
Update: Stephen Totilo of Axios has also been in touch with the European Commission today, shedding a bit more light on this story. You can some of the key information in the tweets below:
Totilo goes on to explain that "if you look back at the EU report on the ZeniMax deal, it did state that Microsoft said it 'would not have the incentive to cease or limit making ZeniMax games available for purchase on rival consoles'."
Therefore, he points out that the FTC didn't say "Microsoft broke a promise to keep ZeniMax games exclusive, but that Microsoft gave assurances that it didn’t have an incentive to withhold ZeniMax games from rival platforms."
It's all getting a bit confusing now, huh?
Original story: The European Commission has unexpectedly come to the aid of Microsoft today, clearing up a few facts that the FTC appears to have misunderstood when announcing its attention to file a lawsuit over the Activision Blizzard takeover.
One of the concerns the US Federal Trading Commission has over the deal is that Microsoft supposedly gave assurances to European antitrust authorities that it had "no incentive to withhold games from rival consoles" when acquiring ZeniMax Media (Bethesda) back in early 2021. In their official statement, the FTC pointed to the likes of Starfield and Redfall as breaking these assurances.
FTC: "Microsoft decided to make several of Bethesda's titles including Starfield and Redfall Microsoft exclusives despite assurances it had given to European antitrust authorities that it had no incentive to withhold games from rival consoles."
However, in a new (paywalled) report published by MLex today (and transcribed on ResetEra), the EU commented to the outlet that Microsoft never made any commitments about not releasing Xbox exclusive ZeniMax content:
MLex (via ResetEra): "Microsoft didn't make any 'commitments' to EU regulators not to release Xbox exclusive content following its takeover of ZeniMax Media, the European Commission said."
As pointed out in the report, Microsoft previously told the European Commission that it would honour "ZeniMax’s obligations to continue to make its current games available on other gaming hardware", including two timed PlayStation exclusives in the form of Deathloop and Ghostwire: Tokyo. At the time of the Bethesda acquisition, Microsoft confirmed that it would "not make any existing ZeniMax games exclusive to Xbox".
However, in terms of future games such as Starfield and Redfall, Microsoft stated that it would make decisions about exclusivity "on a case-by-case basis". Here's the full quote:
Microsoft: "Future decisions on whether to distribute ZeniMax games for other consoles will be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account player demand and sentiment, Microsoft’s strategic and financial goals, and the willingness of third-party gaming hardware providers to run Microsoft games and services."
The European Commission's response today explained that the ZeniMax deal was permitted as it "would not raise competition concerns". According to the report, the reason for this was because even if Xbox made Bethesda's titles exclusive, it wouldn't have a significant impact as rivals wouldn't be denied access to an "essential input".
Despite all of this, the FTC, EU and CMA (in the UK) are all currently putting a lot of attention on Microsoft's attempt acquisition of Activision Blizzard, with the FTC's lawsuit being joined by extensive investigations from the EU and CMA right now. All three have concerns with the deal, but Microsoft is still confident the transaction will go through.
What are your thoughts on this? Tell us down in the comments below.
[source content.mlex.com, via resetera.com]
Comments 144
We got this charade for possibly another year 😑
It seems that FTC are not doing their job properly. I would advise them to double-check Sony's claims and to be unbiased.
@Banjo- it’s all very political. The current leader of the FTC wants to make a name for herself and has been stated saying she’d take big companies to court just to make them nervous about going through with any mergers, even though she knows they’ll lose.
This deal will go through, the FTC are taking Microsoft to court with no basis. EU regulators have come out and basically destroyed the FTC’s main reason for going to court. This is why I found the push square thread on this so amusing yesterday, if any of them bothered to actually look into things away from a PS centric site they’d see the FTC are playing games and won’t win, but no, Xbox bad.
@Fenbops What a joke of a leader! Microsoft really deserves to win after all this ***** from her (FTC) and from Sony.
@Banjo- it’s all very complicated and our good friend @NEStalgia explained the goings on with the FTC and politics of it all in waaay more detail in the main thread from yesterday. Sony has a part to play sure, but there’s also so much more to this than just them.
@Fenbops Where's that comment to read it?
@Banjo- not sure how to link matey 🤣 just find the FTC article from yesterday and go from there x
@Fenbops Haha 😁 x
the EU commented to the outlet that Microsoft never made any commitments about not releasing Xbox exclusive ZeniMax content
Yet that didn't stop Sony fan(boys) keep telling us that Microsoft did lied the EU Regulators, hence why the FTC are (considering) taking them to court...well I never 😁.
Don't care what they say the fact remains the minute that acquisition went through starfield & redfall became Xbox exclusive when they were going to be multiplatform
@Banjo- Random, I know, but I always appreciate your commentary!
@Would_you_kindly that doesn’t matter though because there was zero commitment for those games to ever be multiplatform. Once Microsoft acquired them they had every right to make them exclusive but still honoured remaining contracts for the likes of Deathloop and Ghostwire.
@Would_you_kindly
Don't care what they say the fact remains the minute that acquisition went through starfield & redfall became Xbox exclusive
Of course you don't care, it doesn't suit your narrative😅, but more importantly the EU Regulators don't seem to care either. They will base their ABK decisions on different factors and as a separate case. See if you can deal with that, by letting the process run its course 😁K.
@Fenbops To add to this, the FTC is taking a US military contractor, Microsoft, to court over wanting to buy a video game company. For purely political reasons.
This is going absolutely no where.
@Fenbops I know that I just don't think it was very pro consumer of them & that it was contrary to Phil Spencer's comments about not wanting to take games from other platforms
@Would_you_kindly I can see that point of view also that’s fair. Don’t forget though Sony were rumoured to be trying to buy Starfield exclusivity before Xbox acquired Bethesda, so it may not have been multiplatform for some time even then.
@Sol4ris I don't have a narrative I call things how I see them 🤷♂️
@BBB they didn't announce platforms but they were in development & they won't have only been developing for Xbox unless Microsoft had paid them to do so which I'm sure everyone in here would condemn , so once the acquisition went through someone at Xbox said to shutdown developing the playstation versions which I think is 💩 because it's just wasting the work they did
@Fenbops I didn't hear anything about Sony trying to buy exclusivity of starfield I don't think they would've got it though
The EU regulators might not of said that but they are still joining with FTC and CMA to scrutinise this current deal.
If they didn't have a problem with the Bethesda deal I wonder whats changed for them to act differently with this one.
This must be the first time I've ever seen a foreign continental governing body override a US alphabet soup bureaucracy's party-line decision via media in less than 24 hours. This one goes to the Guinness book for sure!
I said it earlier, but this really demonstrates the FTC did not perform due diligence in good faith when deliberating this case, and that will haunt them. It is obvious they had little understanding of the details of this acquisition or industry, and did not bother to explore it in depth, otherwise they would not have, from both the commissioners and competition spokespersons, cited their main evidence against involving "deception" to the EC, which clearly was untrue from the EC's own text, and the EC itself disclaimed the next day.
My own opinion on this is that the FTC saw a case of Microsoft getting bigger, which aligns with their stated political promise to be aggressive on big tech growth, and did not bother looking further at the specifics of the actual acquisition they were to deliberate, instead simply voting against allowing Microsoft to grow larger. Their opinion was decided as soon as the brief crossed their desks with Microsoft's name on it. Or rather, two had decided and the third was pressured by the chair.
