Capcom would be my first choice too but Sega or even SE seems more likely.
-
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.
User threadbanned (permanent): Ignoring staff posts
Yep. This is my first impression when reading this thread lmao.
It's always the same people who don't contribute to the topic who come in to solely shitpost.
FYI, the poster you're quoting seemingly posts in both threads quite often and if you check his post history, made a genuine mistake.
I think capcom is private so itd be easier if its amicable.
Finished a long day at work, came to check the updates that warrant multiple new pages
There are no new updates, it's just the same old tired statements without supporting evidence
Hurry up April so this can end
There are no new updates, it's just the same old tired statements without supporting evidence
Hurry up April so this can end
It will not be the end, it will be just the beginning...
If that gets us another Battletech game then yeah, sure.
I could see them going for Embracer.
They're still largely privately owned, right?
The founder is something like that but it's a publicly traded company (https://www.nasdaqomxnordic.com/shares/microsite?Instrument=SSE128651)
I am unsure if there is a dual class share structure however.
The breakdowns if Microsoft bought Capcom or Square would be a sight to behold.
The fact that this is a realistic possibility is one of the reasons I suspect that Sony will be making offers to SE, at least, as soon as it becomes clear what the endgame with ABK is. Having spent so long and so much money associating FF with their brand, they must be worried it could just vanish in a puff of cash.
Capcom is the last pub that should ever be acquired. They're very well managed, release fantastic games consistently and release on all platforms. Hopefully they never get acquired and the truth is there's been 0 indication that they might even be up for sale, so why is there always so much speculation on them I will never know
Capcom selling would be quite the surprise to me. But then again, ABK selling was quite the surprise to me too.
"Ever" is a long time. In the middle of last generation, it wouldn't be too hard to believe if someone said in 2016 that Capcom might end up selling soon, after SF5 floundered at launch, Dead Rising 4 disappointed, Umbrella Corps flopped. If RE7 and MH: World hadn't been as huge successes as they ended up being (as in if either game had done only as well as their immediate predecessors), Capcom would be in dire straits. In fact, if you remember, during that period, they were like we might take a step back from developing new games and kinda focus on remakes and stuff for a bit as we reorganize. Very glad that didn't happen, of course, and I'm all for them staying independent. They're doing great work now. But this industry is fickle and nothing is guaranteed (which is why I understand the logic of "well, then you have to protect everything with a forever contract!", but also why that makes absolutely no sense in reality).
You might be right. If you can get the deals, then sure. I was more thinking about adding so many people at once at a time when tech companies are worried about size of payrolls. Granted, I understand that the company's assets and operations should pay that payroll for a while. But it's still undertaking a lot of risk.
Just because things are cheaper doesn't necessarily mean they're cheap.
Either way, my bigger point is that there are a lot of ways to spend that money. You could reinvest it into any number of business segments. Even if you're only trying to accumulate assets, you could go out and buy/long-term license IP. You could spend it on infrastructure and real estate. There are still pros and cons to deciding what you spend that money on, specifically. And I'm personally not convinced that buying a bunch of studios at this moment of uncertainty is generally a good idea. I do agree that you still take the shots that present themselves.
Last edited:
I see MS going after a Japanese studio. However, I don't think they will go after any studio that comes with any physical stuff (arcades etc.) because of the difficulties that will come with that (even if we're talking about divestments).
And I don't think S-E will want. With Sony, yes, but not with MS.
So, I think the likely target will be Capcom. And maybe smaller studios like Platinum.
And I don't think S-E will want. With Sony, yes, but not with MS.
So, I think the likely target will be Capcom. And maybe smaller studios like Platinum.
Capcom is on the wishlist because for Sony and Xbox player because they don't cost much and they are making Amazing games.
Theirs IP are huge : résident evil, dmc , Monster hunter, Megaman etc...
And it kinda crazy that a publisher like this cost less than Ubisoft ( well i don't know if things change since Ubisoft cost less than before ).
This IS why everyone talk about Capcom.
It doesn't mean that Microsoft or Sony or someone else is going to buy them.
If Microsoft get the ABK deal over the line I can't see them being allowed to acquire another publisher.
Yeah, this, regulators would like to wait and see how the market reacts to the Zenimax and Activision buys before giving the ok to Microsoft for more big purchases, especially given Microsoft would basically be n° 1 (or close) in terms of revenue if it passes.
Sony would probably buy something tho, and that's probably going much smoother if the AB deal goes through
I haven't been following these past few weeks, any updates since Brad Smith did that dumb stunt of pulling a piece of paper from his pocket?
Microsoft owns the battle tech and shadowrun game ip already lol. They're licensed out.
Which is one thing I always thought about with this whole deal. MS has allowed many of their games show up on other platforms including playstation that nobody ever mentions.
For Sony it will dépend on who . Dont forget sony is the leader so if it's take 2 or ubi or Epic . They will get a Big scrutiny too. But others publishers, they should get no issue.
We're just lucky that Capcom got their shit together before everyone started going on a buying spree. They would have been a softer target back in the 360/PS3 days. It was pretty rough for a few years there (I never stopped playing their games though!)
