I agree, in fact i would say CoD needs Playstation more than Playstation needs CoD. I mean MS wouldn't even be able to physically manufacture and sell enough Xbox's to make up for losing the PS userbase.
I agree, in fact i would say CoD needs Playstation more than Playstation needs CoD. I mean MS wouldn't even be able to physically manufacture and sell enough Xbox's to make up for losing the PS userbase.
They would just launch it on Switch. Loosing Sony is not the end of the line for CoD. I would be surprised if MS does not offer it to Nintendo anyway.
Launching on switch is just extra money but they still lose out by not being on ps even if they also do on switch.
Philosophically I think you could make a business case for eventual exclusivity if Xbox could become popular enough, but it's academic because they'll likely agree to regulators that they won't for a long time, and in 8-10 years all business forecasts we make now will likely seem quaint and laughably wrong because of factors we can't currently forsee.
In the short term certainly. As long as the concessions on this deal don't hamstring MS, the will keep CoD on PS because it's guaranteed money. I do feel they should put that effort into Switch as well, especially laying that groundwork for Switch 2 down the line.
I think Switch 2 is the only thing we will see it in, at least conventionally. Just from a look at timelines, Microsoft might close the deal in q2 next year, and theres no new CoD until q4 2024, by which time I strongly suspect Switch successor will be on the market. For a traditional port, it'll be dramatically easier not to support Switch 1.
However there are certainly other options too, like porting CoD Mobile or Warzone Mobile which should run fine on og switch. And they could also do cloud versions.
Oh I don't think for a single second that they would go the way of the Dreamcast but it most certainly would punt a big dent in it if they lost it. Outside of the hardcore circles many people do play as you said fortnite, GTA etc, and for many they would simply buy the console that had all 3 rather than miss one that they may also love and have 2 consoles for.
Just as Sega had so many killer Dreamcast games people at the time were happy to wait because they wanted Madden or NBA Live.
Again I don't think they would go that way, but the question was asked whether there was a single game and IMO there was. The sticking point at the launch was not around square, rockstar was not at all a talking point in 99, as the Dreamcast did get GTA2. The talk was all about EA and it still gets brought up in interviews about how they helped kill it off. Madden was massive back than.
True, but the amount of people that were more than happy to wait because of no EA and no madden helped kill it quicker than it might have been otherwise. The amount of press and people that didn't buy the console because of the no EA was huge. And I remember when EA showed off Madden on the PS2, it was game over.
At the end the Dreamcast was probably doomed because of Segas troubles, but the question was if one game has ever had that impact, and IMO Madden really did. It may not have ever saved Sega and the Dreamcast but it certainly did push people to just wait for the PS2 over the Dreamcast. And I feel Call Of Duty is big enough that it could do the same, although Sony is also in a much better position than Sega was so it would not meet the same fate
That sounds like a pretty good timeline. CoD mobile would be an interesting option for Switch if they wanted something soonish.
But do you think that big dent is substantially lessening competition, that's what all the regulators need to come up with pretty much and like I said I just don't see that at all with all the 3rd party support and 1st party support Playstation has. It's obviously not a good thing for Sony as it could/may lead people to buying another console instead, which is competition as far as I am concerned. I don't think we live in a world where people would suddenly in mass drop the Playstation brand for a single IP in COD and go out and buy an Xbox, I think it is completely ludicrous for people to even suggest that.
I know I keep saying over and over but they will need to find Sony substantially impacted, it's not just they might lose some console sales or might drop to #2 in the market or lose some of their revenue, they need to find that Sony is substantially impacted and cannot compete in anyway because the deal is so big.
I don't think most people who play COD, Fortnite and GTA would jump ship 1 game they will just move to one they already play and in some cases it might be a blessing for some players as it will allow them to focus on 1 game more and not be spread thin. I'm not saying there won't be any people who do jump ship but is there any jumping ship if it doesn't even leave the platform that's another thing. Even if people do jump ship like I said above it would have to be a massive amount, like 10's of millions type of migration.
Sony had a 2:1 and in some cases 3-4:1 sales lead, so it's gonna have to be a massive change for Microsoft to go from between 2-4:1 console numbers to jump above 2:1 for it to be a big shift. I would be shocked if Microsoft did make it exclusive and Xbox gets anywhere close to a 2:1 console lead.
COD mobile to switch would be such an easy port but I feel that was done in junction with a Chinese dev iirc? Or maybe they just partnered to publish there. But if the former activision is having pretty strained relationships in chin right now
It's by TiMi Studio (Tencent) so Switch would be no problem at all.
