-
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.
Funnily enough, the DayZ mod that was the precursor to PUBG actually came out exactly ten years ago.
Bomberman came out in 1990. Not every last-player-standing game is regarded as a BR, though.
I'm sure someone else has raised this point, and I'm honestly not entirely sure how valid this comparison is. But: I would've loved to play more Insomniac games on my Xbox, too, but that dream died after Sony bought them. At least in this case, people can stream stuff relatively easily and at a low cost. If I want to play current and future Insomniac games, I have to buy a PlayStation.
Unless I'm mistaken and Sonys streaming offer is comparable to xCloud these days? In that case, please correct me haha
Either way, sometimes it is what it is, I guess. It's a free market, after all.
It's difficult for me to get into the whole exclusives argument because I own all platforms, and the only time I didn't was last generation when frankly there was nothing I wanted to play on Xbox One. I think the people trying to argue that buying a publisher is the same as buying a developer are being disingenuous, but I also find the people trying to claim that buying a developer you've worked with before, or buying single titles like Final Fantasy isn't taking anything away from others. You cannot criticise one platform holder and absolve the other.
I just think people are pushing the arguments that suit them, when the reality lies somewhere in the middle. As I was from day one I'm completely torn on this deal. Do I think it is good for the developers? Yes. Do I think it's a good thing for ABK's library to be added to Game Pass across console and PC? Yes. Do I think it's a good thing for the industry for companies like Microsoft to just swallow up publishers? No.
I just think people are pushing the arguments that suit them, when the reality lies somewhere in the middle. As I was from day one I'm completely torn on this deal. Do I think it is good for the developers? Yes. Do I think it's a good thing for ABK's library to be added to Game Pass across console and PC? Yes. Do I think it's a good thing for the industry for companies like Microsoft to just swallow up publishers? No.
The end result is also different. Most timed exclusive do release on every console and sometimes remakes etc even as more platforms. It is also on much smaller scale than print buying publishers like for example ff may be exclusive to ps at the moment but time of other games launch on switch exclusively
More consolidation in highly consolidated markets does mean less choice for consumers, but the discussion in this thread is interpreting that wrong.
1) If the approporiate metric were number of games available, (it isn't), the appropriate measure would be number of games available today vs. number that would have been available today without the consolidation (an unknowable statistic normally), not number of games today vs. number preconsolidation. Consolidation lowers choice from what it would have been without consolidation, not what it was before, necessarily.
2) The actual measure of the choice concerns with consolidation are not the product you buy (games) but who you can buy them from. The measure is suppliers (now vs. what would have been now without consolidation). If there are two big hospitals in my city and one buys the other, I only have one local vendor for my care. I can still go to either location, or I can drive a long distance, but for everyone who can't make that drive, one entity is controlling the service. Because it is horribly inconvenient to make the drive to get outside their reach, they can raise prices somewhat, and suffer no loss of customers... because customers have less choice.
3) The video game console market is highly consolidated. The loss of XBox, Playstation, or Nintendo, or the acquisition of any one by one of the others, would highly limit customer choice.
4) The video game production market is not highly consolidated. Consolidation there has not reached a point where it is likely to harm comsumers.
Of course, Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo walled gardens, exclusive games, etc. are annoying to consumers. This is possible not because the software market is consolidated, but because the console market is consolidated, and because games aren't bricks or pineapples. Every one is unique.
If there were 72 consoles all of whuch had 0.5-5% of the console market, and being exclusive to even the biggest one meant ignoring 95% of players, no console maker would have a ton of 3rd party exclusivity deals because they'd all be so damned expensive.
All the 3rd party exclusive content is proof that consolidation hurts consumers... It's just important to see that its in the highly consolidated market where you have to look... minor consolidation in an unconsolidated market doesn't matter.
1) If the approporiate metric were number of games available, (it isn't), the appropriate measure would be number of games available today vs. number that would have been available today without the consolidation (an unknowable statistic normally), not number of games today vs. number preconsolidation. Consolidation lowers choice from what it would have been without consolidation, not what it was before, necessarily.
2) The actual measure of the choice concerns with consolidation are not the product you buy (games) but who you can buy them from. The measure is suppliers (now vs. what would have been now without consolidation). If there are two big hospitals in my city and one buys the other, I only have one local vendor for my care. I can still go to either location, or I can drive a long distance, but for everyone who can't make that drive, one entity is controlling the service. Because it is horribly inconvenient to make the drive to get outside their reach, they can raise prices somewhat, and suffer no loss of customers... because customers have less choice.
3) The video game console market is highly consolidated. The loss of XBox, Playstation, or Nintendo, or the acquisition of any one by one of the others, would highly limit customer choice.
4) The video game production market is not highly consolidated. Consolidation there has not reached a point where it is likely to harm comsumers.
