Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
At the risk of bringing up things that happened over a decade ago....
Rare developed and released Diddy Kong racing for DS in 2007. Sort of makes sense because it's based on a Nintendo IP. But they also made Viva Pinata: Pocket Paradise in 2008 for DS.
Also, isn't Banjo Kazooie on Nintendo Switch Online already? And Goldeneye is confirmed on it's way.
You forgot Hunted: The Demon's Forge, Rogue Warrior, and Brink. I also wish I forgot Brink, but that's another story. Not Bethesda but Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity is on there as well. Although it was published by Paradox, MS owns the IP.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Uh, no duh, just like exclusive COD content on PlayStation currently benefits the dominant market leader (Sony PlayStation)?
So, uh, is Sony complaining to the CMA that Sony is engaging in "partial foreclosure" strategies against Microsoft by spending large sums of money to have exclusive COD content on their platform? Oh my. Also, I'm sure it's costing Sony far less money to engage in those "partial foreclosure" activities than Microsoft would be. IE - Sony isn't spending anywhere near 69 billion USD to engage in "partial foreclosure" activities.
Isn't Sony, as the dominant market player, also engaging in partial foreclosure strategies against Microsoft (and Nintendo and the rest of the industry) by having exclusive content on their platform?
Also, I don't see Sony complaining to the CMA when a title operates better on their platform than it does on the competitor's platform.
Nope, definitely not enough to have COD available on PlayStation. In addition to that all exclusive content must either reside on PlayStation or there shall be no exclusive content. I mean if ALL exclusive content doesn't exist on PlayStation, then there's no way they could possibly compete against the much smaller Xbox and so they'll be forced to shut down PlayStation. So please CMA, help Sony keep most of the exclusives on PlayStation even if an IP is owned by its competitor.
What a load of bollucks.I almost wonder if the CMA publicly released that information in order to see what the public's reaction to it would be? They can't possibly be that stupid (or corrupt) as to buy into Sony's arguments that the CMA should attempt to help Sony attain even greater market share if MS were allowed to purchase Activision-Blizzard?
Hey CMA, make sure MS will release COD on PlayStation as long as MS continues to develop that IP is a reasonable request.
Hey CMA, make sure that MS are not allowed to have any exclusive content (DLC) in COD (please ignore that we've have exclusive content/DLC on PlayStation for over a decade now) is an unreasonable request, IMO.
Hell, maybe it would have been better if MS had just used that 69 billion USD to buy exclusivity of titles from ALL publishers instead of acquiring anyone? That certainly would have been much better, eh?
That likely would have gotten them exclusive access to COD as well as 10's or 100's of other titles from all publishers without having to get regulatory approval.Regards,
SB
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I guess so, although according to their last filing to Companies House, it's a fairly extensive organisation - and they use a very expensive accountant. Also according to their last filing, somebody at Activision-Blizzard doesn't know how to use their copier or scanner.Interesting. So all ABK has to do is relocate their UK points of presence outside the UK and this CMA goes away.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
No, that is the regulator term. The regulator does state in para 160:
In relation to partial foreclosure strategies, the Parties submitted that CoD has provided exclusive or timed-exclusive downloadable content for either Sony or Microsoft since 2005, and that these arrangements have not led to either Sony or Microsoft being foreclosed.
All of the points in your post, are in fact addressed by the report, which I know is long but come on man..
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
I think MS should call Sony's bluff if this acquisition gets blocked - No more exclusive content. All MS games must be on PS and all Sony games must be on Xbox. It's only fair. Sony should be careful what they wish for.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
How does Microsoft force force Sony to develop and release games on Xbox? You cannot force a company to develop games for a particular bespoke platform. Well.. maybe in Russia and North Korea.
Microsoft already have the option of developing and releasing all their games on PlayStation, Switch, Mac, Linux.. they don't need legislation to do, that just have to genuinely want to. Which of course, they don't. The same reason Nintendo don't want Pokemon on Microsoft and Sony consoles.
Or in CMA territory ...
