Deal hounds looking for that may closure date are in shambles 😭Yes, the provisional deadline for the decision from the EC has been extended two weeks: April 25th
Remedy talks have officially started :p
PS: the final report from the CMA has to be published on April 26th :S
So mgs4 could have avoided ps3 jail?On Resetera.com. Ryan Peyton in that video game book. There are a lot of reports on it that don't mention the build but someone mentioned it in the bulletpoints in a thread. Idk if this counts as a scan but it was in an article I just googled.
Preach.Let's put the Starfield thing to rest.
Had Microsoft not acquired Bethesda, Starfield would be coming to PS5, it may have even been exclusive to PS5 (for a minimum of a year).
Had Starfield announced the platforms they were targeting for release before they were acquired, Microsoft would have honored that commitment.
If you view Final Fantasy 16, Silent Hill 2, FF7r, SF5 or any other exclusive or timed exclusive as "being stolen" from Xbox, you have to view Starfield as being stolen from Playstation. The reverse is true too, if you are A-OK with these exclusivity deals that Playstation is making, you have to be A-OK with Microsoft making games exclusive.
For those upset that Starfield isn't coming to Playstation, it wouldn't make you feel any better had Microsoft outright bought exclusivity instead of acquiring Bethesda. So let's not put arbitrary rules on how exclusivity SHOULD be done.
I have to agree on that, MS really wanted to be done with the EC regulation and remedies as soon as possible, as far back as November per reports, and ever since they have kept on slowing them down, now with this extension as well. It doesn't necessarily mean EU goes one way or another, but part of their legal strategy was pressuring CMA by getting an agreement with EC. Now they'll have to convince both simultaneously.I do not see the EC extension as good news for the deal. I think the best shot at getting past the CMA with behavioral remedies alone (already a long shot) would be a strong behavioral remedy package in the EC that CMA can lean on. If EC uses all its time, CMA would not have time to really review and respond to the EC decision before isduing their own. Obviously EC and CMA communicate, so they might have some info on what is coming, but still, if you're rooting for the deal to get done, I think you should be rooting for the EC to wrap this up ahead of its new extended schedule.
Let's put the Starfield thing to rest.
Had Microsoft not acquired Bethesda, Starfield would be coming to PS5, it may have even been exclusive to PS5 (for a minimum of a year).
Had Starfield announced the platforms they were targeting for release before they were acquired, Microsoft would have honored that commitment.
If you view Final Fantasy 16, Silent Hill 2, FF7r, SF5 or any other exclusive or timed exclusive as "being stolen" from Xbox, you have to view Starfield as being stolen from Playstation. The reverse is true too, if you are A-OK with these exclusivity deals that Playstation is making, you have to be A-OK with Microsoft making games exclusive.
For those upset that Starfield isn't coming to Playstation, it wouldn't make you feel any better had Microsoft outright bought exclusivity instead of acquiring Bethesda. So let's not put arbitrary rules on how exclusivity SHOULD be done.
Metal Gear Solid games were released on both the GameCube and original Xbox.The gears franchise was xbox exclusive so when that was announced it was rightly assumed it was xbox exclusive.
The metal gear solid franchise was PlayStation exclusive so when mgs4 was announced it was assumed it would be exclusive.
Says we should put the Starfield thing to rest then proceeds to continue the discussion making debatable opinionated post as seen in LanceX2's reply above....Let's put the Starfield thing to rest.
Had Microsoft not acquired Bethesda, Starfield would be coming to PS5, it may have even been exclusive to PS5 (for a minimum of a year).
Had Starfield announced the platforms they were targeting for release before they were acquired, Microsoft would have honored that commitment.
If you view Final Fantasy 16, Silent Hill 2, FF7r, SF5 or any other exclusive or timed exclusive as "being stolen" from Xbox, you have to view Starfield as being stolen from Playstation. The reverse is true too, if you are A-OK with these exclusivity deals that Playstation is making, you have to be A-OK with Microsoft making games exclusive.
For those upset that Starfield isn't coming to Playstation, it wouldn't make you feel any better had Microsoft outright bought exclusivity instead of acquiring Bethesda. So let's not put arbitrary rules on how exclusivity SHOULD be done.
lol.Says we should put the Starfield thing to rest then proceeds to continue the discussion making debatable opinion statements as seen in LanceX2's post above....
A show of appreciation? Count me out. This thread has given me nothing but trust issues.The end is in sight.
Era needs to get Idas a present or something as a collective token of our appreciation. I am down for that.
