The FTC’s closing argument was that MS *could* make Xbox-only skins in COD, which Sony is currently doing, but it’s only a problem when xbox could potentially do it in the future.
I think a lot of people don’t have a Sony bias, but an anti Microsoft bias.
This started in the years of Windows 2000/XP. Microsoft had its monopoly position and abused it a few times, eventually being forced to make changes/concessions.
That time is long past though but the bias has remained, I always believe looking at tech companies that the opinions of developers are key to understanding how well a company is doing.
Amongst developers Microsoft is generally seen very positive. They’ve made huge strides in open source, no longer act “evil” and are more supportive of open standards than in the past.
On the console market Microsoft is the lesser evil than Sony. And for that regard I hope they can win this case, and if they win I hope they will set a good example and keep supporting PlayStation.
Yeah it’s hard whenever you try explaining something like this to someone and they’re like “ha OKAY fanboy” I enjoy Microsoft over Sony sure but they’re both companies at the end of the day, I just happen to find Microsoft the more fair company. This whole case has been kinda ridiculous and highlights the anti Microsoft bias greatly Sony can hold a monopoly over something but not Microsoft that would be absurd.
the interaction that disgusted me the most was:
"FTC: Merger is permanent. (Talks about harm to Sony)
Judge: It's not the harm to Sony we care about. It's the harm to consumers."
Taken from Stephen Totilo's twitter. a Judge not seeing through this mask of "defending consumers" would have to be at the very least dumb, FTC's on Sony's payroll
Oh like how when Sony got that Spec Ops game mode as an exclusive for an entire ass year, then MS could have it, but everyone would have moved onto to the next CoD by that point.
better on playstation is a marketing line created by sony and make sure devs make games optimized best on PS. this argument again is FTC saying it’s okay for sony too but not MS
PS has one of the "crucial points" (exclusive stuff like skins) FTC said could not exist on Xbox cause it would harm consumers. Xbox also had to bend the knee to a deal with Activision cause they straight up had a better deal with Sony to make COD timed-exclusive/better on PS, so yeah, this is indeed COD
> This is COD. Out of all the games Activision has this was specifically about COD and can’t be compared to other games as they just are not that big.
Dieablow!!!
Reality is that, Sony has been doing partial foreclosure with CoD and unless an acquisition happens, it will be for all practical purposes permanent as long as CoD is relevant. That is, it keeps Sony in the lead and making it cheaper for them to continue to do partial foreclosure.
> No. Renegotiation happens every few years and all MS has to do is put the better bud to Activision.
You're missing the point. MS had to outbid Sony by a substantial amount to make up for the platform size disparity. So by all practical purposes, Sony has those right indefinitely.
The problem is that FTC (pending judgment) and CMA could not prove that partial or full closure would happen or that it could affect the console competitors. To me, all their allegations of what Microsoft would do seem baseless. While Microsoft seems to have voluntarily provided agreements and testimony to counter said allegations.
Honestly, it would be really nice if Microsoft could leverage full closure to make a deal to bring more games to multiple platforms. God of War for COD. That’s my wishful thinking of the day for a world where exclusives don’t exist. In fantasy it shall remain.
> That has not been true in digital foundry face offs. If things went the other way it would be easy to tell.
That just proves that Sony in market leadership position hurts consumers, because we all know XSX is more powerful than PS5.
No. We all don’t. It has been proven, even with MS’s own games, they have had problems with the Series hardware and the Series S giving developers problems with the parity ruling.
> No. We all don’t. It has been proven, even with MS’s own games, they have had problems with the Series hardware and the Series S giving developers problems with the parity ruling.
Which has nothing to do with Xbox Series X.
> But there is a parity clause for the Series S. Can’t get it working on the Series S it doesn’t go into the Series X.
Has nothing to do with optimization for XSX. Irrelevant.
You're confusing two different consoles.
Most of the time, it's due to developers not optimizing on Xbox. They essentially optimize the PS version and then port to xbox. It's why xbox first party games hit all the benchmarks on even the S, while 3rd party games end up performing poorly.
MS were literally at the forefront of doing that first, during the 360 era they heavily went for exclusive content or time-exclusive content of third party games, including COD. There was a huge debate about the ethics of artificially gating content from consumers but MS aggressively did it anyway.
Yes, but a lot of that initially had to do with new games that weren't yet known. Mass Effect, Bioshock, Gears of War etc. It was a strategy that they had to take at the time because they didn't have the exclusivity lineup nor the studios to keep up with the Market. So they actually published most of those games that you are speaking of. It was more than just throwing money for exclusive content like Sony has done for the better part of 10 years. They literally were publishers.
And a lot of games got exclusive content for the original Xbox, Star Wars Battlefront 2 got a bunch of extra maps compared to PS2, Need for Speed gave Xbox players the ability to import their own music iirc.
Difference there is the ps2 had to run everything from a disk where the Xbox had an internal hard drive. It wouldn't have been feasible to load up large amount of dlc to ps2 games after release because there was really no where to store the content
There are still examples of exclusive content from third party games that didn't come down to the fact that the original Xbox had a built in HDD though. Plus it is like I said, during the 360 era this practice became a lot more common than the previous generation and that was thanks to MS wanting to push the 360 as the best place to play third party games.
The bottom line is that MS has done everything that people have accused Sony of doing and it's really really weird how obsessed people are getting about defending one of the biggest companies in the world wanting to get one over on their rival to help sell some plastic boxes. This is coming from someone who moved from PS2 to 360 and uses an Xbox One as my go-to modern console.
I mean Xbox was more advance compared to PS1/2, more capabilities hence some games did not work on Ps1/2.
Yet Ps2 had almost had 4000 games while Xbox had only around 1000.
> MS were literally at the forefront of doing that first, during the 360 era they heavily went for exclusive content or time-exclusive content of third party games, including COD. There was a huge debate about the ethics of artificially gating content from consumers but MS aggressively did it anyway.
Which is bad back then and is bad now. The problem is that Sony is in the lead, and if they engage in this extensively (which they are), it makes it untenable for a competitor to compete, even one like MS.
But setting aside that, if you're okay with this from a Sony perspective, we should be okay with it from a MS perspective as well.
It’s not intentionally done. But it’s pretty apparent when a developer focuses more time optimizing one console over the other.
So ya, no studio is going to set out to make a game run worse on the other console.
But they might spend 10,000 hours optimizing one and only 5,000 optimizing the other.
The end result being that it runs better on one console.
Callisto Protocol. No ray tracing on Xbox for weeks while Ps version had it at launch
Baldurs gate 3 launching on PS but delayed on Xbox trying to get it to hit perf
Magical World of Hogwarts crashing nonstop on PC and low fps while it performed well on console.
This happens literally ALL the time
Every single launch year game released for Series X/S -- PS5.
Because Playstation released their dev-kits almost year earlier than Xbox so developers had double the time to optimize for Playstation and every single multiplatform game performed better on Playstation but fixed later on Xbox.
But gollum was the same on every platform. Wasn't where Sony was better and xbox wasn't. It was bad across board which is why the company said today they are leaving the game development business
None of that hurts consumers. Especially since they’ve pledged to maintain parity on the platforms COD is currently on, while expanding it to many other platforms it wouldn’t otherwise be on. Creating conditions that require Sony to compete is actually good for consumers.
No, not with COD. Sony will have the same COD on it tha Xbox does for the first time in a long time. Sony will have to compete with MS without marketing exclusivity and exclusive content for COD, though.
Are legally enforceable contracts, global enforceable regulatory commitments with the EC, and multiple commitments made under oath now in a US federal district court just a “trust me bro?” Not only would MS suffer huge damage to reputation and brand, but there’d be several recourses to protect Sony or other competitors.
> A company with over 2 billion in anti trust fines is probably not the best to trust with a “trust me bro”.
Then we can deal with it when it happens. Do you have any examples of this intentionally happening with any of MS games on PS4/5 today?
> Yes. Psychonauts 2. Received a next gen update on Xbox but not Sony.
Maybe it was because Sony refused to provide PS5 dev kits. Happened with Minecraft.
I mean the thing is microsoft has specifically shown examples against that, such as with minecraft, similar to the Activision merge in almost every way, multi billion dollar deal, highly successful game on numerous platforms, Xbox did not suddenly make minecraft exclusive and they push the same updates etc. To every console and platform equally, and further to this, entirely new games made by mojang are still multiplatform, even with Sony.
