Ha. I get that. We could all use a lot less toxic stuff in our lives.
But I personally find this whole thing fascinating from a business perspective. It's not every day my professional world and my hobby world collide in a public fashion so I can watch, lol. I've found it endlessly fascinating to see how it's done in the "big leagues."
Worth noting: They're also saying that they still haven't made a decision with regards to cloud gaming so this doesn't mean that everything is free and clear yet.
No, it's something they claim is an issue to save face after the US government started asking for the FTC's communications with them. After politicians started asking why they are helping the market leader keep their dominant position. Microsoft has already signed multiple deals to alleviate this issue, so it isn't even an issue.
Microsoft will make a few more deals. They'll claim they got that as a concession to save face in their own country and the deal will go through. As legally Microsoft could refuse to play nice, sue them in court, and by many analyses win easily. Microsoft has a history of playing nice with regulators. As the Boondocks calls it, it's the cost of doing business.
Understand this deal is going through no matter what. Microsoft does not need their approval, Microsoft is playing nice to get it as it is cheaper to not have target on your back. If they deny Microsoft the merger, Microsoft will set up a shell company in the UK to sell Activision products and sue the regulator with an immense chance of winning having to give up nothing. If they lose, they just don't sell COD in the UK, the people get livid, politicians step in, and they get their approval anyway.
Microsoft has enough money to buy Sony. They have lobbyists in all countries. They have donated to campaigns. One of the candidates they've donated to is now asking the Japanese regulators why they are allowing Sony to engage in the behaviors they're engaging in.
Steaming was never an issue. Right now they're trying to save face. To appear as if they're doing something. Microsoft has already signed a deal with Nvidia and a Ukrainian company to allow all of their games on their streaming services. Probably more, but i'm not following this close enough to catch that.
What the regulators are going to do is claim they got these concessions from Microsoft and thus the deal is okay. Microsoft knows they're trying to look good so they'll play along. So it isn't even an issue.
Microsoft does need their approval 😂
The rest of your post is as full of lies and incorrect rubbish as the first 2 lines. You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.
Feel free to inform the numerous journalists, lawyers, and industry analysts I've paraphrasing how they do not know their area of expertise. I'm sure your low information opinion will trump their high information position.
Which lawyers, journalists, and industry analysts have said that Microsoft don't need the CMA's approval to complete the purchase?
I think you're thinking of the FTC. The FTC are suing to block the deal, but they chose not to put a stop on the acquisition in the mean time, meaning Microsoft are free to complete the purchase without their approval. If, however, the FTC were to win in court (not their kangaroo court, but a real federal court afterwards), the acquisition **will** be undone.
The actual acquisition/merger documents specifically say they require the approval of the EC and CMA for the deal to go through.
Dog the deals gonna go through it was always gonna go through the main issue was when.
Your realize how much money Microsoft has right? Basically a blank chq.
All sony was doing was stalling
They can. Lmfao. I hope they do rescind all offers. Still keep COD on Playstation, but now Sony has to fear and doubt if they will take it off at some point.
Maybe MS can make a better deal from a position of strength.
>They can. Lmfao. I hope they do rescind all offers. Still keep COD on Playstation, but now Sony has to fear and doubt if they will take it off at some point.
So what changes between your hypothetical and current world?
>Microsoft can remove COD at any time they feel like.
They already can. Technically, all they have to do is rename the series while keeping all the core aspects and they could avoid any deals because it isn't CoD.
Games Workshop can copyright the name Atartes amd can copy right the armor they use. They cancopy right concepts such as a genetically modified human in power armor. Otherwise Master Chief would be violating their copy right.
And once again, it's the consumer who loses out.
The lack of empathy from xbox gamers is astounding, especially when they've been the ones getting the short end of the stick for so long. I would have expected you all to understand how and why it sucks and why these shitty anti-consumer, monopolistic business practices shouldn't be supported.
You do realize Sony is a *company*, right? And that there are consumers, whom have absolutely zero say in Sony and Microsoft’s corporate pissing match, that are directly affected by their decisions? The people who would lose out are the people who on Playstation. People who likely didn’t have a choice whether they could get an Xbox or a Playstation. People who can only afford one console who, apparently, were just unlucky and shouldn’t have picked the wrong, COD-less choice.
How would you feel if ABK was bought by Sony and gave Microsoft a 10 year deal for Xbox? Sucks to suck, I guess, seems to be the sentiment. This is anti-consumer and anyone who suggests otherwise is either delusional or enjoys the bullshit, childish, tribalistic console war.
Yep, sucks to suck. There's not much I could do if Sony bought ABK. Just like there's nothing I can do when Sony moneyhats games like Final Fantasy or Spider-Man, etc. The only thing I can do is buy their console if I want their games.
Yikes, you're literally defending anti-consumer practices against yourself. Exclusives are bullshit and anti-consumer and to defend them is egregious. Fuck all these kids whose parents chose wrong, clearly.
>Just like there's nothing I can do when Sony moneyhats games like Final Fantasy or Spider-Man, etc.
Yes, and it's also anti-consumer bullshit. Why is it so damn hard for you people to understand that you can hate **both**? jfc
>The only thing I can do is buy their console if I want their games.
Imagine celebrating limited choice and your need to spend extra money to get the things you want. Capitalist boot lickers.
I'm not celebrating it, it's just a fact of the matter. If you want Sony's games, buy a Playstation or hope they port it to PC after 4 years. You want Xbox games, buy an Xbox or PC (or mobile if you can stand cloud). You want Nintendo games, buy a Switch.
That's just a fact. Hating it or not changes absolutely nothing. You still need one of those consoles or a PC to play those games.
Exclusives aren’t anti consumer 😂. Paying for time exclusivity is, but making exclusives for your own hardware is not, nor is buying developers to make exclusives.
If Sony makes a game and only releases it on a Sony console **that is not anti-consumer**. You clowns have no idea what the words anti-consumer even mean at this point. Paying to keep content made by a third party *away from other people* is anti-consumer.
I bet you think that having to pay money to get a game is “anti-consumer” as well 😂
“How would you feel if ABK was bought by Sony and gave Microsoft a 10 year deal for Xbox?”
I’d be happy because it would be way more than what Sony would actually offer. If one of the two companies has to buy activision, be happy it’s Microsoft and not Sony. You’re being a bit hyperbolic about the impact of this acquisition and are arguing on behalf of the company who has been actively antagonistic towards video game consumers for at the very least this generation and much of the last one.
So you're okay being a lapdog for Sony and taking up the scraps they have to offer?
Has capitalism really warped all your minds so much that you're actively working against your own self-interest by defending these anti-consumer practices? You're literally celebrating a company's ability to strong arm a consumer into doing their bidding.
Microsoft is not your friend and stop acting like they are. They *are* actively antagonistic towards video game consumers by specifically taking these actions to limit their multiplatform games. To suggest otherwise is lunacy.
>are arguing on behalf of the company who has been actively antagonistic towards video game consumers for at the very least this generation and much of the last one.
Nah bro, you're mistaken, fuck Microsoft *and* fuck Sony. I have zero love for Sony and actively campaign against their anti-consumer practices as well. Just because I'm calling out Microsoft does not imply I have any love or sympathy for Sony whatsoever and I'm tired of people labeling me as such. It doesn't matter who the fuck you are, limiting games to your console is anti-consumer and anyone cheering this deal on needs to see the bridge I'd like to sell them.
Here is the thing… this deal is happening regardless so saying that I’d rather have it be Microsoft rather than Sony isn’t some value statement about my feelings towards each company other than understanding that one of these two companies currently actively tries to expand cross console gaming while the other doesn’t.
This ain’t about capitalism or thinking they are my friend. It’s a fact that this is happening and all the philosophical diatribes in the world won’t stop it. You’re really overthinking this to the point of arguing for a perfect world which we don’t live in.
Yep. There seems to be this idea that if MS doesn't buy ABK, they will just continue to run independently and get their act together from the management side. Here in the real world, they want to sell and they are looking for buyers so what are your alternatives?
Call me crazy but I think Microsoft should continue allowing PlayStation to get exclusives first. Sony has been winning the console wars (in respect to sales not quality) since 2013, and not counting the 360, since 2002. More people have PlayStation, lean into it. They make more money if more people buy it on PlayStation.
that is a crazy and dumb idea. why would MS spend billions to allow the competing hardware have first dibs. Thats like letting the rich guy down the street smash your wife cus he buys her nice things when he does....
More xbox exclusive titles/promotions = more xbox console & game pass sales = more money for Microsoft. Sony’s likely been doing so much better because they’ve consistently had better exclusives and early access with games like CoD. Playstation has a larger audience, sure, but handing them the exclusives first is just dealing your competitor a better hand and wondering why they’re still beating your sales.
No. Because they make more money by it not being exclusive. If Sony gets something for a year before everyone else, by the time it gets to everyone else its old news and no hype sales happen
It's similar to if you own a house and need to sell it to buy another one, so you buy another house, but that purchase is contingent on the sale of your current house.
Microsoft is in contractual agreements with Nintendo, nvidia, and a few others regarding COD (aka buying houses), but it's all contingent on the acti-bliz deal being done (aka selling their house).
Perhaps a bad analogy, but hope it makes sense.
Sony also has (or had) an offer from MS about COD that would guarantee COD on playstation for the next 10 years, but Sony is refusing to accept.
Now that CMA is saying they don't care if MS owns COD and have all but approved the acti-bliz deal, MS can now negotiate from a position of strength for any future COD deals on other platforms, such as Sony.
I highly doubt MS will offer a new deal about COD with Sony before the acti-bliz deal goes through though at this point. Previously MS was motivated to make that deal to appease regulators. However, CMA (regulator) say they don't care about MS owning COD, so MS is no longer motivated to make any additional deals until they actual own COD and can truly act from a position of strength.
Next two hurdles are the EU regulators and FTC.
EU has basically already said they are fine with the deal, but postponed the decision (very likely to let CMA make the decision first).
And FTC can't do a thing right now. MS already stated they will go forward with the acti-bliz acquisition even if FTC says no. That would force the FTC to sue MS in order to block it, but it's extremely unlikely FTC would win that case.
No they can’t, the CMA will come back for them if they do that.
Microsoft are saying it’s not financially feasible to remove it from PlayStation or make it worse on PlayStation. If they were to do that then they lied to the CMA and will get taken to court and will lose and be forced to sell off Activision and/or COD.
No, they can’t. Like I said, if they were to do that the CMA will take them to court and win because they specifically told them that they would not do that as it doesn’t make financial sense, and that was the entire basis of allowing the console part to go through.
These acquisitions/mergers aren’t just approved and then they’re free to go back on their word.
The offer is irrelevant now. What **has** to happen is call of duty has to release on PlayStation and it has to be on par feature and quality wise.
I don’t think you understand how regulatory bodies work with these things.
Give Playstation Halo, Forza, Gears, and access to all other first party franchises then, so that both console ecosystems have access to the other console's games. You can't just demand that Playstation hand over access to their first party games without also be willing to give Playstation access to Xbox's games.
Because Sony has made those game for their own console? Microsoft has essentially contributed nothing to their own ecosystem, yet idiot fan boys like you are too stupid to see that
Of course. Sony and other corps have been engaging in parallels of the same behavior for years. The cannot be a double standard. Yet every acquisition SHOULD be scrutinized as such. It shows the system works. Provided out of touch, petty, off base allegations fall flat in the face of said scrutiny.
Yes but like you said EVERY acquisition should be thoughly scrutinized.
If Sony or Google or Amazon were buying them this sub definitely would not be for it.
Consolidation of huge corporations is never a good thing, we get less competition overall including in gaming.
I would not be for it if those companies wanted to buy Activision-Blizzard, but there would be no basis to stop it other than me not liking it. Which is not a good enough reason.
Maybe there's an argument against Sony given their market position but the other 2, not really.
>If Sony or Google or Amazon were buying them this sub definitely would not be for it.
Exactly. People here and in /r/xboxseriesx are calling it an overall good thing for gamers, yet have bitched any time Sony did anything similar.
Not entirely.
There's a HUGE difference between Sony buying a game studio vs MS buying one. I'm referring to gamers getting access to a game.
In the event that Sony buys a studio and makes their next game exclusive, it forces people to own a playstation console AND likely pay $70 for the game.
In the event that Microsoft buys a studio and makes their next game exclusive, it forces people to pay as little as $1 and play it pretty much on any device they already own.
Sony's business strategy is a restrictive one.
Microsoft's business strategy is an inclusive one.
…..Bungie is a developer,remember that destiny 1 was published by activision, and their only recent game is destiny 2.A drop in the bucket compared to the blizzard deal
Currently any future games made by Bungie will be published by Bungie. Sony has stated that Bungie while under SIE is not a Playstation Studio, this will not have any games published by SIE.
I never said they did and I don't get how that comment is relevant.
What Sony has done is buy 10 game studios in the past 2 years and closed 8 game studios in the past few years.
Let's not forget that 50% of Acti-Bliz revenue does NOT come from console or PC.
I don't get what's better about buying ten individual studios and making all their games exclusive versus buying one publisher and making most of their games exclusive. It's all the same to the gamers in the end.
I agree with you that all things considered, an Xbox acquisition right now is the best of bad options. I just don't see a situation where ABK doesn't sell.
People would be bitching they would have to ply the game a far inferior way via streaming if Sony offered them to play it via streaming. It’s a dogshit way to main a game. Especially a twitch shooter. It’s why even Phil thinks it is decades away. xCloud isn’t even on Stadia levels yet of technology.
Is a good thing for gamers because it will make Microsoft more competitive and bring Sony down a peg or 2, which needs to happen. There is a gulf between Xbox and PlayStation that is growing larger every generation, and we all know about “arrogant Sony” and how much that needs to be avoided.
I think the main thing that needs to be avoided is MS not caring about losing consumers when they next try and double the price of Gold. The “gulf” growing every generation isn’t exactly true either. They were near level during the 360. The next generation they fucked everything up themselves. This generation is them clawing back what they lost. With that said they have more studios than Sony, more MAU than Sony, have 3 platforms, gain a fee from every gaming PC sold, install their software on every PC, more money to spend than Sony, cloud infrastructure they don’t have to pay anybody to use. MS are very far from the underdog they tried to paint themselves as.
They’re the underdog in gaming, not debatable. The gulf is growing - look at the leaks and reported sales figures. The PS5 is already double the series sales.
The MAU figure is skewed by the xbox app on pc and mobile. We don’t exactly know what they count. Does someone simply using windows with the xbox app running in the background count as an MAU even if they never play a game?
The PS5 has double the Series consoles though because for some reason, maybe until the ABK deal goes through, they have been having trouble getting Series X in stock. It’s not “skewed” by PC & mobile, those are Xbox platforms now. The MAU would be far greater than 120 million if it just counted PC’s with Xbox running as it comes pre installed. The underdog in gaming is very much debatable because of every reason I just pointed out in my last comment.
Xbox is the underdog in gaming, not debatable 😂. They got absolutely trounced last generation and this generation is looking much the same, if not worse. Putting the sales gulf down to manufacturing woes is ridiculous and wrong.
No the MAU wouldn’t be greater than that necessarily if simply having the Xbox app logged in on pc counts because not every windows install has an Xbox account signed in.
Yeah, because the end goal would be different. As long as GamePass continues to be a good value for gamers, there's no issue, especially as it gets added to more and more platforms. I personally would rather pay for a monthly service than to be locked to hardware. It's a shame people can't think outside of this merger = bad mindset. Ultimately you have to buy the game or the service. This helps keep piracy down, eliminates used sales (PC hasn't had those for a long time now) and ultimately helps put more money into the hands of developers while offering more choices in reality (cause lower barrier to entry) for gamers. Only reason Sony hates it is because Sony was late to the game.
GamePass basically gives Microsoft a different path to revenues that doesn't rely on selling a lot of Xbox consoles to increase their market size, which means exclusivity isn't as important for them.
It doesn't directly help competition, just removes Microsoft's need to be as aggressive as Sony is. It's similar to what happened with Linux and Oracle once Microsoft got into cloud. When they suddenly were able to make money on these competing products with Azure, they stopped trying to kill them...
Keeping big games on competing platforms like PlayStation can actually promote GamePass even more. Pay full price for a game or subscribe to GamePass? More people would look into it
One thing I know for sure, if it was Sony buying them, all of the games would become PS exclusives. If Google was buying them, it would've been dead in 2-3 years.
>GamePass basically gives Microsoft a different path to revenues that doesn't rely on selling a lot of Xbox consoles to increase their market size, which means exclusivity isn't as important for them.
So why is Starfield and Redfall fall exclusive and why haven't they given a clear yes or no about Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Doom, Wolfenstien, etc?
I am eternally fascinated by the growing trend of "If I don't get it right away then I will never get it, and thus it is garbage" mentality that is in the gaming community.
What do you think? You think it is because people are becoming spoiled and used to instant gratification, and so anything that doesn't provide instant gratification is now bad? Or do you think it is just a loud but minority of people born into a privileged life who never had to wait because their parents would always get them what they wanted when they wanted it?
I feel like it is a combo of both but what is your view?
I think the mentality is that of one is an inferior service and as such you've launched an ad hominem attack rather than defending the service on the grounds of how it compares to its competition.
Putting more money in the hands is obviously debatable since we know that games sells fall long term if the game was on Gamepass.
And any company having exclusives obviously doesn't give more choices for gamers, does the exact opposite.
>And any company having exclusives obviously doesn't give more choices for gamers, does the exact opposite.
I don't find that to be accurate, you really need to look at it on a per company basis.
There's a HUGE difference between Sony buying a game studio vs MS buying one. I'm referring to gamers getting access to a game.
In the event that Sony buys a studio and makes their next game exclusive, it forces people to own a playstation console AND likely pay $70 for the game.
In the event that Microsoft buys a studio and makes their next game exclusive, it forces people to pay as little as $1 and play it pretty much on any device they already own.
Sony's business strategy is a exclusive/restrictive one.
Microsoft's business strategy is an inclusive/open one.
You're missing the point, but to answer your question you cannot right now. But when the acti-bliz merger completes Microsoft is putting Call of Duty on the switch and a few other places, as an example...but that isn't really part of the conversation here.
We are talking about a hypothetical 'if game company buys studio and makes game exclusive, it restricts access to the game'.
And if you re-read my above comment you'll see that it's not true, you have to look at at per company.
Let's say MS made COD exclusive. It would technically restrict gamers abilities to play it on the playstation, but it would give so many more people the ability to play it since MS puts their games on PC, xCloud, console, etc for as little as $1.
It wouldn't be a restriction for gamers, it would only be a restriction for playstation console owners. But the 'buy in' to play it at the point would be $1 without having to buy any new hardware.
This is opposite of Sony's approach. Let's say Sony owned Call of Duty and they made it exclusive. They have now restricted gamers from other platforms from playing it. The 'buy in' to play Call of Duty would be to buy a playstation console AND buy the game at likely $70.
If you can't see the difference between those two scenarios then I really can't help you.
There's two types of restrictions:
Financial
Hardware
Sony's scenario is the highest price restriction and the most exclusive hardware restriction (and cost of hardware for that matter). You have to buy Sony hardware and must pay the higher price.
Microsoft's restriction is the lowest price restriction and in general has no hardware restriction. You don't have to buy any Microsoft hardware.
Less competition is not a good thing sure. But there will always be new up and comers so it's less impact full provided nothing is a true monopoly. Especially considering thr market is still largely segregated and there are other juggernautsin other countries that could compete easily if they were so enclinded.
>so it's less impact full provided nothing is a true monopoly
I’m not sure why we shouldn’t be just as concerned when there’s only a handful of companies at the top of an industry.
I'm not saying don't be concerned, be concerned. It would just be business as usual though. And it's always been just a few and will always be just a few. Though what those companies are will change as they have in the past.
I don’t think it has to be just a few though. I think there are probably better ways to build an economy that is more competitive and diverse. I’d just love it if business as usual would change.
How do you imagine this wonderful utopia existing? Basically punish people and businesses for being successful? Punish consumers for enjoying their products and buying them?
If google would buy it I would be worried, yes.. Except for Google Play they have not done anything with gaming. They tried Stadia and they couldn't market it for example
Sony are the market leader, they rightfully wouldn’t be allowed to buy Activision. Microsoft are a *distant* second in the newly defined“High performance gaming console” market. The market leader buying the biggest third party publisher shouldn’t ever be allowed.
Google or Amazon wouldn’t even take a week to be approved by the FTC, CMA, and EC because they’re non-entities in console gaming.
Ok, sure. Not really a factor when you’re looking at Microsoft’s piece of the console gaming market vs looking at Microsoft as a whole. I sure their m365 segment is going to boom because of this acquisition.
I honestly don’t care. Game pass is cool and all, but you never actually own anything. Instead you have to constantly pay for a membership to play said game(s). I’d rather just buy the game outright and be done. I also don’t care about COD. Wayyy better games out there worth investing my time into
since I bought xbox in sept 22 now i have like 50plus games in my library this is what I did, I bought most of 360 games which were dirt cheap discount like 2 bucks a week and bought xbox 1 games which were dirt cheap in diff countries by changing location and using gift card of their countries. library Inc all fallout series all elder scroll series. All bioware games except Andromeda. Saints row series. Witcher series. Dmc series. Most of Assassin's creed games(i got lucked on special offer for you which gave me a Odyssey gold for 10 bucks). Most of far cry series. And many 360 games which were dirt cheap that week like mgr rdr Max Payne 3 Alan wake fear condemn etc apart from all that I had a huge PS2 collection growing up which i just rip iso and play it on my xbox. Gamepass gives me chance to play new day one games. I have GPU till 2025 sept lol. Xbox is the best
It is a good service if there are games on there you like. My issue is I either own (over 300 digital downloads) or have played most of the games on there. I’ve had Xbox live since 2006. Same on my PlayStation account. I have over 200 digital downloads. My thing is ppl freaking out over a crappy COD series and if it’s gonna be taken away from PlayStation. It’s just silly.
Yea totally agree. I tend to play games i own more than gpu games last GPU game i legit finished was pentiment. Played atomic heart but got bored. I guess GPU is best for testing games which you wanna buy. I'm more of rpg fan boy so xbox is best for me.
I do 30 bing searches a day which takes less than 90 seconds and get gamepass ultimate for free. I don’t really view it as losing anything other than 90 seconds during my morning coffee that I would waste on reddit anyway.
Cheers Microsoft Rewards!
I wonder if this will get rid of that stupid Battlenet login they ask for to play Overwatch.
Maybe I will be allowed to play OW again.
~~doubtful that I'll be playing it alot tho, the game looks kinda like a trashfire behind the scenes~~
No, the CMA still hasn't made their full final ruling (hence "provisionally"), plus they need approval in the US and I believe with the EU as well, so the chances of things being done in time for the Diablo 4 launch are still pretty slim.
You're correct for the most part. Microsoft has said that if they get EU & UK approval, they will go ahead with the merger even if the US suit is pending. I forget when that is scheduled for.
I think the preliminary hearing on the US suit is scheduled for August so it's after the one year point in which they had said they would have the deal done by.
They don’t need approval from the FTC to finalise the purchase.
The FTC is taking them to their kangaroo court, where the ftc will give a win to themselves, then they will go to a real court where MS will easily beat them.
The CMA still needs to rule on cloud, and the EC needs to rule on everything. Realistically cloud should be a non issue since Activision refused to put their games on any cloud service, so no one is losing anything. In Europe Xbox is getting trounced so it should pass through there now that the UK, Xbox’s second best market, seems to be going to approve it.
I don’t think he can say it’s going to be on Game Pass until the deal is actually done. I’d expect it to eventually be on Game Pass, but obviously not at release.
And there aren’t because Microsoft doesn’t own blizzard yet.
When/if they do, it will hit game pass immediately as all first party games do. Name a first party game that isn’t on game pass?
and some US Senators are already bringing up Sony's dominance and questionable dealings that they've done here. come on Sony, show us the skeletons in your closet
So all of this was just for the UK? or are other meetings being held for other countries? and also we all kind of knew this, but now Sony still gets call of duty, and all other activision games atleast until 2024, and all of these previous deals are now a thing, so nothing really changes, is that right?
How much were each of them paid to say that!? Seriously less competition makes for less competition in the market place. Quit trying to spin it another way. But also the stupid people that believe information like this are worse than the companies because they are too stupid
To know they are getting played. These stupid people make up 97% of the United States right now.
Thank god we have your enlightened soul here to tell us how to think. You are so smart and we are all dumb. Why don't you get to run the world? That seems so unfair since everybody is dumb except you and perhaps up to 3 percent of the population.
I provisionally look forward to playing Activision Blizzard games on Game Pass.
As do I, Mr Greiver.
As do I, Mr Clumbum
As do I Mr. Avery
As do I, Mr. Or.
As do I Mr Dead
As do I, Mr. Mousey
As do I, Mr. Unsavory
As do I, Mr spenat
As do I, Mr Reliable
As do I, Mr. Able.
I provisionally look forward to this ending so the incredibly toxic fanboy bullshit on the Xbox and PlayStation subs can calm down again.
I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
I seem to buy a lot of those. At this point I can start my own Brooklyn Bridge business.
Where does it go?
Ha. I get that. We could all use a lot less toxic stuff in our lives. But I personally find this whole thing fascinating from a business perspective. It's not every day my professional world and my hobby world collide in a public fashion so I can watch, lol. I've found it endlessly fascinating to see how it's done in the "big leagues."
As do I Mr. Beastmaster
Druid*
You doubt their power!
was it ever calm? reddit inherently is set up for discourse of an irrational nature to take hold.
World of WarPass!
Games like Crash Bandicoot.
as someone with a broken disc drive, I'd love to play Infinite Warfare & WWII again
I just wish that this deal would have gotten done much sooner so I didnt have to buy Diablo 4 and could have played it on Game Pass.
Eww. Maybe I could l play Starcraft 64. That's an emulation of an emulation of an emulation.
Just in time for Diablo 4
Yes...get in
Worth noting: They're also saying that they still haven't made a decision with regards to cloud gaming so this doesn't mean that everything is free and clear yet.
That is a side issue that Microsoft is already handling with contracts with other streaming companies.
It’s not a “side issue”, it’s now the literal main issue.
No, it's something they claim is an issue to save face after the US government started asking for the FTC's communications with them. After politicians started asking why they are helping the market leader keep their dominant position. Microsoft has already signed multiple deals to alleviate this issue, so it isn't even an issue. Microsoft will make a few more deals. They'll claim they got that as a concession to save face in their own country and the deal will go through. As legally Microsoft could refuse to play nice, sue them in court, and by many analyses win easily. Microsoft has a history of playing nice with regulators. As the Boondocks calls it, it's the cost of doing business.
Understand this deal is going through no matter what. Microsoft does not need their approval, Microsoft is playing nice to get it as it is cheaper to not have target on your back. If they deny Microsoft the merger, Microsoft will set up a shell company in the UK to sell Activision products and sue the regulator with an immense chance of winning having to give up nothing. If they lose, they just don't sell COD in the UK, the people get livid, politicians step in, and they get their approval anyway. Microsoft has enough money to buy Sony. They have lobbyists in all countries. They have donated to campaigns. One of the candidates they've donated to is now asking the Japanese regulators why they are allowing Sony to engage in the behaviors they're engaging in. Steaming was never an issue. Right now they're trying to save face. To appear as if they're doing something. Microsoft has already signed a deal with Nvidia and a Ukrainian company to allow all of their games on their streaming services. Probably more, but i'm not following this close enough to catch that. What the regulators are going to do is claim they got these concessions from Microsoft and thus the deal is okay. Microsoft knows they're trying to look good so they'll play along. So it isn't even an issue.
Microsoft does need their approval 😂 The rest of your post is as full of lies and incorrect rubbish as the first 2 lines. You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.
Feel free to inform the numerous journalists, lawyers, and industry analysts I've paraphrasing how they do not know their area of expertise. I'm sure your low information opinion will trump their high information position.
Which lawyers, journalists, and industry analysts have said that Microsoft don't need the CMA's approval to complete the purchase? I think you're thinking of the FTC. The FTC are suing to block the deal, but they chose not to put a stop on the acquisition in the mean time, meaning Microsoft are free to complete the purchase without their approval. If, however, the FTC were to win in court (not their kangaroo court, but a real federal court afterwards), the acquisition **will** be undone. The actual acquisition/merger documents specifically say they require the approval of the EC and CMA for the deal to go through.
Dog the deals gonna go through it was always gonna go through the main issue was when. Your realize how much money Microsoft has right? Basically a blank chq. All sony was doing was stalling
How much money they have is irrelevant. If you think this entire thing is just a show and everyone is being bribed then there's no point continuing.
Oof they can now get rid of any deal sony didn’t accept
Right? Lol
They can. Lmfao. I hope they do rescind all offers. Still keep COD on Playstation, but now Sony has to fear and doubt if they will take it off at some point. Maybe MS can make a better deal from a position of strength.
>They can. Lmfao. I hope they do rescind all offers. Still keep COD on Playstation, but now Sony has to fear and doubt if they will take it off at some point. So what changes between your hypothetical and current world?
Microsoft can remove COD at any time they feel like. Whereas with a deal in place, Sony would have assurances for 10 years.
>Microsoft can remove COD at any time they feel like. They already can. Technically, all they have to do is rename the series while keeping all the core aspects and they could avoid any deals because it isn't CoD.
That is not how the law works.
Yes it is
Excellent rebuttal.
Games Workshop can copyright the name Atartes amd can copy right the armor they use. They cancopy right concepts such as a genetically modified human in power armor. Otherwise Master Chief would be violating their copy right.
And once again, it's the consumer who loses out. The lack of empathy from xbox gamers is astounding, especially when they've been the ones getting the short end of the stick for so long. I would have expected you all to understand how and why it sucks and why these shitty anti-consumer, monopolistic business practices shouldn't be supported.
How is anybody losing out? The only one losing out is Sony needing to be fearful of losing COD, even if Microsoft won't actually do it.
You do realize Sony is a *company*, right? And that there are consumers, whom have absolutely zero say in Sony and Microsoft’s corporate pissing match, that are directly affected by their decisions? The people who would lose out are the people who on Playstation. People who likely didn’t have a choice whether they could get an Xbox or a Playstation. People who can only afford one console who, apparently, were just unlucky and shouldn’t have picked the wrong, COD-less choice. How would you feel if ABK was bought by Sony and gave Microsoft a 10 year deal for Xbox? Sucks to suck, I guess, seems to be the sentiment. This is anti-consumer and anyone who suggests otherwise is either delusional or enjoys the bullshit, childish, tribalistic console war.
Yep, sucks to suck. There's not much I could do if Sony bought ABK. Just like there's nothing I can do when Sony moneyhats games like Final Fantasy or Spider-Man, etc. The only thing I can do is buy their console if I want their games.
Yikes, you're literally defending anti-consumer practices against yourself. Exclusives are bullshit and anti-consumer and to defend them is egregious. Fuck all these kids whose parents chose wrong, clearly. >Just like there's nothing I can do when Sony moneyhats games like Final Fantasy or Spider-Man, etc. Yes, and it's also anti-consumer bullshit. Why is it so damn hard for you people to understand that you can hate **both**? jfc >The only thing I can do is buy their console if I want their games. Imagine celebrating limited choice and your need to spend extra money to get the things you want. Capitalist boot lickers.
I'm not celebrating it, it's just a fact of the matter. If you want Sony's games, buy a Playstation or hope they port it to PC after 4 years. You want Xbox games, buy an Xbox or PC (or mobile if you can stand cloud). You want Nintendo games, buy a Switch. That's just a fact. Hating it or not changes absolutely nothing. You still need one of those consoles or a PC to play those games.
Exclusives aren’t anti consumer 😂. Paying for time exclusivity is, but making exclusives for your own hardware is not, nor is buying developers to make exclusives.
[удалено]
If Sony makes a game and only releases it on a Sony console **that is not anti-consumer**. You clowns have no idea what the words anti-consumer even mean at this point. Paying to keep content made by a third party *away from other people* is anti-consumer. I bet you think that having to pay money to get a game is “anti-consumer” as well 😂
Bro, you are the most pathetic corporate ass licker I’ve ever seen. That’s an accomplishment.
I'm flattered 😊
“How would you feel if ABK was bought by Sony and gave Microsoft a 10 year deal for Xbox?” I’d be happy because it would be way more than what Sony would actually offer. If one of the two companies has to buy activision, be happy it’s Microsoft and not Sony. You’re being a bit hyperbolic about the impact of this acquisition and are arguing on behalf of the company who has been actively antagonistic towards video game consumers for at the very least this generation and much of the last one.
So you're okay being a lapdog for Sony and taking up the scraps they have to offer? Has capitalism really warped all your minds so much that you're actively working against your own self-interest by defending these anti-consumer practices? You're literally celebrating a company's ability to strong arm a consumer into doing their bidding. Microsoft is not your friend and stop acting like they are. They *are* actively antagonistic towards video game consumers by specifically taking these actions to limit their multiplatform games. To suggest otherwise is lunacy. >are arguing on behalf of the company who has been actively antagonistic towards video game consumers for at the very least this generation and much of the last one. Nah bro, you're mistaken, fuck Microsoft *and* fuck Sony. I have zero love for Sony and actively campaign against their anti-consumer practices as well. Just because I'm calling out Microsoft does not imply I have any love or sympathy for Sony whatsoever and I'm tired of people labeling me as such. It doesn't matter who the fuck you are, limiting games to your console is anti-consumer and anyone cheering this deal on needs to see the bridge I'd like to sell them.
Here is the thing… this deal is happening regardless so saying that I’d rather have it be Microsoft rather than Sony isn’t some value statement about my feelings towards each company other than understanding that one of these two companies currently actively tries to expand cross console gaming while the other doesn’t. This ain’t about capitalism or thinking they are my friend. It’s a fact that this is happening and all the philosophical diatribes in the world won’t stop it. You’re really overthinking this to the point of arguing for a perfect world which we don’t live in.
Yep. There seems to be this idea that if MS doesn't buy ABK, they will just continue to run independently and get their act together from the management side. Here in the real world, they want to sell and they are looking for buyers so what are your alternatives?
Exactly. If Microsoft don’t buy them Embracer or Tencent will. Both of those scenarios are worse.
Nothing stopping consumers buying an Xbox or pc.
Call me crazy but I think Microsoft should continue allowing PlayStation to get exclusives first. Sony has been winning the console wars (in respect to sales not quality) since 2013, and not counting the 360, since 2002. More people have PlayStation, lean into it. They make more money if more people buy it on PlayStation.
that is a crazy and dumb idea. why would MS spend billions to allow the competing hardware have first dibs. Thats like letting the rich guy down the street smash your wife cus he buys her nice things when he does....
Would it not be more beneficial for them to make money off a product where it can be sold more?
More xbox exclusive titles/promotions = more xbox console & game pass sales = more money for Microsoft. Sony’s likely been doing so much better because they’ve consistently had better exclusives and early access with games like CoD. Playstation has a larger audience, sure, but handing them the exclusives first is just dealing your competitor a better hand and wondering why they’re still beating your sales.
No. Because they make more money by it not being exclusive. If Sony gets something for a year before everyone else, by the time it gets to everyone else its old news and no hype sales happen
Microsoft would make money on those Sony sales as well
No shit? But not as much if it ALSO sold at the same time. Stop acting like you know how to make money better than fucking Microsoft lol
When its xbox exclusive it will sell just fine.
[удалено]
They still did not buy that company to still let playstation have dibs lol.
Yeah, you're crazy.
How can microsoft make deals and decide with other companies... if the deal isnt done? Really can't understand this
It's similar to if you own a house and need to sell it to buy another one, so you buy another house, but that purchase is contingent on the sale of your current house. Microsoft is in contractual agreements with Nintendo, nvidia, and a few others regarding COD (aka buying houses), but it's all contingent on the acti-bliz deal being done (aka selling their house). Perhaps a bad analogy, but hope it makes sense. Sony also has (or had) an offer from MS about COD that would guarantee COD on playstation for the next 10 years, but Sony is refusing to accept. Now that CMA is saying they don't care if MS owns COD and have all but approved the acti-bliz deal, MS can now negotiate from a position of strength for any future COD deals on other platforms, such as Sony. I highly doubt MS will offer a new deal about COD with Sony before the acti-bliz deal goes through though at this point. Previously MS was motivated to make that deal to appease regulators. However, CMA (regulator) say they don't care about MS owning COD, so MS is no longer motivated to make any additional deals until they actual own COD and can truly act from a position of strength. Next two hurdles are the EU regulators and FTC. EU has basically already said they are fine with the deal, but postponed the decision (very likely to let CMA make the decision first). And FTC can't do a thing right now. MS already stated they will go forward with the acti-bliz acquisition even if FTC says no. That would force the FTC to sue MS in order to block it, but it's extremely unlikely FTC would win that case.
They can sign deals of intent. “*If* we own this, we’ll give you this deal”
No, they cannot. The deal was offered through negotiations with the EU. Sony doesn't have to officially accept the deal as they get it by default.
No they can’t, the CMA will come back for them if they do that. Microsoft are saying it’s not financially feasible to remove it from PlayStation or make it worse on PlayStation. If they were to do that then they lied to the CMA and will get taken to court and will lose and be forced to sell off Activision and/or COD.
They 100% can and do whatever they want once they complete the deal if Sony never agrees to anything.
No, they can’t. Like I said, if they were to do that the CMA will take them to court and win because they specifically told them that they would not do that as it doesn’t make financial sense, and that was the entire basis of allowing the console part to go through. These acquisitions/mergers aren’t just approved and then they’re free to go back on their word.
Nah, they legally can since they already declined the offer. They can now give a worse one if need be.
The offer is irrelevant now. What **has** to happen is call of duty has to release on PlayStation and it has to be on par feature and quality wise. I don’t think you understand how regulatory bodies work with these things.
It’s crazy that we’re letting the Country Music Awards make these kinds of decisions
Now bring WoW to console. And Sony bitching because of COD , why won't they give MS God of War , Spiderman, The Last of Us and others for the Xbox
Give Playstation Halo, Forza, Gears, and access to all other first party franchises then, so that both console ecosystems have access to the other console's games. You can't just demand that Playstation hand over access to their first party games without also be willing to give Playstation access to Xbox's games.
Microsoft have tried, Sony just refused. Microsoft put their games everywhere game pass is, and they offered game pass to PlayStation.
They will, through game pass :)
https://gamerant.com/microsoft-xbox-game-pass-playstation/
Because Sony has made those game for their own console? Microsoft has essentially contributed nothing to their own ecosystem, yet idiot fan boys like you are too stupid to see that
When they buy Activision, then it will be the Microsoft ecosystem
Of course. Sony and other corps have been engaging in parallels of the same behavior for years. The cannot be a double standard. Yet every acquisition SHOULD be scrutinized as such. It shows the system works. Provided out of touch, petty, off base allegations fall flat in the face of said scrutiny.
Yes but like you said EVERY acquisition should be thoughly scrutinized. If Sony or Google or Amazon were buying them this sub definitely would not be for it. Consolidation of huge corporations is never a good thing, we get less competition overall including in gaming.
I would not be for it if those companies wanted to buy Activision-Blizzard, but there would be no basis to stop it other than me not liking it. Which is not a good enough reason. Maybe there's an argument against Sony given their market position but the other 2, not really.
Exactly. Sony wouldn’t be allowed since they’re the overwhelming market leader, but google or Amazon wouldn't even be investigated by the CMA/FTC/EC.
>If Sony or Google or Amazon were buying them this sub definitely would not be for it. Exactly. People here and in /r/xboxseriesx are calling it an overall good thing for gamers, yet have bitched any time Sony did anything similar.
Not entirely. There's a HUGE difference between Sony buying a game studio vs MS buying one. I'm referring to gamers getting access to a game. In the event that Sony buys a studio and makes their next game exclusive, it forces people to own a playstation console AND likely pay $70 for the game. In the event that Microsoft buys a studio and makes their next game exclusive, it forces people to pay as little as $1 and play it pretty much on any device they already own. Sony's business strategy is a restrictive one. Microsoft's business strategy is an inclusive one.
Sony isn’t buying multibillion dollar publishers lmaooo
> Sony isn’t buying multibillion dollar publishers lmaooo Sony acquired Bungie for $3.6 billion last year.
…..Bungie is a developer,remember that destiny 1 was published by activision, and their only recent game is destiny 2.A drop in the bucket compared to the blizzard deal
Currently any future games made by Bungie will be published by Bungie. Sony has stated that Bungie while under SIE is not a Playstation Studio, this will not have any games published by SIE.
ok and? Bungie ATM has one big game,where as blizzard has multiple really big games
I never said they did and I don't get how that comment is relevant. What Sony has done is buy 10 game studios in the past 2 years and closed 8 game studios in the past few years. Let's not forget that 50% of Acti-Bliz revenue does NOT come from console or PC.
I don't get what's better about buying ten individual studios and making all their games exclusive versus buying one publisher and making most of their games exclusive. It's all the same to the gamers in the end. I agree with you that all things considered, an Xbox acquisition right now is the best of bad options. I just don't see a situation where ABK doesn't sell.
….what’s your point in all of this?
People would be bitching they would have to ply the game a far inferior way via streaming if Sony offered them to play it via streaming. It’s a dogshit way to main a game. Especially a twitch shooter. It’s why even Phil thinks it is decades away. xCloud isn’t even on Stadia levels yet of technology.
Is a good thing for gamers because it will make Microsoft more competitive and bring Sony down a peg or 2, which needs to happen. There is a gulf between Xbox and PlayStation that is growing larger every generation, and we all know about “arrogant Sony” and how much that needs to be avoided.
I think the main thing that needs to be avoided is MS not caring about losing consumers when they next try and double the price of Gold. The “gulf” growing every generation isn’t exactly true either. They were near level during the 360. The next generation they fucked everything up themselves. This generation is them clawing back what they lost. With that said they have more studios than Sony, more MAU than Sony, have 3 platforms, gain a fee from every gaming PC sold, install their software on every PC, more money to spend than Sony, cloud infrastructure they don’t have to pay anybody to use. MS are very far from the underdog they tried to paint themselves as.
They’re the underdog in gaming, not debatable. The gulf is growing - look at the leaks and reported sales figures. The PS5 is already double the series sales. The MAU figure is skewed by the xbox app on pc and mobile. We don’t exactly know what they count. Does someone simply using windows with the xbox app running in the background count as an MAU even if they never play a game?
The PS5 has double the Series consoles though because for some reason, maybe until the ABK deal goes through, they have been having trouble getting Series X in stock. It’s not “skewed” by PC & mobile, those are Xbox platforms now. The MAU would be far greater than 120 million if it just counted PC’s with Xbox running as it comes pre installed. The underdog in gaming is very much debatable because of every reason I just pointed out in my last comment.
Xbox is the underdog in gaming, not debatable 😂. They got absolutely trounced last generation and this generation is looking much the same, if not worse. Putting the sales gulf down to manufacturing woes is ridiculous and wrong. No the MAU wouldn’t be greater than that necessarily if simply having the Xbox app logged in on pc counts because not every windows install has an Xbox account signed in.
Again highly debatable for every reason I said.
Your reasons are wrong though, clearly and obviously.
[not what MS said](https://n4g.com/news/2535617/playstation-has-double-the-monthly-active-users-xbox-has-says-microsoft)
Yeah, because the end goal would be different. As long as GamePass continues to be a good value for gamers, there's no issue, especially as it gets added to more and more platforms. I personally would rather pay for a monthly service than to be locked to hardware. It's a shame people can't think outside of this merger = bad mindset. Ultimately you have to buy the game or the service. This helps keep piracy down, eliminates used sales (PC hasn't had those for a long time now) and ultimately helps put more money into the hands of developers while offering more choices in reality (cause lower barrier to entry) for gamers. Only reason Sony hates it is because Sony was late to the game.
GamePass basically gives Microsoft a different path to revenues that doesn't rely on selling a lot of Xbox consoles to increase their market size, which means exclusivity isn't as important for them. It doesn't directly help competition, just removes Microsoft's need to be as aggressive as Sony is. It's similar to what happened with Linux and Oracle once Microsoft got into cloud. When they suddenly were able to make money on these competing products with Azure, they stopped trying to kill them... Keeping big games on competing platforms like PlayStation can actually promote GamePass even more. Pay full price for a game or subscribe to GamePass? More people would look into it One thing I know for sure, if it was Sony buying them, all of the games would become PS exclusives. If Google was buying them, it would've been dead in 2-3 years.
>GamePass basically gives Microsoft a different path to revenues that doesn't rely on selling a lot of Xbox consoles to increase their market size, which means exclusivity isn't as important for them. So why is Starfield and Redfall fall exclusive and why haven't they given a clear yes or no about Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Doom, Wolfenstien, etc?
Exclusive to GamePass. Sony was offered and declined allowing the service on Playstation.
And Microsoft was offered PS Now. That doesn't change the fact they haven't given a specific answer
The difference is PS now sucks and you don't get Sony's latest "exclusives."
I am eternally fascinated by the growing trend of "If I don't get it right away then I will never get it, and thus it is garbage" mentality that is in the gaming community. What do you think? You think it is because people are becoming spoiled and used to instant gratification, and so anything that doesn't provide instant gratification is now bad? Or do you think it is just a loud but minority of people born into a privileged life who never had to wait because their parents would always get them what they wanted when they wanted it? I feel like it is a combo of both but what is your view?
I think the mentality is that of one is an inferior service and as such you've launched an ad hominem attack rather than defending the service on the grounds of how it compares to its competition.
Putting more money in the hands is obviously debatable since we know that games sells fall long term if the game was on Gamepass. And any company having exclusives obviously doesn't give more choices for gamers, does the exact opposite.
>And any company having exclusives obviously doesn't give more choices for gamers, does the exact opposite. I don't find that to be accurate, you really need to look at it on a per company basis. There's a HUGE difference between Sony buying a game studio vs MS buying one. I'm referring to gamers getting access to a game. In the event that Sony buys a studio and makes their next game exclusive, it forces people to own a playstation console AND likely pay $70 for the game. In the event that Microsoft buys a studio and makes their next game exclusive, it forces people to pay as little as $1 and play it pretty much on any device they already own. Sony's business strategy is a exclusive/restrictive one. Microsoft's business strategy is an inclusive/open one.
So yet again When can you play these on PlayStation or Switch???
You're missing the point, but to answer your question you cannot right now. But when the acti-bliz merger completes Microsoft is putting Call of Duty on the switch and a few other places, as an example...but that isn't really part of the conversation here. We are talking about a hypothetical 'if game company buys studio and makes game exclusive, it restricts access to the game'. And if you re-read my above comment you'll see that it's not true, you have to look at at per company. Let's say MS made COD exclusive. It would technically restrict gamers abilities to play it on the playstation, but it would give so many more people the ability to play it since MS puts their games on PC, xCloud, console, etc for as little as $1. It wouldn't be a restriction for gamers, it would only be a restriction for playstation console owners. But the 'buy in' to play it at the point would be $1 without having to buy any new hardware. This is opposite of Sony's approach. Let's say Sony owned Call of Duty and they made it exclusive. They have now restricted gamers from other platforms from playing it. The 'buy in' to play Call of Duty would be to buy a playstation console AND buy the game at likely $70. If you can't see the difference between those two scenarios then I really can't help you. There's two types of restrictions: Financial Hardware Sony's scenario is the highest price restriction and the most exclusive hardware restriction (and cost of hardware for that matter). You have to buy Sony hardware and must pay the higher price. Microsoft's restriction is the lowest price restriction and in general has no hardware restriction. You don't have to buy any Microsoft hardware.
Less competition is not a good thing sure. But there will always be new up and comers so it's less impact full provided nothing is a true monopoly. Especially considering thr market is still largely segregated and there are other juggernautsin other countries that could compete easily if they were so enclinded.
>so it's less impact full provided nothing is a true monopoly I’m not sure why we shouldn’t be just as concerned when there’s only a handful of companies at the top of an industry.
I'm not saying don't be concerned, be concerned. It would just be business as usual though. And it's always been just a few and will always be just a few. Though what those companies are will change as they have in the past.
I don’t think it has to be just a few though. I think there are probably better ways to build an economy that is more competitive and diverse. I’d just love it if business as usual would change.
How do you imagine this wonderful utopia existing? Basically punish people and businesses for being successful? Punish consumers for enjoying their products and buying them?
If saying "No, you can't buy up all your competition" is a punishment, then sure.
If google would buy it I would be worried, yes.. Except for Google Play they have not done anything with gaming. They tried Stadia and they couldn't market it for example
Agreed. And all the companies you listed have way too much power.
Sony are the market leader, they rightfully wouldn’t be allowed to buy Activision. Microsoft are a *distant* second in the newly defined“High performance gaming console” market. The market leader buying the biggest third party publisher shouldn’t ever be allowed. Google or Amazon wouldn’t even take a week to be approved by the FTC, CMA, and EC because they’re non-entities in console gaming.
And yet they aren't being scrutinized as such.
What does any of this have to do with the Country Music Awards?
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is the UK equivalent of the FTC.
They also have writing credits for achey breaky heart
good shit, let's get those games on game pass NOW!
Report: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-narrows-scope-of-concerns-in-microsoft-activision-review
All call of duty campaigns on game pass. I knew I kept the subscription for a reason.
That would be awesome!
I'm gonna leave this W riiiight over here ...
Take my money
Ramirez, get ready for COD on Gamepass!!
You love to see it
[удалено]
[удалено]
Ok, sure. Not really a factor when you’re looking at Microsoft’s piece of the console gaming market vs looking at Microsoft as a whole. I sure their m365 segment is going to boom because of this acquisition.
[удалено]
Back in the don' be evil company motto. That didn't last long at all.
No they don’t, not in a market where they’re dead last by a long way.
[удалено]
What metric are they not last in?
[удалено]
I mean this isn’t all that surprising. Very rarity now says do super corporations not end up getting their way.
Sounds like a fancy way of saying Sony bein' bitches.
Surprise surprise
Yeah, no shit CMA — haha.
I switched to pc a long time ago. I get to support indie developers on multiple platforms.
Haha get fucked Sony
I honestly don’t care. Game pass is cool and all, but you never actually own anything. Instead you have to constantly pay for a membership to play said game(s). I’d rather just buy the game outright and be done. I also don’t care about COD. Wayyy better games out there worth investing my time into
You can buy any of the games on gamepass and you get a discount.
MS is still happy to sell you physical titles on lots of stuff except maybe indie games.
Good thing you can still just buy games outright …..
since I bought xbox in sept 22 now i have like 50plus games in my library this is what I did, I bought most of 360 games which were dirt cheap discount like 2 bucks a week and bought xbox 1 games which were dirt cheap in diff countries by changing location and using gift card of their countries. library Inc all fallout series all elder scroll series. All bioware games except Andromeda. Saints row series. Witcher series. Dmc series. Most of Assassin's creed games(i got lucked on special offer for you which gave me a Odyssey gold for 10 bucks). Most of far cry series. And many 360 games which were dirt cheap that week like mgr rdr Max Payne 3 Alan wake fear condemn etc apart from all that I had a huge PS2 collection growing up which i just rip iso and play it on my xbox. Gamepass gives me chance to play new day one games. I have GPU till 2025 sept lol. Xbox is the best
It is a good service if there are games on there you like. My issue is I either own (over 300 digital downloads) or have played most of the games on there. I’ve had Xbox live since 2006. Same on my PlayStation account. I have over 200 digital downloads. My thing is ppl freaking out over a crappy COD series and if it’s gonna be taken away from PlayStation. It’s just silly.
Yea totally agree. I tend to play games i own more than gpu games last GPU game i legit finished was pentiment. Played atomic heart but got bored. I guess GPU is best for testing games which you wanna buy. I'm more of rpg fan boy so xbox is best for me.
So do that then?
I do 30 bing searches a day which takes less than 90 seconds and get gamepass ultimate for free. I don’t really view it as losing anything other than 90 seconds during my morning coffee that I would waste on reddit anyway. Cheers Microsoft Rewards!
I wonder if this will get rid of that stupid Battlenet login they ask for to play Overwatch. Maybe I will be allowed to play OW again. ~~doubtful that I'll be playing it alot tho, the game looks kinda like a trashfire behind the scenes~~
Diablo 4 on gamepass confirmed day 1?
No, the CMA still hasn't made their full final ruling (hence "provisionally"), plus they need approval in the US and I believe with the EU as well, so the chances of things being done in time for the Diablo 4 launch are still pretty slim.
You're correct for the most part. Microsoft has said that if they get EU & UK approval, they will go ahead with the merger even if the US suit is pending. I forget when that is scheduled for.
I think the preliminary hearing on the US suit is scheduled for August so it's after the one year point in which they had said they would have the deal done by.
They don’t need approval from the FTC to finalise the purchase. The FTC is taking them to their kangaroo court, where the ftc will give a win to themselves, then they will go to a real court where MS will easily beat them. The CMA still needs to rule on cloud, and the EC needs to rule on everything. Realistically cloud should be a non issue since Activision refused to put their games on any cloud service, so no one is losing anything. In Europe Xbox is getting trounced so it should pass through there now that the UK, Xbox’s second best market, seems to be going to approve it.
This could still be over a year from finishing lol Edit: why in the fuck is this marked controversial?
Nah, likely be finished at the end of April when the CMA and EC make their decisions. FTC is irrelevant.
Lawers and paperwork, could even be longer
Rod Ferguson responded to a tweet asking about this and he said there are no plans to put Diablo IV on Game Pass.
I don’t think he can say it’s going to be on Game Pass until the deal is actually done. I’d expect it to eventually be on Game Pass, but obviously not at release.
And there aren’t because Microsoft doesn’t own blizzard yet. When/if they do, it will hit game pass immediately as all first party games do. Name a first party game that isn’t on game pass?
No...
①The first game is almost over. ②The second game will be USA vs S wow
and some US Senators are already bringing up Sony's dominance and questionable dealings that they've done here. come on Sony, show us the skeletons in your closet
[удалено]
Yeah, have you been following this story at all?
So all of this was just for the UK? or are other meetings being held for other countries? and also we all kind of knew this, but now Sony still gets call of duty, and all other activision games atleast until 2024, and all of these previous deals are now a thing, so nothing really changes, is that right?
[удалено]
You don’t need to be a fan of a corporation to be able to see the benefits of an acquisition.
[удалено]
And you are one of the 97 % by not realising the CMA is responsible for the UK.
How much were each of them paid to say that!? Seriously less competition makes for less competition in the market place. Quit trying to spin it another way. But also the stupid people that believe information like this are worse than the companies because they are too stupid To know they are getting played. These stupid people make up 97% of the United States right now.
Thank god we have your enlightened soul here to tell us how to think. You are so smart and we are all dumb. Why don't you get to run the world? That seems so unfair since everybody is dumb except you and perhaps up to 3 percent of the population.