Of course, Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo walled gardens, exclusive games, etc. are annoying to consumers. This is possible not because the software market is consolidated, but because the console market is consolidated, and because games aren't bricks or pineapples. Every one is unique.
If there were 72 consoles all of whuch had 0.5-5% of the console market, and being exclusive to even the biggest one meant ignoring 95% of players, no console maker would have a ton of 3rd party exclusivity deals because they'd all be so damned expensive.
All the 3rd party exclusive content is proof that consolidation hurts consumers... It's just important to see that its in the highly consolidated market where you have to look... minor consolidation in an unconsolidated market doesn't matter.
Almost like there was a huge pandemic that stunted development across the board or something.
Consolidation is only one factor. It ignores that game development is much more expensive today, it takes longer to make games, GaaS means that you prolonge the lifecycle of a game, and the AA market virtually disappeared by the end of gen 7.
OP
OP
The last 10 days and next key dates:
THE LAST 10 DAYS
- February 17th: concerns from a third party in China.
- February 20th: UNI Global Union, a global union federation in 150 countries and representing 20 million workers, is in favor of the deal.
- February 21st: EU hearing (updates 01, 02 and 03); MS announces new agreement with Nvidia and formalises the one with Nintendo.
- February 23rd: China expected to approve the deal, according to local lawyers.
- February 23rd: new SEC filing from ABK with latest info about legal proceedings regarding the merger.
- February 24th: The statement from the European Game Developers Federation about the EU hearing.
- February 27th: Lawyers cautiously optimistic about the deal in Europe; MS could have offered a ten-year license for all ABK games.
- February 28th: EU Competition Chief Margrethe Vestager says that the EC won't rush a decision on the case.
- February 28th: first remedies proposed by MS to the CMA.
NEXT KEY DATES:
- March 1st 2023: last day to respond to the provisional findings from the CMA.
- Early March 2023: response hearings with the CMA.
- Early March 2023: the cut-off point to offer remedies to the EC.
- Late March 2023: responses to the provisional findings and remedies from the CMA will be likely published.
- April 12th 2023: motion for a preliminary injunction on the gamers' lawsuit.
- April 18th 2023: second extension of the original outside date. If MS quits by that date they have to pay a termination fee of $2,500,000,000; if they don't, the outside date gets extended until July 18th 2023.
- April 25th 2023: final decision from the EC.
- April 26th 2023: final report and remedies from the CMA.
- April 28th 2023: decision from New Zealand.
- April - May 2023: decision from the SAMR in China.
- July 18th 2023: The end of the second extension and final outside date in the merger agreement. If MS quits by that date they have to pay a termination fee of $3,000,000,000; if they don't, they'll have to renegotiate the outside date with ABK.
- August 2nd 2023: beginning of the FTC in-house trial.
- Early 2024: decision from the FTC administrative law judge.
- Anything beyond that: unknown
THE LAST 10 DAYS
- February 17th: concerns from a third party in China.
- February 20th: UNI Global Union, a global union federation in 150 countries and representing 20 million workers, is in favor of the deal.
- February 21st: EU hearing (updates 01, 02 and 03); MS announces new agreement with Nvidia and formalises the one with Nintendo.
- February 23rd: China expected to approve the deal, according to local lawyers.
- February 23rd: new SEC filing from ABK with latest info about legal proceedings regarding the merger.
- February 24th: The statement from the European Game Developers Federation about the EU hearing.
- February 27th: Lawyers cautiously optimistic about the deal in Europe; MS could have offered a ten-year license for all ABK games.
- February 28th: EU Competition Chief Margrethe Vestager says that the EC won't rush a decision on the case.
- February 28th: first remedies proposed by MS to the CMA.
NEXT KEY DATES:
- March 1st 2023: last day to respond to the provisional findings from the CMA.
- Early March 2023: response hearings with the CMA.
- Early March 2023: the cut-off point to offer remedies to the EC.
- Late March 2023: responses to the provisional findings and remedies from the CMA will be likely published.
- April 12th 2023: motion for a preliminary injunction on the gamers' lawsuit.
- April 18th 2023: second extension of the original outside date. If MS quits by that date they have to pay a termination fee of $2,500,000,000; if they don't, the outside date gets extended until July 18th 2023.
- April 25th 2023: final decision from the EC.
- April 26th 2023: final report and remedies from the CMA.
- April 28th 2023: decision from New Zealand.
- April - May 2023: decision from the SAMR in China.
- July 18th 2023: The end of the second extension and final outside date in the merger agreement. If MS quits by that date they have to pay a termination fee of $3,000,000,000; if they don't, they'll have to renegotiate the outside date with ABK.
- August 2nd 2023: beginning of the FTC in-house trial.
- Early 2024: decision from the FTC administrative law judge.
- Anything beyond that: unknown
Last edited:
Many thanks again Idas. I wonder what the first remedies are that Microsoft proposed to CMA yesterday.
OP
OP
Happy to help! :)
According to the report from MLex, part of the solutions are: a guarantee of 100 percent parity between MS and Sony for access to Call of Duty and to make the game available to at least 150 million more players.
Would you say offering it on subscription services is concidered parity? If MS puts CoD on GamePass day 1 and Sony wants to put CoD on PS+ Extra Day 1, then Sony would have to pay a lot of money to get that deal while in theory MS wouldn't have to.
To remedy that, it would implicate that:
MS will choose not to put ABK games on GamePass for the next 10 years
MS will offer ABK titles to PS+ Extra witout additional charge
MS had to pay a lot of money to put the game on Gamepass though… they had to spend $70 bill buying the publisher, then pay everyone in ABK to work and develop games, including the development of the COD games being put on the service.
Witholding COD from GP would be govt imposed harm to consumers for the benefit of the market leader. Forcing MS to put COD on PS+ w/o charge would be govt imposed devaluing of the IP for the benefit of a market leader. Neither of those options are necessary for Parity.
Last edited:
If you ignore the cost of acquisition and development and ignore the positive feedback loop of gamepass revenue contribution to development funds
Sure Xbox would be paying 0 for cod in gamepass
This absolutely makes no sense whatsoever. You say Sony would have to pay to put it on PS+ while MS wouldn't have to. Microsoft is paying $69 billion, I'd say they're definitely paying. Microsoft will have purchased the right to give its customers who subscribe to Gamepass these IP's in that service, Sony has been offered the ability to do the same for its subscribers but to think that they should get it for free when Microsoft is the one spending $69 billion is so nonsensical that it boggles the mind.
That wouldn't be parity though. That would be like saying that they have go put the game out on PlayStation for sale, and leave Sony with a 100% cut on all sales because they'd take that on their own platform. Obviously that would be ridiculous.
For MS to put COD out on anything they will have incurred not only the cost of the acquisition, but also the ongoing costs of developing the game. They can offer Sony the license to put the game on PS+ at launch, but then Sony would obviously need to pay for the projected lost sales on the platform, just as MS by proxy absorbs the cost of lost sales for any game they add onto Game Pass.
The idea that Sony should be given COD in their service for $0, which would then probably increase their subscriptions tenfold is not remotely fairly competitive. They'll receive the same game at the same time as anyone else. If they want it to also be a value add on day one to their service, they need to put the money up for that, just as anyone else would. It's not like Nintendo is gonna have it land on NSO either.
You already got dunked on a bunch for this...but you realize this is crazy talk right?
They didn't just 'spend' €69billion. They acquired an asset. It's different from a marketing deal because after the deal is done, you're left with nothing tangible. In that sense, Microsoft doesn't have to "earn back" their investment. ABK is their investment/asset.
In this case, CMA is withholding Microsoft from leveraging that asset into a competitive advantage because they think this could lead to foreclosure of their competitor. If offerting CoD day 1 on gamepass is seen as a competitive advantage, then Sony needs to have acces to the same facility at the same cost level Microsoft does, or else it's not 100% parity. So I'm not sure who you're dunking on.
So the answer to my question is no.
<insert that's not how this works gif>
Ok. Now address the part that releasing COD is an ongoing cost, and so handing it out for free to what would be the largest pool of players, without any form of return revenue doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
Nobody is saying they need to "earn back" $69B. They are saying they payed a shit ton to have the right to put it on Game Pass and include it in their business plans, risks and all that may come with it.
Being forced to put it in a competitor's service FOR FREE simply devalues the property/asset and is just giving Sony basically the same privilege that Microsoft spent $69 to acquire for free which is nonsense. That's why it's not happening. The offer can happen, but Sony would still need to pay a fair rate.
Where did I say that they need to offer it for free? I said without additional charge. And that additional charge would be a surplus to what Microsoft themselves believe to be their costs of having CoD day 1 on GamePass. How to you substantiate what the price for Sony should be to have CoD day 1 on PS+ Extra? That's the complexity of the merger and owning that asset and the complexity of offerting 100% parity.
The cost of having CoD on GamePass would be all the lost sales on XBox and PC that would have normally bought the game. So for Sony to get it on PS+, they would need to at the very lesst cover those lost sales from Playstation owners
No, because leveraging competitive advantages isn't illegal. It's literally what you're supposed to do in competition.
There's no one arguing that COD on Gamepass amounts to foreclosure on Sony. In fact, the CMA stated COD on Gamepass would be good for consumers as it provides an alternate way to access that could be cheaper depending on use case. They also said it could increase competition by compelling others to improve their services that rival GamePass. However they said those potential competition strengthening benefits Don't outweigh the risk of ACTUAL forceclosure strategies, like removing COD from PS or making the PS version worse .
