-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Microsoft lawyers respond to CMA by offering no remedies/commitments
- Thread starter Infamy v1
- Start date
- Status
Guilty_AI
Member
So a sequel to a remake/reimagining, whose original also got a sequel with the same name? This sort of confusion doesn't exactly spell confidence for the future either.
Last edited:
Banjo64
cumsessed
Imagine cheering against consumer protection.
BlackTron
Member
Sony could do the same thing, but they seem uncomfortable stepping TOO far out of their third person action adventure comfort zone. They seem to have built a strategy out of churning them out while other genres get filled in by third parties, they have no idea what it's like to be Nintendo while all their bread and butter moved to a competitor (Playstation lol).
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Imagine doom and gloom a game you don't even know anything about lol.
It's a sequel to MW19.
Warzone has declined a lot, but the main game is still popular.
Even more when it arrives to GP.
Well we had Battle Royale five years but that didn't stop the cod train.
Unfortunately in the distorted perception and desire to set the narrative on message boards of some people, a deal going into a deep second phase probing in UK and Europe for anticompetitive concerns and the risk of being blocked, is actually a positive big dick energy moment
Kagey K
Banned
That wasn't either. The only confusion seems to be caused by you.
Kagey K
Banned
That's corporate protection not consumer.
Bernd Lauert
Banned
FalsettoVibe
Member
Last edited:
You got exposed for not correctly reading my post, and then you move on to say the CMA holds all the cards? You realize they're not the final authority, right? That's what courts are for.
This was moving to phase 2 regardless, like every other big deal. Their silly proposal to Microsoft was ignored for a reason.
Bernd Lauert
Banned
What are consumers being protected against? Lower prices? Because that's the only thing that will change for them.
GHG
Member
Because Microsoft have been free to outbid them all of the years that Sony had those deals in place.
Or are you going to try and tell me poor little Microsoft couldn't couldn't muster up the cash to compete in such a way all of those years?
Exclusive content/pre order bonuses isn't something unique or new when it comes to 3rd party marketing deals.
Knightime_X
Member
No. Take-Two would not be good in the long run.
Look how long it took to make GTA 6. (1 and only game that's interesting from them)
Sure it'll sell VERY well, but TT would be best left 3rd party.
Timberwolf25
Member
Banjo64
cumsessed
How are the concerns spelled out, that MS could leverage its in house cloud infrastructure alongside its brand power and library to stop or suppress any future entrants in to subscription/cloud based gaming corporate protection?
Banjo64
cumsessed
Luckily the CMA and other regulatory bodies don’t just look at current pricing, but the company’s potential opportunity to increase prices once you are in a walled garden with no serious competitions far in to the future.
//DEVIL//
Member
Let's just say MS stock will take a hit . And it will be the best time to buy MS stock. As it grantees it will go up again. So win for me really
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Precisely and thats why they have left themselves open to judgement, and now have to offer concessions in order to buy them outright.
Had they simply paid off Activision $200-300 million for gamepass rights every year, no one would be able to do anything about it.
But a $75 billion acquisition has to go through the proper regulatory channels. It's literally how things are done. Everyone plays by the same rules which makes the question below odd to say the least.
GHG
Member
That's not outbidding someone on a deal, that's going nuclear. Hence it requires an external regulatory review, which marketing deals do not.
Kagey K
Banned
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
What good is a "war chest" if you can't use it.
Interfectum
Member
Meta (aka we spy on and sell consumer information) says it's nonsense? Well then that settles it!
Banjo64
cumsessed
Because Microsoft with its cloud infrastructure, subscription service, ability to eat costs and potential first party game line up with Activision could prevent any serious competitor from entering the cloud based/subscription market which means NO CHOICES FOR YOU, THE CONSUMER.
Just read the CMA findings for fucks sake
You corporate cuck
Last edited:
Guilty_AI
Member
It is called Modern Warfare, which i remember playing back in 2007. It even has captain Price on the cover. Its still confusing
Not really me doom and glooming it. I know people who play these kind of games rather often and are more familiar with MP scene in general, they all say COD is declining in quality and are jumping ship.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Meta, we buy up all main social media rivals and had to go through the very same process, says it's nonsense.