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
What does that mean? Are you saying that Microsoft cannot compete in the console space compete unless Nintendo and Sony release their games on Xbox?
What is it you would be asking the CMA to do and why?
Last edited by a moderator:
It means the joke flew over your head.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Apparently so. Perhaps you could explain it..
The joke is that you said that you cannot force your product to be onto a competitor's platform unless you are in Russia or North Korea. He said or in a CMA country. This implies that if ABK merger would be denied unless MS came to write in terms that it would forever be available on Playstation and other competitors for indefinite period of time; CMA is holding ABK merger hostage and forcing a product to a competitor's platform which many are citing the solution to be to this particular problem since CMA states that MS can break contracts whenever they feel like it, which is why they don't take them at their word, therefore, we cannot trust them at their words until they have a written contract of complete MP in perpetuity and signed with court legal systems.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
@iroboto gotchya. Although the CMA has not done any of these things claimed. This far, they have only released a report on stage 1 of their assessment.
As for contracts, they they are only as binding as they are effectively enforced and if you pocket-book are big enough, it can be advantageous to just pay fines or tie-up the other party is endless litigation. You may recall in recent years Microsoft was investigated by several EU member states about breaches of GDPR, something they refused to change. Can you blame European regulators for not wholly trusting Microsoft to honour contracts if they won't even honour EU law?
As for contracts, they they are only as binding as they are effectively enforced and if you pocket-book are big enough, it can be advantageous to just pay fines or tie-up the other party is endless litigation. You may recall in recent years Microsoft was investigated by several EU member states about breaches of GDPR, something they refused to change. Can you blame European regulators for not wholly trusting Microsoft to honour contracts if they won't even honour EU law?
Cynicalking
Regular
You must be really fun at parties.
Full MS response document
Last edited:
Cynicalking
Regular
Sorry, pls delete
Cynicalking
Regular
Dude, its not an insult and I'm sorry if you took it that way. I meant it as a way to tell you to chill out, you're "correcting" someone over a very obvious joke on an internet forum.@Reynaldo wow insults? So much for civilised discourse.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Some interesting stuff in there. So nothing about xCloud uses Azure? It's been speculated at in the forums as to the viability of using Xbox hardware for non-gaming tasks, or even broader Azure server hardware for gaming but no. It's less clear if xCloud is running outside infrastructure built for Azure, I mean why build two data centres? Interesting stuff.
The opening sentence is fascinating though, "Microsoft’s proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard will give more people more choices for how to play games and give developers more choices for how to reach those people". It will give more choices for Xbox/PC/xCloud owners accessing these particular IP, but more people? As for giving developers more choice, do they mean third party developers? If so.. how? Why do third parties developers need Microsoft to buy Activision-Blizzard? Can't they just opt into GamePass now?
Xcloud is built entirely of Series X hardware and unless something has changed it’s still the only dedicated silicon to supporting xcloud.Some interesting stuff in there. So nothing about xCloud uses Azure? It's been speculated at in the forums as to the viability of using Xbox hardware for non-gaming tasks, or even broader Azure server hardware for gaming but no. It's less clear if xCloud is running outside infrastructure built for Azure, I mean why build two data centres? Interesting stuff.
The opening sentence is fascinating though, "Microsoft’s proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard will give more people more choices for how to play games and give developers more choices for how to reach those people". It will give more choices for Xbox/PC/xCloud owners accessing these particular IP, but more people? As for giving developers more choice, do they mean third party developers? If so.. how? Why do third parties developers need Microsoft to buy Activision-Blizzard? Can't they just opt into GamePass now?
Mobile only people (2 billion) of them is much larger than the console market (200M-300M). If more games come to game
Pass and therefore xcloud, 2B people now have access to those titles. So you have a situation where currently the over saturation in games released this year has a much larger and wider audience, they may have significantly more response in getting more people playing their games.
For the same reason Sony only makes single player adventure titles; platform holders have an advantage and imperative in rounding out their library and catalog to get the largest number of players since they profit on all interactions. 3rd party softwares don’t, so they are left to just produce the same low risk high return titles repeatedly.
Similar threads
