-
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.
Yes, but ABK could be open to unions if they wanted to. They clearly don't want to though.
Damn wish I could speak like that. That special laywer talk
Yep Microsoft is neutral towards Unions and it seems that Zenimax was the first to get a Union.
Microsoft now has its first official union in the US
At ZeniMax, a Microsoft-owned gaming studio, 300 quality assurance (QA) testers have voted to unionize, marking the largest U.S. gaming union.
techcrunch.com
MS might have a bit more cash to absorb the additional costs for union backed employees as opposed to ABK alone.
I think the next company they'll bring on board is Amazon, probably for the CMA.
That should have all the cloud gaming players supporting this deal, with the exception of Sony.
That should have all the cloud gaming players supporting this deal, with the exception of Sony.
Also note that he said, answering the divestment question, "we think it would be better" to do what they're offering now.
Seems to be 50/50. They're serious competitors, yet at the same time, Microsoft continues to release Bethesda titles on Prime Gaming.
No wonder Eurogamer made that mistake if this was the kind of language used lol
Everyone in here attacking Lulu but I love how fierce she is lol You can tell she is sick of Sonys bullshit. Besides I'm sure she knows much better than us whether her posting on Twitter is hurting their position or not, I guarantee abk or ms lawyers would've told her to stop a while ago, some of yall just salty for whatever reason, that meme was hilarious 😂
Yeah, COD is regular extra gold but the rest is muhaahahahhaa!
How is it bullshit if MS has had to make all these concessions?
In a library and forgot my headphones so can't watch right now. Can anyone give me some highlights of what he said???
I mean most people in the know agree this deal should've passed ages ago without much fanfare according to the law, its only because the ftc had a political agenda to push back on big tech, an sonys crying in the eu, we are where we are.
My post was very simple: Do you agree she's said awful things with her recent comments? Cool. Do you agree it's embarrassing people here keep cheering her on despite knowing her recent awful comments? Double cool.
You can support the deal without cheering on such a shithead and it's doubly embarrassing if you cheer her on while knowing what she has said.
I mean just look who is praising her on here and laughing at her jokes, people who lean towards Xbox being their favorite console. What's sad to see is those same people somehow acted that the acquisition would be good for the employees while at the same time backing some exec that was against those same employees unionizing, very gross in my opinion, but those people will not have any self reflection.
For them it is Xbox or nothing, they couldn't give 2 shits about employees besides using their supposed "benefit" as ammunition on why this should go through.
10 year legally binding deal offered to Sony is the same as one offered to Nintendo and Nvidia
Said the deal is better than the deal they have with activision currently (and notes that deal expires next year)
Thinks they have a clear path to get the deal done, thinks offering the game to 150 million more people should be seen as a good thing to regulators.
Thinks the two agreements signed today should dispel CMA's concern that COD would be withheld from competitors. They will not divest, arguing it's better to bring it to a larger audience.
Basically
- It's about Call of Duty, no commitments made for other ABK games for Nintendo (or Sony). GFN deal is broader.
- He says the deal they're offering Sony is better than the one Sony currently has, set to expire next year
- He doesn't see divesture as an option, or at least it's not the path they're planning to take
People are reading too much into things. Someone made a funny joke on the internet, that doesn't mean people that finds it funny agree with their opinions or position.
Anyway, things are starting to get heated in this thread, means that some might not be so sure anymore that deal is getting blocked :p
Anyway, things are starting to get heated in this thread, means that some might not be so sure anymore that deal is getting blocked :p
These really aren't concessions if it is what they had planned on doing regardless; the regulators haven't even weighed possible concessions yet.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Getting the deal done is the most pro-staff thing she could do, so credit where it's due. It doesn't cancel out the shit things she's said previously, but it's ok to "cheer her on" as you put it when it comes to fighting for this deal.
Plus some people found it funny and/or enjoy memes. That's ok too.
Yeah, the prevailing theory is that Quake 4 is the exception among the later Acti-era titles because the source code wasn't lost to time and Bethesda was able to remove/replace the mentions of Acti as publisher, but it's not as though Bethesda actually needs to do this. Indeed, older Acti-era titles, such as RtCW, still contain references to Acti (including FMVs and credits sequences), and while Prey06 was never relisted on Steam, it is still available to purchase on the Xbox Marketplace to this day despite not being modified in any way.
