Microsoft is reportedly expecting the UK’s regulator to oppose its acquisition of Activision Blizzard, after the EU issued its own antirust warning this week.
That’s according to a report in the New York Times, which states that “Microsoft’s legal team also expects the antitrust authority in Britain to oppose the transaction”.
According to the report, Microsoft believes the European Commission is open to potential remedies, and the company is hoping to convince both the UK and the European Union to accept its concessions and approve the deal.
This, in turn, could make it easier to reach an agreement with the FTC before a scheduled trial later this year, it’s claimed. At the same time, it’s claimed that any of the three agencies could instead put pressure on the others to oppose the acquisition.
Do you still see this deal going through? What concessions is MS prepared to offer?
The gaming industry has normalize exclusives as part of its DNA for decades. This acquisition is an extension of this practice. If the core logic behind blocking or making of concessions relates to exclusives then exclusives should be made illegal across the board. If the deal is blocked and the practice remains then what was the point?🤔
Crazy that people still don't understand the difference between Sony partnering/buying a developer and creating a new IP and Microsoft buying a huge publisher with existing multiplatform franchises
Crazy that people still don't understand the difference between Sony partnering/buying a developer and creating a new IP and Microsoft buying a huge publisher with existing multiplatform franchises
It is crazy how people like yourself rose tint Sony's behavior to just "partnering/buying a developer and creating a new IP" but ignore their active moneyhatting of many games thus preventing it from release on competing platforms. If you are in support of moneyhatting games, then transactions like these should not be an issue.
I've been saying it since last year that trade regulators across Europe and North America will be trying to block the acquisition... But Lemmings kept pushing some bizarre conspiracy that Sony is blocking it. This goes well beyond video games, but sets a precedent for all industries. If a massive corporation can just buy up the competition to get a monopoly, then that sets a potentially harmful precedent for other industries.
I said that if one moves to block the deal then the rest will follow. There's no way to to avoid it and looking for DC saying it's politically motivated blahblahblah.
Put your dicks away cows there's nothing to wank over here....watch destins YouTube videos and education yourself......MS fully expected the EU and the UK to object,MS are waiting to see the objections and and concessions will be made as the EU are open to concessions....once they approve the deal,the UK will fall in place and the ftcs case is dead in the water.
Best just accept that PlayStations best and biggest game will be a Xbox studios game....or bury your head in the sand.. regardless cows gonna get rekt 🤣🤣
What cows forget to mention is that MS has subpoenad Sony to produce documents proving the disaster that they claim losing cod will have on the company.........Sony's lies have finally caught up with them,pity it took a rival to do it as Sony saps just accept the lies dry
Put your dicks away cows there's nothing to wank over here....watch destins YouTube videos and education yourself......MS fully expected the EU and the UK to object,MS are waiting to see the objections and and concessions will be made as the EU are open to concessions....once they approve the deal,the UK will fall in place and the ftcs case is dead in the water.
Best just accept that PlayStations best and biggest game will be a Xbox studios game....or bury your head in the sand.. regardless cows gonna get rekt 🤣🤣
You going to shame yourself and admit it on a new purposely made thread if you are wrong? How much integrity do you have?
Put your dicks away cows there's nothing to wank over here....watch destins YouTube videos and education yourself......MS fully expected the EU and the UK to object,MS are waiting to see the objections and and concessions will be made as the EU are open to concessions....once they approve the deal,the UK will fall in place and the ftcs case is dead in the water.
Best just accept that PlayStations best and biggest game will be a Xbox studios game....or bury your head in the sand.. regardless cows gonna get rekt 🤣🤣
You going to shame yourself and admit it on a new purposely made thread if you are wrong? How much integrity do you have?
Don’t hold too much stake into his post. I’m speaking from experience because I used to. Now I see his post as “blah blah blah”, and then some incoherent gibberish that follows.
Crazy that people still don't understand the difference between Sony partnering/buying a developer and creating a new IP and Microsoft buying a huge publisher with existing multiplatform franchises
It is crazy how people like yourself rose tint Sony's behavior to just "partnering/buying a developer and creating a new IP" but ignore their active moneyhatting of many games thus preventing it from release on competing platforms. If you are in support of moneyhatting games, then transactions like these should not be an issue.
Well, MS also is making 3rd party deals like Scorn, CrossfireX, Stalker 2... These are individual titles. Some titles are timed exclusives, some are not. So, case by case. But buying big 3rd party publisher with huge history and big IP library ( majority of IPs are multiplatorms is not the same, not in the real world......
@daredevils2k said:
Lems live in a different world then us. While the rest of us live in reality, lems live in denial
Crazy that people still don't understand the difference between Sony partnering/buying a developer and creating a new IP and Microsoft buying a huge publisher with existing multiplatform franchises
It is crazy how people like yourself rose tint Sony's behavior to just "partnering/buying a developer and creating a new IP" but ignore their active moneyhatting of many games thus preventing it from release on competing platforms. If you are in support of moneyhatting games, then transactions like these should not be an issue.