PS, MS absolutely would be "spending" $70B on the asset, and all of the additional costs associated with managing that asset. And the benefit of taking on that cost and risk is that they'd be able to use it to improve their standing in the market. Not give their Chief competitor freebies for the purpose of maintaining the status quo.
Any argument that Sony should have access at the same "cost level" should be an argument that Sony has to pay market value to put the game on their service… as MS had to pay market value to take ownership of the asset, and had to pay employees market wages to maintain the asset… All while sony does nothing but receive a popular game.
Last edited:
Leveraging competitive advantages isn't illegal in itself no, but it is if it's unfair. The whole point of CMA is to try to prevent Microsoft leveraging the merger unfairly. That's the whole point of the behavioral remedies, to prevent behavrior that would lead to unfair market influence.
Offering it at market cost is as fair as it can possibly get.
It would seem you are the one seeing it as a competitive disadvantage, the CMA on the other hand has stated that they see it as a benefit to consumers and as such isn't a concern. To any sensible person the cost of putting it on a competing subs service would be the estimated value of lost sales from B2P for that platform. Don't pretend to insinuate that "100% parity" meant anything other than technical parity within hardware limitations, release date, content and features.
Right but the CMA doesn't suggest that COD on Gamepass is unfair. So why would there be a govt imposed remedy that gives the distant market leader access to this most valuable asset at below market price, risk free?
How is that fair in any sense of the word? MS is paying a premium for ABK, paying to manage the asset, and assuming great costs to put the game on GP- costs that can't be mitigated by charging the platform holder, because they are the platform holder. And your saying Sony should get access at cost, while any other publisher has the ability to negotiate their game's inclusion in subscription services… and you think that's fair?
Last edited:
Then that's a fair answer to my initial question. Not sure why so many jimmies were rustled in the proses and why people are so tense (not you). Jesus man.
You forgot one, parity on pricing. How do you make that tangible and enforceable for sub services?
The price would be the same between platforms. The price of buying the title doesn't change because it's offered on a sub service also. Sony would also have the option to put it on their service so there would be parity in that respect too.
Is this true Idas ? Seems to be absent from your in-depth review of the PF. Thanks!They still do, taken from the acquisition thread on another forum:
Idas can correct me if I'm wrong but that is referring to the hypothetical scenario where Microsoft would put it on their service but NOT allow PS the ability or opportunity to do the same which we all know now (reportedly) that they would allow Sony to put COD on their service also. We need to remember the provisional findings are just that, provisional. Offers made to competitors were not accounted for, considered or evaluated during phase 2 of their investigation.
Probably, but they are still games and they were still released. Just goes to show the barrier to entry into the market is super low.
If ABK charges xbox $60 for every player who plays on gamepass and charges sony the same on PS+, that could be considered 100% parity. Naturally, on those terms the game probably wouldn't be on PS+... The CMA or EC could appoint a master to decide a fair price for COD on ps+ though, in theory.
They still do, taken from the acquisition thread on another forum:
CMA said that multi-game subscriptions are part of the console market and not a separate market. That doesn't mean that Sony is harmed by COD not being on PS+. Hell, Sony may not even want COD on PS+.
I thought it was because games are way more expensive to make and also take much more time to make these day. Is it really due to consolidations?
Nothing to do with consolidation its because games take more people longer to make than back then.
That's part of it (remember when Halo/Uncharted/Gears released new games every other year?).
But perhaps the bigger part the proliferation of online multiplayer and F2P/GAAS.
For the past year-plus my son has played ~2 hours of video games daily, consisting of just two games: Roblox and Grounded. Think about how different that is from the McElroy brothers' stories about how every Friday their mom would rent them a new game from Blockbuster and they'd beat it that weekend. They were consuming 52 games/year versus 2 for my son.
And while 2008 was certainly already a couple years into the PS360 gen where online multiplayer started to proliferate en masse, it was still early enough that the industry still hadn't really adapted. That was really the cusp of when AA and licensed shovelware died out as a business model because people stopped needing "something to play" in the way they previously did.
Really though, this goes hand-in-hand with the release cadence phenomenon: As gamers started to buy fewer games that they played more, the market became very blockbuster-focused. Releasing games with smaller scale and more limited graphics/features but twice as often becomes a bad business strategy. You're basically condemning two games to not be one of the 1-3 games someone purchases that year rather than giving one game a fighting chance. (We're seeing the same thing with movies in the cinema as well. As people see fewer films in the theater the films that release compete on the basis of which are "worth it" to be something seen in a theater instead of waiting for it to hit a streaming service.)
| Provisional deadline: |
|
OP
OP
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
Remedy talks have officially started :p
PS: the final report from the CMA has to be published on April 26th :S