@Banjo- I'm sure you found the volume to read by now But the TL;DR of it is, while I'm sure Sony's arguments are what they used as a cheat sheet to find some reasons to put on paper, including this faulty primary argument, it's not largely even about Sony. There's partisan politics, and ambitious young politically aligned chair appointee that in my opinion is using the FTC chairmanship to set up a future electoral political career, and a partisan incentive to make good on political promises about big tech that are a bigger player here. But it's all for very little, the courts are a very different beast, and this won't hold up. EC just deflated their main argument before it was even filed. What they did do was successfully delay it for potentially a long while, tying it up in courts.
Although the democrat party just ticked off millions upon millions of young, cheap CoD players and switch owners in their target 18-24 demographic. Politically speaking that's like voting to raise taxes right there lol
@Would_you_kindly The rumor was never confirmed nor denied, but the rumor was definitely going around that Sony was trying to buy Starfield exclusivity (or timed exclusivity) prior to the Microsoft buyout. Considering Bethesda was financially in a bad place, their CEO/founder had just died suddenly, they'd just successfully sold Sony 2 exclusive games, and at the time XBox Done was still Microsoft's platform, it's extremely believable the rumor is true, but we will never know for sure. It's extremely possible the game would have been exclusive or timed exclusive no matter what, it just switch which platform has exclusivity. It always would have been on PC though, that's Bethesda's lead.
@InterceptorAlpha What does MS being a US military contractor have to do with anything? Do you really think it will intimidate a court or that MS would drop billions of dollars they make from the military because they were denied an acquisition for the loss leader of their company?
My previous comment is bearing fruit. Lol Poor FTC, so useless.
@UltimateOtaku91 The size. Bethesda is tiny in market share compared to just CoD
i will hold judgment until there is a real statement from the EU. little strange they only gave info to one outlet. when many would be clamouring for a response
@Would_you_kindly You can't take away something a platform never had.
Same how these Epic Store exclusives aren't taking games away from Steam. Since they were never on steam to begin with.
@Serpentes420 You seem to not be familiar with court hearings. Preferential treatment occurs all the time. The system is corrupt. I'm calling my guess based of of decades of watching such things.
The deal will be allowed to go through because the US government won't want to make issues with someone they rely on.
This is basic good business.
On this outside this looks like Sony was able to manipulate the FTC into looking foolish
🤷♂️
No horses in this race. Just here for the show!
@InterceptorAlpha why are people saying that Sony have taken cod away from Nintendo then lol
Is this still going on.
This is heading for the record of longest internet drama in history.
They going on more than I do about Xbox sales 😂🎄
@Would_you_kindly "why are people saying that Sony have taken cod away from Nintendo then lol"
Because Microsoft signed a contract with Nintendo to bring the game to the platform for 10 years post acquisition. So the game actually was "officially announced" for the platform if the deal completed and taken away if it is not (Activision won't do it without MS.) Though it's not really Sony that did it, it's the feds, and it's not really taken away because there's no way the courts actually block it, they just delayed when Nintendo gets it.
@Dusk_Actual Partisan alphabet soup bureaucrats don't need Jim Ryan's help to look foolish. They mastered that craft back when he was still a Brit
@UltimateOtaku91 Call of Duty is the only reason. In their own words about Bethesda above, it didn't stand to deny "essential input" as Zenimax had none. The argument with activision then is down to CoD and the argument, by Sony, that it essential input. Thus the appeasement requirements around contracts for CoD commitments, and concessions. Notice nobody is talking about MS taking away Tony Hawk and Hexen. They are scrutinizing, but largely scrutinizing around if CoD represents, effectively, an industry commodity that must not be permitted to be monopolized by one competitor, and/or if their direct access to it gives their cloud service an unfair advantage preventing other cloud services from ever competing in the market while that market is still emerging.
Their scrutiny is very very different and seems largely specific to particular issues that could be remedied with assurances and restrictions, than the unprecedented political move by FTC to simply vote down the acquisition by any big tech company based on spurious at best, tortious at worst reasoning. That's what makes the FTC move so stunning. They effectively don't even have a stated reason other than that big tech acquisitions are automatically monopolies in their view, and the one reason they did give was based on completely inaccurate understanding of the EC case 2 years ago.
For a non-government agency to file a frivolous lawsuit with arguments that knowingly are, or should knowingly be invalid, or not likely to hold up to the scrutiny of the law, it would itself actually be a finable offense for misuse of the courts, costing public money. For a government agency it's just called "tort" and they can just tax people more to pay for it as they build their careers in doing so. Welcome to Call of Duty: American Politik gamers of the world! Multiplayer should be a blast. I hear Phoenix Wright will be day 1 DLC!
I don't even disagree with them that these big tech mergers are typically bad and many should not have been permitted. But their remit here was to explore the specific market effects of an Activision acquisition, not rebuke Microsoft Corp for having too large a market cap which is what they appear to be doing. Their only reasoning is that it would stifle competition in the market, and their only example of how this is so centers around the concept of platform exclusives existing, as though that is not the industry standard, and they attempt to demonstrate that by referencing this "deception" to the EC, that does not exist.
@Dezzy70 LOL!!
@NEStalgia
We need some laughs with this topic 😊
Well this really works against the FTC
@Would_you_kindly Do we have proof that Starfield and Redfield was going to be multiplatform? Before the Xbox buyout everything was pointing at Sony buy out Starfield exclusive especially after scoring both Deathloop and Ghostwire. Which is what cause Microsoft to jump and buy Zenimax straight out...
I've lost count of the number of times I have defended Microsoft when it comes to the accusation levelled at them that they have gone back on stated agreements. Time and again I've made the point that Microsoft had said they would honour existing agreements, and that other games would be decided on a case-by-case basis. At the time the acquisition of Bethesda was going through, the existence of Starfield was known (I'm not sure that Redfall was publicly known) but no platforms had been indicated one way or the other. Therefore, if a game is not announced as being on a platform, you cannot then take it away from that platform.
As an aside, I have also cited the strongly rumoured Sony attempt to gain Starfield exclusivity as the reason that Xbox then decided to completely buy Bethesda instead. Had Sony not kept pursuing Bethesda games as exclusives (to add to all the other games they were locking down (such as Final Fantasy 7)) I'm not so sure that Xbox would even own Bethesda right now. It was somewhat of an own goal on the part of Sony; they kept buying all the best sweets, so Xbox bought the sweetshop...
@Fiendish-Beaver that’s a great way to look at it.
@UltimateOtaku91 if we are lucky it’s a year.
Ouch, this is not going to go well.
This case might not even make it to discovery, even the internal FTC courts might dismiss it out of the gate.
@Brue Thank you very much! 😉
@Clankylad it’s how (if I understand sand correctly) it works in the US. FTC needs to sue to stop you, or let you through. In the EU and UK it’s the other way around: you are the one that needs to sue the government if they say they don’t want to let you through.
Main reason for this is that in the US the FTC can only block on legal basis, not opinions, so it goes to where laws are informed. In the EU there can be a opinion judgement made by the regulatory bodies, although you always have the right to go to court and have it overruled.
Side note: in the US all traffic tickets also come with court citation dates. You can just pay the ticket and never have to go to court, though. A lot of people get off those tickets simply because the cop that gave you the infraction rarely ever shows up. But don’t ever not show up because then you will get a penalty on top and a very short time frame to pay, or go to jail.
...I think the EU pretty much gave Microsoft legal both their opening and closing arguments given that FTCs main argument was to basically say "Microsoft lied before an they will do it again".
Granted, I am sure Microsoft's legal team already had all official documents on the matter waiting in the wings.
I just want this saga to end so I can have Diablo on Game Pass. 🤣
We have to keep in mind that this is the same FTC that is supposed to protect consumers against a monopoly, while also letting Ticketmaster unabashedly abuse its monopoly.