Well, MS also is making 3rd party deals like Scorn, CrossfireX, Stalker 2... These are individual titles. Some titles are timed exclusives, some are not. So, case by case. But buying big 3rd party publisher with huge history and big IP library ( majority of IPs are multiplatorms is not the same, not in the real world......
@daredevils2k said:
Lems live in a different world then us. While the rest of us live in reality, lems live in denial
..... but probably in their world, yeah
He didn't even acknowledge what I said because he knows I am right
@mysticaldonut: the funny thing is, sony is still larger than MS in the gaming space, AFTER the aquisition. The regulators really are going uphill in this fight. Where is the anti trust coming from, when MS is actually smaller than their much larger comptitor in the gaming space. MS is david in this fight, against the scumbag sony goliath and their money hatting / forced bundle ways.
The gaming industry has normalize exclusives as part of its DNA for decades. This acquisition is an extension of this practice. If the core logic behind blocking or making of concessions relates to exclusives then exclusives should be made illegal across the board. If the deal is blocked and the practice remains then what was the point?🤔
MS can focus on internal stuff like what they already have, instead of trying to consolidate the industry. Halo isn't what it used to be, they should try and fix that.
It is crazy how people like yourself rose tint Sony's behavior to just "partnering/buying a developer and creating a new IP" but ignore their active moneyhatting of many games thus preventing it from release on competing platforms. If you are in support of moneyhatting games, then transactions like these should not be an issue.
Well, MS also is making 3rd party deals like Scorn, CrossfireX, Stalker 2... These are individual titles. Some titles are timed exclusives, some are not. So, case by case. But buying big 3rd party publisher with huge history and big IP library ( majority of IPs are multiplatorms is not the same, not in the real world......
..... but probably in their world, yeah
It is the same because of the intention. Trying to make it as something meaningfully different is being dishonest. The purchasing of a publisher or studio is with the intention limiting access. Sony didn't purchase their studios to make games for other platforms. The purchasing of exclusives are shorten term agreements with longterm effects. The purchasing of studios and publishers are achieving the same end results except their is no negotiations needed for future titles. If you are ok with the paying studios to limited access and the purchasing of studios to also limit access, then this is no different. It like saying, "i prefer they slowly acquire rather than they acquire in one sweep because it is better. "😐 The argument that the entity in question is multi-platform is irrelevant because there are several multi-platform games that have been paid to not be available on other systems but we hear nothing from the same people complaining now.
The main difference right now between Sony and MS, is that one is a multi-platform day one developer for all of their games while the other limits their games to one system for an unspecified time before being multi-platform. That is the biggest difference in the real world.
I've been saying it since last year that trade regulators across Europe and North America will be trying to block the acquisition... But Lemmings kept pushing some bizarre conspiracy that Sony is blocking it. This goes well beyond video games, but sets a precedent for all industries. If a massive corporation can just buy up the competition to get a monopoly, then that sets a potentially harmful precedent for other industries.
The problem with you argument is that Activision Blizzard is not competition to MS in the same manner that they are to Sony and Nintendo. The acquisition of Activision Blizzard is not a move to a monopoly. Stop throwing around the term incorrectly. What is harmful to consumers is paid exclusives. That practice is harmful to consumers but you folks are silent on the issue but vocal on this. You should be against both, not one.
It is crazy how people like yourself rose tint Sony's behavior to just "partnering/buying a developer and creating a new IP" but ignore their active moneyhatting of many games thus preventing it from release on competing platforms. If you are in support of moneyhatting games, then transactions like these should not be an issue.
Well, MS also is making 3rd party deals like Scorn, CrossfireX, Stalker 2... These are individual titles. Some titles are timed exclusives, some are not. So, case by case. But buying big 3rd party publisher with huge history and big IP library ( majority of IPs are multiplatorms is not the same, not in the real world......
..... but probably in their world, yeah
It is the same because of the intention. Trying to make it as something meaningfully different is being dishonest. The purchasing of a publisher or studio is with the intention limiting access. Sony didn't purchase their studios to make games for other platforms. The purchasing of exclusives are shorten term agreements with longterm effects. The purchasing of studios and publishers are achieving the same end results except their is no negotiations needed for future titles. If you are ok with the paying studios to limited access and the purchasing of studios to also limit access, then this is no different. It like saying, "i prefer they slowly acquire rather than they acquire in one sweep because it is better. "😐 The argument that the entity in question is multi-platform is irrelevant because there are several multi-platform games that have been paid to not be available on other systems but we hear nothing from the same people complaining now.
The main difference right now between Sony and MS, is that one is a multi-platform day one developer for all of their games while the other limits their games to one system for an unspecified time before being multi-platform. That is the biggest difference in the real world.