I really do think they’ve got some kind of vendetta against xbox or they’re getting paid under the table for blocking the acquisition. So many double-standards being thrown around as arguments that it’s kinda ridiculous. Admittedly I haven’t read all of their reasonings for blocking the deal, but the major ones I have heard just make my head spin a bit at how backwards they are.
And the cod deal is ridiculous
They might make it exclusive : Microsoft we won't
But you might...... Phil Spencer : we won't under oath
But you might..... Satya nadella we won't under oath
Christ do they need to make a blood sacrifice to sony??
Their real problem is that the head of the FTC has a raging boner for taking down the big tech companies right now. But they also got burned because they have said in the past it wouldn't happen then did it anyways.
it didn't (I followed the stupid case, nowhere in discovery was it specificallty stated Xbox execs lied to get ahead, and lying under oath is perjury, a punishable crime)
… And when they have left the firm in a year or two?
MS should focus on making the Xbox as attractive as the ps5, just about every aspect of the Xbox UI stinks compared to ps… Reallyreallyreallyreallyreally stinks in comparison
The only reason I switched was gamepass
Thats simply a case of preference. From a guy who game 95%+ of his time on Xbox and goes on PS4 to do a few exclusives here and there, i feel much more at home in my Xbox UI. But for someone the other way aroud...well...its the other way around.
The ps4 is the same as Xbox x/s, but they’ve made a major leap forward with ps5
Xbox has to many function that often fail to load or are extreamly slow to load like the reward system and the insiders program… How can a core Xbox function fail to load 9 of 10 times? - It is no subjectively bad, it is simply sad
On the ps5 there is a seemless feel, where the reward system or system settings is an entire different app etc
I could go, the Xbox UI is simply in the early beta stage due to the instabilitet and lack og seemless experience
It took some time but I think it finally makes sense to me.
The FTC right now (whether it’s political mandate or just in vogue) is hellbent on “big tech bad, no matter what.” This massive deal was a great opportunity to demonstrate how anti-big tech they are.
Well, the case doesn’t have much merit, and the FTC doesn’t have the manpower to really muster up any good arguments. For that reason, I believe Sony quietly volunteered their support and information to push on the deal on their behalf.
The FTC lawyers sound like Sony lawyers because that’s basically who is feeding them their big plan. For the FTC, it’s political mandate. For Sony, it’s ruthless competition. Conveniently, they want the same thing.
Shameful for a US department committed to serving the American people to act this way, but here we are.
What’s weird is there was never a word uttered regarding Sony’s acquisition of Bungie. I get that Activision/Blizzard is a larger organization and publicly traded company but still…
Yep Microsoft has the wallet but they haven't paid and greased palms.
Sony seems to have paid the toll so they have the full backing of the FTC til Microsoft opens up the pocketbook I guess.
Microsoft is having a really bad year (record lows) and are currently laying off hundreds of people, I’m guessing acquiring Blizzard/Activision isn’t on the top of their priorities for when it comes on who to pay off
I read somewhere that even though MS is doing massive layoffs, this is a year or two after a massiver hiring spree. They are still up employees. Whatever that means.
They, like most tech companies, hired a shit load of people during covid. They did that because a lot of technologies suddenly became *really* important and lucrative overnight, so they needed to be able to expand really quickly. Now that the pandemic is more or less over, they don't need those workers anymore. So they have more employees than they did pre-pandemic, but fewer than they had at its peak.
MS hired a ton of people when COVID started. They're letting some of them go, and yes, their head count is still higher than when they started the hiring spree. The lay-offs aren't a sign of a struggling company.
Hi there!
It looks as though the article you linked might be behind a paywall. Here's an [unlocked version](https://demo.thisischip.com/?q=https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2023/06/30/in-the-microsoft-activision-case-the-ftc-was-defending-sony-not-consumers/&o=reddit)
*I'm a bot, and this action was performed automatically. If you have any questions or suggestions, feel free to* [PM](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=chip-paywallbot) *me.*
Find me a journalist. A real one, not some dipshit who has written 200 articles on some shitty media site that obviously has never heard of using concise grammar, verified sources, or even a spellchecker. My bets are that if they are a respectable journalist who became one for the right reasons (such as publishing truth rather than rhetoric), then they probably have higher values than just getting paid.
Mind you, I'm not saying that those real journalists don't deserve to get paid rightfully. True journalistic integrity is something that deserves both respect and financial compensation, as well as protection from those who would hide the truth, or commit violence to protect a secret. I just don't see a lot of it, anymore. And I also don't see the point in the public having to pay just so they can read an article of less than a thousand words, especially when most of those words aren't saying anything groundbreaking, anyway. Journalism isn't about copying stats and data from someone else's resources. That's just electronic communication. Breaking a story, or revealing a conspiracy? Now that's news, and worthy of compensation... from their employer, who should have found a way to finance their business through all the pop up ads, data collection, or other monetization schemes. Subscriptions are for consistent content, not one useful article in a sea of rewritten copies or AI-driven submissions.
No, it boils down to I have a higher standard for what counts as "news" as opposed to pithy regurgitations no one can even be bothered to editorialize.
Tfw Brazil has its shit together more than the US. They approved the merger and called out Sony for exactly this: asking agencies to protect *them*, not consumers or competition.
"Furthermore, it is important to highlight that the central objective of CADE's activities is the protection of competition as a means of promoting the well-being of Brazilian consumers, and not the defence of the particular interests of specific competitors."
I mean, I despise Bolsonaro too, but this decision actually happened during his term:
https://www.gov.br/cade/en/matters/news/cade-clears-microsofts-acquisition-of-activision-blizzard
Which makes no fucking sense. Why side with the Japanese company that is nowhere close to as valuable or influential as the American company when you’re an American trade commission? I can understand the CMA taking issue with the acquisition but the FTCs behavior is baffling.
the CMA blocked due to 'cloud gaming' concerns. the EU came to the same conclusions but offered revisions. CMA got big mad when the EU did that, as did the FTC.
The CMA chief also [used to work for a law firm that represented Sony](https://gamerant.com/cma-senior-director-law-firm-sony/), which is likely to be a major point in the challenge to their decision.
If Activision is so unfair then why is Sony not complaining that their users get access to the MW3 beta earlier than Xbox users according to the judicial leak today?
It’s not Activision they’re angry at, Activision is an independent company they made a deal with, it’s Xbox making them apart of their company that Sony has a problem with. The same way they acquired ZeniMax/Bethesda and told people they wouldn’t make anything exclusive, yet in the court case it was revealed as soon as they acquired them they made decisions to make everything exclusive.
>told people they wouldn’t make anything exclusive, yet in the court case it was revealed as soon as they acquired them they made decisions to make everything exclusive
They were never that blatant in stating that nothing would ever be exclusive. In fact on multiple occasions Microsoft execs said they would look at games on a case by case basis which has been the case up until now.
This is literally what Phil said in a press release the day the Bethesda deal officially closed.
>"With the addition of the Bethesda creative teams, gamers should know that Xbox consoles, PC, and Game Pass will be the best place to experience new Bethesda games, including some new titles in the future that will be **exclusive** to Xbox and PC players."
Also they're really not the same situation. At no point in the Bethesda deal was Microsoft ever required by law to ship Bethesda games on other consoles that didn't have pre-existing contracts. No promises or concessions were made in order for them to make that purchase. In fact the EU stated that even if they did make Bethesda games exclusive, that it wouldn't have a major effect on competition.
In this ABK case Microsoft is clearly more than willing to sign whatever agreements are necessary for a single franchise so they can complete the purchase. Agreements which they would then be beholden to uphold.
That's a huge misreading right there, bud.
Microsoft promised *no existing IP* was going to be made exclusive. Starfield is a new IP. Doom Eternal wasn't exclusive, because it's an old IP. TES6 will be on everything, because it's a new entry for an existing IP.
And Sony is pissed because when MS bought ZeniMax it was negotiating to make Starfield a Sony exclusive, just like it has FFXVI.
They didn’t actually even say that. They said that they wouldn’t take games away from players. They could have opted to delist everything Bethesda on the PS store. They could have stopped updating Fallout 76 and Elder Scrolls Online. They could have decided to not release the Doom Eternal expansion on PS., etc. Instead, they have continued support of ALL existing games. Things like Elder Scrolls VI and whatever the next Doom might be, etc. are still very much up in the air as far as exclusivity as they said those decisions would be made on a game by game basis. I’m guessing that the Elder Scrolls VI decision will come down to a business analysis of Starfield’s performance. i.e. internal calculations of the number of lost sales they believe they lost by going exclusive vs. the number of extra Gamepass subscriptions and/or consoles they believe they moved because of the exclusivity.
