejects how they're calculating SLC on Sony/Cloud, it would basically require the CMA to completely redo their methodology which would likely change the result. In the past when people talk about CAT appeals, it's usually been on procedural stuff that, even after correcting, doesn't change the ultimate conclusion (see the recent Meta came).

Bradbatross · Mar 22, 2023

BassForever said:
Ultimately it comes down to what CAT forces the CMA to throw out. If CAT rejects the CMA's definition of the market (excluding Nintendo) and rejects how they're calculating SLC on Sony/Cloud, it would basically require the CMA to completely redo their methodology which would likely change the result. In the past when people talk about CAT appeals, it's usually been on procedural stuff that, even after correcting, doesn't change the ultimate conclusion (see the recent Meta came).

Yea, it seems like people have been making their opinions based on past CMA cases, but the MS/ABK acquisition seems to be pretty unique, especially when looking at the potential benefits it offers to consumers.

Stibbs · Mar 22, 2023

Quick question cause I dont understand the full nature of British antitrust law. If by some crazy chance the CAT appeal does work if MS need to appeal, whats stopping the CMA from assembling the exact same panel to re-reach the same conclusion? Does the hypothetical redo get a new panel?

Synth · Mar 22, 2023

Stibbs said:
Quick question cause I dont understand the full nature of British antitrust law. If by some crazy chance the CAT appeal does work if MS need to appeal, whats stopping the CMA from assembling the exact same panel to re-reach the same conclusion? Does the hypothetical redo get a new panel?

Unless we're assuming a pretty serious level of corruption within the CMA, it shouldn't be a matter of who's on the panel and should be more a case of the evidence being evaluated. If the CAT appeal highlights critical flaws in either the evidence or reasoning of the CMA's original findings, then any new ruling (even if arriving at the same conclusion) should need to be demonstrated logically having corrected whatever errors existed in their original process.

If the bottom line actually simply comes down to "these people have their minds made up and are just looking for forum-level arguments to justify it", then there probably needs to be a pretty big shakeup at the agency itself.

Stibbs · Mar 22, 2023

Synth said:
Unless we're assuming a pretty serious level of corruption within the CMA, it shouldn't be a matter of who's on the panel and should be more a case of the evidence being evaluated. If the CAT appeal highlights critical flaws in either the evidence or reasoning of the CMA's original findings, then any new ruling (even if arriving at the same conclusion) should need to be demonstrated logically having corrected whatever errors existed in their original process.

If the bottom line actually simply comes down to "these people have their minds made up and are just looking for forum-level arguments to justify it", then there probably needs to be a pretty big shakeup at the agency itself.

ah ok, yeah apologies if I worded it like I was trying to imply something

Synth · Mar 22, 2023

Stibbs said:
ah ok, yeah apologies if I worded it like I was trying to imply something

No, not at all. I took it as an honest question.

I think the fact that CMA typically arrives at the same conclusion has more to do with their original evaluations being significantly less flawed than many indications appear to point towards in this particular case. It definitely seems like CMA has effectively had to cram a crash course on the gaming industry for the first serious time, and that has resulted in some of their original assertions to have reasonable doubt under further scrutiny.

Corrik · Mar 22, 2023

Ratuso said:
I have been thinking on this. I don't think MS would win an appeal and turn the around the case. However, the $2.5B outside date has already passedby the time the CMA decides. So, Microsoft has nothing to lose I guess, except paying their lawyers for more months, which are probably quite expensive to be honest.

On the other hand, the CAT would take several months asseassing the appeal I'd guess, and MS would need to renegotiate the outside date. Would ABK ask for more money, for example $4B or $5B? Then if they lose the appeal (likely IMO) they will have to pay ATVI that quantity of money which is a fuckton

The lawyers are on retainer regardless.