@UltimateOtaku91 the thing that changed is that Sony went berserk and started screaming at every regulatory body in the world (literally) how this threatened their market dominance (although that part in less obvious words.)
@Floki I think starfield is much more high profile than deathloop or ghostwire , it's a new IP but it's got alot of hype around it & people see it as basically an elder Scrolls game in space I'm not sure Bethesda would've felt a deal with that game would've been worth it , redfall on the other hand I couldve seen being another timed exclusive
@Would_you_kindly nothing wrong with that, it’s business. They purchased something to help their platform out. These titles will do that and Todd Howard prefers to work on Xbox and PC anyways and just spoke about how nice it is to work closely with Ms on Starfield and it being exclusive a good thing for the studio. Sony has plenty of Exclusive titles to make them the far and away market leader.
@Green-Bandit don't get me started on Todd Howard that guys a complete tw@ lol
@Tharsman does a japanese company really have that much influence over an American regulatory board though?
Obviously they have to listen to each sides points but they wouldn't let themselves be basically bribed. And Sony are allowed to log complaints as we would expect Microsoft to do the same if sony were to acquire EA and make fifa exclusive or Rockstar and make GTA exclusive.
@Would_you_kindly
Not a single announced officially announced multi-platform game has been taken away from any platform by Microsoft yet.
Also, Microsoft does not make exclusives. Everyone knows that MS ships all of their games on PC (Windows Store and Steam) and XB. So, gamers always have at least two native platform choices for every game on Day One. Unlike Sony who waits 1, 2, and even more years to ship their games on more then one platform.
@NeoRatt Xbox or an expensive gaming pc running WINDOWS not much of a choice bud
@NEStalgia Thanks.
Even when I try not to, I see Sony's strategy extremely jarring. They are the first company in the video games market, they make PS5/PS4 exclusives and one year or so when sales on PS have plummeted, release them on PC, they block Microsoft games on the PS browser, they buy third-party exclusivity with the only purpose to specifically damage Xbox customers... but still they dare to send all these twisted claims about availability of games and players' interest to the world's rulers, lying to them about Microsoft after crying to Phil Spencer on the phone, when the only thing that they really want is to make the gap between PS and the rest of the world bigger.
@UltimateOtaku91 Sony is an international company, but as far as the FTC and most regulatory bodies in the US, the agencies open communications for any interested party to express their concerns and make a case for opposition. No one (that we know of) made any credible or legal opposition to the Zenimax acquisition.
When it came to ABK, it is not a secret that Sony has hired lawyers world wide to mount legal oppositions.
Another thing that changed in the US is commissioner appointments. 2 commissioner therms expired and got new appointments, one of the new ones became the new Chairman. So entirely different people calling the shots there.
@Would_you_kindly he has his moments, i will admit. But he and Phil are good friends, and Todd has always been a PC, Xbox guy. This just seems like a good fit for Todd and his team and i am sure they will bounce lot’s of idea’s around when internal at MS. I am not the biggest Bethesda game fan, so this deal isn’t a huge get for me. But i think Starfield being on PC and Xbox is good for them both and will get lot’s of attention to both platforms if Starfield is really good.
@Fenbops Yeap, I watched a You Tuber in America I follow, he wised me to this FTC president women and how vindictive she is towards big companies, and that they have lost several court cases this year. Seems they consistently go beyond their legal remits to try and prove a point, but lose in court? Wonder if she will be in charge of the FTC wasting tax payers millions for much longer.
@Would_you_kindly
That is more choice then Sony and Nintendo gives gamers on their first party games.
And if you wanna go cheap then consoles are expensive now-a-days. Go stream the games through GamePass.
Plenty of choice, plenty of price points, plenty of experience options.
@NeoRatt Exactly, the luxury is to buy a huge and out-of-stock PS5 just to play a couple of games. On Xbox, you can even use an Xbox One to stream Series games, or get a Series S for less than what a Switch costs. You can also use Game Pass to save hundreds and buy games with Microsoft Rewards points.
@Would_you_kindly While Starfield is a high profile game. Sony has way too much leverage in the game industry now. They have compete domaince over industry with the PS4 which they still hold with the PS5. That leverage would get them the exclusivity.
TBH Sony could buy up exclusivity for every major game and no one could say no. Their console sales and sale of games on their platform show that games will still sell really good regardless of an Xbox version or not, so why not get that extra money from Sony.
This is why Xbox are doing massive buyout. They are passed the point of being able to compete a lifestyle brand on equal footing. No one is gonna buy an Xbox even if they dropped 20 AAA 10/10 games a year.
@S1ayeR747b 7 year terms. Like the post master general who's idea to improve mail service is less staff, less facilities, less equipment, slower service, hiring freezes, and consolidating facilities. No sanity till 2027 at least!
@UltimateOtaku91 Playstation/SIE is an American company. They're a subsidiary of a Japanese parent headquartered on US soil. They have full legal standing. And politicians accepting bribes.... That's the default starting point. It's normal. The only odd thing about this is that Microsoft is a massive bribe/contributor to the party that's throwing them under the bus.
@Tharsman That's likely, hard to try a case when the baseline is known to be false before the trial. But ftc can still appeal their own court if they want to make a bigger show of it. Otoh they may have both ms and Sony begging them to stop before discovery...
@Dezzy70 Nothing about this topic is anything but laughs!
@Fiendish-Beaver
Buying Zenimax and making their games exclusive is counter to what MS has been saying with regards to Activision. The problem is that COD is some small game or new exclusive without a following, it's in fact one of the biggest games out there and having it exclusive or day one on game pass without having to pay $70 is a game changer and would affect the main competition Sony.
MS is trying to sell this like it's Netflix for gaming and focusing on the sales method. The problem is that this is like Disney buying Amazon and it's not some small company like ZeniMax/Bethesda. MS buying Activision would take them to number 2 or 3 gaming company in size, only behind Tencent worldwide. If MS is promising to keep games multi-platform and is truly about the gamers, then why limit a COD contract to only 10 years? Why not promise every current game like COD, Diablo, WoW, Warcraft etc? If your intent is keeping games multi-platform then why not a longer contract for the whole current catalog of games? Unless you plan to make them exclusive after 10 years is up.
@Floki
Does it really matter if Star Field etc was ever even going to be a multi-platform? The point is it's a MS exclusive and not going multi-platform isn't a point in favor of COD staying multi-platform. If MS really was all about multi-platform and reaching every gamer, why's the contract only 10 years?
What's the point of COD on a Nintendo platform, seeing as it would be years before anything is even playable on a Switch or Switch Pro. People keep talking about the Switch having some violent games etc, but any COD player knows their games are well beyond 50+ GB and would be sub-optimal on a Nintendo Switch and I doubt the amount of players is anywhere near the amount already on Xbox or PlayStation.
@GamingFan4Lyf
Anyone remember the Internet Explorer Antitrust case they lost against the American Government? It's not exactly like MS has been trustworthy when it comes to stamping out the competition by having the software essentially free with Windows. Not to say Apple has been any better in Europe etc.
@NeoRatt streaming isn't a viable option for most people & will never be better than playing a game natively besides I like to own & collect the games I like
@Floki How's one huge conglomerate buying out another huge game conglomerate to become the 2nd largest gaming company worldwide behind Tencent, not a big deal? It's like Apple buying up either Google or Amazon.
@Banjo- Your answer is exactly why MS is being scrutinized so much for this purchase. If MS offers COD day one on game pass, that would have a huge affect on Sony trying to sell it day 1 for $70. For people who says it's only one game, the issue is that it's one of the biggest games out there that gets a new release frequently like Madden Football in the past .