Anti-Trust issues.
Well, personally I think it's weird to complain about Sony losing Starfield when we know that had MS not bought Bethesda that Starfield would be a PS exclusive. So it's a bit like going 'how dare you steal that before I could!'
I understand what you guys are saying but neither of these posts are really applicable to what I was commenting onActually a month or so ago Howard did an interview with Lex Fridman. He said that Xbox has been Bethesda's primary/lead development platform since Morrowind. Wether or not they had a team simultaneously developing a PlayStation version is anyone's guess but it may not have been since they weren't anywhere close to even finishing it. Anyways he said that since Xbox has been their lead platform for so long, it was actually nice that they didn't have to do ports to other consoles.
YeeeepLet's put the Starfield thing to rest.
Had Microsoft not acquired Bethesda, Starfield would be coming to PS5, it may have even been exclusive to PS5 (for a minimum of a year).
Had Starfield announced the platforms they were targeting for release before they were acquired, Microsoft would have honored that commitment.
If you view Final Fantasy 16, Silent Hill 2, FF7r, SF5 or any other exclusive or timed exclusive as "being stolen" from Xbox, you have to view Starfield as being stolen from Playstation. The reverse is true too, if you are A-OK with these exclusivity deals that Playstation is making, you have to be A-OK with Microsoft making games exclusive.
For those upset that Starfield isn't coming to Playstation, it wouldn't make you feel any better had Microsoft outright bought exclusivity instead of acquiring Bethesda. So let's not put arbitrary rules on how exclusivity SHOULD be done.
I...don't see a problem with this. I've made the same argument, even yesterday I think. If you're ok with your platform having exclusives (first or third party) then you should be ok with the other platform doing the same. It shouldn't matter if your platform funded the game or if there was a previous history of the game being on other platforms. Anything less is being hypocritical (not that fanboys really care about that).Let's put the Starfield thing to rest.
Had Microsoft not acquired Bethesda, Starfield would be coming to PS5, it may have even been exclusive to PS5 (for a minimum of a year).
Had Starfield announced the platforms they were targeting for release before they were acquired, Microsoft would have honored that commitment.
If you view Final Fantasy 16, Silent Hill 2, FF7r, SF5 or any other exclusive or timed exclusive as "being stolen" from Xbox, you have to view Starfield as being stolen from Playstation. The reverse is true too, if you are A-OK with these exclusivity deals that Playstation is making, you have to be A-OK with Microsoft making games exclusive.
For those upset that Starfield isn't coming to Playstation, it wouldn't make you feel any better had Microsoft outright bought exclusivity instead of acquiring Bethesda. So let's not put arbitrary rules on how exclusivity SHOULD be done.
That's fair, you view new IP differently. It sounds like you do view Final Fantasy, Street Fighter and Silent Hill as being stolen from Xbox. So long as you hold the same opinion of Elder Scrolls 6, Fallout 5, the next Doom or any legacy IP that doesn't come to Playstation the same way. I think consistency is important, it's what differentiates opinion from warring.100% Disagree. Starfield is brand new IP. Never been on Playstation. It does NOT matter if there was a PS in the works or potential of one.
Final fantasy has been on Xbox. FF 15 was on Xbox. Street Fighter has been on Xbox. Silent hill was always third party.
Starfield has never been on playstation thus your arguement doesnt hold ground or others saying its stolen**
FTC results are in for Microsoft V Sony
TLDR
Performance reviews are out
Scope is Jan 2019 - present
A lot of the other stuff Sony asked to be dropped has been denied
Spicy
FTC results are in for Microsoft V Sony
TLDR
Performance reviews are out
Scope is Jan 2019 - present
A lot of the other stuff Sony asked to be dropped has been denied
If you view Final Fantasy 16, Silent Hill 2, FF7r, SF5 or any other exclusive or timed exclusive as "being stolen" from Xbox, you have to view Starfield as being stolen from Playstation. The reverse is true too, if you are A-OK with these exclusivity deals that Playstation is making, you have to be A-OK with Microsoft making games exclusive
FTC results are in for Microsoft V Sony
TLDR
Performance reviews are out
Scope is Jan 2019 - present
A lot of the other stuff Sony asked to be dropped has been denied
A comprehensive breakdown of what's been denied and granted would be nice. I don't have the time to read through it, battery on 2% and I'm off to bed.
FTC results are in for Microsoft V Sony
TLDR
Performance reviews are out
Scope is Jan 2019 - present
A lot of the other stuff Sony asked to be dropped has been denied
Not much dirty laundry when they only get anything dated after 1/1/2019. Though it will included unannounced stuff.The only things out of the FTC kangaroo court that matters are the dirty laundries.