LordBaztion · Mar 22, 2023

Kopite said:
Yeah but ABK will be run independently in the UK then - No

Can you point me to where this has been discussed
Thank you

Sheepinator · Mar 22, 2023

LordBaztion said:
Can you point me to where this has been discussed
Thank you

Search for Pachter in here, especially in posts by pixis. Pachter has said this repeatedly, and it usually gets mentioned and debunked here. Happened again just a week or two ago iirc.

teemoisfun · Mar 22, 2023

rscardinals said:
Can we just pick something that this thread hasn't gone back and forth on? We need some creativity in this thread!

- Is Xbox going to make COD exclusive? No, they promise.
- Could they in 10 years? Sure but they promise they have financial incentive to keep it multi-plat
- Is Xbox's promise worth anything? A signed agreement or a promise to a regulator is worth more.
- Is 10 years long enough? - It is equal to the longest CMA behavioral remedy approved to date.
- Does Sony have exclusives (1st and 3rd party) and do Xbox fans dislike that? - Yes. Sorry not sorry.
- Does Microsoft buy large publishers & make most future games exclusive and do Sony fans dislike that? - Yes. Sorry not sorry.
- Are exclusives and buying large publishers the same thing? - No but regulators and Sony only care about COD. Sorry not sorry.
- Does Microsoft have more money than Sony? - Yes by a large amount
- Does Sony have a market leading position? - Yes by a large amount
- Do Sony and Microsoft have to make financially prudent/wise business decisions? - Yes they do.
- Do Sony and Microsoft view the market differently and view what decisions are good decisions differently? - Yes they do
- Can you have a personal preference and opinion? - Yes
- Does your peronsal preference and opinion impact the law or regulators? - Nope
- When will this be over? - when Idas rings the closing bell or admins lock this thread

What am I missing for the definitive FAQ for this thread?

Will Microsoft leave the gaming business if this deal fails?

LordBaztion · Mar 22, 2023

Sheepinator said:
Search for Pachter in here, especially in posts by pixis. Pachter has said this repeatedly, and it usually gets mentioned and debunked here. Happened again just a week or two ago iirc.

thank you

soul creator · Mar 22, 2023

I still haven't quite figured out the reason why the supposed principle of "games should be available to as many gamers as possible!" seems to only apply to unreleased games that become first party after an acquisition, and not to first party games in general.

If the principle is that "games should not be restricted by business deals", then Last of Us 2 should be on Xbox/Switch, Halo should be on Playstation/Switch, and Zelda should be on Xbox/Playstation. There's generally no major technical reasons behind why those couldn't exist on other platforms (unless it requires PSVR/motion controls/touchscreens/etc.), they're just exclusive because of "business deals". Namely, first party manufacturers deciding to make certain content exclusive to get you to buy their specific (and often redundant, hardware wise) box. One of the most fundamental pillars of the console gaming industry.

So typically, the response to most first party exclusives is "well, they own the companies, they obviously want a return on their investment, plus since they can focus on fewer platforms, they can optimize things to be better, which leads to higher quality games!" And if that's the case...doesn't that apply to the exact same way to unreleased games that become first party exclusives after an acquisition, such as Redfall? What's the major differentiating factor here? It seems like some would point to the fact that Redfall had a Playstation build in existence at some point (because yes, it was obviously a likely multiplatform game until the acquisition), but plenty of console exclusive games have unreleased PC builds as well, and I don't think I've seen anyone say that games were "denied" to PC gamers because of it. I've never seen "a build existed at one point in development" as some sort of violation of that original principle of "games should be available to as many people as possible".

Is it just length of time? So Redfall counts as being taken away, but Arkane's next game won't count as being taken away, because it would have started as first party from the beginning? But if that's the case, isn't the principle less about "games need to be available to more people" and is instead more about arbitrary "organic development" timelines?

In most other situations, "asking for a first party exclusive game to be on other platforms" is considered port begging, so I'm not sure why "first party exclusive game after an acquisition" is that much different on the merits. That's right, I just accused Sony, the CMA and the FTC of port begging. lol

(FYI: I'm not actually asking for anyone to be banned or whatever for "port begging" when discussing unreleased games after an acquisition, I'm just curious about what the philosophical differences are)

Lowrys · Mar 22, 2023

MS is absolutely gonna appeal this if it's blocked. Their responses set this up by referring to irrationality. That's one basis for an appeal. Probably the strongest, as CMA is highly unlikely to do something unlawful.

rscardinals · Mar 22, 2023

Akiba756 said:
The "Its so over"/"We are so back" comment rules

Kopite said:
If the CMA rejects, MS will go to court to appeal - No
Yeah but ABK will be run independently in the UK then - No
MS will pull out from the UK altogether - No

teemoisfun said:
Will Microsoft leave the gaming business if this deal fails?

Thanks! All added!

rscardinals said:
Can we just pick something that this thread hasn't gone back and forth on? We need some creativity in this thread!

- Is Xbox going to make COD exclusive? No, they promise.
- Could they in 10 years? Sure but they promise they have financial incentive to keep it multi-plat
- Is Xbox's promise worth anything? A signed agreement or a promise to a regulator is worth more.
- Is 10 years long enough? - It is equal to the longest CMA behavioral remedy approved to date.
- Does Sony have exclusives (1st and 3rd party) and do Xbox fans dislike that? - Yes. Sorry not sorry.
- Does Microsoft buy large publishers & make most future games exclusive and do Sony fans dislike that? - Yes. Sorry not sorry.
- Are exclusives and buying large publishers the same thing? - No but regulators and Sony only care about COD. Sorry not sorry.
- Does Microsoft have more money than Sony? - Yes by a large amount
- Does Sony have a market leading position? - Yes by a large amount
- Do Sony and Microsoft have to make financially prudent/wise business decisions? - Yes they do.
- Do Sony and Microsoft view the market differently and view what decisions are good decisions differently? - Yes they do
- Can you have a personal preference and opinion? - Yes
- Does your peronsal preference and opinion impact the law or regulators? - Nope
- When will this be over? - when Idas rings the closing bell or admins lock this thread
- Is the deal going to be approved? - Odd pages are "It's so over"; Even pages are "We are so back!"
- If the CMA rejects, is the deal dead? - Most likely yes. MS can appeal to CAT but CAT cannot overturn CMA; only refer back
- Can MS just set up an independent ABK in the UK? - No according to lawyers here (Idas, Pixis, KnowinStuff)
- Will MS just pull out of the UK to move for the merger forward? - No. Azure/Windows/Office > Gaming.
- Will MS leave gaming if the deal is blocked? - No.

What am I missing for the definitive FAQ for this thread?

CottonWolf · Mar 22, 2023

rscardinals said:
Thanks! All added!

The other thing that should probably go in there is "Will the deal through if the CMA still forces divestment?" to which the answer is a shrug emoji.

General Tullius · Mar 22, 2023

View: https://twitter.com/jezcorden/status/1638588461597827072?s=46&t=x67OgPnK2PNMkoMLA_j70A

Dega · Mar 22, 2023

I thought they only cared about blocking? Now talking VR? Do they think it might go through?

or could just them looking into every possibility i guess.

Deleted member 93062 · Mar 22, 2023

The part that Jez is talking about:

Bradbatross · Mar 22, 2023

Dega said:
I thought they only cared about blocking? Now talking VR? Do they think it might go through?

or coudl just them looking into every possibility i guess.

Yea, seems like another good sign for MS.

Deleted member 93062 · Mar 22, 2023

Dega said:
I thought they only cared about blocking? Now talking VR? Do they think it might go through?

or coudl just them looking into every possibility i guess.

My guess is they're asking for an outlandish proposal and trying to get as much as possible.