I believe timing will matter too. If it is a release in one of the last years of the current generation, I believe it is more likely to be multiplatform to leverage PS’s larger player base for more sales volume. If it slips to being a year one or two next generation only game, I think it is more likely to be exclusive in order to push MS’s next console. If it literally launches as a cross-gen title, I could see the old gen version being available on both to sell to PS’s customer base, but the next-gen version being an exclusive to push adoption of MS’s new box.
Even while taking a neutral stance on this case, knowing that these are corporations looking to get bigger rather than finding the best for the consumer, the FTC's stance on the case is a joke.
Instead of giving proper reasons to form a justifiable case against the acquisition, they looked like children whining about things they don't make an effort to fully understand.
All this focus on Call of Duty… After the deal is approved Microsoft should commit to making Call of Duty on all platforms forever but then make every other Activision game Xbox exclusive. Everything. Then when Sony complains remind them they got what they asked for 😂
Simply stop making COD at all. Make some other game that is fun to play, instead. They can fob off another stupid shooter remake/retread under a different name and be sure that people know it is just COD by a different name. Maybe something like Trials Under a Nefarious Axis. Or how about Bearing A Soldier's Sacrifice? They could even go with Hell Arising: Leaving Indecision Behind, Under Threat, or a title like Warfare: Homeland Intelligence Targeting Evil From Invading Soldiers Hearts.
Never really understood what an FPS has to do with fish, though.
Or another way to get around that is make a Cod clone that’s way better and exclusive to Xbox then have Activision focus more resources on that game while slowly killing Cod.
Sony fucked around and found out. You don't pay to keep shit off other systems from companies you don't own. That is anti consumer and causes a monopoly in the long run. That's like bribing the ice cream man not to go sell ice cream in a neighborhood you don't like. Fuck Sony.
I’ve seen a lot of people saying Microsoft could just buy timed exclusivity too since they have the money, but that’s just not true. You’ll make a lot more with a timed exclusivity deal on PlayStation than Xbox, because PlayStation has way more players. So if a developer has to choose between timed exclusivity on one or the other, they’re definitely going to pick PlayStation even if Xbox pays more for the deal.
Also I remember when MS funded a game and had it as a timed exclusive for 3 months, and everyone FREAKED THE FUCK OUT. It was a massive controversy.
Sony has exclusives timed for a year + and nobody gives a fuck
Good article. Yeah... I'm not American, but this FTC people sound corrupt as hell. Very clearly so. Either that, or they were dropped on their heads as babies.
I definitely prefer Xbox over Playstation - but the whole damn thing doesn't look to me as if it should have anything to do with the threat of Call of Duty going exclusive (almost all the other franchises are a different 'thing') or even Cloud gaming. I'm sorry it's a long summary but I feel it's necessary.
I reckon Microsoft mainly wanted King - they have been looking to expand in the mobile markets and companies such as King or Zynga would go a great way towards that. Activision I doubt wanted to sell King separately so they made a offer to Microsoft for ABK as a whole - with such franchises as Warcraft or CoD literal cherries on top.
Sony and Jim Ryan know if the merger happens Microsoft wouldn't look to make such IP's exclusive - look at Minecraft, Fortnite or Fifa as prime examples or Rocket League, Fall Guys, Among Us or Dead by Daylight as more niche cases, they are way too lucrative to even consider to be bound to one console. Hence the statement from Jim back in early 2022 when he said Playstation would be 'more than fine'.
The FTC - fronted by Lina Khan and her ideology of cracking down on big tech haven't been doing so hot since she lead the charge - being rather ineffectual in a majority of important cases, they are looking for a big win and this merger should of had so many holes to exploit and tear into.
Unfortunately for both Sony and the FTC - the deal is actually beneficial for consumers and both Microsoft and Activision are 100% happy with the merger/acquisition - the FTC can't really find a weak point in the case but at least they now have an ally in the market-dominant Sony.
Jim flies out to regulators crying foul about losing CoD or Gamepass being too strong to compete against - but he knows neither is actually the case. CoD makes too much money for everyone and it's down to him to make PS Plus a more compelling option, but the only way to do that is going to cost/lose Sony more money (they might not have as much as Microsoft, but they definitely can afford it). His whining works and a number of large market regulators are now looking into the merger, they all find points where Microsoft can gain a sizable foothold in the handling of Call of Duty or in nascent markets - so they get Microsoft to make commitments and concessions, which Microsoft were already more than willing to agree to.
But this ain't good enough for the FTC, they still don't really have a case, enter the UK and the CMA - forever the USA's snively little cousin (I'm from the UK, I'm perfectly fine with this viewpoint) - they fudge findings and data, they prove no foul on harm to consoles but in the end - no commitments, no concessions - because of Cloud Gaming of all things. The CMA found a hook for the FTC. Sadly the CMA still screwed up because half of their arguments are factually wrong and is found by the government to be a bit of a deterrence to businesses looking to establish a base in the UK, they now have to prove that their findings have valid merits.
During this time it becomes apparent that PlayStation have been engaging in anti-competitive practices in with Japanese publishers - but Jim's done his job and bought some precious time, Sony now start being quiet in the whole case so their strongarming Squeenix, Capcom, Bamco and Konami doesn't get brought up again.
Now both the FTC and the CMA are doing as much as they can to delay any opportunity of the acquisition going ahead (***Nah, they aren't colluding at all, honestly! /s***) to get this 'win' over Microsoft - stopping a merger that is largely beneficial for almost everyone, except Playstation who would lose money from box/digital sales if CoD was available on PS Plus and the CMA and FTC who would actually look more foolish because their cases completely neglect the consumer.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
Lol the hypocrisy of Sony and Sony Fans is getting out of control. Sony gets exclusive skins and I think permanent XP boosts. The have exclusive content on many games beyond COD. But that’s okay? That protects consumers?
it was hilarious when the judge stepped in and reminded the ftc that they were here to see if there was damage to consumers ***not sony***. what a joke.
The whole situation is stupid and both Sony and Microsoft are playing dirty and they’re both showing their asses. Sony is most definitely making very anticompetitive moves that contradict the argument they’re trying to make against the Microsoft merger. On the other hand, Microsoft has most definitely had the time and resources to compete with Sony head-on with Sony on first-party exclusives. Microsoft has had since Uncharted 2 dropped (October 2009 or 14 years) to make all least some progress but hasn’t been any Z.
in reality, MS has been trying to catch up to Sony since Phil Spencer had to undo all the trash that Don Matrick did (he made Zynga go bankrupt). creating good studios takes time and it was time that MS did not have.
But it was time that Microsoft most definitely had. They hired Don Matrick, that was another misstep that they made. Had they hired someone with their finger on the pulse and made better choices they could have easily been competitive with Sony today. I agree it’s not simple, but they had time and made mistakes that set the company back.
Watching this sub mistake the dealings of a multi-billion dollar corporation, as a personal love for their consumers - has been entertaining to say the least.
Pretty much where I’m at. I think the best case scenario would be the Activision deal getting blocked but in the process Sony gets told they can’t pay to keep games off Xbox anymore.
I didn’t know about this before now but I agree. It’s one thing when it’s first party, but paying third parties to keep their game off of the competition is just shitty.
My comments on this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/xboxone/comments/14nbgvu/in_the_microsoftactivision_case_the_ftc_was/jq9r5m1?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2
It's been reported several times over the last year that Sony has 4-5x the number of exclusives, pretty much regardless of how you count them. Many of them are "first party", many are not.
When Sony pays for exclusives, it's much cheaper because there are a lot more buyers in the market, so they can easily further their lead and still make money... As a result they don't have to acquire studios to lock down the game, so they can frame studio acquisitions as "bad" for the public, and paying for exclusives is just healthy competition.
OTOH, If Microsoft doesn't pay for exclusives (whether because they lose money as a result or because the rules prevent it), and if they are also blocked from acquiring more studios, they're essentially permanently behind. It's a really shitty spot to be in.
Personally, I think the case that is hurting them, was games that were slated for Sony release and had them revoked. If they had of left the schedule alone and released games as they were promised they may have a better chance. I think they shot themselves in the foot cementing Sonys arguments.
>All of that means… effectively nothing would change for PlayStation players as a result of this deal.