MS will also take time to absorb ABK completely. I don't see them making any movements regarding new purchases until after 12 months minimum.
I don't think Sony can swallow anything bigger than, say, Ubisoft.
Epic wouldn't just be "scrutiny" - the legal reasons to block it wouldn't require the sort of gymnastics we see from regulators regarding the Activision deal.
Not only would it be a horizontal merger, but Unreal Engine is an actual essential input.
An attempt to buy Epic would have all the SLC risks governing bodies pretend the ABK deal has.
Being market leader they better be ready to offer 10 year parity deals. Something Microsoft probably wishes they signed for Destiny.
Officially? Not really, well the ec dropped the console part of their concerns and are focusing on the cloud area. Microsoft signed geforcenow and a few other cloud providers to the ten year pocket deal. The cma it's all just hearsay and speculation but it seems to be on the "deal is going to pass" cycle of the Rollercoaster ride.
If they buy Take 2 or Epic (not happening), yeah. If they buy Capcom or Square? They won't have to make any concessions. With something like Ubi it's more of a 50/50 thing, I think.
Of course they would, they are the market leader. Just because they already exclude Microsoft from games through deals, I doubt they want those practices under scrutiny. I would laugh if the next few final fantasy's had to come out on Xbox as well due to the result of the merger.
Now, if Microsoft purchased Square? That would be interesting, because that would impact Sony more than buying Activision.
Capcom is the one publisher that MS could buy that I think could genuinely shift things for them in a meaningful way in terms of mindshare globally. Having the likes of Street Fighter, Resident Evil, and Monster Hunter exclusive to Xbox would be devastating to Sony and make Xbox a must have for millions who would be "forced" to switch consoles. But I honestly don't think they would do that. The outrage and backlash would be unlike anything we've ever seen. MS would keep those massive franchises multi-platform.
Everyone says Capcom isn't for sale and wouldn't even be interested in being acquired at this moment and that's almost certainly true. But if MS (or anyone else) offer billions and billions over their current value I wonder what they do?
Everyone says Capcom isn't for sale and wouldn't even be interested in being acquired at this moment and that's almost certainly true. But if MS (or anyone else) offer billions and billions over their current value I wonder what they do?
OP
OP
Now that we have entered the "market test for remedies" stage with the EC (sooner or later with the CMA), some info about what this means:
- The European Commission (EC) is going to consult third parties on the cloud gaming remedies that have been submitted by MS. This is called a market test of the proposed remedies.
- The EC has discretion on whether to conduct (or not) a market test of merger remedies. In any case, the EC uses them regularly.
- This market test allows the EC to obtain information and views from market participants as to whether the proposed remedies will be workable and effective in removing the competition concerns (in this case, about cloud gaming). This is in part used to mitigate the information asymmetry between the parties and the EC.
- The idea of the market test is that competitors, customers and suppliers of MS/ABK may be able to spot shortcomings in a remedy that are hidden for non-insiders.
- The third parties that are consulted may include competitors (Sony, for example), customers, suppliers and other interested parties. The questions can relate to anything that is relevant to assess the proposed remedies (scope, longevity, interoperability, complexity, etc).
- To ensure that third parties can comment meaningfully on the remedies, MS/ABK must make available a non-confidential version of the remedies. That version must allow third parties to fully assess the workability and effectiveness of the proposed remedies. If there are excessive redactions, that would be a problem and the EC would have a harder time to assess the adequacy of the remedies.
- The replies to the market test form part of the evidence on the basis of which the EC will assess whether the remedies are adequate. In theory, assessing the replies to the market test is not simply a matter of counting favourable or unfavourable views (like a popularity vote). So, numbers alone shouldn't be decisive.
- The EC will review all individual responses and will assess the market test according to the totality of the replies. In assessing the replies, the EC will take into account elements such as the consistency and relevance of the reply, the expertise of the respondent, how well the reply is substantiated or if the replies could be guided by self-interest. The EC knows that competitors, for example, may have a hidden agenda. In those cases, the weight given to their replies will depend on how well their reply is substantiated and whether it is echoed by other respondents.
- When the proposed remedies are consulted to market participants, the EC also sends a copy to the national regulators of the Member States. This way, the EC can benefit from the experience and expertise of national competition authorities, who may have dealt with the relevant markets or similar commitments in prior cases.
- The CMA takes a different approach to market tests, focusing on a narrower set of customers with a more in-depth form of engagement. The CMA doesn't like too much the questionnaire format used by the EC because they believe that in the end it really works like a popularity vote :p
- The Cargotec - Konecranes case is probably the most recent example (early 2022), where these different approaches diverged (the EC accepted the proposed remedies, the CMA rejected them a month later and the deal was finally abandoned).
- The European Commission (EC) is going to consult third parties on the cloud gaming remedies that have been submitted by MS. This is called a market test of the proposed remedies.
- The EC has discretion on whether to conduct (or not) a market test of merger remedies. In any case, the EC uses them regularly.
- This market test allows the EC to obtain information and views from market participants as to whether the proposed remedies will be workable and effective in removing the competition concerns (in this case, about cloud gaming). This is in part used to mitigate the information asymmetry between the parties and the EC.
