-
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.
The major publishers were likes Konami, Sega, Capcom, Namco, Nintendo and maybe Midway or Acclaim back in the day. Microsoft is swallowing the second Major after 3 years, while being one before the acquisitions.
OP
OP
This is a public article from DealReporter published a few days ago (February 20th):
It includes new info about the negotiations between MS and Sony. Some suggestions are obviously wrong now that we know about the provisional approval by the EC. But it's an interesting read about some of the topics that are going to be discussed during the next weeks.
Some highlights:
I already mentioned weeks ago that historically the main issue with access remedies is the pricing and it sounds like in this case this is going to be a hot topic too.
Interesting that DealReporter believes that the COD remedy includes PS Plus (we know that MS already offered that option to the FTC in December 2022). The article sounds like Sony is not happy with COD being available on their subscription service because it would diminish their revenues.
On the other hand, I'm not sure what this part means:
Microsoft disclosed in its CMA filings that under Sony's current exclusivity contract with Activision, Call of Duty would be exclusive to PlayStation for a period of 30 days, while one version of the game was exclusive for a period of one year.
I don't remember this from the PF. Maybe he means exclusive DLC? 🤔
Microsoft’s Call of Duty pledge in Activision review raises points of contention...
community.ionanalytics.com
It includes new info about the negotiations between MS and Sony. Some suggestions are obviously wrong now that we know about the provisional approval by the EC. But it's an interesting read about some of the topics that are going to be discussed during the next weeks.
Some highlights:
I already mentioned weeks ago that historically the main issue with access remedies is the pricing and it sounds like in this case this is going to be a hot topic too.
Interesting that DealReporter believes that the COD remedy includes PS Plus (we know that MS already offered that option to the FTC in December 2022). The article sounds like Sony is not happy with COD being available on their subscription service because it would diminish their revenues.
On the other hand, I'm not sure what this part means:
Microsoft disclosed in its CMA filings that under Sony's current exclusivity contract with Activision, Call of Duty would be exclusive to PlayStation for a period of 30 days, while one version of the game was exclusive for a period of one year.
I don't remember this from the PF. Maybe he means exclusive DLC? 🤔
Last edited:
30 days might be the Modern Warfare 2 remaster. One year is most definitely the DLC
If it means past exclusive dlc, I remember that MW2019 had a survival game mode exclusive to PS for one year. It could be that?
I think it was the game mode that was PS only for a year and maybe early access. I think it's relating to the note that Sony says their version of COD is not on par but better than others due to : content access, controller stuffs, etc. So they don't like the parity clause in the MS agreement since it's less than what they current have in the agreement.
Whelp.
Another reason why Sony does not their contracts made public. It is definitely referencing whatever that mode Sony had for a year. But according to Sony: Parity is crucial.
Another reason why Sony does not their contracts made public. It is definitely referencing whatever that mode Sony had for a year. But according to Sony: Parity is crucial.
A dev would still be able to choose to just put there game just one,two, or all platforms. I think what they are saying is that a platform holder could not pay a 3rd party dev money to keep it off the other platform.
what is this part about?
The quote below is referencing the current CoD deal btw Sony and ABK. It has to be a full game mode/ DLC and other timed exclusive content. The game mode will probably be exclusive for 3 months while others 1 year.. and this would once again make the PS versions superior.
Last edited:
In the original post, it was a PS5 game. It could also be an Xbox game. Possibly a Nintendo game?
I was asking if they meant no manufacturer could ever sign exclusivity contracts with an IP holder, even if that were the developer's intention from the start.
Sony is going to bang that "hard to enforce" behavioral remedy drum hard despite them utilizing them in the past:
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/PRSU6T3A6BLTHB22YI3BUBOJ4A.jpg)
www.reuters.com
Zee, Sony unit merger approved by India's competition regulator
India's competition regulator on Tuesday approved a merger between the Indian unit of Japan's Sony and Zee Entertainment Enterprises that will create a $10-billion TV behemoth, but with certain conditions.
www.reuters.com
If MS is going to offer parity then offer it completely, sub services included. lol
Sony lawyers are having a field day, but then again i think its a small price to pay for the deal to go through
I agree with this.