@Banjo- I think you're blowing the size of the ps5 out of proportion , I'm in the minority I really love the design of the ps5 it looks really cool to me
@Would_you_kindly You absolutely have a narrative and agenda based on your comment history. People can see through all of your passive aggressive comments. By the way, learn to use punctuation. Did you not learn that growing up?
@Floki I don't think they really have that much leverage I think If Xbox was to drop charging for multiplayer (ironic since they started it with Xbox live gold) it would shift alot of players over to Xbox I know Id buy all my multiplayer games on Xbox if the paywall was dropped
@Would_you_kindly
To me, if you really want to play all great games you have to buy Nintendo, PS, XB, and PC. All the platforms have some really great exclusives.
Streaming is certainly an option for many casual gamers. As much as I personally want to hate it, I made myself play Destroy All Humans Remastered entirely through streaming and the experience was pretty good. Now, if I am out and about I use my 5G phone to stream games. Of course streaming is not as good as anything locally installed, but isn't as bad as people think it is either.
@cburg It's obvious by now how they're a Sony fanboy troll that's just trying to defend Sony, because of course Sony needs to be defended regardless of what they do or how toxic and antagonistic they behave. No amount of anti-consumer behavior is ever going to be bad in the eyes of Sony fanboys.
@Shinaxis Cause you don't make life time contacts. We don't know where the gaming industry will be in 10, 15, 20 years. In 10 years Microsoft may just drop out of the gaming industry altogether and spin off xbox... They may just move to being a 3rd party publisher at any time.
The world may not even be around in 10 years...
@cburg please tell me what agenda I have , is it to convert everyone on pure Xbox to playstation because that would be a waste of time , I can't remember most of the stuff I learned in school I have a brain disorder
@JayJ have you seen the comments I've made on push square I'm critical of all of the big 3
@NeoRatt I have Xbox one , switch & ps5 just not been interested in anything on the other 2 consoles in a long while I got the switch really just for mario & the Xbox for gears of war & halo & the latest halo really pissed me off
@Would_you_kindly That definitely ain't happening unless they go 3rd party. Services like Xbox live is the only thing making any real money.
The fact that the FTC and the EU are even listening to anything Sony say show how much leverage they have. The buyout would have probably already gone through if Sony wasnt over here having a fit.
They didn't make the likes of Minecraft exclusive....there is a total lack of common sense used here....ofcourse cod is going to stay multi platform...let's be honest that's all playstation care about ...sure other Activision games might go exclusive
@Shinaxis When did I say that a huge conglomerate buying out another huge game conglomerate to become the 2nd largest gaming company worldwide wasn't a big deal...?
@Would_you_kindly Baha you don't go unnoticed...you are blatantly a psfanboy...you are pretty much always negative about Xbox and give ps a free pass on pretty much everything ...and saying you have an Xbox one doesn't give you much leverage to say you are not a fan boy....typical behaviour of fanboys to start being one sided in favour of their newer console .. especially when the other is one the brink of games no longer being made for it
@StylesT It's pretty common for clearly biased people to pretend like they aren't biased when their biases get called out.
@Shinaxis
Because in 10 years CoD could had easily gone the way of MySpace and no one cares for it anymore, but they would be forced to develop the fame at a loss for perpetuity? No contract can ever be in perpetuity.
As for the whole “it will take years for the game to make it to Nintendo”, two pints:
1) It only took two years for Sony to get MLB The Show on the Switch
2) It’s very likely the contract window kicks off the year the first game releases, not today.
@JayJ
You mean Xbox fans aren't defending a trillion dollar MS company from purchasing a huge gaming company, despite a history of anti-competitive practices like the Internet Explorer one lost to the American government or maybe the same with Microsoft Words, how about Slacks argument that MS having Microsoft meeting free with their software being a unfair advantage they can't compete with? What exactly has MS done in the past that proves they'll do otherwise? 10 years for COD, how about 10 years for every Activision game currently out and every new game in that timeline because I'm sure the FTC would accept those terms.
@Floki yeah I know , most people on here will tell you that gamepass Is making them money but it isn't it's losing money until it has enough subscribers & they raise the price
@StylesT
You don't see how having a game like COD versus a game geared at a younger audience would make a difference if it was day 1 on game pass for Xbox versus $70 for PlayStation. Forgive if I'm wrong, is Minecraft selling for $70 and did Minecraft not make over 400 million in 2020 alone via micro-transaction and merchandise sales?
@StylesT we've had discussions before I won't hide the fact that I think you're biased towards Xbox just like you think I'm biased towards playstation , may I ask are you American
@JayJ would you say you're biased ?
@Tharsman
Fair, then why not have the whole Activision category of games available for the 10 years? How about a agreement that COD doesn't go on game pass in that time frame so Sony and MS can each sell the game day 1 at $70 apiece. You think a COD on a underpowered Switch from 2017 is going to be competitive enough and reach a big audience even if COD Switch is out in 2 years? You're pretty optimistic that Activision could make a COD game in two years for a platform that's never had COD game, because I imagine coding for a underpowered Nintendo Switch won't be that easy versus a XBox/PlayStation that gets near yearly updates in new COD games.
@Would_you_kindly I don't personally think gamepass is losing them money, but it definitely isn't making enough for them drop everything else and go complete 100% in on gamepass.
"[thus] withholding content from competitors entirely, resulting in harm to consumers."
God of War. Demon's Souls. Bloodborne. Uncharted. The Last of Us. Mario. Mario Kart. Mario Party. Zelda. Smash Bros. Donkey Kong Country...
This is going to be a very quick open and shut case. Either those games all come to Xbox or there's no real legs to their entire case.
@JayJ No one is claiming to be unbiased, but it's fair to question a trillion company guilty in the past of anti-competitive practices.
@Floki I just can't see it being profitable when you look at the cost of halo infinite which is as far as I know the most expensive game ever & I doubt they've made anywhere near what they spent on it back even after those cat ears
@Shinaxis Fair enough but Nintendo was way worse than any gaming company in terms of anti-competitive behavior. Sony bought up exclusives like crazy when they needed them. Honestly I think this is just Sony and Nintendo trying to cram a log in M$'s machine due to how much they hate what Game Pass is doing to their business model.
I'm not a fan of either company because they're all greedy af. I'll play on their consoles but I'm not gonna act like they see me as anything other than a wallet.
@Shinaxis So why are you here if you hate Microsoft and Xbox so much? Couldn't be more transparent how you're some Sony fanboy who is simply here to disrupt.
This is exactly why the Sony fanbase is so notoriously awful and toxic, they can't just stay in their communities, they have to invade everyone else's community and push their toxicity there as well.
@daftnate Exactly. The fanboys want to have their cake and eat it too.
@daftnate When has a MS first party game like Halo, GeOW etc gone to PlayStation or Nintendo? Those Nintendo and Sony exclusive games are from their own studios and MS hasn't released their first party games to anything other than PC. Companies are trying to sell their systems, controllers and other products. So if MS is all about the gamers, why are Star Field, Redfall and most likely Elder Scroll 6 exclusive?
https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/15/22783314/elder-scrolls-6-xbox-exclusive-pc-phil-spencer
@JayJ So my most used/primary system is a Nintendo Switch, while my brother has every system currently out. My computer is Microsoft based system as I don't care for Apple products, which I haven't owned one since a iPhone 6. Does that automatically make me a MS/Xbox hater even though I play Xbox with friends and family that have them?
