Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
Interesting, Sony's response makes references to some specifics to the agreement offered by MS. Some parts are darkened out.
The contract seems to have some conditions that compared to the conditions that were in place pre-acquisition may imply circumvention. limitations or increased charges. Also there is a specific mention to a licensing agreement that would do "something" that is blacked out, making Plus less viable, or forcing them to increase MGS prices, or not even including COD in its MGS
I guess it's technically correct that if more people have access to Call of Duty then more people could play a poor version of Call of Duty. Also, I hate that half of that text document is images of text.
Sony is also saying that Microsoft would be able to sell Call of Duty at whatever price they want on Playstation, which would mean that they are at a competitive disadvantage because they can also sell it for whatever price they want on other platforms. Can't this happen already? And are Sony making the case that if they can't price fix the cost of Call of Duty that it's bad for competition? Isn't price fixing and anticompetitive tactic?
Wanted to respond with the Like button but there's no puking eye-roll option.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24489484/codft.png)
Microsoft really wants Call of Duty. - The Verge
Microsoft is now running full-page ads in the Financial Times and the Daily Mail to push for its Activision Blizzard deal to be approved by UK regulators. It comes just as the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) considers Sony’s concerns over Call of Duty (CoD) ahead of a decision on...
www.theverge.com
Lol. Guess it’s true it was never about call of duty.
Inuhanyou
Veteran
It's definitely about call of duty along with everything else activision has. I think it goes without saying they have been trying to block the deal from the start so I'm not sure why this is such a controversy to some.
My question is why start with call of duty alone as an argument when it's clear to everyone Activision as a whole is a huge part of the third party market? I doubt anyone would not understand why Sony wants them to continue to be third party as opposed to locked to a competitor
I think their argument would actually be much stronger if they had lead with arguments on the basis of Activision itself being too big to be controlled by a publisher with incentive cut out what it considers direct competitors rather than a weak complaint about lack of call of duty hurting Sony's business
Even their most recent responses have been about COD. It's mentioned multiple times along with their complaints that they can't price fix COD and the implication that if more people play Call of Duty that just means there will be more people that will be hurt by the merger because there will be more people playing a bad game if the game is bad.
Inuhanyou
Veteran
That's what I'm saying. It's quite a silly case if their goal is to stop the deal when there are far stronger arguments they could have used. Isolating it to cod doesn't make much sense when they are clearly worried about way more than just cod
This sounds a lot like a psychological and information warfare using the media. In the report they mentioned a lot more concerns and some specifics related to the deal. But they keep quoting that paragraph about the "bugs" because it makes a bigger sensation with public opinion.
The report mentions additional concerns like MS making important games exclusive to their platforms for example, and parts of the COD contract where MS demands terms that did not exist pre-acquisition that affect Sony's pricing and their MGS.
They also mention how MS is bringing the resolution of the dispute with Sony in the Media instead of directly resolving it with them, and the above exhibits exactly that and it cotradicts what is actually mentioned in Sony's report: The offer may actually NOT be better than the one made with Activision pre-acquisition
They are also using words like "market leader" "80%" and "better deal that they ever had" using the span of the offer (10 years) as an argument which shows the control of the narrative just like politics. The details of the offer are never made public but we get a hint in Sony's report with MS requiring Sony to pay additionally or accept undesireable terms.
Pre-acquisition Sony and MS would negotiate with activision about the pricing. The game existing on PS was not subject of negotiation. It was guaranteed. MS comes with a contract where now MS adds their own terms according to their own broader strategy. The terms between Sony and Activision are not the same as they used to. This is why Sony does not accept it and sees it as a trojan horse. "Ok we want to reassure the regulators to make the deal happen with this 10 year deal contract for you to sign, ensuring you get it for that life span but we are taking the opportunity to include our additional terms and you will be binded to these terms that didnt exist before. 2 in 1 win situation for us"
edit: They also mention that in the past MS did not respect the assurances/remedies they promised to the commissions, and are not afraid of doing things their own way even if they might get fined,
The report doesnt talk only about COD, but when they mention a game title it is the game of choice since it is one of Activision's crazily successful franchises. But they should have made more mentions to the whole IP ownership and Activision's size though to make their point better
Last edited:
Nintendo is indifferent regarding CoD since they didnt have it. Its free lunch for them. MS came with a proposal that wasnt there in any form before.
Their console survives and thrives in it's own merits. Sony is in a situation where they understand that they are in a losing situating whether they sign or not with the deal, they view it as have been checkmated. Whatever they do within the terms of MS and the deal's approval is against them in one way or another. The only win situation for them, is for ABK to remain independent. They are trying to throw the chessboard set up by MS away and continue like before
Their console survives and thrives in it's own merits. Sony is in a situation where they understand that they are in a losing situating whether they sign or not with the deal, they view it as have been checkmated. Whatever they do within the terms of MS and the deal's approval is against them in one way or another. The only win situation for them, is for ABK to remain independent. They are trying to throw the chessboard set up by MS away and continue like before
You arent getting the exact quote and under its full context though. Thats someone paraphrasing and oversummarizing Sony's full position. Ofcourse they want to block the merger and this isnt about simply having CoD.
Sony's report describes that context plus a lot more than just having or not having CoD
Sony's report describes that context plus a lot more than just having or not having CoD
Microsoft probably doesn't have to guarantee content parity or let alone a high quality release for Nintendo platform. Releasing a single game within the allotted time is probably good enough for them to not to refuse ...
Sony is probably concerned that Microsoft will attempt to siphon off resources for the CoD IP so that they can then use it to create a new GaaS FPS franchise to their own benefit and will not be subject under terms of any deal. How do they know that they won't pull the rug under them by not releasing CoD every year or intentionally make the new entries subpar quality ? I imagine that this is the line of thought that the CMA is sharing with them to want MS to at least divest CoD IP along with their teams ...
Don't take what I wrote seriously. I saw an opportunity for a zinger as a light hearted jest giving the back and forth on this thread.
I don't think Lulu is actually writing something substantial, there's just no way they have Jim on record that he said those words.
If so, its a bad look for the CMA to actually block the deal, because you need to block on actual merits and not just because the leader of the market by a large margin wants to block it; the deal would have an easy time going through if they have this on record.
According to the narrative from the company that doesn't provide any figures for comparison.
And again, the CMA operates only in the UK where PS is nothing like 80% of the console market even factoring in last gen. Nor even most recent sales ratios with PS5 breaking out of a constrained supply. Nor comparing revenues which is 16B:24B, or 2:3. And that's taking the console space in some bizarre isolation from the whole 'home gaming sector' (to exclude mobile) that incudes the MS dominated PC OS and Nintendo handhelds. Compare Sony's revenue and sales as part of the whole of home gaming, it's not 80%. Sony is 40% of the Sony:MS:Nintendo console triumvirate, which is 27% of the whole gaming sector. So Sony is 40% of 27%, about 11% of the entire gaming sector, versus 19% for PC downloads. Figures from here:
So, yeah, it turns out that '80% market share' bullet point argument really gets my goat.
According to the narrative from the company that doesn't provide any figures for comparison.
View attachment 8432
So, yeah, it turns out that '80% market share' bullet point argument really gets my goat.
Similar threads