MS lost on getting the performance reviews and trying to include documents before 2019. Sony lost on trying to limit access to the custodians and prior custodians. Also have to include their lawyers external communications. So Sony lost most of their motions but they did succeed in limiting the timeframe they have to look in.A comprehensive breakdown of what's been denied and granted would be nice. I don't have the time to read through it, battery on 2% and I'm off to bed.
FTC results are in for Microsoft V Sony
TLDR
Performance reviews are out
Scope is Jan 2019 - present
A lot of the other stuff Sony asked to be dropped has been denied
Interesting.
FTC results are in for Microsoft V Sony
TLDR
Performance reviews are out
Scope is Jan 2019 - present
A lot of the other stuff Sony asked to be dropped has been denied
Summary : The FTC denied Sony's motion and ordered the company to produce the documents requested by the subpoena.
(Reuters) - "Call of Duty" maker Activision Blizzard Inc has been accused by a union of illegally firing two video game testers for using "strong language" in a protest of a new company policy that limits remote work.
The Communication Workers of America (CWA) said it filed a complaint with the U.S. National Labor Relations Board on Tuesday seeking to have the workers reinstated.
The case is the latest the union has brought to the labor board as part of a campaign to unionize the firm and its subsidiaries. Small groups of game testers at three Activision subsidiaries voted to join the CWA last year.
SIE further asserts that SIE's system does not enable SIE to search for contracts by company type and instead requires a search by company name. Therefore, according to SIE, compiling the contract documents responsive to the request would require a manual review of over 150,000 contract records with roughly 60,000 companies across various databases. SIE argues that such a manual review is unduly burdensome, particularly because SIE will also have to determine whether each contract imposes a notice obligation when disclosing the contract to a third party.
Don't know about anyone else, but this is the spicy meatball I was looking for.Interesting.
- Sony has to produce "an executed copy of every Content licensing agreement You have entered into with any third-party publisher between Jan 1, [2019] and present."
Microsoft when they see all the third party exclusives Sony is about to announce:Sony has to produce "an executed copy of every Content licensing agreement You have entered into with any third-party publisher between Jan 1, [2019] and present."
- This is interesting, though the original request was 2012, the date has been granted only to 2019 per above. Could have some juicy details here.
So Microsoft will know every "executed copy of every Content licensing agreement" that Sony has entered from Jan 2019 to now. Does that include unreleased games aswell like FF16? Interesting nonetheless. Wonder how MS can/will use that to their advantage.
FTC results are in for Microsoft V Sony
TLDR
Performance reviews are out
Scope is Jan 2019 - present
A lot of the other stuff Sony asked to be dropped has been denied
I want to see the Starfield moneyhat lolDon't know about anyone else, but this is the spicy meatball I was looking for.
Unless they entered into the agreement for FF16 before January 2019, which is possible.So Microsoft will know every "executed copy of every Content licensing agreement" that Sony has entered from Jan 2019 to now. Does that include unreleased games aswell like FF16? Interesting nonetheless. Wonder how MS can/will use that to their advantage.
Sony fucked around and found outSony has to produce "an executed copy of every Content licensing agreement You have entered into with any third-party publisher between Jan 1, [2019] and present."
Interesting.
- Sony needs to provide documents for Tao and Nishino as custodians.
- Sony has to include predecessor custodians to current custodians. (I.e. a custodian that was in place Jan 1 2019 - Jan 1 2020 would need their files pulled, rather than just the current custodian that took place Jan 2 2020, if I'm understanding correctly).
- Sony has to include their in-house antitrust laywer, Greg McCurdy's relevant files (external communications for this time period where McCurdy has been in his role).
- Sony's request that things be limited to 2019 and sooner is granted, rather than Microsoft's request dating back to 2012.
- Sony has to produce "All drafts of and Communications regarding SIE's President and CEO Jim Ryan's declaration titled 'SIE Declaration to FTC on MS-ABK Transaction"
- Sony's request to quash the performance reviews is granted, as the judge does not see this as an employment case and employees have a privacy interest.
- Sony has to produce "an executed copy of every Content licensing agreement You have entered into with any third-party publisher between Jan 1, [2019] and present."
- This is interesting, though the original request was 2012, the date has been granted only to 2019 per above. Could have some juicy details here.
- Idk what Exhibit H means but Sony's request with it is rejected.