One interesting thing to me is that Sony didn't attack Microsoft on the claims that they're harming the VR business. Microsoft has acquired quite a bit of studios that have major VR titles and most of them likely are done with VR. Maybe the argument would be that ABK has no plans to do VR so it's a moot point but figured we'd see Sony say something like that.

canderous · Mar 22, 2023

General Tullius said:
View: https://twitter.com/jezcorden/status/1638588461597827072?s=46&t=x67OgPnK2PNMkoMLA_j70A

The only way this seems "fair" to me is if there is say a PC VR version of a game that is also on Playstation, then it absolutely makes sense to support PSVR. But making a bespoke VR version of their games just for Sony? That is a bit extreme. I'm sure MS would want their developers spending their time on things that matter to their own platform as well.

eek · Mar 22, 2023

canderous said:
The only way this seems "fair" to me is if there is say a PC VR version of a game that is also on Playstation, then it absolutely makes sense to support PSVR. But making a bespoke VR version of their games just for Sony? That is a bit extreme. I'm sure MS would want their developers spending their time on things that matter to their own platform as well.

That seems pretty unreasonable from a resource perspective. What happened to their parity argument 🥴

Yoga Flame · Mar 22, 2023

Sullivan said:
My guess is they're asking for an outlandish proposal and trying to get as much as possible.

One interesting thing to me is that Sony didn't attack Microsoft on the claims that they're harming the VR business. Microsoft has acquired quite a bit of studios that have major VR titles and most of them likely are done with VR. Maybe the argument would be that ABK has no plans to do VR so it's a moot point but figured we'd see Sony say something like that.

I'm sure there's internal documents from Activision that shows VR isn't a priority. Pure speculation on my behalf but basing on pretty much most big publishers that are unswayed by VR. Meaning such a request would be disregarded in a counterfactual absent the merger.

LilScooby77 · Mar 22, 2023

Sony starting to ask for things we actually want? Who knew huh?

Mxlegend99 · Mar 22, 2023

Kinda hope MS agree to VR support for COD. I might actually have an interest in playing it

Although owning both consoles it would be hard to justify $100AUD to play COD in VR if it's free on Game Pass. Though if they did a decent job I would probably jump at it. COD doesn't interest me without VR.

riotous · Mar 22, 2023

lol @ the VR thing

Sony have been cracking me up throughout this whole thing. It's their job to be a bit outlandish but they really like to push things.

(would be great to have VR COD on PS5 though, if that's even what they are asking for)

DopeyFish · Mar 22, 2023

I dare MS to agree to VR, only to make it into a cinema mode 😈

LilScooby77 · Mar 22, 2023

Wereroku said:
Yes. Basically they just said it was never announced so there is no proof it was in development for ps5. Just more stupid console war arguing.

Both sides are equally dumb for arguing something meaningless.

AstronaughtE · Mar 22, 2023

General Tullius said:
View: https://twitter.com/jezcorden/status/1638588461597827072?s=46&t=x67OgPnK2PNMkoMLA_j70A

lol I said that as a quasi-joke reason why Xbox wouldn't want to do more than 10 year deal with Sony and want it now? I don't believe for a second that Activision would have ever supported psvr2 without a financial incentive from Sony.

Zebesian-X · Mar 22, 2023

Okay now we're talking. Give them what they want Microsoft, CoD VR would be hype 😤😤

Dega · Mar 22, 2023

If it's for PC too I don't see why not.

Wereroku · Mar 22, 2023

LilScooby77 said:
Both sides are equally dumb for arguing something meaningless.

I agree. Yes of course Starfield and Redfall had PS5 versions in development at some point. They were being developed before the purchase and Zenimax were multiplatform. Does it really matter though? No because MS were not required to complete those versions.

LilScooby77 said:
Sony starting to ask for things we actually want? Who knew huh?