Overall tho, if sony is willing to negotiate contract i think they might be seeing the deal unstoppable as well, good signal for MS.
That or they are arguing the 10 year deal being bogus.
ah, i must have missed it.You mean, like they already did?
Microsoft reportedly offered Sony the option to put Call of Duty on PlayStation Plus
Microsoft reportedly offered Sony the option to add Call of Duty to its PlayStation Plus subscription service as part o…www.eurogamer.net
it was actually highlighted, missed it twice:
hmmm.
I mean yeah, after 10 years, will be tough to compete with COD on GP, that is even if MS offers COD still to be on another sub service.
But without the relevant number to judge how much the shift will hurt Sony wallet hereby affecting their ability to make other games and compete, nothing much to say.
Quite frankly a bit surprised that COD players are big spenders, Sony really don't want to lose it's big boys and girls eh.
Last edited:
You mean, like they already did?
Microsoft reportedly offered Sony the option to put Call of Duty on PlayStation Plus
Microsoft reportedly offered Sony the option to add Call of Duty to its PlayStation Plus subscription service as part o…
www.eurogamer.net
Which market share?
The market share of a combined Sony/Take Two would be smaller than Nintendo (and perhaps Microsoft/Bethesda/ATVI) for console gaming and smaller than a multitude of companies of including Microsoft/ATVI in mobile.
Take Two isn't a platform holder. Sony would likely have Take Two be an independent subsidiary that remains multiplatform. Through Sony Music publishing titles on the Switch instead of the PS, Sony could even highlight that today it can easily demonstrate its ability within the Sony Group to not favor a sister company over a rival console.
Sony isn't going to buy Take Two, but I'd say they could make a compelling argument to get it through regulatory scrutiny, with requisite concessions.
That's very disingenuous imo. I don't have a current gen console nor GP, nor do I play COD, and I'm in favor of the deal for the simple reason that it appears to be fully legal, and most experts have said that since day one, and therefore it should go ahead. I've yet to see a compelling legal reason for it not going ahead, and what is the alternative wrt regulation? I don't believe govt should pick and choose winners and losers using arbitrary criteria, nor do I believe that all buyouts and mergers should be banned. Brazil's CADE summed this one up well imo, when they passed it with no restrictions. I've read this thread since day one and I don't believe I am in the 1% here.
That's true. FIFA is being FIFA and made a whole mess of the situation. Will definitely be interesting to see a "FIFA" game competing side-by-side with whatever EA calls it's 2024 game as EA has all the non-national teams lol.
"We don't like parity, because we already have versions that are better than our competitors. Also if we are forced to be on equal footing we will make less money."
Is this their argument? Not even trying to argue whether this benefits consumers, just we will make less money even though we're the market leader.
I really hope that Microsoft's rebuttal to Sony complaining about Call of Duty not being on PS+ is them just showing the section of the latest State of Play where they market Minecraft Dungeons as a PS+ game for March.
I heard that Sony is proposing these adjustments to the remedies.
I think they meant to say 'did not appear'. The sentence that follows also makes that clearer - 'The CMA rather suggested several structural options, from a carve-out of Call of Duty to a divestment of the entire Activision unit. ', taking 'rather' to mean 'instead'.
Isn't Sony still bigger than Microsoft + Activision? How would Sony + Take Two become smaller than Microsoft + Activision? And Nintendo as far I know is the smallest of the big three when it comes to overall revenue
Wonder how Sony will argue that parity will be hard to enforce, it seems like a standard clause already in contracts across the industry. I'm sure the contract with MLB for xbox release even has a similar clause.
View: https://twitter.com/ZhugeEX/status/1384874257558163458
View: https://twitter.com/ZhugeEX/status/1384874257558163458
I really never understood the whole "behavioral remedies are hard to enforce" thing, basically dismissing all contracts ever.
