-
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.
Deal hounds looking for that may closure date are in shambles 😭
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.
Now I'm sad
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.
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.
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**
Metal Gear Solid games were released on both the GameCube and original Xbox.
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....
A show of appreciation? Count me out. This thread has given me nothing but trust issues.
Anti-Trust issues.
You should spend the next two months exploring contractually-binding remedies to said issues.
And if the behavioral remedy of leaving this thread does not work, you may have to divest yourself of ERA altogether.
I understand what you guys are saying but neither of these posts are really applicable to what I was commenting on
Yeeeep
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).
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
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.
The only things out of the FTC kangaroo court that matters are the dirty laundries.
I'm not a child, so I never viewed anything as being stolen, because none of us is owed anything. I do think it's weird in this day and age for Square to still be toying with their fan bases on PC and Xbox, but that's on them. Bethesda on the other hand was straight up purchased, and have been for a bit, there was never any doubt (to reasonable people) that it'd be exclusive. If knowing that you still decided to get a PS5, that's on you.
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.
Not much dirty laundry when they only get anything dated after 1/1/2019. Though it will included unannounced stuff.
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.
Summary : The FTC denied Sony's motion and ordered the company to produce the documents requested by the subpoena.
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.
Ya.
Kind of expected. I would hope that Sony did the right thing and started preparing the docs already before the ruling came out but given that there is no real penalty to defy this court, more likely we will see more motions to extend and so on
Sony wanted to quash documents because it was unduly burdensome. The Judge basically stated that in itself is enough of a reason to stop discovery overall. Its compelling stuff.
Activision shenanigans related:
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/KMJROVMW5JN2RK42BGA6HSVTWA.jpg)
www.reuters.com
Looks like they're trying to add a few more lawsuits to the pile.
Activision fired staff for using 'strong language' about remote work policy -union
"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.
www.reuters.com
Looks like they're trying to add a few more lawsuits to the pile.
Lol. Sony is saying our backend sucks. Therefore it will be burdensome.
Always funny to me how both parties have no issues throwing their systems and by extension, the people who created it, under the bus in this process
Don't know about anyone else, but this is the spicy meatball I was looking for.
Microsoft when they see all the third party exclusives Sony is about to announce:
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.
Licensing agreements only from 2019, that's a shame, that was supposed to be the really spicy stuff.
Unless they entered into the agreement for FF16 before January 2019, which is possible.
Oh boy this shit is about to get interesting if we find out as well 😳
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.
I would assume so. Just because a game hasn't released doesn't mean they didn't enter an agreement already.
And as Sony says "SIE will also have to determine whether each contract imposes a notice obligation when disclosing the contract to a third party."
OP
OP
The US Chamber of Commerce (a business organisation, not a government department) 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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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 :3
Oh interesting. How soon might this come out? I'm SUPER interested in this, even if it's only external correspondence.
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.
Microsoft probably wanted the performance reviews to see who exactly they should (at least try to) poach from Sony. They would've known who exactly did what and how much their compensation is to overpay them to comeover. Would've been very valuable to them but oh well. I guess they will settle with the 3rd party deals