Some goofy corpo thot takes on here lately. Careful what you wish for with the Meta take cheerleading to support your fanatical window dressing.
Last edited:
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
This is neither a win or a loss. It's just proof that Jimbo was right and Phil wasnt being honest when he said his intent was to keep CoD on playstation. He was talking in riddles using words like intent that I remember calling out earlier this year, and clearly didnt want to keep CoD on PS forever.
And not that he should. If you are paying $75 billion for something, you should get to do with it as you please, but that simply means exposing yourself to this process which may or may not go your way. I personally think the deal will go through like all these like this eventually go through. These regulatory bodies are just as corrupt as every other govt branch, and they have let bigger companies merge and acquire before.
Kagey K
Banned
I have a bunch of money in Activision for the easy stock win, so of course I want it to go through.You corporate cuck
ChiefDada
Gold Member
If you look at my comment history on this, you'll see that I agree with this for reasons you listed and many others (my personal opinion, but I acknowledge merits of the opposing view). That doesn't make these comments any less silly when considering the context of this particular exchange between MSFT and UK regulators.
Ghost of Caelid
Banned
This whole situation is funny and over citing the importance of COD. I know it can close the gap by maybe a few percentage points...they making it seem like xbox outselling ps 3:1 if this deal goes through. But im for governments putting pressure on companies even if just posturing.
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
People been saying that since cod 4: modern warfare.
People said the same about wow for over ten years.
CoD is still among the top games soldso while your friends have dropped off there's millions of others who jumped on.
I left at MW19, but having it on GP would make me play it again.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Funny as shit if you lost it
Guilty_AI
Member
So you too left the game after all huh....
Last edited:
GHG
Member
They are not the final authority but they are the authority at this stage of the deal. If they were to approve the deal right now would you still be saying they don't hold all the cards?
Frame it however you want to cope, makes no difference.
What's funny about all of this is how the talk in all the original threads was about how the deal will go through smoothly without a hitch and that the regulators wouldn't look into this one etc. And now that they are it's flipped to "oh it was going to phase 2 regardless"? Kidding yourselves, every step of the way.
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
Banjo64
cumsessed
And that’s fine, but you can want it to go through for personal gain whilst still acknowledging the potential (not guaranteed) future harm it may cause to consumers.
And it is all hypothetical at this point, predicting the likely hood of the market moving one way or another.
Timberwolf25
Member
I must have missed all these consumer protection posts when a certain other company was buying out Bungie, Insomniac and other devs.
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Yes, I got tired of restarting every year and lose my progress. An online sequel is not worth 60 buks for me.
Didn't help i felt MW19 was its peak and I hated they replaced it a year later.
But if I get it with GP then I would jump back in.
I still play cod 4 modern warfare from time to time, still active on xbox.
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
Mr Moose
Member
What's your thoughts of when MS was doing that when they had marketing rights for CoD?
At least there's no 30 day wait for maps now.
Kagey K
Banned
I bought at 74 and keep adding while it's low. I'm guaranteed 95 on closing. It's not guessing.
Liamario
Banned
I would like to see Microsoft curate some IPs, rather than just buying up the place. It is anti- competitive for sure. Call of Duty can't be compared to the average property. Making the game exclusive is only a chess move to damage the competition, rather than make Xbox more appealing.
I get it, welcome to capitalism. But this is not good news for the consumer.
I get it, welcome to capitalism. But this is not good news for the consumer.
graywolf323
Member
which it’s weird how some people here were explaining Microsoft was buying AB not because of PlayStation but as a preemptive strike against the other tech giants to discourage them from getting into gaming, seems some of the government entities have that same concern
Banjo64
cumsessed
I never said you were guessing. Good luck to you though, if this deal goes through you’ll see a pretty penny
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Just read the CMA findings for fucks sake
We did, it pretty blatantly states that the CMA is worried about Sony's ability to compete
Last edited:
GHG
Member
If they were just purchasing the IP and/or doing a multi year exclusive deal then this would have been a lot more straight forward for them.
Both of which would have been far more straight forward than what they will have to go through to get this deal over the line.
If you go to buy a car and the dealer says you've been outbid do you:
A) offer more money
or
B) buy the whole dealership
Does B sound like a rational response to you in that context or do you need to have other reasons for wanting to leap to option B?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked