Yup.
I dunno, while myself I do want MS to take over ABK because it's a dumpster fire that will burn itself out the way it's progressing, this is precisely the reason I think Sony and CMA have completed overstated COD' importance.
Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
I dunno, while myself I do want MS to take over ABK because it's a dumpster fire that will burn itself out the way it's progressing, this is precisely the reason I think Sony and CMA have completed overstated COD' importance.
Sony entered the market earlier against weaker competition. Sony worked with nintendo on an add on to the super nes that became the playstation. When sony entered the market they also paid for exclusives and at the time on consoles japanese developers were still the big hitters for consoles.
MS entered the market almost a decade after Sony mid way through a generation where Sony already had the lion share of the market.
So now MS is trying to make more inroads and they are simply doing what sony has been doing since the onset which is buying up developers. If the regulators cared about making sure the market stays open and competitive they would never have allowed sony to buy an outside studio and surely wouldn't have allowed it after the dominance sony displayed during the ps2 era. But they have what purchased a dozen studios or so since then ?
The only way to create content is to purchase someone who is already making content or start from the ground up. Even sony has shown that purchasing those already making it is the preferred way but now they don't want other companies to do so.
If the regulators cared about the market they would be encouraging stronger competition. I could easily understand UK stepping in if MS had purchased a dozen studios and in a generation went from last to overwhelming first and then they wanted to buy activision. But considering that MS is in last and has been in last every console generation they have been part of it seems silly to think that just buying activision will change it
Metal_Spirit
Regular
I question you. If Microsoft used half of the 70 billion on content creation and studios creation, on a not crippled console, would Sony still be here?
But no... While Sony grew it´s studios, Microsoft closed them: BigPark, Good Science Studio, Leap Experience Pioneers, Team Dakota, Function Studios and SOTA were disbanded, Lionhead and Press Play were closed. Just here we have 8 studios!
So, the way to create content... Is to create content... Buy talent, grow studios, and create great games. That's how all companies grow... Microsoft did not do that... It went the other way around. And now it tries to recover by buying others.
Take a look at the studios Sony aqquired recently,
Insomniac - Not a multiplatform company. For more than a decade it worked mainly producing exclusives, one for Microsoft, all others for Sony.
Housemarque - Not producing a multi game since 2012. Working since then on PS Exclusives.
Nixxes - Mostly working as a colaborator, it specialized on converting games between platforms. Not a multiplatform creator.
Firesprite - Created in 2012, it produced only 4 small games, one multi platform and 3 PS exclusives.
Bluepoint Games - Lots of games and a huge history on PS exclusives, mostly remakes, remasters or convertions.
Haven Studios - Never produced a game.
Bungie - Multiplatform producer since it separated from Microsoft. It was bought and remained multiplatform.
And now Microsoft:
Zenimax Media - Announced Starfield and Elder Scrolls VI as multiplatform. Now, CMA is saying they are exclusives.
Obsidian - A multi platform producer, taht was producing Outer Worlds 2 and Avowed before aquisition. CMA claims both are now exclusives.
inXile . Multi platform team. CMA claims it´s now producing an Exclusive.
Ninja Theory - multi platform team. Since aquired produced Bleeding Edge and Hellblade 2. Two Xbox exclusives.
Compulsion Games - CMA claims it was developing Midnight. Now an Xbox exclusive.
A Double Fine - Launched Psychonauts 2 on Playstation, but no PS5 native version.
These are all companies listed buy CMA as multi platform that Microsoft aquired for total or pacial exclusivity.
According to them, showing a pattern that can be also used on Activision.
I do not want to take sides on this (specially because this has to do with market rules and regulations, and not console preferences, and I do not consider my self an expert on market rules), but the reality is that you cannot compare Sony aquisitions with Microsoft aquisitions, since no Sony recently bought team ever took anything away from Microsoft.
And regulators care about the market, just not the market as you see it. Competition is fine as long as others can still compete in equal terms, and according to CMA, that may not be the case.
I know football has in every fan a potential team manager. But now we are also seeing every console fan as a potential regulator...
And why do you think is that?
exactly this
1) Sony would be fine , this isn't the 70s where you could make a game in a few months. If MS took 70B and started up studios you wouldn't see a finished product from any of those studios for almost a decade. So If MS did that today we wouldn't see any of it until almost the ps7 generation.