Intention is the same ( exclusive deals case by case titles ), but buying big 3rd party publisher with huge library and IPs which are multiplatform and making them all exclusives vs case by case titles with some developers isn't the same.
MS and Activision have both signaled a willingness to fight it out, so their decision won't be putting an end to the acquisition attempt as the three major venues will provide opportunity to appeal/challenge any decisions.
Furthermore I had been saying for months that I suspected a challenge was inevitable, and MS was going to use the challenge to rake Sony over the coals in the process, and that's currently how this is going to be playing out with their recent subpoena of Sony regarding their exclusivity practices going back for the last 11 years. This probably won't just name everything Sony has paid to keep off competing platforms, but also the terms regarding those deals. I imagine this is designed to embarass Sony and potential their partners in the process, and possibly this may have been their ulterior motive in the whole ordeal.
From MS's standpoint they can say that such a sizeable acquisition is necessary in a market where Sony uses its market status to keep content off competing platforms and services, enough of a relevant point the courts will compel Sony to comply with full disclosure in the proceedings.
But again I feel the main effort is to drag this into the public light. It's a rather irrelevant point to say all these companies do exclusive deals. For Sony however, as a market leader, they're able to exercise such deals much more cheaply to keep games off competing platforms and services, and thus use this tactic with greater frequency, and with far more restrictive terms applied. This isn't just a competitive tactic, but one which cements their dominant market position at the expense of a healthy competitive market, but that will need to be weighed once all relevant information is disclosed for scrutiny. But I imagine MS has a good idea of what it will show as their numerous acquisition offers in recent years already disclosed a lot of this already, for them at least, though they are likely restricted from bringing it up electively... except if the venue compels it, the FTC really opened up a chance to make that happen, and Sony themselves were among the more notable lobbyist pushing for intervention so really there's a great degree of humorous irony on the idea of MS flipping the tables and letting Sony stick its foot in its mouth.
Besides such disclosures being personally embarassing for Sony, it could also put a target on their back with regulators over these practices, as well as potential embarass their partners with any deals they took depending on the nature of the terms that were agreed upon.
Nobody in the press really even seems aware of the shit-storm that's about to unfold. I have even seen headlines saying things like "Microsoft seeks Sony's help in fight with FTC" failing to even realize these subpoenas are legally compelling Sony to comply and it is not a voluntary act in any way.
If anything in recent history demonstrates how a legal battle can compel uninvolved parties to disclose their privileged information, it was Epic's lawsuit with Apple. Pretty much every company that operated a storefront to publish games was subpoenaed to disclose their relevant privileged information in the proceedings, and it became public in the process.
The optics of this work in Microsoft's favor quite a bit too, and as I said I feel this was Microsoft's ultior motive since the very beginning. Imagine absent of an acquisition MS went complaining to regulators about Sony's practices to have them intervene instead. They'd of been ruthlessly mocked for even trying. Instead they tried to buy ABK, let Sony's leadership expend a great deal of energy and time crying to regulators to jam up the acquisition, and now MS has a venue to legally compel Sony to air its dirty laundry, and in the end MS taking this action looks like Sony left them with no choice and forced their hand on the issue. Sony got baited, did exactly what MS thought they would do, and now MS is seizing on that opportunity.
Intention is the same ( exclusive deals case by case titles ), but buying big 3rd party publisher with huge library and IPs which are multiplatform and making them all exclusives vs case by case titles with some developers isn't the same.
Fact: There is no game that MS has released since the acquisition of Zenimax and Mojang that is exclusive to one platform. Exclusive games were abandoned in 2016. We are now on the 7th year of NO exclusives and there are no plans to abandon PC gaming to make Xbox exclusive games.
I've been saying it since last year that trade regulators across Europe and North America will be trying to block the acquisition... But Lemmings kept pushing some bizarre conspiracy that Sony is blocking it. This goes well beyond video games, but sets a precedent for all industries. If a massive corporation can just buy up the competition to get a monopoly, then that sets a potentially harmful precedent for other industries.
The problem with you argument is that Activision Blizzard is not competition to MS in the same manner that they are to Sony and Nintendo. The acquisition of Activision Blizzard is not a move to a monopoly. Stop throwing around the term incorrectly. What is harmful to consumers is paid exclusives. That practice is harmful to consumers but you folks are silent on the issue but vocal on this. You should be against both, not one.
Then take the issue up with trade regulators. They've decided that Sony's paid exclusives fall under fair trade, but Microsoft's acquisition does not. It's a false equivalence. The issue is not what's more harmful for consumers, but what's more harmful for businesses.
I've been saying it since last year that trade regulators across Europe and North America will be trying to block the acquisition... But Lemmings kept pushing some bizarre conspiracy that Sony is blocking it. This goes well beyond video games, but sets a precedent for all industries. If a massive corporation can just buy up the competition to get a monopoly, then that sets a potentially harmful precedent for other industries.