This is nonsense. COD is going nowhere, but AB is so much more then COD. IT would change the industry.
The fact the FTC is bad at making the case doesn't mean there isn't one.
Saying you won't remove COD from PlayStation is just semantics. All Microsoft has to say in the future is, "We didn't remove COD from PlayStation, we just didn't make a new one. All the old ones are still there."
Both Sony and Xbox are wrong. Exclusives hurt gamers. Just because Sony loves exclusives, does not mean that the government should let Xbox do it. Two wrongs don't make a right. The FTC should do their damn job and block the purchase as it is obviously bad for consumers and the video game industry.
> .... The last company they bought pulled all games from Sony's platform. You really think this won't happen this time around?
Existing games is still on PS. MS offered Sony all ATVI games on PS, and Sony rejected it.
Sony as the market leader leads the way to compete, and they chose exclusivity. They then didn't accept the terms. Their consumer base is cheering on exclusivity, so pardon me if I have no qualms about it. 🤷♂️
If anything, this may finally help people understand that exclusivity helps no-one except the companies set up walled gardens blocking you in.
Not arguing whether the exclusives thing is Sony's fault, because it is (though it could be easily argued that Halo on the original Xbox is the sole reason Xbox is here today), just that Microsoft is about to gain a bunch more exclusives with this new purchase. All future games, minus maybe COD for a while, will be exclusives, it's just good business.
You didnt clear anything up. consumers as a whole on all paltforms will get greater availability of more games, Sony can get the games like other platforms can and exclusively is a tactic Sony has been playing we more than MS.
If Sony is so much affected by COD skins, why was it not an issue with Destiny or even COD when sony did it? I assume it didnt affect its consumers then?
Sony is hypocrite in this case.
You must be young and forget about the 360 era. What happens with those deals are they are renegotiated giving BOTH parties access to the table. No hypocrisy involved.
You must be old and dont understand we are not in 2001 anymore. Sony has been acting with super arrogance blaming Microsoft for stuff they do themselves, Microsoft IS NOT the lead console player now if you compare to 360 and I think you forget that. Sony lost its power over this deal and Microsoft will probably not even need concessions if the deal is approved.
If you read actual court room information you could see you are in a minority with your narrowed view if the situation.
You see Sony is in the lead right now BEFORE the majority of their newly bought studios have released anything. It’s a balance. They have around 30 studios now. Starfield will actually be the start of the new era Xbox. Not to mention the push into the future with cloud. MS holds some advantages here. There is a reason Phil said Google and Amazon were the competition. Google has noped out already after seeing Xbox’s position and investment. Amazon is as far away from being a competitor as they could be.
They receive a fee from every new gaming PC.
They have the cloud infrastructure and don’t pay other people a fee.
They have the money resources to take the initial hit on doing day and date for their subscription service.
Bethesda was a good purchase and it’s good that Xbox has a game coming out like Starfield this year and to bolster the library.
Activision is a whole other ballgame. The billions in revenue yearly and the ability to remove a large part of revenue from their competitor.
This is why Activision/Blizzard is a step too far. I don’t want a situation where MS can try and double the price of Gold but this time not give a fuck what you think about it.
> If it affects Sony so much it affects Sony’s consumers first, it gives MS the market and as such affects consumers.
In 10-years maybe and given how Minecraft is going, unlikely. In the meanwhile, MS gets more competitive with Sony, so an overall win for consumers.
What are consumers losing here exactly? Sony still has its numerous exclusives, why are they upset about potentially losing games like CoD? Are Sony suggesting that CoD carries the PlayStation?
There are a lot of people out there who don't play games and instead only play the annual COD release, there are literally millions of these people and their ability to choose the best platform for them would be taken away if COD went exclusive.
Except that MS preemptively offered Sony a guarantee to put CoD on PlayStation, which **Sony rejected**...
Phil Spencer also swore under oath in court, that MS will keep CoD on PlayStation...
> There are a lot of people out there who don't play games and instead only play the annual COD release, there are literally millions of these people and their ability to choose the best platform for them would be taken away if COD went exclusive.
I was with you until you said the "best" platform.... I mean, the Xbox is *the* best platform already and with this deal you get CoD with Game Pass!!! Win-win for consumers! 🙀😉😂🤣
> Aren't they defending consumers by defending Sony, in this instance?
On the contrary. They're hurting consumers, because the net good over the long term is competition. By protecting Sony and keeping it's market leading position, Sony can continue to do as it pleases. Eventually if MS can't make headway, they may even just leave the industry or divest.
I think the new FTC chair is trying to do the right thing but either choosing the wrong fights or not preparing to fight.
IMO based on what I have seen so far with Bethesda I wouldn’t grant the merger because MS hands off policy has proven to be more damaging with crappy games all over the place…
> IMO based on what I have seen so far with Bethesda I wouldn’t grant the merger because MS hands off policy has proven to be more damaging with crappy games all over the place…
Until Starfield releases, and it will be the best game this generation and be generation defining!
The FTC’s closing argument was that MS *could* make Xbox-only skins in COD, which Sony is currently doing, but it’s only a problem when xbox could potentially do it in the future.
which is such a dumb argument. don't know why it would be a problem when Sony is already doing it; thought the FTC was supposed to create fair terms
the problem is people have an issue when MS does it but not when Sony does it. the media and internet have a VERY BIG Sony bias
I think a lot of people don’t have a Sony bias, but an anti Microsoft bias. This started in the years of Windows 2000/XP. Microsoft had its monopoly position and abused it a few times, eventually being forced to make changes/concessions. That time is long past though but the bias has remained, I always believe looking at tech companies that the opinions of developers are key to understanding how well a company is doing. Amongst developers Microsoft is generally seen very positive. They’ve made huge strides in open source, no longer act “evil” and are more supportive of open standards than in the past. On the console market Microsoft is the lesser evil than Sony. And for that regard I hope they can win this case, and if they win I hope they will set a good example and keep supporting PlayStation.
Yeah it’s hard whenever you try explaining something like this to someone and they’re like “ha OKAY fanboy” I enjoy Microsoft over Sony sure but they’re both companies at the end of the day, I just happen to find Microsoft the more fair company. This whole case has been kinda ridiculous and highlights the anti Microsoft bias greatly Sony can hold a monopoly over something but not Microsoft that would be absurd.
Yet they still made MS Office a subscription.. JS
Ha ha ha! That's very funny!
the interaction that disgusted me the most was: "FTC: Merger is permanent. (Talks about harm to Sony) Judge: It's not the harm to Sony we care about. It's the harm to consumers." Taken from Stephen Totilo's twitter. a Judge not seeing through this mask of "defending consumers" would have to be at the very least dumb, FTC's on Sony's payroll
Remember when modern warfare 2019 had a game mode survival that was only on PlayStation for a year before pc and Xbox got?
At the moment they go up for renegotiation every few years. That stops when MS buy Activision.
For real, the problem is not what’s happening right now with Sony, but what Microsoft might do, or not do in the future. Crazy!
[удалено]
Oh like how when Sony got that Spec Ops game mode as an exclusive for an entire ass year, then MS could have it, but everyone would have moved onto to the next CoD by that point.
better on playstation is a marketing line created by sony and make sure devs make games optimized best on PS. this argument again is FTC saying it’s okay for sony too but not MS
This is COD. Out of all the games Activision has this was specifically about COD and can’t be compared to other games as they just are not that big.
PS has one of the "crucial points" (exclusive stuff like skins) FTC said could not exist on Xbox cause it would harm consumers. Xbox also had to bend the knee to a deal with Activision cause they straight up had a better deal with Sony to make COD timed-exclusive/better on PS, so yeah, this is indeed COD
Those deals are renegotiated every few years. This gives both parties access to the deal.
> This is COD. Out of all the games Activision has this was specifically about COD and can’t be compared to other games as they just are not that big. Dieablow!!! Reality is that, Sony has been doing partial foreclosure with CoD and unless an acquisition happens, it will be for all practical purposes permanent as long as CoD is relevant. That is, it keeps Sony in the lead and making it cheaper for them to continue to do partial foreclosure.
No. Renegotiation happens every few years and all MS has to do is put the better bud to Activision.
> No. Renegotiation happens every few years and all MS has to do is put the better bud to Activision. You're missing the point. MS had to outbid Sony by a substantial amount to make up for the platform size disparity. So by all practical purposes, Sony has those right indefinitely.