Personally, I think the roadblock is that Bethesda has no interest in the games because they're irrelevant to how the franchises have changed under its stewardship. Prey17 has absolutely nothing to do with Prey06, Quake Wars was a game nobody wanted, Wolf14 borrows a little of its backstory from the events of Wolf09 but is otherwise its own thing, and I think it's safe to assume the inevitable Quake reboot will return the series to its gothic, dark fantasy roots.
Last edited:
If you look closely those who are opposed to the deal are...yea exactly. There are so many more benefits to this deal happening an moving ABK over to MS rather than under Kotick I don't see why this has to even be a debate, I mean hell did schrier or someone interview the employees an most if not all were excited at the prospect of being under MS. Only ppl against this deal for the most part are Sony fanatics.
There is no way deal is not going through with what they announced today , UK should also stop acting like world's police
I'm against the deal because I don't like industry consolidation. But the employees will benefit from it so at the same time I'm good with it. Now would I post a fucking joke from some loser executive who doesn't have her workers rights at the forefront and say how fierce and cool she is because it makes fun of another console manufacturer, no I wouldn't.
We're sorry? People are taking this to heart aren't they? Especially Microsoft employees themselves…
What does Sony have to do with the FTCs agenda? I think it's interesting you frame it as Sony crying in the EU, isn't that what MS is doing about being in 3rd place?
Objectively, MS wants to buy ABK to bolster their position in the market and control key IP, Sony objects when offered the opportunity because CoD is the most important piece of software on their platform and don't want that software being controlled by their main competitor. It plays out how it plays out. No villains or heroes.
.
And that's why in the US Sony is being asked to show them receipts that prove COD is so important to them.
I'm not sure these deals will make much of a difference (for or against) in the end.
Materially, these contracts are a flex of power. Microsoft is being nice, but they way they are doing it still openly demonstrates that, if the deal goes through, they now control who gets what, for how long, and when.
I'm not sure a serious regulatory body, making decisions about what companies are allowed to control, would be particularly swayed by an overt demonstration of that which they are specifically charged to regulate--regardless if the net result is "good" or "bad".
Materially, these contracts are a flex of power. Microsoft is being nice, but they way they are doing it still openly demonstrates that, if the deal goes through, they now control who gets what, for how long, and when.
I'm not sure a serious regulatory body, making decisions about what companies are allowed to control, would be particularly swayed by an overt demonstration of that which they are specifically charged to regulate--regardless if the net result is "good" or "bad".
IMO…. There is a a near zero percent chance that MS wants to be contractually bound to do anything even if some of it would have been done anyways. A there is a zero percent chance that these agreements are coming out today by coincidence.
The CMA claiming this deal will be anti-competition and will hurt gamers is clearly shown to be bullshit by the revelations today.. it just does not add up.. To be fair, as market leader, it will hurt Sony but not the rest of the industry. More people will get to play games on more platforms. How can the CMA come back and argue with this stance now?
Definitely not coincidence, it's for show because they would have done it without being forced to or being contractually obligated; basically Valve's response to being offered the contract best displayed the reality of the conversation without the theatrics.
To be fair, CMA said there could be a realistic chance of significant lessening of competition in the console and cloud gaming space. The data they gave for SLC doesn't back up their assertion and would be overturned by the CAT if MS appealed, but my reading of the PF is that they're exploring how to set a precedence on vertical merger arbitrations that don't have any traditional anti-trust issues. I expect the CMA to be collaborative with MS. They've already dropped some of their phase one concerns.
Except nothing announced today fully addresses the concerns the CMA have outlined regarding the deal.
CoD on Nintendo, XGS games on Geforce Now... These things can happen already without Microsoft owning ABK.
A 10-year agreement with Nintendo, Nvidia, and even if Sony signs, it doesn't address what they said about the cloud market. Not to mention this is a behavioral remedy, which they already said isn't enough.
The CMA can easily argue against it. They just say "No" and Microsoft is screwed because there is no appeal process.
In no circumstance is it ok to cheer such a person on if you're aware of the things she has said as there are plenty of other and better ways to support the deal such as MS supporting ABK unionization (which is good) and MS bringing more games to more platforms (which is also good).
Might as well tell Bobby to start shitposting on Twitter as well to post here and laugh about in the name of supporting the deal if that's how low the bar is.
No doubt.. only issue is just sayin "no" by itself without any merit or data supporting their argument will be no words..
They can. They aren't. They wont be. The CMA can say whatever the fuck it wants, but reality quite frankly doesn't give a shit. ABK does not like subscription services like Game Pass. ABK does not like Cloud Gaming. They rarely put their games on them, they have taken actions in the past to pull their games from them (GfN).
