That's…….not correct.
Sony didn't get the deal until what, 2015 or so? CoD was massive by then.
-
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.
Sony didn't get the deal until what, 2015 or so? CoD was massive by then.
Clearly they know we're watching to see a repeat of Epic v. Apple lol
I'm sure I read somewhere the nearly half the install base is on playstation. I don't really care personally, in fact I'm one of those rare playstation primary gamers that actually wants MS to pull the game of PS as soon as they can. Imo COD has become the poster child for boring, stagnant, soulless dreck that gets pumped out every year because it has to in order to stay relevant. And it's relevance smothers other far better games from getting any traction. Despite the crying by Sony on this acquisition everyone knows they would more than survive losing COD even if every COD player moves to Xbox which they won't. Sure it would be enough to give a significant shot in the arm to xbox but with how last gen and this gen is playing out a significant shot in the arm is exactly what they need. Sony has been the dominant player in the market since 1994 they can afford to lose some marketshare. And by giving other much better games room to breath they would only expand on the already massive amount of quality on their platform and that'sto say nothing of their own Gaas games having the whole playground to themselves. I'd say it's a win win.
Surprised it wasn't talked here but the FTC wants Nintendo to testify in thr merger case now and Nintendo not interested and don't want to be involved in the merger drama
View: https://twitter.com/deeketweak/status/1649976612148989954?s=46&t=f_eNzMlTPTlWG8msVFJbGQ
View: https://twitter.com/deeketweak/status/1649976612148989954?s=46&t=f_eNzMlTPTlWG8msVFJbGQ
I think it was a few pages back.
I have no idea why the FTC thinks they can use Nintendo as a stick 🤔
Well, I personally don't care if CoD will be exclusive or not. I think MP games should be played as many people as possible tho.
Having said that, my original post was more aimed regarding the 'relevance and cultural thing' part. And looking at that explosive growth the franchise had and the sales numbers during that time it's quite clear that MS marketing did the heavy lifting for the franchise back in the day.
At the end if the day I'm just glad when all of this is over. That whole Xbox/Sony/ABK talk is tiresome tbh.
I'm not saying PlayStation 'made CoD what it is'.
I'm saying the majority of the player base is undoubtedly on PlayStation.
If CoD was made exclusive less people would play CoD. And so it would be less relevant to the wider culture. CoDs value comes from the number of players it has and less people would play CoD if it was exclusive, they're not going to all up and buy an Xbox.
Thanks for being one of the few people on Era that understands that your favourite platform doesn't need to be the only platform for you as a consumer to benefit.
A lot of Era thinks 'if I like Platform B then Platform B needs to be the biggest and most successful platform for me to get more of what I want, also other platforms should not exist.'
Several decades of business and economic theory show we as consumers benefit more from contested markets.
Sony losing a slither of market share is not going to completely upend their console gaming strategy. If you come to the PlayStation platform for high-quality single player, cinematic games, Sony will still continue to offer this, they know why their consumers are on PlayStation.
And (as we're seeing) Sony will react more to the changing trends; GaaS, more investment in subscription, more investment in cloud, more investment in indies, subscription VR (seriously Sony you've missed a trick here) in gaming whilst still serving their core consumer that wants those high-quality single player experiences. They're not doing this because they have to, they're doing it because their closest platform and publishing competitors are doing it.
OP
OP
I agree that there was no collision because that would mean more than one regulator had to have been in on it.
That being said it's clear the FTC wasn't going to reach out to every single worldwide regulator. That would cost too much time in manpower and money.
FTC knows the deal needs to be approved by all regulators so they only had to persuade/try to influence the bigger ones (CMA/EC). Lina Kahn herself let it slip when grilled that they "share information to try and reach a similar outcome" which I'm sure it's referring to the bigger ones. This can actually be used against the FTC.
There's no doubt in my mind that the FTC/Lina Kahn at the bare minimum tried the influence the CMA/EC by coming out ahead to try and block the deal and use the EC's comments in it's favor. Now we know that didn't exactly work out.
You can choose a different descriptor than "collusion" if it fits better for this merger, such as "influence" or "encourage". Again, the article specifically referred to collusion with regards the DoJ/FTC sending people to Europe to influence Europe's DMA laws, not this merger, and it's an appropriate descriptor for that instance.
If the FTC had rushed out a decision to NOT sue to block the merger, would that be an attempt to influence the CMA/EC to approve the deal?
At the end of the day, the FTC needed to choose a stance. They may have been hopeful that choosing this particular stance would encourage other market regulators to do the same. But that there's a wide gap between that and collision or extrajudicially pressuring other bodies to work against American companies. Especially, when there's an argument that the merger would be harmful to American companies that aren't MS (note: I think that's a bad argument, but that's for the courts to decide)
The reason I feel it inappropriate is because of the implication that the FTCs interest in the Europe is to help harm American Businesses. It also seems to imply that the DMA in general is an effort to harm American business. But there's an argument that DMA will benefit businesses (many of them American) that aim to compete in markets that are dominated by companies like Google and Apple due to anticompetitive practices. I guess what I'm saying is that the loaded language in the article discredits it.