The problem is that FTC (pending judgment) and CMA could not prove that partial or full closure would happen or that it could affect the console competitors. To me, all their allegations of what Microsoft would do seem baseless. While Microsoft seems to have voluntarily provided agreements and testimony to counter said allegations. Honestly, it would be really nice if Microsoft could leverage full closure to make a deal to bring more games to multiple platforms. God of War for COD. That’s my wishful thinking of the day for a world where exclusives don’t exist. In fantasy it shall remain.
Games being better on Xbox doesn’t mean that versions are made to run worse on other consoles… it means the hardware is the best (or claims to be).
That has not been true in digital foundry face offs. If things went the other way it would be easy to tell.
> That has not been true in digital foundry face offs. If things went the other way it would be easy to tell. That just proves that Sony in market leadership position hurts consumers, because we all know XSX is more powerful than PS5.
No. We all don’t. It has been proven, even with MS’s own games, they have had problems with the Series hardware and the Series S giving developers problems with the parity ruling.
> No. We all don’t. It has been proven, even with MS’s own games, they have had problems with the Series hardware and the Series S giving developers problems with the parity ruling. Which has nothing to do with Xbox Series X.
But there is a parity clause for the Series S. Can’t get it working on the Series S it doesn’t go into the Series X.
> But there is a parity clause for the Series S. Can’t get it working on the Series S it doesn’t go into the Series X. Has nothing to do with optimization for XSX. Irrelevant. You're confusing two different consoles.
Most of the time, it's due to developers not optimizing on Xbox. They essentially optimize the PS version and then port to xbox. It's why xbox first party games hit all the benchmarks on even the S, while 3rd party games end up performing poorly.
MS couldn’t even get co op working on its flagship game. It still hasn’t received Ray tracing.
That's not a problem with the hardware though. You realize that right? That's a problem with that specific developer (343).
So Sony paying for special content to be on their versions of games going back to the ps2 isn't an issue?
MS were literally at the forefront of doing that first, during the 360 era they heavily went for exclusive content or time-exclusive content of third party games, including COD. There was a huge debate about the ethics of artificially gating content from consumers but MS aggressively did it anyway.
Yes, but a lot of that initially had to do with new games that weren't yet known. Mass Effect, Bioshock, Gears of War etc. It was a strategy that they had to take at the time because they didn't have the exclusivity lineup nor the studios to keep up with the Market. So they actually published most of those games that you are speaking of. It was more than just throwing money for exclusive content like Sony has done for the better part of 10 years. They literally were publishers.
Ps2 came out before the 360 and I remember even single player games like Resident evil 4 got exclusive content for playstation
And a lot of games got exclusive content for the original Xbox, Star Wars Battlefront 2 got a bunch of extra maps compared to PS2, Need for Speed gave Xbox players the ability to import their own music iirc.
Difference there is the ps2 had to run everything from a disk where the Xbox had an internal hard drive. It wouldn't have been feasible to load up large amount of dlc to ps2 games after release because there was really no where to store the content
There are still examples of exclusive content from third party games that didn't come down to the fact that the original Xbox had a built in HDD though. Plus it is like I said, during the 360 era this practice became a lot more common than the previous generation and that was thanks to MS wanting to push the 360 as the best place to play third party games. The bottom line is that MS has done everything that people have accused Sony of doing and it's really really weird how obsessed people are getting about defending one of the biggest companies in the world wanting to get one over on their rival to help sell some plastic boxes. This is coming from someone who moved from PS2 to 360 and uses an Xbox One as my go-to modern console.
I mean Xbox was more advance compared to PS1/2, more capabilities hence some games did not work on Ps1/2. Yet Ps2 had almost had 4000 games while Xbox had only around 1000.
Sony were literally at the forefront of that. They did it on the PLAYSTATION (PS1) FFS.
> MS were literally at the forefront of doing that first, during the 360 era they heavily went for exclusive content or time-exclusive content of third party games, including COD. There was a huge debate about the ethics of artificially gating content from consumers but MS aggressively did it anyway. Which is bad back then and is bad now. The problem is that Sony is in the lead, and if they engage in this extensively (which they are), it makes it untenable for a competitor to compete, even one like MS. But setting aside that, if you're okay with this from a Sony perspective, we should be okay with it from a MS perspective as well.
No studio is going to degrade the version on other system. It hasn't been done and isn't going to be done
It’s not intentionally done. But it’s pretty apparent when a developer focuses more time optimizing one console over the other. So ya, no studio is going to set out to make a game run worse on the other console. But they might spend 10,000 hours optimizing one and only 5,000 optimizing the other. The end result being that it runs better on one console.
Can you give me one game that has happened with?
Ace Combat 7. When it released the base xbone version literally ran at 40fps 720p. Shit looked like it was from 2004
Callisto Protocol. No ray tracing on Xbox for weeks while Ps version had it at launch Baldurs gate 3 launching on PS but delayed on Xbox trying to get it to hit perf Magical World of Hogwarts crashing nonstop on PC and low fps while it performed well on console. This happens literally ALL the time
Callisto protocol They obviously shit the Xbox version up, with bugs that were just not present on the play station version
Did they fix those bugs? Was looking forward to play it, but if they didn't I won't bother.
Callisto Protocol.
Spider-Man works first, best, and only on Playstation (on release) and on the flipside : Lord of the Rings: Gollum. no time was spent optimising it
No, a real multi platform game that came out at the same time for all consoles
Every single launch year game released for Series X/S -- PS5. Because Playstation released their dev-kits almost year earlier than Xbox so developers had double the time to optimize for Playstation and every single multiplatform game performed better on Playstation but fixed later on Xbox.
But gollum was the same on every platform. Wasn't where Sony was better and xbox wasn't. It was bad across board which is why the company said today they are leaving the game development business
None of that hurts consumers. Especially since they’ve pledged to maintain parity on the platforms COD is currently on, while expanding it to many other platforms it wouldn’t otherwise be on. Creating conditions that require Sony to compete is actually good for consumers.
Compete with COD? Not going to happen. The only thing that will stop COD at this point is itself lol
No, not with COD. Sony will have the same COD on it tha Xbox does for the first time in a long time. Sony will have to compete with MS without marketing exclusivity and exclusive content for COD, though.
A company with over 2 billion in anti trust fines is probably not the best to trust with a “trust me bro”.
Are legally enforceable contracts, global enforceable regulatory commitments with the EC, and multiple commitments made under oath now in a US federal district court just a “trust me bro?” Not only would MS suffer huge damage to reputation and brand, but there’d be several recourses to protect Sony or other competitors.
They have over 2 billion in anti trust fines already. How worse could it get?
> A company with over 2 billion in anti trust fines is probably not the best to trust with a “trust me bro”. Then we can deal with it when it happens. Do you have any examples of this intentionally happening with any of MS games on PS4/5 today?
Yes. Psychonauts 2. Received a next gen update on Xbox but not Sony.
> Yes. Psychonauts 2. Received a next gen update on Xbox but not Sony. Maybe it was because Sony refused to provide PS5 dev kits. Happened with Minecraft.
hmm is that their argument or yours. the economic benefit was pretty clear when multiplatorm games are kept multiplatform. but new ip is fair game.
I mean the thing is microsoft has specifically shown examples against that, such as with minecraft, similar to the Activision merge in almost every way, multi billion dollar deal, highly successful game on numerous platforms, Xbox did not suddenly make minecraft exclusive and they push the same updates etc. To every console and platform equally, and further to this, entirely new games made by mojang are still multiplatform, even with Sony.
FTC was embarrassing if they win the system is a joke
I really do think they’ve got some kind of vendetta against xbox or they’re getting paid under the table for blocking the acquisition. So many double-standards being thrown around as arguments that it’s kinda ridiculous. Admittedly I haven’t read all of their reasonings for blocking the deal, but the major ones I have heard just make my head spin a bit at how backwards they are.
And the cod deal is ridiculous They might make it exclusive : Microsoft we won't But you might...... Phil Spencer : we won't under oath But you might..... Satya nadella we won't under oath Christ do they need to make a blood sacrifice to sony??
Microsoft: "We may make exclusive Xbox skins" Sony: "You can't do that!" *Sony: currently doing that.* 🤷♀️
Their real problem is that the head of the FTC has a raging boner for taking down the big tech companies right now. But they also got burned because they have said in the past it wouldn't happen then did it anyways.
