@thebadjesus: You obviously don't remember the workaround you had to do to get streaming to work. You just didn't download the app from the Apple store and it worked.
You went to the Xbox website (not the Apple store). You are essentially not using an app but webpage app link on your phone page that uses your browser. And Safari is limited support because of how again how Apple does things. Chrome and Edge less so. That is hardly the same thing and easy as for consumers as downloading an app form the app store.
Apple historically only charges a policy like this when they are readying to bring out their own competing service. They make things difficult or impossible to do (ie. costly, or have to do unnecessary workarounds that weaken the competitors service) on their ecosystem in the guise of protecting the consumer. Then just as they are readying to compete with these services with their own the lessen the reigns of the policy and bring out their own similar service.
Who exactly will lose out here if this deal goes through? ABK games (not just COD) were being offered to third-party streaming platforms in 10-year deals, including GeForce Now. That won't' happen if the deal fails. Sony was offered access to COD not only for the next 10 years (an unheard-of contract that normally is a few years at time) but it included them having COD day one on PS+ if Sony wanted it to do so. Nintendo devices were going to get access to ABK games (including COD) and GP subscribers would have day one access to ABK games (along with COD after Sony's marking deal ends and so does the game blocking Sony require in such deals).
What definitely happens if this deal fails? Well, none of the above will happen. Just taking into account streaming services and Nintendo, that means 150 million gamers would not have access they would have if this deal went through. It means a lot less options for consumers. The fact is ABK has no interest in game streaming. And if they ever end up doing game streaming it definitely would not be through third-party deals but more likely through their own subscrition streaming service in the future like Uplay+. ABK also has no interest in supporting any more endpoints than they do now like Nintendo. ABK has no interest in GP or PS+. ABK is primarily only interested in being a company where most of the studios work to turn out COD each year. I doubt that will change from versus what was the MS plan to allow studios to work on different projects of their choosing by releasing COD only every other year (or even less). The workers at ABK don't benefit from a failed merger as Kotick isn't going anywhere if this deal fails. The board loves him as he knows how to bring in the big money investors love. They even extended his contract several more years just last year. The only way Bobby Kotick is leaving ABK is if MS takes over.
What will happen if this deal fails is Activision will be done with Sony. Sure they will sell their products on PS but the bad blood will be severe. They will be heavily responsible in the deal failing and costing investors billions. Kotick himself will be out over $500 million. I can see MS using a lot of that 69 billion they would have used on ABK to go the Sony route and just buy up third-party deals for long term (ie 2+ years) or forever (i.e. Square Enix with Final Fantasy). I definitely see MS outbidding Sony for COD marketing rights (I doubt ABK would even consider Sony anyways). I can see MS even paying for day one GP. What is a $500 million for COD day one GP each year when you about to pay $70 billion for it. And nothing regulators can do. It may even have a more pronounced effect on moving people to GP (Xbox) than the merger would have. Especially with all the additional perks added to COD on GP. Perks MS promised it would not do with the buyout.
I can see MS locking away (like Sony did) COD perks for a year if not more. Ironically, if this deal went through MS promised not to have any such perks like Sony does today. But all bets are off if this deal fails. I can see MS doing similar deals elsewhere flushed with many of the billions they were going to use on ABK. I can see them even buying IP outright. A move Embracer has been known to do not and leave the studio alone. I can MS going after smaller to medium size developers in mass. All of these (buying IP and smaller deals) regulators have no purvey over. And it all (most) would not happen if this deal does not fall through. Just think about it. It was just COD everyone ws concerned about. Even if this deal fails MS can make deals for COD on GP and day one. They also have lots of those billions to go after other big AAA games (maybe buy them outright or day one GP or pull a Sony and make them exclusive for a year or two). MS is going to spend money (billions) on gaming. They will now be able to pick and choose and not just from ABK menu but go after and make billion-dollar deals with Take Two, EA, Sega, etc..
Believe me, Satay is a very aggressive person. He will go for the throat. Brad Smith the Vice Chairman and MS is steamed at Sony as well. These are people that few years ago didn't care about gaming now they vested in it. Unlike the head of Xbox (the kumbaya kid, Mr. can't well just get along) Phil Spencer, Satay and Smith have much more power at MS are both cutthroat business people. When they get bruised, they come back and hit you with all they have. There will be plenty of blowback coming Sony's way if this deal does not go through.
Ironically if this move fails it may affect the same UK and EUs regulators plans to open up the mobile duopoly store access next year. As it will take a company with a lot of money to keep a store going. It would also need a company providing content in the store not found on Android or iPhone stores. MS was/is planning on being that option. And one of the reasons for MS to make this ABK deal (one of the biggest reasons is not biggest) was for King in order to get the content it would provide to their own mobile store. I don't see MS trying to provide a competing store without King. I doubt any other company will just flail and disappear. This may have doomed breaking up the power Apple and Google have in mobile storefronts.
@Barighm: That is because they are released 2 years or more after the Sony games were released on PS. That affects sales. If they were (looking at MS sales comparison with their games being 0 day) Sony would definitely be seeing millions more sales on PC compared to what they get with their current PC game sale numbers.
@j3diknightdave:The issue is not necessarily the size. The issue is A/B has a broad number of interests and it is a public traded company with certain worker issues. You notice as soon as the union gave their OK at the end of June that this deal seems to have quickly come to an ending point. The FTC has no reason to fight it.
Bungie is not a publicly traded company. FTC/DOJ involvement (even in privately held acquisitions) gets an automatic deeper look at when it exceeds 100 million.