My bad, totally forgot about Psygnosis. You'd have to forgive me, what with with the decades-old dissolution and fade to obscurity n all. I mean, I don't know about you, but I was only 5 when that happened and I only played Nintendo 😅 But that's a sad fate which, if anything, argues against these types of acquisitions, no? But this is the kind of thing that we'll imagine is in any way comparable; in scope or recency, or what with Sony having a fledgling share and workforce as an entrant into a nascent market when they acquired them... in order to justify a completely disproportionate market behavior in 2023. These are incredibly important qualifiers I think, but you're free to dismiss them. I know you said 'forever ago' but the fact you mentioned it at all suggests you believe there's some degree of equitabilty here. Does anyone wanna compare employees of Psygnosis vs AKB too? I feel like if we're gonna bring it up, we should really get into the similarities. Thankfully, I guess, we don't really have to; since it never raised competition concerns and was cleared by the CMA.
On your latter point, I totally agree. Fortunately it is not for people on the internet to decide. It's for regulators and courts.
It really is a weird argument to pull out in front of regulators.
"We're admitting to doing literally everything we claim Microsoft will do, despite being the market leader. But if Microsoft is allowed to do it we won't be able to compete. Also the proposed Microsoft behavioural remedy can't be done because we already signed exclusivity contracts with Activision to make PlayStation versions of the game better."
And it's like:
- If you can't compete on a level playing field, doesn't that mean you are abusing your market position knowing Microsoft can't compete right now?
- Nothing says you have to stop helping Activision to "create the best experience possible" in terms of controls, if you truly cared about that. If this is so complex, how come other developers don't have this problem
- If you have Activision's tied up in other contracts that guarantees you'll have a better game, which Microsoft will be forced to Inherit... Why do you care? You'll still have a better game. The behavioral remedy and the Microsoft contracts can just be set to take over once the original contract expires next year.
The people in this thread represent maybe....maybe 5% of gaming side. Probably even less.
From an ideal competition/antitrust aspect, I think this acquisition should be denied - and indeed I think nearly all acquisitions should be denied apart from distressed assets. That includes individual studios as much as publishers (which are ultimately just collections of studios). I also think you could argue that contractually enforced exclusives and first-party studios should be illegal in general, since they create massive competitive and financial barriers to entry for new prospective console platforms.
If we are talking about maximum choice and competition for consumer benefit, let's get real. Let consoles compete on their feature sets, interface, specs, form factor, price etc. And let all games compete on their own terms. A new console only has to compete as a console, and not against a multimedia empire of existing exclusive franchises and studios that are OWNED by the existing platforms. That's true competition, though of course regulators would never in a million years do any of this. As it stands it's virtually impossible for anyone new to compete in the console space, except perhaps another megacorp.
Break up these corporations into their constituent divisions too, it should go without saying.
From an actual legal/precedent perspective, I don't see any real reason this acquisition should be denied and I think the hangups about Call of Duty in particular are kinda farcical. This is the entire reason most industry people at the time expected it to sail through with some minor regulatory concessions at most - including anti-consolidation industry people like Matt on this forum.
From a purely short-term, completely self-interested perspective... I don't care. I'm a GP sub, but the only ABK game on the horizon I give the remotest of fucks about is Diablo, which will come out long before this circus is concluded. There are almost objectively far more exciting targets Microsoft could've pursued than the Call of Duty sausage factory.
I think a lot of this thread is just a proxy war between the PlayStation and Xbox OTs, lol.
If we are talking about maximum choice and competition for consumer benefit, let's get real. Let consoles compete on their feature sets, interface, specs, form factor, price etc. And let all games compete on their own terms. A new console only has to compete as a console, and not against a multimedia empire of existing exclusive franchises and studios that are OWNED by the existing platforms. That's true competition, though of course regulators would never in a million years do any of this. As it stands it's virtually impossible for anyone new to compete in the console space, except perhaps another megacorp.