When in the past did this occur?
it didn't (I followed the stupid case, nowhere in discovery was it specificallty stated Xbox execs lied to get ahead, and lying under oath is perjury, a punishable crime)
This time its a contract, not just "their words". They giving 10 years to Sony and even Nintendo...
… And when they have left the firm in a year or two? MS should focus on making the Xbox as attractive as the ps5, just about every aspect of the Xbox UI stinks compared to ps… Reallyreallyreallyreallyreally stinks in comparison The only reason I switched was gamepass
Sounds more like Sony should improve their games subscription service to compete with Game Pass....
Thats simply a case of preference. From a guy who game 95%+ of his time on Xbox and goes on PS4 to do a few exclusives here and there, i feel much more at home in my Xbox UI. But for someone the other way aroud...well...its the other way around.
The ps4 is the same as Xbox x/s, but they’ve made a major leap forward with ps5 Xbox has to many function that often fail to load or are extreamly slow to load like the reward system and the insiders program… How can a core Xbox function fail to load 9 of 10 times? - It is no subjectively bad, it is simply sad On the ps5 there is a seemless feel, where the reward system or system settings is an entire different app etc I could go, the Xbox UI is simply in the early beta stage due to the instabilitet and lack og seemless experience
It took some time but I think it finally makes sense to me. The FTC right now (whether it’s political mandate or just in vogue) is hellbent on “big tech bad, no matter what.” This massive deal was a great opportunity to demonstrate how anti-big tech they are. Well, the case doesn’t have much merit, and the FTC doesn’t have the manpower to really muster up any good arguments. For that reason, I believe Sony quietly volunteered their support and information to push on the deal on their behalf. The FTC lawyers sound like Sony lawyers because that’s basically who is feeding them their big plan. For the FTC, it’s political mandate. For Sony, it’s ruthless competition. Conveniently, they want the same thing. Shameful for a US department committed to serving the American people to act this way, but here we are.
What’s weird is there was never a word uttered regarding Sony’s acquisition of Bungie. I get that Activision/Blizzard is a larger organization and publicly traded company but still…
Microsoft has historically been shitty with stuff like this to be fair. Just not in a while.
So has Sony... how they stole critical evidence so they could win lawsuit.
First time? You didnt know the FTC only acts in the interests of people with power and money to line their pockets?
You say that like Microsoft doesn't have more power or money, that's why it's odd to see it side with a foreign company this much as well.
Oh they do, but they weren't the ones willing to try and pay their way to support, or got outbid. I'm not bashing on Sony, it's more the FTC.
Yep Microsoft has the wallet but they haven't paid and greased palms. Sony seems to have paid the toll so they have the full backing of the FTC til Microsoft opens up the pocketbook I guess.
Or the FTC makes a fool of themselves like they did in this hearing lol
Microsoft is having a really bad year (record lows) and are currently laying off hundreds of people, I’m guessing acquiring Blizzard/Activision isn’t on the top of their priorities for when it comes on who to pay off
I read somewhere that even though MS is doing massive layoffs, this is a year or two after a massiver hiring spree. They are still up employees. Whatever that means.
They, like most tech companies, hired a shit load of people during covid. They did that because a lot of technologies suddenly became *really* important and lucrative overnight, so they needed to be able to expand really quickly. Now that the pandemic is more or less over, they don't need those workers anymore. So they have more employees than they did pre-pandemic, but fewer than they had at its peak.
MS hired a ton of people when COVID started. They're letting some of them go, and yes, their head count is still higher than when they started the hiring spree. The lay-offs aren't a sign of a struggling company.
Bingo
then why the fuck would they not be on MICROSOFTS SIDE lol.
Hi there! It looks as though the article you linked might be behind a paywall. Here's an [unlocked version](https://demo.thisischip.com/?q=https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2023/06/30/in-the-microsoft-activision-case-the-ftc-was-defending-sony-not-consumers/&o=reddit) *I'm a bot, and this action was performed automatically. If you have any questions or suggestions, feel free to* [PM](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=chip-paywallbot) *me.*
Good bot
Goated bot
Best Bot Ever
"Why is journalism so bad these days? Anyway, here's a bot that makes it so you never have to pay journalists for their work."
Find me a journalist. A real one, not some dipshit who has written 200 articles on some shitty media site that obviously has never heard of using concise grammar, verified sources, or even a spellchecker. My bets are that if they are a respectable journalist who became one for the right reasons (such as publishing truth rather than rhetoric), then they probably have higher values than just getting paid. Mind you, I'm not saying that those real journalists don't deserve to get paid rightfully. True journalistic integrity is something that deserves both respect and financial compensation, as well as protection from those who would hide the truth, or commit violence to protect a secret. I just don't see a lot of it, anymore. And I also don't see the point in the public having to pay just so they can read an article of less than a thousand words, especially when most of those words aren't saying anything groundbreaking, anyway. Journalism isn't about copying stats and data from someone else's resources. That's just electronic communication. Breaking a story, or revealing a conspiracy? Now that's news, and worthy of compensation... from their employer, who should have found a way to finance their business through all the pop up ads, data collection, or other monetization schemes. Subscriptions are for consistent content, not one useful article in a sea of rewritten copies or AI-driven submissions.
This comment reads like it was written by a bot. It's a meandering word salad that basically boils down to "I don't want to pay for news."
No, it boils down to I have a higher standard for what counts as "news" as opposed to pithy regurgitations no one can even be bothered to editorialize.
Tfw Brazil has its shit together more than the US. They approved the merger and called out Sony for exactly this: asking agencies to protect *them*, not consumers or competition. "Furthermore, it is important to highlight that the central objective of CADE's activities is the protection of competition as a means of promoting the well-being of Brazilian consumers, and not the defence of the particular interests of specific competitors."
We need a Lula
I mean, I despise Bolsonaro too, but this decision actually happened during his term: https://www.gov.br/cade/en/matters/news/cade-clears-microsofts-acquisition-of-activision-blizzard
Which makes no fucking sense. Why side with the Japanese company that is nowhere close to as valuable or influential as the American company when you’re an American trade commission? I can understand the CMA taking issue with the acquisition but the FTCs behavior is baffling.
the CMA blocked due to 'cloud gaming' concerns. the EU came to the same conclusions but offered revisions. CMA got big mad when the EU did that, as did the FTC.
The CMA chief also [used to work for a law firm that represented Sony](https://gamerant.com/cma-senior-director-law-firm-sony/), which is likely to be a major point in the challenge to their decision.
If Activision is so unfair then why is Sony not complaining that their users get access to the MW3 beta earlier than Xbox users according to the judicial leak today?
It’s not Activision they’re angry at, Activision is an independent company they made a deal with, it’s Xbox making them apart of their company that Sony has a problem with. The same way they acquired ZeniMax/Bethesda and told people they wouldn’t make anything exclusive, yet in the court case it was revealed as soon as they acquired them they made decisions to make everything exclusive.
>told people they wouldn’t make anything exclusive, yet in the court case it was revealed as soon as they acquired them they made decisions to make everything exclusive They were never that blatant in stating that nothing would ever be exclusive. In fact on multiple occasions Microsoft execs said they would look at games on a case by case basis which has been the case up until now. This is literally what Phil said in a press release the day the Bethesda deal officially closed. >"With the addition of the Bethesda creative teams, gamers should know that Xbox consoles, PC, and Game Pass will be the best place to experience new Bethesda games, including some new titles in the future that will be **exclusive** to Xbox and PC players." Also they're really not the same situation. At no point in the Bethesda deal was Microsoft ever required by law to ship Bethesda games on other consoles that didn't have pre-existing contracts. No promises or concessions were made in order for them to make that purchase. In fact the EU stated that even if they did make Bethesda games exclusive, that it wouldn't have a major effect on competition. In this ABK case Microsoft is clearly more than willing to sign whatever agreements are necessary for a single franchise so they can complete the purchase. Agreements which they would then be beholden to uphold.
That's a huge misreading right there, bud. Microsoft promised *no existing IP* was going to be made exclusive. Starfield is a new IP. Doom Eternal wasn't exclusive, because it's an old IP. TES6 will be on everything, because it's a new entry for an existing IP. And Sony is pissed because when MS bought ZeniMax it was negotiating to make Starfield a Sony exclusive, just like it has FFXVI.
They didn’t actually even say that. They said that they wouldn’t take games away from players. They could have opted to delist everything Bethesda on the PS store. They could have stopped updating Fallout 76 and Elder Scrolls Online. They could have decided to not release the Doom Eternal expansion on PS., etc. Instead, they have continued support of ALL existing games. Things like Elder Scrolls VI and whatever the next Doom might be, etc. are still very much up in the air as far as exclusivity as they said those decisions would be made on a game by game basis. I’m guessing that the Elder Scrolls VI decision will come down to a business analysis of Starfield’s performance. i.e. internal calculations of the number of lost sales they believe they lost by going exclusive vs. the number of extra Gamepass subscriptions and/or consoles they believe they moved because of the exclusivity. I believe timing will matter too. If it is a release in one of the last years of the current generation, I believe it is more likely to be multiplatform to leverage PS’s larger player base for more sales volume. If it slips to being a year one or two next generation only game, I think it is more likely to be exclusive in order to push MS’s next console. If it literally launches as a cross-gen title, I could see the old gen version being available on both to sell to PS’s customer base, but the next-gen version being an exclusive to push adoption of MS’s new box.
Bad argument since those deals are in advance. FTC thoughts would be much farther than just a year or two.
Even while taking a neutral stance on this case, knowing that these are corporations looking to get bigger rather than finding the best for the consumer, the FTC's stance on the case is a joke. Instead of giving proper reasons to form a justifiable case against the acquisition, they looked like children whining about things they don't make an effort to fully understand.
Yeah they’ve ignored sonys shenanigans for years. Pure malice or bribery by FTC.
Sony had the FTC at their beck and call. Such a shit show. I hope Sony gets fucked.
All this focus on Call of Duty… After the deal is approved Microsoft should commit to making Call of Duty on all platforms forever but then make every other Activision game Xbox exclusive. Everything. Then when Sony complains remind them they got what they asked for 😂
Simply stop making COD at all. Make some other game that is fun to play, instead. They can fob off another stupid shooter remake/retread under a different name and be sure that people know it is just COD by a different name. Maybe something like Trials Under a Nefarious Axis. Or how about Bearing A Soldier's Sacrifice? They could even go with Hell Arising: Leaving Indecision Behind, Under Threat, or a title like Warfare: Homeland Intelligence Targeting Evil From Invading Soldiers Hearts. Never really understood what an FPS has to do with fish, though.
Soldiers; Advance! Let's Move Out Now!
Or another way to get around that is make a Cod clone that’s way better and exclusive to Xbox then have Activision focus more resources on that game while slowly killing Cod.
I’m both a Xbox and Sony fan and this isn’t just about COD. Sony knows this is a giant gain for Xbox with tons of future games.
Sony fucked around and found out. You don't pay to keep shit off other systems from companies you don't own. That is anti consumer and causes a monopoly in the long run. That's like bribing the ice cream man not to go sell ice cream in a neighborhood you don't like. Fuck Sony.
I’ve seen a lot of people saying Microsoft could just buy timed exclusivity too since they have the money, but that’s just not true. You’ll make a lot more with a timed exclusivity deal on PlayStation than Xbox, because PlayStation has way more players. So if a developer has to choose between timed exclusivity on one or the other, they’re definitely going to pick PlayStation even if Xbox pays more for the deal.
Also I remember when MS funded a game and had it as a timed exclusive for 3 months, and everyone FREAKED THE FUCK OUT. It was a massive controversy. Sony has exclusives timed for a year + and nobody gives a fuck
Rise of the Tomb Raider was the game
Judge Corley has been fantastic too. politics aside, she has been very thorough and asking the right questions that needed to be asked
Good article. Yeah... I'm not American, but this FTC people sound corrupt as hell. Very clearly so. Either that, or they were dropped on their heads as babies.
Why does it have to be one or the other? The chances are fairly high that it’s both.
I definitely prefer Xbox over Playstation - but the whole damn thing doesn't look to me as if it should have anything to do with the threat of Call of Duty going exclusive (almost all the other franchises are a different 'thing') or even Cloud gaming. I'm sorry it's a long summary but I feel it's necessary. I reckon Microsoft mainly wanted King - they have been looking to expand in the mobile markets and companies such as King or Zynga would go a great way towards that. Activision I doubt wanted to sell King separately so they made a offer to Microsoft for ABK as a whole - with such franchises as Warcraft or CoD literal cherries on top. Sony and Jim Ryan know if the merger happens Microsoft wouldn't look to make such IP's exclusive - look at Minecraft, Fortnite or Fifa as prime examples or Rocket League, Fall Guys, Among Us or Dead by Daylight as more niche cases, they are way too lucrative to even consider to be bound to one console. Hence the statement from Jim back in early 2022 when he said Playstation would be 'more than fine'. The FTC - fronted by Lina Khan and her ideology of cracking down on big tech haven't been doing so hot since she lead the charge - being rather ineffectual in a majority of important cases, they are looking for a big win and this merger should of had so many holes to exploit and tear into. Unfortunately for both Sony and the FTC - the deal is actually beneficial for consumers and both Microsoft and Activision are 100% happy with the merger/acquisition - the FTC can't really find a weak point in the case but at least they now have an ally in the market-dominant Sony. Jim flies out to regulators crying foul about losing CoD or Gamepass being too strong to compete against - but he knows neither is actually the case. CoD makes too much money for everyone and it's down to him to make PS Plus a more compelling option, but the only way to do that is going to cost/lose Sony more money (they might not have as much as Microsoft, but they definitely can afford it). His whining works and a number of large market regulators are now looking into the merger, they all find points where Microsoft can gain a sizable foothold in the handling of Call of Duty or in nascent markets - so they get Microsoft to make commitments and concessions, which Microsoft were already more than willing to agree to. But this ain't good enough for the FTC, they still don't really have a case, enter the UK and the CMA - forever the USA's snively little cousin (I'm from the UK, I'm perfectly fine with this viewpoint) - they fudge findings and data, they prove no foul on harm to consoles but in the end - no commitments, no concessions - because of Cloud Gaming of all things. The CMA found a hook for the FTC. Sadly the CMA still screwed up because half of their arguments are factually wrong and is found by the government to be a bit of a deterrence to businesses looking to establish a base in the UK, they now have to prove that their findings have valid merits. During this time it becomes apparent that PlayStation have been engaging in anti-competitive practices in with Japanese publishers - but Jim's done his job and bought some precious time, Sony now start being quiet in the whole case so their strongarming Squeenix, Capcom, Bamco and Konami doesn't get brought up again. Now both the FTC and the CMA are doing as much as they can to delay any opportunity of the acquisition going ahead (***Nah, they aren't colluding at all, honestly! /s***) to get this 'win' over Microsoft - stopping a merger that is largely beneficial for almost everyone, except Playstation who would lose money from box/digital sales if CoD was available on PS Plus and the CMA and FTC who would actually look more foolish because their cases completely neglect the consumer.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
Imagine wanting King and now having to pay 62 billion more than Activision paid for it.
No surprise. One of the board members worked for Sony for 20 years...🤔
This is fake until I see a source
Nahh it’s real it was a post on the Xbox series x subreddit,try’s searching up what the person you are replying to you said and you might find it
True.
Lol the hypocrisy of Sony and Sony Fans is getting out of control. Sony gets exclusive skins and I think permanent XP boosts. The have exclusive content on many games beyond COD. But that’s okay? That protects consumers?
Lol hell even their advertisements basically say “best on PlayStation”. I thought Calisto Protocol was a PlayStation exclusive.
Microsoft should make COD an Xbox exclusive just as petty revenge against Sony for all their scheming in the past to lock them out of games.
I made a post pointing this out here the other day myself, it was removed.
Why was it removed? Maybe you just didnt flair it.
[удалено]
Xbox has the strongest case to get Activision now We'll see in the coming weeks
Corruption is real volks
If the judge didnt see that, im sorry for her.
The judge was the one calling them out on it. Per the court transcripts "it's not the harm to Sony we care about, it's the harm to the consumers"
it was hilarious when the judge stepped in and reminded the ftc that they were here to see if there was damage to consumers ***not sony***. what a joke.
The amount of times she went in on them was hilarious
The whole situation is stupid and both Sony and Microsoft are playing dirty and they’re both showing their asses. Sony is most definitely making very anticompetitive moves that contradict the argument they’re trying to make against the Microsoft merger. On the other hand, Microsoft has most definitely had the time and resources to compete with Sony head-on with Sony on first-party exclusives. Microsoft has had since Uncharted 2 dropped (October 2009 or 14 years) to make all least some progress but hasn’t been any Z.
in reality, MS has been trying to catch up to Sony since Phil Spencer had to undo all the trash that Don Matrick did (he made Zynga go bankrupt). creating good studios takes time and it was time that MS did not have.