Would be pretty funny if they asked for the Zenimax VR games to get PSVR2 updates as well. I have a few friends that would really love to see them updated since the PSVR 2 is so much better.

rscardinals · Mar 22, 2023

Wereroku said:
Would be pretty funny if they asked for the Zenimax VR games to get PSVR2 updates as well. I have a few friends that would really love to see them updated since the PSVR 2 is so much better.

Todd Howard can sell another full priced version of Skyrim and people will buy it!!!! You know they will totally do this lol

UraMallas · Mar 22, 2023

I would personally much rather any resources that have to go to a PSVR2 version be spent on spinning up a team for a new IP instead. If they are going to burn resources like that, I'd much prefer something I'd be personally interested in.

But if non-parity is what is needed to get the deal through, I guess fine.

LilScooby77 · Mar 22, 2023

Wereroku said:
I agree. Yes of course Starfield and Redfall had PS5 versions in development at some point. They were being developed before the purchase and Zenimax were multiplatform. Does it really matter though? No because MS were not required to complete those versions.

Would be pretty funny if they asked for the Zenimax VR games to get PSVR2 updates as well. I have a few friends that would really love to see them updated since the PSVR 2 is so much better.

Itd be a disservice to not do a doom eternal psvr2 port.

MaulerX · Mar 22, 2023

General Tullius said:
View: https://twitter.com/jezcorden/status/1638588461597827072?s=46&t=x67OgPnK2PNMkoMLA_j70A

If this is true then no wonder Sony doesn't want parity. They want Microsoft to help them sell PSVR2's as well. 👀

Lowrys · Mar 22, 2023

There's a part in MS supplemental response that talks about "beyond parity":

The Parties note, in particular, that there is no basis in the Provisional Findings for what would essentially amount to a "beyond parity" obligation, requiring Microsoft to develop a PlayStation version of CoD which has more features than the Xbox version.

Rather, the relevant partial foreclosure mechanisms considered in the Provisional Findings, which the remedy is designed to address, relate to releasing a worse version of CoD titles on PlayStation consoles for example "with fewer features" and "degrading the graphical quality" of the PlayStation version.56 The concern provisionally identified is that Sony would be a "substantially less effective competitor than it would be absent the Merger".57

I wonder if MS here is alluding to a deal requirement from Sony to make a VR version for PlayStation. And rejecting that such a thing would be required.

So basically saying the CMA has no basis to require a PSVR version of CoD as a behavioural remedy for Sony.

ToadPacShakur · Mar 22, 2023

LilScooby77 said:
Itd be a disservice to not do a doom eternal psvr2 port.

I'm feeling nauseous already 😅

JoseDFrog · Mar 22, 2023

Where's my Vita port of COD at?

christocolus · Mar 22, 2023

Lowrys said:
There's a part in MS supplemental response that talks about "beyond parity":

I wonder if MS here is alluding to a deal requirement from Sony to make a VR version for PlayStation. And rejecting that such a thing would be required.

So basically saying the CMA has no basis to require a PSVR version of CoD as a behavioural remedy for Sony.

and they would be right not to even consider it.

LilScooby77 · Mar 22, 2023

Was Sony's initial plan with psvr2 a dedicated cod game for the hardware but it was never a done deal before the purchase? Thats a major blow if it never happens.

Afrikan · Mar 22, 2023

LilScooby77 said:
Was Sony's initial plan with psvr2 a dedicated cod game for the hardware but it was never a done deal before the purchase? Thats a major blow if it never happens.

Well COD MW2/Warzone on Next Gen consoles has a max 120 FOV that can run at 120fps no? PSVR2 has a 110 FOV and might handle locked 120fps with foveated rendering.

when it was first revealed the console versions support that type of FOV, I figured that maybe would be for VR support down the road.

The Microsoft / Activision Blizzard acquisition |OT| Antitrust Simulator (completed; discussing post-merger issues)

One Winged Slayer

Alt Account

Account closed at user request

Account closed at user request

Prophet of Truth

Alt-Account

Prophet of Truth