So why is Starfield, Redfall and most likely Elder Scroll 6 a MS exclusive if they're all about reaching a wider audience? Do you have a Nintendo Switch, because I'd love to know if you'd actually play COD Switch. I'll play any game on ANY system if it's my only choice because I want to play Starfield and I can't get it on a PS/Nintendo system.
@Shinaxis
You will have to ask Sony why they only care about CoD.
Sony managed to do it in two years, without ever developing a switch game before. Activision/Blizzard actually has teams that have made switch ports before (Crash/Sypro/Tony Hawk/Diablo/Overwatch.)
A version of the game for switch can exists with less realistic visuals and still be CoD.
That’s all not to mention that by the time the game is out a Switch Pro will likely be already out, and in the past Nintendo has allowed devs to make games exclusive to their “pro” handhelds (devs were allowed make games that required the DSi and New 3DS) so it could also be the case here.
As for “high enough audience”, as likely as Overwatch and Fortnite.
@Shinaxis theyll bring up exlusivity on final fantasy ( I don't give a 💩 about it lol ) conveniently forgetting Sony spent alot of money promoting it for the PS1 for it to become as popular as it is today
@JayJ
You want to know what system I've played COD on with friends recently? Xbox Series X with a Xbox elite controller. I just don't see why I can trust a trillion dollar company that's been guilty of anti-competitive practices from day 1 with MS Word, Microsoft software, Internet Explorer to Microsoft Meetings versus Slack.
@Shinaxis
Ori (yes, MS actually owns Ori,) Minecraft Dungeons, Minecraft Legends (not mentioning baseline Minecraft since it was already out there when MS bought it.)
Intentionally not listing Cuphead, some thing MS owns it but they don’t.
Their point is not to make everything available everywhere. But they do keep their word about continuing to publish certain specific IPs on competing platforms. Ori was not exactly that, MS does not own Moon studios but owns Ori. The studio really wanted to make a Switch version and Phil agreed to let them do it. But Minecraft is one, since acquisition talks started, they promised they would never stop providing for all platforms, and they have kept that promise without any legal contracts enforcing it.
They are promising the same with CoD.
@Would_you_kindly Oh boy. So much nonsense. Such a philistine. And yes, you need grammar and punctuation lessons.
@Shinaxis Actions speak the loudest, and you sure act like a Sony fanboy. It just seems odd how you're dedicated to trolling this comments section while actively hating the company and product this entire website is dedicated towards. Makes it seem like you don't have any good intentions for being here.
Removed - flaming/arguing; user is banned
@Tharsman Sony's system is basically a Linux based PC that gets yearly COD updates, with COD games dating back to what, PS1? PlayStation 4/5 are easier to develop for because it's like a midrange PC optimized by Sony, similar development wise to Xbox. The Switch is a severely underpowered system that's fine with COD if it's like Fortnite. I play COD on Xbox and Switch is my main system, you think I'm going to play COD on Switch instead of Xbox with a elite controller? Diablo 3 was made for PC and ported to PS3, XBox 360 and doable on Switch, but Diablo 4 is made for modern day systems like PS5, Xbox series X and PC. Let's see Activision get a optimized version of Diablo 4 on a Switch, assuming they'll even get it out June, 2023 considering all the former developers who mentioned it's development being in total disarray and questioned if it'll meet it's deadline on PC.
@JayJ
I don't have issues with MS products, but yeah I hate their anti competitive practices the same way I hate Apple and Disney for the same.
@Shinaxis You are oddly focused on Microsoft when Sony has the longest history of that by now.
@JayJ come on dude Microsoft has a long history of breaking anti trust laws Sony doesn't stop throwing out the word fanboy without doing research
Removed - flaming/arguing
Removed - flaming/arguing
@Tharsman
So if it's okay for MS to have their exclusives, the argument everyone has for Sony/Nintendo exclusive going to MS systems is null and void. Having exclusives is exactly why we buy each system.
Minecraft is about the worst example that can be used. It was bought by MS and with a userbase of 100+ million, MS would have to be dumb to not have that on every platform because it makes most of its money on micro transactions and merchandise. No one's buying a system for Minecraft and it's not selling at $70. COD on the otherhand, is a legacy game from the original XBox and onward and I don't about you, but I believe a lot of adults with actual money are the ones buying systems for it.
What's your point with Overwatch, Tony Hawk etc? Activision isn't owned by MS yet and they make their money on multi-platforms. You think small userbase games like Ori, Cuphead are comparable to a huge game like COD that shifts actual game units? Because I don't know of anyone buying systems for Ori, Cuphead etc, on the otherhand I know plenty who buy systems for COD alone.
@JayJ
So MS software has not been out longer than Sony's PlayStation?
@Shinaxis What does Microsoft as a corporation have to do with anything? If we're going to bring up who has been around the longest, than that would clearly be Sony, who has a long history of anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior in the electronics industry.
That and Sony has a far longer history in the gaming industry, where they bought their way in with loads of big acquisitions to the point where they eliminated one of the biggest competitors.
@Would_you_kindly So you think they own THE media now?
@JayJ like has been mentioned before with them having a hand on the US Military I think that's wrong
@JayJ
So you think Sony that has been guilty of anti competitive practices since the betamax and MS since Word 1.0 (1983) to Microsoft Meeting, are really that different? So why am I supposed to trust MS anymore that Sony, when both are equally guilty?
@cburg For real, it couldn't be more obvious how these two are diehard Sony fanboys who came here simply to start trouble with the userbase. I always see the most toxicity coming from that crowd as well.
It's like don't they have anything better to do besides troll an Xbox site? If they're such big fans of Sony why aren't they at a site like PushSquare hanging out with people who might actually agree with them?
@Would_you_kindly I am not American...but the thing is you claim that you only have a preference for ps and try to pretend you are fair...you just slate Xbox and act like the sun shines out ps arse...and the fact you don't even own anything close to a new Xbox
I have a series x and a ps5 and have ordered a psvr 2...so quite abit different I would say
And the only thing I prefer with Xbox is that they represent better value if you enjoy playing lots of games and they are currently so much more consumer friendly...
Just off the top of my head in the past week playstation have restricted the new dlc announced for horizon to only the ps5 despite releasing the game on the PS4 aswell(massive crap on PS4 only players who bought the game) ....also found out lots of psvr games that will be getting a port for the psvr2 you will be charged to have the new version of the game you own
It was always a strange comment by the FTC and its going to be very easy to prove to be a false acusation
@Shinaxis That's more or less my point - nobody wants to start dumping games from studios they own onto other consoles.
Nintendo and Sony crying foul is ridiculous and they know it. It has nothing to do with them caring about competition for the sake of the consumer. All 3 of them are there to make money; gamers are their path to doing that. They might seem like they care but, honestly, they just want your money.
@Shinaxis Microsoft has definitely had its share of black eyes in the past. But, in this particular instance, Microsoft is getting accused by a government agency of something it didn't actually do.
@Shinaxis
10 years for COD, how about 10 years for every Activision game currently out and every new game in that timeline because I'm sure the FTC would accept those terms
I believe that would be a reasonable concession to ask from Microsoft, since their main plan is GamePass growth by releasing all past and future ABK titles on their subscription. Sony might baulk at that, but at least everything will release on PlayStation consoles as well.
@JayJ
Lol you act like Xbox fanboys are any better. As someone whose been on plenty of game sites, one set isn't better than another. Literally different group, same sh#t.
@Sol4ris
Exactly, I think if MS offers every game instead of just COD they'll end up with a win in the end by buying Activision.