2) Sony bought its studios. I already in a previous post showed how all the big titles from the ps3 generation onward are purchased studios
3) Yes look at the developers sony has bought , I already did this they studios they bought are producing the best content on the playstation platform because its easier to buy up a fully functional studio already producing great content than it is to build new teams from nothing. You are only proving my point. There is a whole lot of talent that sony purchased that could have been making great content for all platforms. But its locked into sony but its apparently not okay for MS to do the same
4) Yes they are the same as the studios sony bought. Fully functional studios capable of producing games and having games already to release. Take a look at Insomniac sony purchased them only after spiderman released and they proved how talented they were and they only got spiderman because their previous microsoft funding game was so good
At the end of the day the CMA has no issue with Sony the market leader buying Companies and taking their production exclusive but it does when the third place company wants to do so.
You also make the assertion that the CMA is correct when they say Elder Scrolls VI and Starfield were announced as multiplatform but that isn't actually true.
Starfield is Bethesda’s big, new game — here’s your first look
Starfield’s teaser has us hoping for Elder Scrolls in space
www.polygon.com
Starfield 2018 announcement . There are no platforms listed for it. At e3 2021 they announced Windows/ Xbox as the platforms. So the game was never announced for a sony platform.
And here is the Elder Scrolls VI trailer which again no platforms announced.
As for your last comment. if you don't want to take part in a discussion then perhaps don't vist a discussion board? I see nothing the CMA is doing as wanting a health market because if they did they would be encouraging competition not protecting market dominance
Rad was published by Bandai Namco so did Microsoft even have a say or were they fulfilling existing obligations to another party ?
It's not just about releasing content on platforms they don't control but it's also about a big corporation here denying content releases with existing multiplatform IPs on competitors whenever possible. Windows on mobile hardware died off so Android/iOS stopped being a threat to Microsoft altogether hence having no qualms behind releasing content or services there as opposed Sony with PS ...
You might not be satisfied with this answer but that's because it's far more cumbersome to break platform monopoly than it is to establish a retailer monopoly. GoG/Epic/Steam largely sell products that are only compatible with Windows so even if Microsoft doesn't have a retailer monopoly they're totally content with that because they aren't being threatened in any form there ...
In this case the meaning behind "good faith" is that multiplatform content release decisions don't have conflicts of interests with their owners (Microsoft). The CMA has outlined this concern as "input foreclosure" where Microsoft has the power to gate off Sony's access to Activision Blizzard's content ...
Until Microsoft can somehow show the CMA that they won't abuse this power for anti-competitive purposes then approval for their acquisition could very well remain out of reach ...
On the bright side, Daybreak Game company doesn't have any conflicts of interest with Sony anymore so they can make their content multiplatform any time they want ...
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I am not looking at what Microsoft are saying to other regulators, but if a regulator publishes a report outline its concerns about the entire market (not just Sony) and Microsoft respond with a generic bunch of lines all of which are Sony-centric, this is simply lazy. This akin to writing a generic CV but never tailoring it was a specific job application.
I covered this in a post weeks ago and the solution is to commit to supportingPlayStation (and even Nintendo) if is commercially and technically viable. If this was ever a point of contention, the regulator would be the arbitrator.
If you read the CMA report, that are looking to the future of the market. Not now, nor just Sony, but for anybody else who may wish to enter the market. Committing to support Sony until whenever this generation ends, gives Sony a marginal edge over any other competitor who may enter the market later this generation or in future. The CMA set all this out and none of what Microsoft said has addressed it.
From the low-effect answer which doesn't address most of the concerns, it almost looks like Microsoft have had a change of heart and want a regulator to kibosh the whole deal.
Last comment aside, I completely get what Microsoft want, which is to acquire properties and use them in a way which is best for Microsoft. That's the point of owning things and it makes perfect sense. But along with the general vibes across Norther American and Europe about big tech becoming "too big" and various legal motions - albeit moving slowly - to break up big companies, it feels like we've hit a point where there is more reluctance to approve this deals in certain markets. And again, and I keep saying it, Microsoft do not release all IP on all platforms. Not everything released on Windows is on macOS. Not would it make sense to do so. We know Elder Scrolls VI and Starfield are not coming to PlayStation. Folks immediately talk about Call of Duty and multiplayer and cross-platform user bases but Microsoft already have MO games like Sea of Thieves and Grounded which seem to do just fine on PC and Xbox (also not on Mac).
Does anybody really think Microsoft wouldn't be at least willing to see what happens with a Call of Duty game being only on Xbox or PC? Because I sue as hell do, and going further, I think they would be foolish not to experiment with this. Because I think they would be a real spurt in Xbox sales, or at least XCloud subs although I doubt streaming would really be a good substitute for local hardware.