OP
OP
I updated the OT with the latest news and updates in the review process (US, China, Serbia, Chile).
An agreement with Sony should definitively be helpful because a cause of concern and the basis for some of the theories of harm would almost "disappear". In any case, some regulators (CMA and FTC, mainly) could still believe that nascent markets such as cloud gaming or subscription services could be at risk post merger (even with the agreement), asking for more.
That the deal was finally notified in China and the review process has started. Probably no decision until April - May.
That in the next two years the FTC and DOJ will challenge lots of transactions, even if they may lose a few.
If a regulator believes that only structural remedies could save a transaction and the parties are only offering behavioural remedies, they could tell you: "Don't bother" :p
Anyway, I think that history is important in this case too.
The FTC believes that letting Facebook acquire Instagram and WhatsApp 10 years ago was a huge mistake because back then social networks were a nascent market that now are dominated by a few giants with almost no real competition (and even more when those giants have been making killer acquisitions the last years to avoid any competition).
That's why now they are looking at new nascent markets (metaverse, cloud gaming, subscription services, virtual reality, etc) with a different perspective and with the idea to avoid the same mistake.
Yes, the decision from the FTC could influence other regulators and in multi-jurisdictional cases like this one they talk to each other to reach some kind of consensus. But at the end of the day each regulator has to review the deal according to their local market and laws, so not every decision in a jurisdiction is going to be relevant or even useful for each authority.
For example, COD is a very relevant IP in the US market, even more than in UK or Europe, but it's not very important in China, Japan or South Korea, among other countries. At the same time, cloud gaming is present in markets like the US, UK or (part of) Europe, but it's non existent in South Africa, Chile, Colombia, Israel, Turkey, India or China (where not even Gamepass is available).
Then, if the FTC challenges the deal because they believe that COD is a huge input that if it gets acquired by MS it will become a "tipping point" for the cloud gaming and subscription services market, how is that relevant for countries where those services are not offered or where there isn't even a market for them?
So, although the issues are globally similar, they have to be analysed from the perspective of the corresponding market and laws.
Yes, unless there is an unexpected turn of events, in the US a court battle seems likely.
I think that it can fail but more for being abandoned that rejected.
I'm still in a 70-65% range that it will get approved and that there are good legal arguments to defend it. But at the same time is a deal done by a Big Tech, for a gigantic amount of money, in digital and nascent markets, with huge opposition from a third party, with a lot of public exposure, with some regulators applying new rulesets (CMA) and others willing to take risks (FTC).
This is what is generating so much uncertainty and slowing down the deal.
The thing is that when you are surrounded by uncertainty for a long period of time and without a clear path ahead, sometimes the parties get anxious and prefer to pull the plug. MS was expecting a long ride but I don't know if they expected such a bumpy one.
An agreement with Sony should definitively be helpful because a cause of concern and the basis for some of the theories of harm would almost "disappear". In any case, some regulators (CMA and FTC, mainly) could still believe that nascent markets such as cloud gaming or subscription services could be at risk post merger (even with the agreement), asking for more.
That the deal was finally notified in China and the review process has started. Probably no decision until April - May.
what do you think about this article
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/7JINJ3QHQZISLC2Z7JAXTP2V7M.jpg)
U.S. keeps losing antitrust court battles but few expect pullback
The U.S. government has been hit with four painful losses at antitrust trials recently but legal experts do not expect the Biden administration's regulators to slow efforts to make American business more competitive.www.reuters.com
That in the next two years the FTC and DOJ will challenge lots of transactions, even if they may lose a few.
If a regulator believes that only structural remedies could save a transaction and the parties are only offering behavioural remedies, they could tell you: "Don't bother" :p
Anyway, I think that history is important in this case too.
The FTC believes that letting Facebook acquire Instagram and WhatsApp 10 years ago was a huge mistake because back then social networks were a nascent market that now are dominated by a few giants with almost no real competition (and even more when those giants have been making killer acquisitions the last years to avoid any competition).
That's why now they are looking at new nascent markets (metaverse, cloud gaming, subscription services, virtual reality, etc) with a different perspective and with the idea to avoid the same mistake.
Yes, the decision from the FTC could influence other regulators and in multi-jurisdictional cases like this one they talk to each other to reach some kind of consensus. But at the end of the day each regulator has to review the deal according to their local market and laws, so not every decision in a jurisdiction is going to be relevant or even useful for each authority.
For example, COD is a very relevant IP in the US market, even more than in UK or Europe, but it's not very important in China, Japan or South Korea, among other countries. At the same time, cloud gaming is present in markets like the US, UK or (part of) Europe, but it's non existent in South Africa, Chile, Colombia, Israel, Turkey, India or China (where not even Gamepass is available).
Then, if the FTC challenges the deal because they believe that COD is a huge input that if it gets acquired by MS it will become a "tipping point" for the cloud gaming and subscription services market, how is that relevant for countries where those services are not offered or where there isn't even a market for them?
So, although the issues are globally similar, they have to be analysed from the perspective of the corresponding market and laws.
Yes, unless there is an unexpected turn of events, in the US a court battle seems likely.
I think that it can fail but more for being abandoned that rejected.
I'm still in a 70-65% range that it will get approved and that there are good legal arguments to defend it. But at the same time is a deal done by a Big Tech, for a gigantic amount of money, in digital and nascent markets, with huge opposition from a third party, with a lot of public exposure, with some regulators applying new rulesets (CMA) and others willing to take risks (FTC).
This is what is generating so much uncertainty and slowing down the deal.
The thing is that when you are surrounded by uncertainty for a long period of time and without a clear path ahead, sometimes the parties get anxious and prefer to pull the plug. MS was expecting a long ride but I don't know if they expected such a bumpy one.
True, but Sega's marketshare at the time was light years from Sony today.
A new article with some interesting details, I didn't post the whole thing because it's a little long.
Rift at FTC stirs hope for Microsoft's $69B Activision merger: sources
nypost.com
Rift at FTC stirs hope for Microsoft's $69B Activision merger: sources
Rift at FTC stirs hope for Microsoft’s $69B Activision merger: sources
At least one Democrat on the four-member panel has recently taken a sympathetic view of the merger, according to a source close to the situation.
nypost.com
Well well well, what a twist. I wonder what caused this democrat to flip? If this came after looking into the deals impacts on workers... could it be that Microsoft guaranteeing to work with the Activision unions is coming back around to give the deal a push?
Granted, the source is NYPost. And tabloids aren't exactly the most trustworthy of sources.
Granted, the source is NYPost. And tabloids aren't exactly the most trustworthy of sources.
Yeah, I can see actually learning about the situation that Acti/Blzi workers are under now and Microsoft's promises on the matter might sway some of the left-leaning folks on the panel. Blocking the deal just means more of the same leadership that led to all those accusations and lawsuits. If you're concerned about workers rights, blocking the deal isn't it.
Of course, if it is workers rights that are swaying democrats on the board. That would make for some easy concessions for Microsoft since they could come out and guarentee things like:
"We promise not to layoff anyone for X period of time", or "If we end up laying people off, we'll provide a generous severance packages, and offer anybody who wants to the chance the retrain, or help applying for positions elsewhere within Microsoft or elsewhere"
If the US and EU allow the deal to close, I struggle to see the UK being an issue. None of these agencies want to be the lone man out. Especially if you are not the biggest man out there.
And Biden said: give COD to Microsoft
Good news! Hope it gets cleared sooner rather then later and the news seems good so far on it clearing
Good news! Hope it gets cleared sooner rather then later and the news seems good so far on it clearing
interesting.....very interesting. I hope it gets approved.A new article with some interesting details, I didn't post the whole thing because it's a little long.
Rift at FTC stirs hope for Microsoft's $69B Activision merger: sources
Rift at FTC stirs hope for Microsoft’s $69B Activision merger: sources
At least one Democrat on the four-member panel has recently taken a sympathetic view of the merger, according to a source close to the situation.
I do not know why, just now, Democrats (Well in this case, a Democrat) at the FTC are applauding Microsoft's union efforts.
It's about time. This is what I thought would always help smooth things over with the FTC.
No surprise that Biden could potentially want this closed and over with as well.
It's about time. This is what I thought would always help smooth things over with the FTC.
No surprise that Biden could potentially want this closed and over with as well.
A new article with some interesting details, I didn't post the whole thing because it's a little long.
Rift at FTC stirs hope for Microsoft's $69B Activision merger: sources
Rift at FTC stirs hope for Microsoft’s $69B Activision merger: sources
At least one Democrat on the four-member panel has recently taken a sympathetic view of the merger, according to a source close to the situation.
What a twist!