@daftnate
True enough my good sir, anyone whose been gaming since the Nintendo knows they bought up their competition just to get rid of them. MS, Sony and Nintendo are different companies yet all practice the same when it comes to their competition.
@daftnate Nintendo's on board and benefiting from the deal, and MS has been a pretty close partner with switch as a publisher, including contributing content to Nintendo's own subscription retro service, they're certainly not trying to interfere.
@GamingFan4Lyf @Shinaxis There's a statute of limitations on past actions after which they are no longer litigable. Additionally all principles within the company from that time period responsible for those actions are long gone. The 90s and early 00s can not legally factor into any current proceedings which is why they focused on the recent zenimax results. The past actions you're referring to, the law is required to be blind to at this time.
The Slack issues are current however not relevant to this case. They do not involve litigation or competition issues of any kind and are not a formal regulatory grievance. They are frustrations of MS bundling the product and comparing it to slack in marketing, which also attributed to loss of sales. however slack maintained that Teams (it's MS Teams, not MS Meeting) in fact not a competitor and the products are differentiated in their key features. Their frustrations center more around MS claiming Slack is a competing product when slack did not believe itself to be so. However user loses to both Teams and other companies lead slack to sell to sales force least year. Itself, also a company with trust related issues, so at this point slack/sales force and ms are pot and kettle.
@daftnate
The issue is that MS has a net worth near 2 trillion dollars and is more in line with Apple and Amazon. Sony is about 77 Billion, just a bit more than Activision so they're not close to being in the same league. The American government also has been criticised for huge antitrust failures in the recent past and Biden has made a promise regarding closer scrutiny of anti-monopoly cases. Guess what, other than Apple, Google, Amazon, MS is one of the biggest companies worldwide and not just in the US so that's why the FTC is looking more closer at their purchases. It doesn't help that the UK and Europe are both separately investigating MS for the same thing.
@NEStalgia
Slack is relevant imho because it's their leader that said they're unable to compete with MS because their Team app (thanks for the correction btw) is available free with the rest of their software, hence why they have 100+ million users to Slacks 30+ million and Slacks comments are recent.
Although the FTC isn't looking at MS history from the late 80s to 2000s, they looked specifically at their recent history or Zenimax/Bethesda and they already made Starfield, Redfall and potentially Elder Scroll 6 exclusive which is counter to MS comments on trying to reach a wider audience. Take into consideration that at yesterday's IGN Gameshow (one of the biggest Gameshow), it was noted the MS announced absolutely nothing. It's speculated that they didn't want to announce more exclusive games considering the FTC case being officially announced on the same day yesterday.
https://www.ign.com/articles/xboxs-game-awards-no-show-is-a-slap-in-the-face-to-players
@Shinaxis ok now you are all over the place and mixing up what you are talking about and with whom, the Activision/Blizard list of games is about Activision having in-house studios with switch-porting experience, if Sony can turn their showcase high end sorts series into a switch game with no experience, so can Activision, provided the order comes from above.
On the topic of Minecraft, you can’t have it both ways. If you can’t pretend people would buy a new console for CoD but not Minecraft to justify some fear there Microsoft won’t actually keep CoD multiple.
Also, you are kidding yourself if you think CoD is only or even mostly m played by adults. Just hop in a game with voice chat and listen to all the kids playing.
Oh I understand that it's not just adults playing COD, but I stand by my comment that COD move actually game units compared to Minecraft and having COD day 1 on game pass would for sure affect sales of physical copies for $70 on PlayStation and XBox.
Minecraft is all about the micro transactions and merchandise sales. MLB The Show is not a huge game compared to COD. I'm not saying you can't make COD on the Switch, but it's not going to be the same quality as COD on Xbox/PlayStation.
I think MS can make this deal go through if they offer Activision's whole catalog of games for 10 years instead of just COD. I think it's clear that COD is a hugely popular game that the FTC worries that making it exclusive would affect other consoles and it's probably the case.
@Shinaxis Slacks CEO is the one that clarified that they did not feel they completed with Teams at all. The problem was indeed the bundling of it to an extent, however it wasn't the competition issue as Nescape Navigator vs. Internet Explorer was.
Ironically it was a reverse for slack. Slack didn't feel they were directly competing with Teams and believed them to be very different products. (I use both and would concur. Neither really does well what the other does well, they're different tools for different things.). The problem was that Microsoft did see it as competition and in addition to bundling advertised it as superior to slack in certain features. None of that is illegal as it's not libel, in those features, it is better, and no trust suit was ever filed. It did cause losses for slack and eventually they did sell. But there's no legal conflict. The grumbling was public, but there were no legal arguments to be made. The bigger company sold products cheaper and more conveniently so many people choose it.
The thing is slack sold to another behemoth cloud company, and the product does fine under a similar large organization. It's not really a Microsoft vs slack complaint but an issue of modern commerce favoring the largest company and single product companies just can't compete outside niches. A point that Activision itself as codefendants will point out it's beneficial to their competitive capability post merger. Which is definitely a problem, but it's also a broader issue very far outside this acquisition.
As this article started, no promises of no exclusives we're made to EC for Bethesda, and none are made regarding abk now other than cod. The filling hinges on the concept of content exclusivity itself as a Microsoft specific strategy that would harm the industry, seemingly obvious that competing consoles also employ exclusivity as their primary strategy. That the main competitor currently enjoys content exclusivity as an advantage on CoD itself, guarantees rapid dismissal of that line of reasoning.
So seeing Bernie Sanders Tweeting in support of his Democratic colleague bringing this case really does make it seem like this is political. Been interesting to see commentators on Financial channels seemingly saying the FTC is likely to lose too. All very interesting to a non-American.
1) Is it likely that this is posturing that will lead to concessions the Democrats can hail as them standing their ground against big tech?
2) Is there a chance the deal could go through the Courts without any of the concessions MS was offering? I.e. COD could in fact go exclusive
3) Is it possible a massive can of worms has been opened regarding the basic concept of games being exclusive to any platform?
@Shinaxis If the issue is that Call of Duty is one of the biggest games out there, Sony shouldn't be allowed to buy exclusive content of one of the biggest games out there because their objective is to damage every other platform that is not PS, especially when Sony is the biggest "monopoly" in the video game market or at least first on the list. Paying for keeping games that you don't own away from competing platforms like Xbox and Game Pass might be legal today, but it wouldn't surprise anyone that it won't be legal in the near future, at least in Europe (not EU, so UK included). Besides, how can Sony back their claims up when they're aggressively keeping third-party games away from the competition and when they're, actually, number one on the ranking? Sony is making no sense at all.
Objectively, Microsoft is the winner here because they have two consoles, they support PC and not just their store but others and they have a streaming service that is available everywhere, and it would be available on Switch and PS5 if Nintendo and Sony agreed. On top of that, they're offering Call of Duty in native form for ten years on competing platforms, something that Nintendo and Sony would never do if they owned Activision, unless they were forced legally. Microsoft offered Call of Duty to Sony the day after the acquisition announcement, when Jim Ryan cried on the phone to Phil Spencer, because Microsoft knew right from the start that Call of Duty would be more profitable as a multiplatform game. That stance is benefiting Microsoft during these reviews but it's genuine since the very start.