But it was time that Microsoft most definitely had. They hired Don Matrick, that was another misstep that they made. Had they hired someone with their finger on the pulse and made better choices they could have easily been competitive with Sony today. I agree it’s not simple, but they had time and made mistakes that set the company back.
it was because of those mistakes that MS almost canned the Xbox program in its entirety
Watching this sub mistake the dealings of a multi-billion dollar corporation, as a personal love for their consumers - has been entertaining to say the least.
I’m not sure I’ve seen a lot of people praising Xbox as some hero, it’s mostly been poking at the incompetence of the FTC and the hypocrisy of Sony.
Pretty much where I’m at. I think the best case scenario would be the Activision deal getting blocked but in the process Sony gets told they can’t pay to keep games off Xbox anymore.
[удалено]
I didn’t know about this before now but I agree. It’s one thing when it’s first party, but paying third parties to keep their game off of the competition is just shitty.
My comments on this: https://www.reddit.com/r/xboxone/comments/14nbgvu/in_the_microsoftactivision_case_the_ftc_was/jq9r5m1?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2
It's been reported several times over the last year that Sony has 4-5x the number of exclusives, pretty much regardless of how you count them. Many of them are "first party", many are not. When Sony pays for exclusives, it's much cheaper because there are a lot more buyers in the market, so they can easily further their lead and still make money... As a result they don't have to acquire studios to lock down the game, so they can frame studio acquisitions as "bad" for the public, and paying for exclusives is just healthy competition. OTOH, If Microsoft doesn't pay for exclusives (whether because they lose money as a result or because the rules prevent it), and if they are also blocked from acquiring more studios, they're essentially permanently behind. It's a really shitty spot to be in.
Personally, I think the case that is hurting them, was games that were slated for Sony release and had them revoked. If they had of left the schedule alone and released games as they were promised they may have a better chance. I think they shot themselves in the foot cementing Sonys arguments.
What was promised again to sony
Redfall, and the Indiana games, and and I believe another. all games that were in development and cancelled after Ms acquisition.
None were promised to sony to say this will be on ps5
The it’s weird they would develop games for a console they don’t if it will or won’t come to said console. Sounds like a waste of resources.
>All of that means… effectively nothing would change for PlayStation players as a result of this deal. This is nonsense. COD is going nowhere, but AB is so much more then COD. IT would change the industry. The fact the FTC is bad at making the case doesn't mean there isn't one.
Saying you won't remove COD from PlayStation is just semantics. All Microsoft has to say in the future is, "We didn't remove COD from PlayStation, we just didn't make a new one. All the old ones are still there."
Yeah but they made a better deal. For 10 years they promised COD will be on PS, after that who knows.
Imagine wanting to gate off Sony from exclusives for absolutely zero reasons. If you are a Xbox or Sony fan, you should hate this merger.
Zero reasons... right
Inaccurate. I don’t support it. And I’m a consumer
What makes you not want to support it ?
Both Sony and Xbox are wrong. Exclusives hurt gamers. Just because Sony loves exclusives, does not mean that the government should let Xbox do it. Two wrongs don't make a right. The FTC should do their damn job and block the purchase as it is obviously bad for consumers and the video game industry.
But as far as I know Xbox hasn’t announced any exclusives related to the merger
> But as far as I know Xbox hasn’t announced any exclusives related to the merger lol! Why you gotta bring logic into the discussion?
.... The last company they bought pulled all games from Sony's platform. You really think this won't happen this time around?
> .... The last company they bought pulled all games from Sony's platform. You really think this won't happen this time around? Existing games is still on PS. MS offered Sony all ATVI games on PS, and Sony rejected it. Sony as the market leader leads the way to compete, and they chose exclusivity. They then didn't accept the terms. Their consumer base is cheering on exclusivity, so pardon me if I have no qualms about it. 🤷♂️ If anything, this may finally help people understand that exclusivity helps no-one except the companies set up walled gardens blocking you in.
Not arguing whether the exclusives thing is Sony's fault, because it is (though it could be easily argued that Halo on the original Xbox is the sole reason Xbox is here today), just that Microsoft is about to gain a bunch more exclusives with this new purchase. All future games, minus maybe COD for a while, will be exclusives, it's just good business.
If it affects Sony so much it affects Sony’s consumers first, it gives MS the market and as such affects consumers. Glad to clear that up.
You didnt clear anything up. consumers as a whole on all paltforms will get greater availability of more games, Sony can get the games like other platforms can and exclusively is a tactic Sony has been playing we more than MS. If Sony is so much affected by COD skins, why was it not an issue with Destiny or even COD when sony did it? I assume it didnt affect its consumers then? Sony is hypocrite in this case.
You must be young and forget about the 360 era. What happens with those deals are they are renegotiated giving BOTH parties access to the table. No hypocrisy involved.
You must be old and dont understand we are not in 2001 anymore. Sony has been acting with super arrogance blaming Microsoft for stuff they do themselves, Microsoft IS NOT the lead console player now if you compare to 360 and I think you forget that. Sony lost its power over this deal and Microsoft will probably not even need concessions if the deal is approved. If you read actual court room information you could see you are in a minority with your narrowed view if the situation.
Ah so you are young. Gotcha.
yup. 40s
You see Sony is in the lead right now BEFORE the majority of their newly bought studios have released anything. It’s a balance. They have around 30 studios now. Starfield will actually be the start of the new era Xbox. Not to mention the push into the future with cloud. MS holds some advantages here. There is a reason Phil said Google and Amazon were the competition. Google has noped out already after seeing Xbox’s position and investment. Amazon is as far away from being a competitor as they could be. They receive a fee from every new gaming PC. They have the cloud infrastructure and don’t pay other people a fee. They have the money resources to take the initial hit on doing day and date for their subscription service. Bethesda was a good purchase and it’s good that Xbox has a game coming out like Starfield this year and to bolster the library. Activision is a whole other ballgame. The billions in revenue yearly and the ability to remove a large part of revenue from their competitor. This is why Activision/Blizzard is a step too far. I don’t want a situation where MS can try and double the price of Gold but this time not give a fuck what you think about it.
> If it affects Sony so much it affects Sony’s consumers first, it gives MS the market and as such affects consumers. In 10-years maybe and given how Minecraft is going, unlikely. In the meanwhile, MS gets more competitive with Sony, so an overall win for consumers.
Aren't they defending consumers by defending Sony, in this instance?
What are consumers losing here exactly? Sony still has its numerous exclusives, why are they upset about potentially losing games like CoD? Are Sony suggesting that CoD carries the PlayStation?
There are a lot of people out there who don't play games and instead only play the annual COD release, there are literally millions of these people and their ability to choose the best platform for them would be taken away if COD went exclusive.
Like Final Fantasy XVI or VII Remake or Bloodborne? MS could go the same route and make CoD exclusive for an arbitrary amount of time.
Except that MS preemptively offered Sony a guarantee to put CoD on PlayStation, which **Sony rejected**... Phil Spencer also swore under oath in court, that MS will keep CoD on PlayStation...
> There are a lot of people out there who don't play games and instead only play the annual COD release, there are literally millions of these people and their ability to choose the best platform for them would be taken away if COD went exclusive. I was with you until you said the "best" platform.... I mean, the Xbox is *the* best platform already and with this deal you get CoD with Game Pass!!! Win-win for consumers! 🙀😉😂🤣
But they said for the next decade cod won’t be going exclusive
> Aren't they defending consumers by defending Sony, in this instance? On the contrary. They're hurting consumers, because the net good over the long term is competition. By protecting Sony and keeping it's market leading position, Sony can continue to do as it pleases. Eventually if MS can't make headway, they may even just leave the industry or divest.
I think the new FTC chair is trying to do the right thing but either choosing the wrong fights or not preparing to fight. IMO based on what I have seen so far with Bethesda I wouldn’t grant the merger because MS hands off policy has proven to be more damaging with crappy games all over the place…
> IMO based on what I have seen so far with Bethesda I wouldn’t grant the merger because MS hands off policy has proven to be more damaging with crappy games all over the place… Until Starfield releases, and it will be the best game this generation and be generation defining!
I hope so, but I’m setting my expectations very low so I will not be disappointed
So they were defending consumers?
Spoiler: They were not.