Four years ago to now is a ton. It will include lots of stuff they haven't announced yet. The conspiracy theory that they've been holding back on announcing stuff due to the ABK deal will finally be proven true or false.Licensing agreements only from 2019, that's a shame, that was supposed to be the really spicy stuff.
I would assume so. Just because a game hasn't released doesn't mean they didn't enter an agreement already.So Microsoft will know every "executed copy of every Content licensing agreement" that Sony has entered from Jan 2019 to now. Does that include unreleased games aswell like FF16? Interesting nonetheless. Wonder how MS can/will use that to their advantage.
This could be interesting considering what we know about the FTC and their goal of influencing the EC. Surprised Microsoft themselves didn't file this.The US Chamber of Commerce has filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking correspondence between the the FTC and other regulators over the merger. The time frame for the Chamber's request is Dec. 1, 2021, to the present.
The request is not yet online, but it says this:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, and 16 C.F.R. § 4.11, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ("Chamber") hereby requests the following information:
1. All records related to communications between the FTC and any and all foreign jurisdictions regarding Microsoft Corp.'s acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Inc. This request includes, but is not limited to, all such communications between or among the FTC and any and all non-U.S. agencies or authorities, and any press statements or drafts of press statements. The timeframe for the Chamber's request is December 1, 2021 to the present.
The public interest relating to the FTC's coordination with foreign authorities has already been demonstrated. And there is specifically public interest in mainstream media outlets regarding whether the FTC and foreign authorities coordinated in reviewing the Microsoft/Activision transaction. And the contribution to public understanding is likely to be significant, 16 C.F.R. §§ 4.8(e)(2)(i)(D), because the FTC has previously resisted public disclosure of its coordination with foreign antitrust authorities and has apparently not disclaimed the existence of any coordination with respect to the Microsoft/Activision transaction. Production of these records to the Chamber thus will respond to significant public interest where there has been insufficient public disclosure.
I guess that it will be published here during the day.
They already did the same with the Illumina/Grail case.
Considering they have an entire initiative dedicated to talking about how the FTC has gone rogue, I suspect the latter. They're just continuing to build up their case for it.I'm not opposed to greater transparency, but I have to wonder whether transparency is the Chamber's goal or the ability to drum up political angst against regulators for working across the pond.
An industry-lighting-on-fire-shame XD. I am quite curious whether any of this actually makes it out to the public - and I'm also curious how much is even unknown to MS. It might really just be a "ya'll, this is what's already happening every day". But.. yes.. I want to see :3Would be a shame if the exact terms and conditions of every single third party moneyhat leaked :)
Oh interesting. How soon might this come out? I'm SUPER interested in this, even if it's only external correspondence.The US Chamber of Commerce has filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking correspondence between the FTC and other regulators over the merger. The time frame for the Chamber's request is Dec. 1, 2021, to the present.
The request is not online yet, but it says this:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, and 16 C.F.R. § 4.11, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ("Chamber") hereby requests the following information:
1. All records related to communications between the FTC and any and all foreign jurisdictions regarding Microsoft Corp.'s acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Inc. This request includes, but is not limited to, all such communications between or among the FTC and any and all non-U.S. agencies or authorities, and any press statements or drafts of press statements. The timeframe for the Chamber's request is December 1, 2021 to the present.
The public interest relating to the FTC's coordination with foreign authorities has already been demonstrated. And there is specifically public interest in mainstream media outlets regarding whether the FTC and foreign authorities coordinated in reviewing the Microsoft/Activision transaction. And the contribution to public understanding is likely to be significant, 16 C.F.R. §§ 4.8(e)(2)(i)(D), because the FTC has previously resisted public disclosure of its coordination with foreign antitrust authorities and has apparently not disclaimed the existence of any coordination with respect to the Microsoft/Activision transaction. Production of these records to the Chamber thus will respond to significant public interest where there has been insufficient public disclosure.
I guess that it will be published here during the day.
They already did the same with the Illumina/Grail case.
Neither, I'd expect. I imagine they're squarely focused on FTC, not on any foreign regulators. Or if you mean FTC, I think they may also be looking for evidence of "collusion" (not illegal, probably) or, alternatively (and probably more what they expect and hope for), evidence that FTC ignored the best practices and suggestions of responsible foreign regulators and went at it alone. That's the narrative they've been pushing all along - FTC has been out of pocket by any standard.I'm not opposed to greater transparency, but I have to wonder whether transparency is the Chamber's goal or trying to drum up political angst against regulators for working across the pond.