Buying CoD is absolutely for Game Pass, and the numbers that will bring to the service, @Shinaxis. I agree that CoD alone is an entirely different beast to the Bethesda acquisition. Will this hurt Sony? Absolutely! However, this is where you have got it slightly wrong; as it stands, Sony are the number one gaming company out there. By revenune the order is as follows:
1. Sony
2. Tencent
3. Nintendo
4. Microsoft
After the acquisition, Microsoft are likely to move to the number 3 slot. It is possible that Sony will slip to second, with Tencent replacing them at the top. And this is precisely what Sony are fighting so hard to prevent the deal going through. They not only wish to remain the dominant force in gaming, but they don't wish to see Microsoft close the gap between them. This has absolutely nothing to do with protecting gamers, or it being bad for the industry, this is entirely about Sony's self preservation; about protecting their bottom line. They use their position as the market leader to strike favourable deals, and so their ambition to stop the deal is all about being able to remain their market dominance. Ultimately it's not even really about, CoD, it's about preventing Microsoft from growing Game Pass and their business.
I actually think this deal will be good for gaming as a whole. Yes, those gamers that will benefit the most will be on the Xbox and on PC when multiple games become 'freely' available on the Game Pass. It is also possible that some of these games will head over to Nintendo. However, what it will do is force Sony to become more friendly towards those that game on the PlayStation. The only reason that Sony felt able to be the first to push games to £70/$70 and to raise the price of their console is because they held a position of market dominance. They did it because they could. With the gap narrowing between Sony and Microsoft, these type of decisions will be far less likely to occur...
@electrolite77 the thing is is that the vast majority of us don't view anything in the entertainment industry to have political affiliation.
Anything regarding video games an politics was just politicians trying their best to make video games potray things like violence and trying to appease parents and extremists as viewing it as such. To them, its all the same. They don't like big names overshadowing theirs so this entire ordeal is just two birds with one stone for ALL politicians.
its all just ridiculous to be honest. none of them have a clue about the internal workings or the flow of the industry at all. they're just in it for the camera focus for their own agendas.
@Shinaxis
So???
So???? Same can be said about any game on the switch, yet they sell. Switch users welcome those games being available. No argument of “quality” will stop that.
No, that’s what you wan. The EU said clearly in their reply to the FTC that they are concerned about CoD simply not being available because of its “tent pole” status. They don’t consider any other Activision game going exclusive to disrupt the market in any significant way, same way they didn’t feel that way about any Zenimax game.
And MS already stated it won’t go exclusive and are willing to put it on legally enforceable documents, so not sure why this keeps coming up.
If this deal goes through, the game will be on PS5 so long it’s viable (ps5 and CoD both are still viable products)
The game WILL go to Game Pass
The game will also go to Nintendo platform
There's nothing confusing about what was said. You all just willing misinterpreted to fit your narrative of support for Microsoft.
To the people cheering on this merger, I have to ask what you get out of it. It never benefits the player no matter who does the buying. The hypocrisy of complaining about Sony exclusives, which aren't even exclusive anymore thanks to PC, while cheering on Microsoft is sickening.
As for the FTC, it's good they're actually doing their job again. They've allowed merger after merger to go through they shouldn't have like Ticketmaster and Live nation, Charter and Time Warner and a thousand others. How can you be mad that they're trying to protect you from predatory behavior?
Fanboyism is a cult.
@electrolite77
1: yes. Though concessions are less likely through the courts.
2:. Yes, as far as the courts concessions are unlikely now for the us (but will probably exist for EU.). For the US it's either a monopoly trust or isn't, no in between.
3: If it goes as far as discovery, absolutely yes! And that would be wonderful. But the arguments here are so weak, it's not even likely it goes that far.
@lordzand FTCs role isn't to decide if mergers are good or bad. Their role is to identify if it would create a trust. This acquisition simply does not, there is no argument to make that it does, and the FTCs own frivolous suit does not make one. Spending tax payer money on frivolous suits guaranteed to be dismissed in the courts isn't protecting anyone but the careers of the FTC appointees and their political benefactors.
I don't disagree with your opinion on mergers, nor with the FTC chairs opinion of them. But this case is frivolous, the merger doesn't create a trust, and actually doing something about rampant consideration can't happen though FTC or current law, it needs to be legislated by Congress. In fact there is a bill currently in Congress regarding that, and it is expected it has no chance of passing. FTC can not invent legislation by wishing it. Presidential administrations can not circumvent the legislative and judicial branches, and alphabet soup agencies can't create case law by litigating whatever they dislike. The solution is a Congress that actually cares about something other than their party winning the contest, and an electorate intelligent enough to elect such a Congress. Maybe in 500 years that can happen. Or Congress will be a wholly owned subsidiary of bank of America. Either way.
Personally I'm both for and against the merger, for various reasons, but I'm more against party agenda driven government apparatchiks and I'd rather a political and economic system where such mergers are a non starter. But that isn't the FTCs purview.
@lordzand
What do I get out of this merger? More games on gamepass ..... So less money spent having to buy games outright ....aka I am saving money....pretty simple and a very good reason for people to want it to go through lmao
Even though you don't own an Xbox I thought you could emphasize and grasp the obvious reason why gamepass users are all for the merger
But thanks for the comment to fit your 'narrative'
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
@Fiendish-Beaver Agree with some of your post but there is some outdated information. For Q1 & Q2 2022 Microsoft is currently already #2 and actually above Nintendo on actual reported gaming revenue.
1. Sony - $24.9 bn
2. Microsoft - $16.3 bn
3. Nintendo - $15.3 bn
4. Tencent - $13.9 bn
5. ABK - $8.8 bn
Sources: Source 1 & Source 2
Combining MS & ABK would currently possibly make them #1 for 2022 so far at $25.1 bn.
So why do I say 'possibly' above?
1. Tencent doesn't do a clear breakdown by division. Depending how you judge what is and isn't their gaming revenue they could potentially be #1 ahead of both MS and Sony.
2. Also Apple and Google aren't included and are usually estimated around #2-6, but could be more, again they don't break this down clearly so it's hard to compare.
3. It's only Q1 and Q2 not a full year.
Also worth considering revenue is also just one metric and potentially a bit of a red-herring here. The trouble is Microsoft are undeniably the #1 in the new multi-game subscription model market via Game Pass. Getting ABK and putting all their games on Game Pass further consolidates their position in that new market, which is what this deal is really all about, exclusivity on some future ABK titles is just the icing on the cake.
They can only do this by using their massive cash reserves, and that is potentially an antitrust issue, cornering and consolidating a new market through a position of financial strength before anyone else has a chance, especially by undercutting the price on everyone else.
Whatever we feel about it personally (I can see pros and cons) it is only right they are looking into a deal of this magnitude in more detail, but there is so much BS political agendas and lack of perception by regulators I don't have much faith they will make any decisions for the right reasons.
While I completely agree Sony would have to do better with stiffer competition, i'm just not convinced this is the way, or that it will end up being better for gaming in the long run.
Thank you for the response, @themightyant. It is nice to have a healthy debate that does not descend into fanboyism.
I saw very similar figures for the last couple of years, with 8 billion being the dividing figure between Sony and Microsoft, so it would seem that the gap is not closing. Obviously, once the ABK deal goes through, that gap will close fairly significantly. I'm not so sure it'll be enough put Microsoft into first place, but the gap will definitely be smaller, which is why Sony are fighting so hard to scupper the deal. I actually agree with the comment made by Phil Spencer that Sony are trying to keep themselves ahead by keeping Xbox smaller. It is why Sony are locking down so many attractive console exclusives; it's a cost effect method of keeping themselves ahead without the need to resorting to buying whole companies. Why buy a company (and all their duff games) when you can just skim the cream?