Break up these corporations into their constituent divisions too, it should go without saying.
From an actual legal/precedent perspective, I don't see any real reason this acquisition should be denied and I think the hangups about Call of Duty in particular are kinda farcical. This is the entire reason most industry people at the time expected it to sail through with some minor regulatory concessions at most - including anti-consolidation industry people like Matt on this forum.
From a purely short-term, completely self-interested perspective... I don't care. I'm a GP sub, but the only ABK game on the horizon I give the remotest of fucks about is Diablo, which will come out long before this circus is concluded. There are almost objectively far more exciting targets Microsoft could've pursued than the Call of Duty sausage factory.
I think a lot of this thread is just a proxy war between the PlayStation and Xbox OTs, lol.
Ideal competition is platform holders investing into exclusives to appeal to their platform. These games are usually much higher quality than third party releases and don't have as much predatory MTX to them because platform holders don't need the individual games to generate as much money as possible, rather they need them to be so enticing that it brings people into their ecosystem and gets them spending in stores.
Banning first-party studios and exclusives would be so anti-competitive because the companies with the lead will basically never be challenged.
There isn't really much differentiation that can be done with gaming. Whatever there is, already exists under the current system and doesn't require banning exclusive games which are a necessity to differentiate your platform from another. Ironically, you need exclusives to push any major differentiation: VR is a very novel and pretty groundbreaking technology that very little people give a fuck about because there are no must-have games and companies aren't going to invest into VR and make those must-have games because there are no people there. Cloud gaming promises no downloads and no upfront hardware costs, possibly the lowest barrier of entry into gaming outside of mobile gaming, but no one gave a fuck because the game library wasn't there and there were no must-plays there.
You keep bringing up that it is virtually impossible for anyone new to compete in the console space, but this is true regardless of exclusives. Google had to pay so much money just to get Ubisoft and Rockstar games on Stadia. You can't just release a console and have publishers willing to port to your platform. Ironically enough, the easiest way for new platforms to get into this space is having meaningful exclusive titles that aren't found anywhere else.
So, to get into the industry it's either: acquire some studios/publishers and lock down a good exclusive library OR pay a fuck ton to get third party publishers to support your platform which all these games are already available on existing platforms that people have built up their roots in for decades. Your world would mean that the second one is the only option.
Your idea for the gaming industry would be catastrophic and the complete opposite of what you're advocating for.
Last edited:
This. I don't have a PS or Xbox. I do have stock in ABK, though. I'd like to consider myself neutral since I'm a PC gamer. That being said, it's abundantly clear that Sony is the market leader and they have been for over 20 years. In my eyes, there are far more positives to this acquisition than negatives (those being to consumers and ABK developers most directly).
If this acquisition forces Sony just a little bit to be more consumer friendly (no upgrade fees, no paying for cloud saves, no console price hikes in all but one territory, slightly less market power to throw their weight around, etc.) then that's great for consumers and competition.
YES, I agree the nonsense here has been quite entertaining. I hope after this hard-fought battle Microsoft takes a few months to let the dust settle and then goes on a "mini shopping spree" of smaller studios. Asobo, IO, and then pull out the big gun and cause the great "Gnashing of TEETH" with an attempted purchase of the WB! If they would be successful or not I could care less.
this is probably the first post in this thread that 100% matches my own opinion
Yeah personally I prefer PC myself but I have all the consoles as well. I am not against the status quo of exclusive deals via negotiation with independent third parties as I feel this is what the competition is. My fear all along has been precedent. I don't like the idea of any of the platform holders being empowered to control vast swaths of IP especially ones they didn't develop in house. While I see the inherent pros of this particular merger I feel like the downstream consequences are a little too big for the industry as a whole regardless of all the perks this deal would entail.