Basically this. EU are the only one's seeing this as anti-consumers with this deal, the only thing Sony is doing is bringing this attention to the world but really Sony doesn't have a saying, just EU.
It is crazy how people like yourself rose tint Sony's behavior to just "partnering/buying a developer and creating a new IP" but ignore their active moneyhatting of many games thus preventing it from release on competing platforms. If you are in support of moneyhatting games, then transactions like these should not be an issue.
Well, MS also is making 3rd party deals like Scorn, CrossfireX, Stalker 2... These are individual titles. Some titles are timed exclusives, some are not. So, case by case. But buying big 3rd party publisher with huge history and big IP library ( majority of IPs are multiplatorms is not the same, not in the real world......
..... but probably in their world, yeah
It is the same because of the intention. Trying to make it as something meaningfully different is being dishonest. The purchasing of a publisher or studio is with the intention limiting access. Sony didn't purchase their studios to make games for other platforms. The purchasing of exclusives are shorten term agreements with longterm effects. The purchasing of studios and publishers are achieving the same end results except their is no negotiations needed for future titles. If you are ok with the paying studios to limited access and the purchasing of studios to also limit access, then this is no different. It like saying, "i prefer they slowly acquire rather than they acquire in one sweep because it is better. "😐 The argument that the entity in question is multi-platform is irrelevant because there are several multi-platform games that have been paid to not be available on other systems but we hear nothing from the same people complaining now.
The main difference right now between Sony and MS, is that one is a multi-platform day one developer for all of their games while the other limits their games to one system for an unspecified time before being multi-platform. That is the biggest difference in the real world.
Here is the difference:
Sony: works with Naughty Dog, Insomniac, Sucker Punch, Santa Molecule, Media Molecule, companies create original IP that find success, Sony grooms them into larger studios after purchasing them.
Microsoft: attempts to acquire other publishers who already have established talent, studios and IPs. Would rather buy out successful franchises than attempt to create their own from scratch internally. If you can't beat em, buy em out. And Microsoft has the funds to do just that.
You can try to pretend like the main focus of Sony is third party publishing deals or timed exclusivity but we all know the majority of Sony's exclusive titles are made by their own in-house studios. And, as someone else has already mentioned, Microsoft has also spent loads keeping content off of competitor's platforms. One could argue their acquisition of Bethesda/AB is an extremely expensive example of that, lol, or is Redfall and Starfield coming to PS5 after all?
@Jag85: I am pointing out the flaw with your argument not with the EU. Is the EU making claims about a monopoly?
Then you missed my point. It's not about whether MS is literally trying to create a monopoly. It's about setting a precedent that could potentially lead to a monopoly. Not just for MS or just for video games, but for any megacorp in any industry.
Basically, "give an inch and they'll take a mile." That's how precedents work. That's why trade regulators are trying to nip it in the bud, before it potentially sets a dangerous precedent for a future monopoly... Again, not just for MS, but for any megacorp using the same tactics.
@Jag85: Nothing in this acquisition is a precedent for the creation for a monopoly. If MS was acquiring direct competition your claim would have merit but that is not the situation.
Intention is the same ( exclusive deals case by case titles ), but buying big 3rd party publisher with huge library and IPs which are multiplatform and making them all exclusives vs case by case titles with some developers isn't the same.
Fact: There is no game that MS has released since the acquisition of Zenimax and Mojang that is exclusive to one platform. Exclusive games were abandoned in 2016. We are now on the 7th year of NO exclusives and there are no plans to abandon PC gaming to make Xbox exclusive games.
Fact is Phil Spencer said they will support already EXISTING games on other platforms.
Fact is Phil Spencer said ALL FUTURE TITLES release by Bethesda will be exclusive to Xbox platform. Hi-Fi Rush for example is the start of it
I've been saying it since last year that trade regulators across Europe and North America will be trying to block the acquisition... But Lemmings kept pushing some bizarre conspiracy that Sony is blocking it. This goes well beyond video games, but sets a precedent for all industries. If a massive corporation can just buy up the competition to get a monopoly, then that sets a potentially harmful precedent for other industries.
Basically this. EU are the only one's seeing this as anti-consumers with this deal, the only thing Sony is doing is bringing this attention to the world but really Sony doesn't have a saying, just EU.
Isn't PC basically a Xbox? Read that on net many times. hm.gif
Anyway : Quote from Eurogamer :
"Future games, however, will be exclusive "where Game Pass exists", currently meaning Xbox consoles, PC, and any platform capable of accessing the service via cloud."
Bungie is an exception, not the rule. I don't agree with their acquisition of Bungie. Way too much money for one developer and it makes no sense considering all their games will still be multiplatform
Log in to comment