I absolutely agree this is all about Game Pass, for Xbox. Making their own subscription service so attractive, that people buy into their ecosystem. Thing is, Sony can compete in this department if they wanted, but they prefer to keep their big exclusives as a pay to play option, rather than putting them day and date on their own subscription service. If the ABK deal does go through, I think we will see Sony change their approach. It won't happen over night, but they will probably drop one of their homegrown exclusives on their service to see what difference that makes to subscriber numbers. It will drop on to their top tier, but I think it'll definitely happen. And in my opinion, that will be good for those that game solely on a PlayStation, and will therefore be as a direct response to the ABK acquisition. I do not buy the argument made by Sony that this will affect the quality of their games; there is no way, for example, that the next God of War game will be anything less in quality than the AAAA game that Ragnarök was (indeed, as it will be a PS5 only game (no PS4) it will likely be a further improvement over the previous game). These comments are made in order to justify to the masses why they won't do it, not because it is actually the case. I think this also speaks to the argument that Xbox Game Pass has an unfair advantage, because in this regard, Sony is choosing not to be competitive.
As for the politics of those making the decisions, I think it widely known that Lina Khan (Chair of the FTC) has (rumoured or stated, I'm not sure) ambitions of a political future, and that she is looking to raise her profile by taking these big tech organisations to court to prevent mergers such as this. My understanding is that she has actually lost a number of the cases that she has sought to prevent.
@Fiendish-Beaver Agreed. Always nice to discuss these issues as adults without the fanboy BS.
I sorta agree, while I think he is right I also think it's six of one half a dozen of the other....or perhaps 5:7 Phil, who I like, talks a GREAT game and says he's about increasing the pie for everyone rather than punishing players on other platforms.
But actions speak louder than words.
Microsoft have said they are making Starfield, The Elder Scrolls (and probably Doom, Wolfenstein etc.) exclusive to Game Pass platforms. MS' defenders can't have it both ways - either paying for exclusives and taking games away from other platforms is ok, or it isn't. And it isn't just these Zenimax/Bethesda and maybe ABK titles. What about all the games that come to Game Pass for 6-12 months first. Same thing, with dozens of games a year, just not as high profile.
My point is they are ALL at it, Microsoft IS also trying to make Sony smaller, otherwise Starfield would be on PlayStation, Elder Scrolls VI would be coming to PlayStation. I agree they don't do it as egregiously but I only think that is because they are in the battle to win hearts and minds. They are wilfully playing the we are the little guy being picked on card, which is so transparent, and two-faced, it's laughable. They talk a great game but ultimately actions matter more than words and sadly I see far too many blindly following their words but not their actions.
Fiendish-Beaver wrote:
Possibly. But that relies on:
1) Taking it for granted that subscription services are profitable long term. You don't see Nintendo, or Steam, or even disruptors like Epic doing this, only Microsoft, they are alone. Microsoft is basically betting everything that it will work. But they have less to lose. I tend to think it will in the long term, but it's a huge risk and perhaps Sony don't think it's worth it.
2) It's a MASSIVE upfront investment, until your subscriber numbers get up, that really can't be understated. Game Pass was making a loss for YEARS and depending where you sit of Phil's inconclusive "Game Pass is profitable for us" statement still may be making a loss when ALL costs are accounted for. Most companies cannot shoulder that sort of risk for so long.
3) It's asking a lot to ask the market leader to completely rip up their winning strategy to join a new, potentially risky strategy that is a race to the bottom on price which typically, in other industries, often doesn't work out well in the long term for at least one of the companies. Would you really want to go up against Microsoft, with all their wealth, on THEIR terms? FAR wiser to differentiate yourself and sell a different offering.
4) that it won't lower the standard of their AAA games. Will Sony still spend $150 - $300 million on games if they are part of a service like this and can't monetise them as clearly? I absolutely wouldn't want that quality to change. I know you said you don't believe it, but that's a huge amount to invest upfront hoping that longer term subscription numbers will pay it all back.
So yes I suppose they could join Microsoft on day and date first party releases, and lots of third party ones too, don't forget those, which they would have to do to really compete... it's a HUGE risk.
I do think Sony may be forced to eventually but hopefully they are not so far behind by then. I expect in 5-10 years the tables will be turned MS will be on top, hopefully not in too strong a position of power off the back of this ABK deal... and hopefully not with all their wealth undercutting everyone else.
@Banjo-
Microsoft is a trillion dollar monopoly themselves, so Sony is just doing the same thing. Is Starfield, Redfall and most likely Elder Scroll 6 being MS exclusives not the same thing as a Sony timed exclusive? So the hypocrisy about Sony being a big monopoly is a huge joke considering how much bigger MS is and they happen to try having a monopoly themselves with Windows etc until Apple successfully brought along their Software and products.
Nintendo releasing MS games ain't happening other than Minecraft and Cuphead. Their system just isn't powerful enough to run most MS exclusives like Halo etc. If COD makes it to Nintendo, it'll be for Nintendo's next system or a completely different build than the one on PS/XBox.
People have to stop talking about Sony being the only Monopoly when MS just demonstrated with they're the exact same with Bethesda and making their newest games (Starfield, Redfall, Elder Scrolls 6). Sony is also starting to release their first party games on PC but years later because guess what, they want to shift PS5s and that's just their business model and it works for them.
@themightyant
Thanks for being the sound of reason. People make it sound like Sony is this huge Monopoly and the only one, yet MS is about 20 times the value of Sony and they're a near 2 Trillion dollar company and Sony can't afford to buy Activision on their own. The instant MS bought Zenimax/Bethesda for $7 Billion, they made their next games exclusive.
They act like MS hasn't ever done anything monopolistic when a quick Google shows they've done it since their first product with Microsoft Words, Internet Explorer. Assuming MS purchases Activision, it'd be utterly stupid to not assume that some of their games old and new won't become MS exclusives. I still think the deal goes through, but I bet it's after MS makes more concessions to appease the American FTC, European and UK for some time in 2024.
@Fiendish-Beaver
MS is about to raise their game prices to $70, so it's no different they're just catching up to the cost. I have no real issue whether this deal for Activision goes through or not because I'll play the games I want to regardless of platform. It's just hilarious that people act like Sony is this huge Monopoly or the only one, yet if you point out all the timed game pass exclusives, new exclusives like Redfall, Starfield and likely Elder Scrolls 6 they suddenly fall silent because it doesn't fit their narrative. Neither does the fact that Sony and Microsoft have been Monopolies for their products since the 80s (Betamax anyone, mini disc, Words, Internet Explorer etc).
I don't get how people can say Sony is this huge Monopoly when MS is a trillion dollar company while Sony is 20 times smaller. Is Halo, Gears of War, Project Gotham not MS exclusives? Every company has their exclusives not going to other platforms so people have stop whining and crying when MS could give a crap when these same fans are buying their games and paying for game pass. Fans of all sides just have to take a chill pill because Activision being bought isn't paying them a dime unless they have shares in either company.
The deals probably still going through and likely just delayed to late 2023 or 2024, because as Meta and Zuckerberg already pointed out, the FTC has not succeeded in blocking ANY huge deal in 50 YEARS and just to block this deal, "literally needs to have laws changed".
@Shinaxis Thanks. Though if i'm honest I don't necessarily think I am being the voice of reason here, but perhaps the voice of balance, playing devil's advocate to the rabid xbox-centric masses here. Presenting another view, which is healthy generally, even if it is perhaps a little pessimistic.
But in honesty it's six of one half a dozen in this, they are both two-faced and as bad as each other. For every two-faced tale Sony tells Microsoft tells another. I have no favourites, I just don't like all the industry consolidation, even if I would benefit short term.
And Microsoft playing the small wounded party is frankly ridiculous, I can't stand that BS, but people are lapping it up.
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...