So what this comes down to is, a guarentee that ABK games go to Subscription and Cloud Game Services, both owned by Microsoft or not, right now.
Or, they give Microsoft and ABK the middle finger and pray that sometime in the future, ABK may decide its a good idea to share their titles. But in the meantime, the consumers that the CMA identified as benefiting from Cloud Gaming end up sitting there and hoping ABK eventually comes around out of the goodness of their capitalist black-holes of a heart to profit off of them.
The CMA already gave its data a week ago. They'll just reference something thats redacted and call it a day. And if Microsoft appeals the CMA for not giving them a fair chance, they may win, but they'll just get booted back to the CMA to say "no" again while referencing something else.
Ultimately, considering how far they're already stretching some of their arguments, there is nothing that says they can't stretch them further.
There is an appeal process. Contrarily to belief, if MS can get the CMA's SLC's overturned they can get a more favorable decision down the line. The problem is that this could take another year.
How does putting XGS, Bethesda and potentially Activision titles on NVIDIA not address cloud concerns?
lol what? Either you're back seat modding or trying to push your moral compass on others and in either case it seems unhinged.
It was a funny meme and was entirely accurate. That's the last I'll say on the topic.
OP
OP
New update from MLex (busy day today!):
- The deals with Nintendo and Nvidia show MS' commitment to build a "cross-platform future" and that it's "comfortable" entering into private agreements, according to Brad Smith.
- Brad Smith believes that the CMA left the door open to behavioural remedies: "I also don't think the CMA completely shut the door to behavioral remedies, they left the door open at least a bit. I hope the CMA will look through that door and see this opportunity to bring this game to 150 million people."
- Brad Smith about Sony: "We sent an offer to Sony two days before Christmas; I am ready to sign it any time". He also said that MS would also be willing to hold further talks if Sony doesn't like the current offer.
- For the 10-year offers for Nvidia and Nintendo, Brad Smith said that "Most of these deals end up getting renewed" beyond the initial time limit if they're a success.
- Brad Smith believes that now that Nvidia also supports the deal, there is an "increasingly stark" decision to be made by regulators around the world.
April 11th for the EC, although likely to be delayed now that remedy talk will start.
April 26th for the CMA. If remedies are accepted the implementation stage will start, add 2-4 months then.
IF the CMA and the EC approved it, then you have to deal with the FTC one way or another. :p
So, today was an important day but we are still two months away from the end (at least).
I would guess so! But in recent times the CMA has rejected at least once the same remedies accepted by the EC (in Cargotec/Konecranes). And there have been divergences regarding remedies in other cases between both regulators (in Facebook/Kustomer, S&P/IHS and it's likely to happen again in Booking/Etraveli).
So, who knows! 😬
- The deals with Nintendo and Nvidia show MS' commitment to build a "cross-platform future" and that it's "comfortable" entering into private agreements, according to Brad Smith.
- Brad Smith believes that the CMA left the door open to behavioural remedies: "I also don't think the CMA completely shut the door to behavioral remedies, they left the door open at least a bit. I hope the CMA will look through that door and see this opportunity to bring this game to 150 million people."
- Brad Smith about Sony: "We sent an offer to Sony two days before Christmas; I am ready to sign it any time". He also said that MS would also be willing to hold further talks if Sony doesn't like the current offer.
- For the 10-year offers for Nvidia and Nintendo, Brad Smith said that "Most of these deals end up getting renewed" beyond the initial time limit if they're a success.
- Brad Smith believes that now that Nvidia also supports the deal, there is an "increasingly stark" decision to be made by regulators around the world.
April 11th for the EC, although likely to be delayed now that remedy talk will start.
April 26th for the CMA. If remedies are accepted the implementation stage will start, add 2-4 months then.
IF the CMA and the EC approved it, then you have to deal with the FTC one way or another. :p
So, today was an important day but we are still two months away from the end (at least).
I would guess so! But in recent times the CMA has rejected at least once the same remedies accepted by the EC (in Cargotec/Konecranes). And there have been divergences regarding remedies in other cases between both regulators (in Facebook/Kustomer, S&P/IHS and it's likely to happen again in Booking/Etraveli).
So, who knows! 😬
If they're going to say 'No' they'll just say what they've already indicated in the PF on the negative side about these kind of deals as remedies, and the benefits of them vs the risks.
I don't think there'll be anything particularly revelatory about today for the CMA. From a behavioural remedy point of view this is probably on the low end of what the CMA might have expected, at least compared to ideas like open ended FRAND licensing terms etc. And if anything may indicate structural solutions are off the table.