So, the FTC was trying to go to court, Microsoft gives a reasonable concession, and now a democrat on the board has flipped because they feel like it would be stupid to try to take it to court after the reasonable concession.
According to these sources.
Speculation being the D who flipped was the one who worked under Schumer back in the day. Post is speculating that Schumer and Biden are both pressuring the FTC to accept the concession and treat it as a win.
At that point, you'd be looking to the CMA almost entirely if FTC does accept the concession in December and EU follows suit soon after.
According to these sources.
Speculation being the D who flipped was the one who worked under Schumer back in the day. Post is speculating that Schumer and Biden are both pressuring the FTC to accept the concession and treat it as a win.
At that point, you'd be looking to the CMA almost entirely if FTC does accept the concession in December and EU follows suit soon after.
I guess it could be a political play by democrats to appear Pro-union after they just dropped the nuclear bomb on railway workers. A sort of "See, we care about unions. We'll approve the deal they are in favour of"
The employees are really positive on the deal so it just shows the Democrat who flipped has a heart lol.
Didnt see this twist coming.A new article with some interesting details, I didn't post the whole thing because it's a little long.
Rift at FTC stirs hope for Microsoft's $69B Activision merger: sources
Rift at FTC stirs hope for Microsoft’s $69B Activision merger: sources
At least one Democrat on the four-member panel has recently taken a sympathetic view of the merger, according to a source close to the situation.
Looks like the CMA will have the final say if this goes thru or not.
It's cause there's a schism and both sides are laundering their talking points through the media imoThese articles keep coming and changing the narrative of the FTC.
Again, no one wants to be on an island. I think the CMA had some heat behind it due to it looking like the EU and the US were of like mind. If those two let the deal go through, I don't see the CMA stepping in.
OP
OP
A new article with some interesting details, I didn't post the whole thing because it's a little long.
Rift at FTC stirs hope for Microsoft's $69B Activision merger: sources
Rift at FTC stirs hope for Microsoft’s $69B Activision merger: sources
At least one Democrat on the four-member panel has recently taken a sympathetic view of the merger, according to a source close to the situation.
If the decision from the FTC is becoming somehow political, no doubt that MS is trying to use its political influence too.
Anyway, the next 4-5 weeks are going to be fun with the provisional findings from the CMA, the decision from the FTC and a possible decision from the EC. 😬
Cool, today's rumor about the FTC being divided means that I have a greater chance of winning the $10 bet I made with a friend that this deal will close within a week of the Ides of March...
OP
OP
Just this week, Sarah Cardell (the Interim Chief Executive of the CMA) said this about Big Tech:
Problems in digital markets matter more given their staggering scale, scope and speed of evolution. Let me provide some perspective. The 'GAMMA firms', as they are sometimes called – Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta and Apple – have a combined market valuation of around £5.6 trillion, even despite recent slides in tech share prices. That is more than twice the size of UK GDP. And equally as mind-boggling is the breadth of these companies' activities. Take Amazon for example: amongst other things it is now a retailer, a logistics provider, a driverless-car developer, a television and movie producer, a music distributor, a book publisher, a cloud services company, a fashion designer, a home appliance manufacturer, a payment services provider, and a grocer.
This unprecedented scale and scope afford these firms a strategic position creating a situation of dependency – and potential exploitation – for the people and businesses who rely on them, as well as the risk that they can act to deter innovative competitors.
Let me be clear: big isn't bad per se. It is entirely right that successful companies should be able to grow and profit from their innovations – that's an essential driver for effective competition. But as those companies grow over time it is important that they remain subject to effective competition, to spur on further innovation and ensure sustained good outcomes for their customers.
I'd like to say a word here about mergers in digital markets. I sometimes hear a concern that the CMA is out to block acquisitions by the major platforms. That's simply not the case. We do think it's right that we look carefully at their acquisitions, where we have jurisdiction to do so, given their existing positions of substantial market power. But we take an objective and evidence-based approach to each such assessment – and in fact while there have been hundreds of acquisitions over the past decade by GAMMA firms, to date we have only blocked one – Meta's acquisition of Giphy.
But overall, we must be mindful of the risks that come from significant and entrenched market power – particularly in markets that have become essential for our way of life and commerce.
We'll see what happens in this case…
It does seem like both reports could be true, depending on the timeline of events.
OP
OP
If they don't challenge the deal, late December - mid January.
The FTC is probably going to be the first big regulator to decide about the case.