But in reality, A/B acquisition is not taking long at all. For example, Take-Two's acquisition of Zynga for $10 billion took almost 6 months (start of Jan to end of May 2022). If the acquisition of A/B ends in August (as expected now) that puts it at 8 months. Very fast for this size. Probably because it really doesn't affect the industry in any dramatic way and there isn't much to require of MS. A longer acquisition is closer to something like Disney acquiring Fox. That took over 15 months to iron out. Most people that saw the UK make a deadline of September 1st last week knew right away that FTC had wrapped up their work and are just dotting the i's and crossing the t's. Because the UK usually just waits until the the US gives an OK and then the UK rubberstamps the deal at their end and vice versa with deals dealing with UK interests.
BTW, there are no monopolistic interests involved. Please learn what a monopoly is before you toss around the term. Nothing even remotely close. Sony will still be head of the gaming food chain when this acquisition is finished and that is without Bungie being counted. Not one party has more than 23% of the industry.
@joejoe1639: You would also have to ignore that PS sales are dramatically down because Japanese gamers are not focused on buying consoles period. Japanese gamers have transitioned to mobile. Sony could easily put more consoles into the Japanese market, definitely more than few thousand they are selling weekly if they wanted to (i.e. they put almost 5 x that in the US, 6 x that in EU) but Sony doesn't because demand is really not there, it is elsewhere. You could see it happening last gen as well. In Japan Nintendo is cleaning Sony's clock and that isn't going to change. The Switch is the go-to machine because of its portability. Mobile (i.e. phones) are the real gaming rage not big devices stuck attached to a TV. And that won't' change no matter if PS starts to flood the Japanese market or not. If that happens it just be a glut of PS devices. Sony knows this, that is why they have become increasingly Western focused over recent years. Microsoft also knows that is why they have built out their cloud services in the region to support that mobile gaming lifestyle that is now so prevalent in Asia.
Another reason Sony is focused on the West (besides being where they really make their money and lack of Japanese interest in consoles) is that Xbox Series is not Xbox One. This is not going to be a 2+ to 1 gen. Sony is looking at a very close gen on hardware sales and very tough MS to beat on other endpoints (i.e PC, streaming, mobile). Xbox has beaten PS regularly in the US this year and is often very close monthly in the EU. You don't see a large sales gap between the two, no matter who puts more on the shelves. The fact is the only reason Sony has a 4 million lead is because they put more on the shelves at the start of the gen because PS5 started production 3+ months earlier than the Series. That gave them millions more to sell in the first quarter. Then MS/Xbox took the time from April to August of 2021 to convert Xcloud blades from Xbox One S to Series X. That took millions of SX APUs away from consumer devices during that time. As soon as Microsoft finished their Xcloud update they then upped Series S production and all the Series X APUs made were put into consoles. Which started to affect overall monthly sale numbers as we started to see happen around December '21 and has continued onward from there.
At some point soon if Sony is planning to have a competitive cloud service, they too will have to take PS5 APUs (and other parts) away from consumer devices to build out those cloud servers. Especially with PS Now 2.0 (PS+ Premium) now being touted. I can't see them waiting another year or two to do it. Especially as PS5 only games start becoming more prevalent by both first-party and third-party. They won't be able to offer a streaming option for PS5 games without updating those servers. It is not a short process (i.e. 6+ months). And the chip shortage is more than likely going to go on until sometime 2024. So, it will affect PS console output just like it did Xbox in 2021.
@Carpetfluff: Well the MLB The Show (a Sony first party) will be day one on Game Pass again this year (2022 arrives next week on GP). Will it even be on PS+ Extra 3 months from now when that service comes out? And those multi-plat games by Xbox should be added to GP list (not ignored) because you have to pay $40+ for each of them on PS day one, while they all are on GP day one without having to pay 40+ each. And they aren't going to be on PS+ Extra ever. That is a sell point for GP. Keeping fact straight here too. :)
@Barighm: Google wasn't going to buy A/B/ They didn't even want to keep investing in their one internal studio or the couple of small devs they already bought. Closing them all down only a year into Stadia. You actually think Google was going to spend tens of billions on Activision? To what end? Stadia was (is) already dying a slow death and Activision wasn't going to save it.
Apple? No. Again, to what end? They are already trying to throw shit at the wall to find their next big thing (cars? VR/AR? streaming?). And with regulators already looking at them on a variety of fronts (Google and Amazon too) big buys like this are not the type more scrutiny they are looking for.
Tencent wouldn't get it through regulators at all. That is why they are buying smaller companies and investing 5 to 50% in companies not publicly traded. Over 100 such buyouts or investments last year alone. Skirting under the regulator's radars.
Now Amazon could. But it is still a big play for a company who has made very few investments in gaming and those it has have mainly failed. And with that questionable experience then make a $90 billion investment? No, they are much more likely to look for an acceptable investment like buying Ubisoft for 15 billion would be a big move for them not spending 90 billion. It would be like MS buying Disney just to get into amusement parks, film and streaming. It would make no sense to invest at that scale without making sure you had your feet squarely planted within that sector beforehand. As for Amazon Luna, that is a big if. It is not as if Amazon doesn't have other interests that require their attention. i.e. Actually, expanding their cloud services to be more competitive with Microsoft on an overall global cloud stage not just in the West. Or expand their desires in video streaming. At least with video streaming they have their feet planted and any such investment would actually pay off almost immediately (i.e. buy out Discovery/WB for a lot less than Activision, or spend less and get CBSViacom/Paramount.)
pjosephson's comments