Last edited by a moderator:
unquestionably.
You think you can just wield 35B and suddenly game developer talent will come over and build great games from the ground up?
Where is that talent? Why do you think acquisitions even exist? It's like saying it's time to build engines from scratch all over again instead of using Unreal.
The time for that much organic growth would be decades in the making. No amount of money will change that, and it's completely inefficient to think that just because you had 35B to wield to create new studios and titles that any of them would actually merit a proper return.
If it's so easy to knock Sony out by dumping 35B to build from scratch new studios and IPs, any company in Silicon Valley would have done it by now. You don't think Google, Amazon, or Facebook would have done that by now? Why do you think Google, Amazon, MS, and Facebook pay so much for their employees? Because they are hiring the best, and there are only so many of the best, and the best cost a lot. You think you can make AAA titles with massive return with a bunch of coders that graduated university for 50K salary and have no experience in gaming? Have you ever attempted to apply for a coding position at a Game development studio? Do you have any idea how hard those interview tests are?
Creative process is one of the hardest things to predict in terms of what will do well and what won't, video games with its hundreds of moving parts, combined with creativity, and among the most cutting edge of technology we have today is not easy to just spin up a bunch of studios as though the only reason they weren't around is because people didn't open their wallets.
Developers _regularly_ hop between studios as they are offered more salary to do it. What do you think would happen if MS started a new studio, it would just pull all the developers from other studiios to form a new one and go through _all_ the growing pains that comes with making a studio and a game would never be built in the time frame they want. But established studios are ready to go, workflows completed, HR completed, management is there, projects managers are there the real estate for the studio is established, the food workflows, the health benefits, the pay structure, hardware is there, licensing for software, all the custom tools they have to build to import and export models into their engines, all their connections and workflows to other companies, all the software the 3rd party software they have to pay for to do their work, and handling the contracts and the pay roll -- and of course there are the game IPs.
You keep looking at just the developers, but there are millions of moving parts in creating a studio here that is capable of creating a triple A game. If you're going to build a new studio from scratch anyway, you may as well acquire them and bolster them, as opposed to building them from the bottom up. It's nonsensical to accomplish this any other way.
it takes months to onboard new personnel. Months when you look at the interview process and the onboarding and training process. Ubisoft Toronto is still filling out their studio here, and they've been here for nearly a decade and still not at their target of personnel they promised the government here that they would hire.
Last edited:
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I mean, using your own words that's like saying...
Only the big difference here (and on all consoles Xbox included) is that unlike Windows PC, there can be no competing storefronts because they are prohibited from existing on console platforms. So both retailer monopolies are easy to maintain on consoles.
So, it's obvious that it's difficult (impossible) to break platform monopoly, but it's significantly easier to establish a retailer monopoly or to use the same phrasing as the first part of the claim ... significantly easier to break a retailer monopoly on Windows PC. Yet MS never seriously attempted to break that position. Even while they put out some half-hearted attempts to make some of their exclusive titles Windows Store (Gears 4, for example) only in an attempt to gain some traction for the store, they still released many of their exclusive franchises on Steam (Halo: Spartan Assault, AOE, Ori and the Blind Forest, and many others).
Basically, at no point did MS seriously attempt or desire to become the dominant retailer platform on PC. If so, they could have dumped billions (buying exclusivity of multiple AAA titles as Epic attempted to do) into the attempt as well as making ALL of their exclusive IPs exclusive to the Windows store. Rather they did just enough to try to make it a relevant competing platform to other existing platforms by only making a small number of their IPs exclusive to the Windows Store.
Regards,
SB
It would likely be for this generation only as there is no PS6 unless Sony want to divulge that information forward and that's not going to happen.
The CMA also leaves out entirely what Sony or others are capable of doing to respond or compete. The majority of what I saw was a report that said, due to MS owning Azure + Xbox + important IPs = recipe where no other competitor can possibly compete with, therefore foreclosures for everyone else.
I respect we have different interpretations from reading it, but that's entirely what I got from it - I do I agree there are concerns, and those are valid. The fact that they didn't take into account anything about how others could compete or have been competing in this manner I found to be lacking. The document did really read to me as, this combination of MS + Cloud + Game Pass + IPs = unstoppable.
I do agree with you that it needs to be investigated. I just don't like the reasons CMA put forward to move to a phase II.