I want all the platform holders to be competitive, but I prefer an environment where we have lots a publishers and the platform holders vying for deals with them via negotiation. I think this way also has the side effect of making the publishers foster the best projects they can and simultaneously rewarding some of the best of the best by getting deals from the platform holders not to mention the top notch projects the platform develop in house.
Thats just me though, I understand the pro merger end as well.
I see this alot here, , people having no interest in Activision. But Microsoft isn't trying to cater to the people's taste on this forum. The games they want to put out will cater to the people who don't visit forums.
Activision has a lot of "this is the only game I play year in and year out" for alot of their ip's
Last edited:
As a publisher of console games, Microsoft/Bethesda/Activision would be larger than Sony Interactive Entertainment in terms of marketshare (Activision is larger than Sony currently). If you combined Sony and Take Two, it's probably pretty close.
Nintendo is currently larger than all of them.
We already knew MS is more consumer friendly, just look at accessibility as one example.
This is the best post in this thread and it totallt reflects my thoughts on this acquisition,separating the idealistic argument and legal argument was perfect and it also where i think some regulators are coming from, the FTC and the CMA are itching to deny this buyout because regardless of context a big trillion dollar company throwing 70b at a big publisher is WRONG.Me as an individual i would also shut that shit down withtout thinking twice, but as government regulators they can't do this shit,there are rules and a bunch of lawyers just waiting for you to trip up on your own arguments
Some interesting quotes / strange interpretations. But I do think a lot of these small things really highlight that core problem that Xbox faces re: PlayStation. it's not just about access to games or exclusivity or better terms or favored marketing deals... Sony just has the market power and the commercial influence to affect all sorts of small, but significant in aggregate levers that Xbox simply can't touch in most games, let alone for the claimed biggest console franchise in the world.
That is the point, right? There's no amount of money that will allow MS to "organically" fix this tomorrow. Or even in 5 years. They might just be starting to make real progress in 10 years. Is that real competition? Maybe. Is that better competition that allowing acquisitions to enable Microsoft to challenge some of that strength from new angles - especially when it truly has MINIMAL impact on the PlayStation business and almost zero impact on PS players? I'm not so sure.
It makes sense if the person enforcing it isn't one of the self-interested parties, but a 3rd party government regulator without much cash. Or if you believe, like some regulators, that contracts are worthless and unenforceable at some fundamental level XD
But yea, MS offering to pay for it all kinda throws a lot of that out the window.
But also, it's a non-issue which is why every regulator so far has thrown that aspect out immediately. There's no credible competition concern in that realm.
I don't agree with this unless we go all the way with it. It's interesting that I often get push back for suggesting that all console exclusives should be killed, but you're going further even than I am haha. Sounds like you want consoles to be more like PC hardware, basically. They all run the same OS (mostly), but you choose what parts and features you want to provide/run that common layer. If that's what happens, I'm personally all for it. We're certainly closer to this than we were in the past. We'll have to see if that's where the market continues to go. After all, PC hardware/software may be starting to get a little weird itself. Who knows lol.
Oh I know why they are going after ABK, which is why I put it in the personal opinion section of my post. For me personally, I don't give a shit about CoD. For the price they're paying for ABK, 70% of which is probably due to the collective CoD factory, they could've acquired about a dozen other more interesting studios - or co-funded a hundred interesting third-party games, or probably cured cancer and the common cold.
Dual sense doesn't impact the game, I turned it off because it impacts my gameplay. But if Microsoft were to win I doubt they would for example turn off gyro controls because it's already there. (it is there right? I don't use gyro but I think it's there)
Gyro is just one big money grab Microsoft could capitalize on if they were smart. But yeah I don't see Microsoft removing haptic feedback, it's already part of the game and Microsoft's own fault it's not there on their system.
Yeah COD isn't as exciting as Destiny/doom for me so haptic feedback keeps me engaged so I don't fall asleep playing a match.
It would probably have to be hashed out, but I would assume 'parity' would mean they keep things like gyro and haptic feedback in the Playstation versions. Because the problem is Xbox doesn't have that tech, not that Sony does.