- The idea of the market test is that competitors, customers and suppliers of MS/ABK may be able to spot shortcomings in a remedy that are hidden for non-insiders.
- The third parties that are consulted may include competitors (Sony, for example), customers, suppliers and other interested parties. The questions can relate to anything that is relevant to assess the proposed remedies (scope, longevity, interoperability, complexity, etc).
- To ensure that third parties can comment meaningfully on the remedies, MS/ABK must make available a non-confidential version of the remedies. That version must allow third parties to fully assess the workability and effectiveness of the proposed remedies. If there are excessive redactions, that would be a problem and the EC would have a harder time to assess the adequacy of the remedies.
- The replies to the market test form part of the evidence on the basis of which the EC will assess whether the remedies are adequate. In theory, assessing the replies to the market test is not simply a matter of counting favourable or unfavourable views (like a popularity vote). So, numbers alone shouldn't be decisive.
- The EC will review all individual responses and will assess the market test according to the totality of the replies. In assessing the replies, the EC will take into account elements such as the consistency and relevance of the reply, the expertise of the respondent, how well the reply is substantiated or if the replies could be guided by self-interest. The EC knows that competitors, for example, may have a hidden agenda. In those cases, the weight given to their replies will depend on how well their reply is substantiated and whether it is echoed by other respondents.
- When the proposed remedies are consulted to market participants, the EC also sends a copy to the national regulators of the Member States. This way, the EC can benefit from the experience and expertise of national competition authorities, who may have dealt with the relevant markets or similar commitments in prior cases.
- The CMA takes a different approach to market tests, focusing on a narrower set of customers with a more in-depth form of engagement. The CMA doesn't like too much the questionnaire format used by the EC because they believe that in the end it really works like a popularity vote :p
- The Cargotec - Konecranes case is probably the most recent example (early 2022), where these different approaches diverged (the EC accepted the proposed remedies, the CMA rejected them a month later and the deal was finally abandoned).
even if the remedies are good enough for Sony, can't they just say "they are not good enough, nothing is good enough " type shit to just kill the deal.
One would hope that regulators are capable of independent thought, and at some point realize Sony wants to kill the deal to keep status quo and nothing will bring them around. At that point regulators should regulate merger on its merits, and not on what Sony wants.
Thanks for the insight as always Idas.
What happens if the remedies are deemed insufficient , does the EC ask MS to offer a new package? And if so, how many times can they do that until they make the final decision?
There's always a price, it just comes down to how high it would be, and whether that makes it uneconomical.
I mean as far as I have seen Sony isn't included in the Cloud remedies unless someone can correct me. The stuff that has come out has only involved PC cloud providers. I am not sure if they will even go to Sony.
Capcom is actually a pretty unique situation though maybe not in Japan I think someone said a few other big studios are the same way. They are still majority family owned and two of their biggest creators are part of the same family. I don't see Capcom being bought unless they want to cash out and retire and don't have family to take it over.
I feel like recent under performance of their few AAA studios likely has scared them. I wonder if they will be looking to slim down some of their riskier (what they view as riskier) investments.
Yes, Brad went on to continue being good at his job. So good that he and his team got the EC to reduce the the scope of their concerns to just the cloud gaming market. Not bad, right?
Right. Just dreams and hopes of acquisitions that won't come to pass. Will be glad when the real news happens!
Brad Smith has been pivotal in getting things to work, yes, even that stunt. Based on MS interaction with EC, console concerns aren't concerns anymore.
Last edited:
If someone offered $15-20 billion or something like that for them I wonder if they say no. More than double their market cap.
- The EC will review all individual responses and will assess the market test according to the totality of the replies. In assessing the replies, the EC will take into account elements such as the consistency and relevance of the reply, the expertise of the respondent, how well the reply is substantiated or if the replies could be guided by self-interest. The EC knows that competitors, for example, may have a hidden agenda. In those cases, the weight given to their replies will depend on how well their reply is substantiated and whether it is echoed by other respondents.
I mean, doesn't Sony have that already? I've seen it written here thousands of times that "Exclusives" are the only thing people really care about. Sony has multiple, massive, multimillion seller exclusives like GoWR and HFW. Surely a lot of people are not going to dump Sony and miss out on those just for a multiplat....... Or is it now true that their entire business will come crumbling down for a single multiplatform game?
Is it possible for any of those responses to be released from the EC? Or would we just get a report from a source speaking generally about what was said and how the EC views things?
Yes Sony already has that. We already know from market research performed by various market authorities around the world that 97% of PS customers would stay with PS if COD left. That's said, some people with a lot of regulatory power argue that the loss of that 3% of via a merger would significantly lessen Sony's ability to compete.
So that's the reality MS is contending with. So MS is saying that ten years is enough time for Sony to mitigate the potential loss of 3% of their customers to COD exclusivity- even though such mitigation won't be necessary because the game will stay on PS.
View: https://twitter.com/samuelstolton/status/1638505647091089408?s=46&t=gf8rfJgiXtRzEKTUzSF5Yw
Paywall but seems to be about what idas was mentioning