Last edited:
Even console vendors don't have total retail monopoly when we consider retailers behind physical copies of console games such as Gamestop/Amazon/Walmart/etc ...
Console vendors only exercise monopoly on a very specific form of retail which are limited to digital stores since they can't just easily block out of markets without reliable access to the internet or customers who want ownership of game copies ...
Sony’s List Of ‘Demands’ For Microsoft Owning ‘Call Of Duty’ Is Ridiculous
No one is fighting back harder against Microsoft’s pending acquisition of Activision Blizzard than Sony, and this week, it seems they have possibly swayed UK regulators to their side.
www.forbes.com
Sony’s List Of ‘Demands’ For Microsoft Owning ‘Call Of Duty’ Is Ridiculous
No one is fighting back harder against Microsoft’s pending acquisition of Activision Blizzard than Sony, and this week, it seems they have possibly swayed UK regulators to their side.This resulted in the release of a lengthy document from the UK’s CMA regulatory body, including a number of eye-popping passages that stand out if you read through the sprawling 76 page report.
One thing that caught my eye was Sony’s cautionary tale about the “dangers” of Microsoft controlling Call of Duty for consumers, which reads like a list of demands of things that Microsoft shouldn’t be allowed to do if they take possession of the franchise. Among them:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
And that's why a commitment based on technical and commercial viability is the sensible approach. This covers Microsoft having to support Sony or Nintendo platforms if they are technically deficit to future Xbox hardware, or if either user bases are too small.
This is an absurd position to take. Microsoft are buying Activision-Blizzard, that is the known quantity. That is what regulators can seek information on from the parties directly involved. It is not reasonable to expect every regulator to make an speculative assessments of what any third party, in any particular territory, could do to counter any approval of an acquisition.
This is like blaming shooting victims for not wearing body armour. Sure, we sold that gun to that guy but you should have worn bought armour. No country has monopoly regulation written like this. Perhaps we should stick to what legislation requires rather that try to re-write the legislation of planet earth.
The UK has - for the most part - really good diversity in most markets. That is the reality for a reason. If Microsoft by Activision Blizzard, on top of their acquisition of Zenimax, and all of their other internal studios, with Sony and Nintendo also both having a diverse range of internal studios, how could any third party expect to enter the market and compete? Think of it not as Microsoft acquiring all these studios, but all these studios no longer being independent and able to serve any viable platform that exists now or may exist in the future.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Your post ended prematurely, but I have no doubt that Sony's demands are indeed ridiculous.
Both companies are trying to leverage the situation.But if you read - or at least skim - the CMA's report laments that for two decades that only three companies have been able to compete in this market and that less independent industry diversification - resulting for this acquisition - would make this situation worse. This is basically their entire position. I expect Sony to get a proportionately similar amount of scrutiny for their proposed acquisition of Bungie.
This not not about Microsoft vs Sony, this is just a statement of the fact that very large companies now dominate the market and that this is a very shitty situation to be in.
Your post ended prematurely, but I have no doubt that Sony's demands are indeed ridiculous.
But if you read - or at least skim - the CMA's report laments that for two decades that only three companies have been able to compete in this market and that less independent industry diversification - resulting for this acquisition - would make this situation worse. This is basically their entire position. I expect Sony to get a proportionately similar amount of scrutiny for their proposed acquisition of Bungie.
This not not about Microsoft vs Sony, this is just a statement of the fact that very large companies now dominate the market and that this is a very shitty situation to be in.
Isn't the bungie purchase complete.
Sure, but that's unlikely to happen because they'd likely never be able to agree on the terms of this.
Exclusivity is basically the video game industry at large. That is the main practice between platforms, and it hasn't changed since it's started. The first thing Amazon did when they entered the market was to announce their exclusives. This is nothing new, the only difference is that COD is made to stand on a platform by itself much higher than the rest. COD has it's time in the sun today, but it won't in perpetuity, and everyone knows this. It's not a strong defense and once again, if losing market share is such a big problem, why flex your market dominance by increasing your prices for console and software and continually break revenue records. It's not absurd and it's clear at least imo, Sony has more than sufficient ways to deal with losing entirely CoD.
The acquisition was completed as of July earlier this year.
No scrutiny, no blocking. Just some probes.
It was a teaser snippet from the article to incite the reader to click through to read it all.
Nope. It went through without any scrutiny. The difference in handling of the acquisitions is why so many are finding the CMA to be a farce.
Similar threads