Isn't their [FTC] stated intent to rein in big tech? Which businesses does that refer to? American ones, afaict. I've never heard of a non-American one mentioned in all the countless articles talking about this. All the discussion seems to be about MS, Apple, Google and Amazon. I agree many other companies could benefit from proposed changes, but those wouldn't only be American companies, right? So if American big tech loses $X after European law changes, and American, European and Chinese companies pick up that $X, then it follows that American companies collectively have lost some, yes?
Also, if sending US govt staff to Europe to assist in the writing of *European laws* isn't collusion, what is it?
Last edited:
I'm sure you've been told this before but COD was huge before it even touched any console. And yes obviously it got *bigger*, but in the context of when it released, it was as massive as a game could get.
Edit: I see that you clarified more in later posts.
This isn't true. It helped, but Xbox played just as an important role for this to happen. They created the platform to allow CoD multiplayer to be what it is today. No other console player was offering robust infrastructure and support at the time .
marketing deals and exclusive features will do that, before that the larger playerbase was on Xbox for the same reasons.
If anything the COD consumer is extremely unloyal to a brand. They just care where they get the most for their money with COD.
Indeed the large majority of gamers don't have any console loyalty and you can see why Sony knowing MS could potentially have CoD marketing and stuff like first betas etc, when their deal runs out has definitely played into how hard they've been fighting this deal.
Can you imagine the absolute fun Xbox will have if this deal passes and they get to market CoD again when Sony's deal runs out.
That Xbox branding all over stuff like the CoD leagues, and preffered streamers going back to playing the Xbox version of the game.
Just seeing those current PS CoD ads with not a single mention of Xbox on them. To the average lay person makes it look like CoD is more important on PS.
"Reign in big tech" is an over simplification of the issues at hand. The goal is to foster a market where consumers have more companies to choose from, and "little tech" and "medium tech" have opportunities to grow and succeed.
Yes, the largest tech companies are American, but that doesn't mean that an American market authority should be supportive of their anti-competitive efforts to maintain stranglehold's on the markets they participate in. Just the as the beneficiaries of change won't be exclusively American, the companies harmed by current practices aren't exclusive non-American. Beyond that the relevant companies are multinational. So what their headquarters aren't on American soil? They tend to have operations in America and have American employees on American soil. So there's no reason an American body wouldn't have a legitimate interests in the proceedings.
I very much doubt FTC staff is writing laws in Europe. Certainly not in an effort to hurt Business in America. I don't doubt that the FTC would send folks to vocalize what we think would be good legislation. But ultimately, EU is going to be interested in doing what's good for EU, rather than work to appease Kahn.
Last edited:
Sony didn't sign a deal with Microsoft so they are not offered parity like they are for Nintendo/Nvidia/random cloud company
Luna does not have a BYOG model unlike GFN and others. Outside of the exception for Ubisoft but that is more of Ubisoft partnering eith Amazon to be their provider for their Ubi+ subscription.
Luna is kinda weird. It has channels, Luna+, Retro, Family, Jackbox Games and Ubisoft+. Additionally you can bring your own Ubisoft game as long as it was purchased through the Ubisoft PC store.
Microsoft would either have to offer games for Luna+ or offer an Xbox channel that's essentially just Game Pass.
Good point, MS is targeting BYOG services right? Is there any Cloud service that provides B2P?
Not strictly cloud based like Stadia afaik. Their outline contracts and licensing for ABK/MS titles was explicitly for BYOG pc games and nothing more. No MGS or channels or the like
Back to life
A round of diplomatic meetings, economic reports and an earnings season in full flourish make for a busy diary
www.ft.com
Back to life
A round of diplomatic meetings, economic reports and an earnings season in full flourish make for a busy diary
And here we go.
There it isBack to life
A round of diplomatic meetings, economic reports and an earnings season in full flourish make for a busy diary
We're in the endgame now.Back to life
A round of diplomatic meetings, economic reports and an earnings season in full flourish make for a busy diary
I think they're going to sign at least some kind of deal when it passes. They have to, right? I mean, they should've when they had the chance but letting MS do whatever with COD releases will be a grave mistake for Sony.
Why would MS still offer them a deal if it passes? What incentive would MS have for that?
They wouldn't. The time to sign any deal would have been during the scrutiny phase
Yeah, I think these past couple weeks would have been… louder if the CMA was still on-track to block/require structural remedies. Obviously we don't know for sure but things have been seemingly trending in the other direction for a little while nowBack to life
A round of diplomatic meetings, economic reports and an earnings season in full flourish make for a busy diary
how reliable is the financial times?Back to life
A round of diplomatic meetings, economic reports and an earnings season in full flourish make for a busy diary
My ATVI stock is ready.Back to life
A round of diplomatic meetings, economic reports and an earnings season in full flourish make for a busy diary
Extremely. They have sources in high places, all the way to governments.
It's too short tbh.
'The Elder Scrolls VI' doesn't fit in the earlier redaction, but 'Elder Scrolls VI' fits perfectly.
It's basically the British Wall Street Journal. Their tentacles are all over the government and business world in the UK.
thats good then. the end is almost here.
