Won't dispute that. This is her face at the age of 83.I believe that as much as I believe Nancy Pelosi doesn't feed on children to stay alive.
While I get that best way moving forward for Sony would be for this merger to not happen, I really think that they missed huge opportunity to get as much as they can from situation because they were dead set on blocking it.Oh, I think I misinterpreted your post slightly...but I still largely feel the same about what I posted.
Agree with the Jim Ryan comment, though.
While I get that best way moving forward for Sony would be for this merger to not happen, I really think that they missed huge opportunity to get as much as they can from situation because they were dead set on blocking it.
Failed regulation. How you allowed to buy the pub that ships and makes the most revenue on your direct competitor platform is madness to me.MS closes this deal and they will become Sony's biggest 3rd party publisher lol. just let that sink for a minute.
crazy times.
Won't dispute that. This is her face at the age of 83.
I don't think they could get much and they know that. Any deals being made now are at best a band aid. I think they were all in because they are aware of how much revenue this is going to cost them in the future regardless of what band aid deal they make now.While I get that best way moving forward for Sony would be for this merger to not happen, I really think that they missed huge opportunity to get as much as they can from situation because they were dead set on blocking it.
Former FTC chair explains why Microsoft prevailed in Activision merger case
Former acting FTC chair William Kovacic explains why the Federal Trade Commission lost its preliminary injunction hearing in the Activision merger case.www.tweaktown.com
When asked if the Commission should be "buoyed" by essentially pushing Microsoft to change its behavior and make these agreements, Kovacic said:
"If I were the FTC, I'd be claiming credit for the changes. I would say that 'if I hadn't been watching, if I hadn't intervened, the concessions would not have been given so directly and clearly.'"
Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/9233...revailed-in-activision-merger-case/index.html
So you really want to tell me that extension of marketing agreement that would block day one Call of Duty GamePass releases for several more years would not benefitted Sony?I don't think they could get much and they know that. Any deals being made now are at best a band aid. I think they were all in because they are aware of how much revenue this is going to cost them in the future regardless of what band aid deal they make now.
I don't think they could get much and they know that. Any deals being made now are at best a band aid. I think they were all in because they are aware of how much revenue this is going to cost them in the future regardless of what band aid deal they make now.
Also from what we have seen, many of these deals include a way for Microsoft to back out at any time - so it's best to just fight against the acquisition so they are not in the position to control the biggest 3rd party releases.I don't think they could get much and they know that. Any deals being made now are at best a band aid. I think they were all in because they are aware of how much revenue this is going to cost them in the future regardless of what band aid deal they make now.
They would need a certain Merchant Saint there.While I get that best way moving forward for Sony would be for this merger to not happen, I really think that they missed huge opportunity to get as much as they can from situation because they were dead set on blocking it.
First of all, we are not sure they could have blocked it on Game Pass passed the current Activision deal. Second of all, yes, in the long-term, I expect Sony will lose COD or at least have a lesser version than MS. They will lose significant revenue from that. I don't think any deal MS was offering was going to prevent that so Sony went all in. I can be wrong. I just think they had reasons to believe it was all or nothing.So you really want to tell me that extension of marketing agreement that would block day one Call of Duty GamePass releases for several more years would not benefitted Sony?
Outrage on behalf of company that doesn't care about nothing but money.Why would Sony want less games on their platform?
What do these guys smoke?
Who offered them exclusive marketing passed 2024? What were the details of the offer? As far as I knew MS was only offering the infamous 10-year deal.They were given the chance to have exclusive marketing for CoD beyond 2024 but Jim refused. They would have had who knows how many years more of exclusively showing CoD at their shows, ads, exclusive hardware bundles etc.
Who offered them exclusive marketing passed 2024? What were the details of the offer? As far as I knew MS was only offering the infamous 10-year deal.
Common sense prevails. The best decision for gaming as a whole was made today. Walled garden Sony can eat it. Their vision of the future of gaming is locking everyone into a digital only console that you can only buy from them through their Direct store while having the consumer in a choke hold at their mercy of their monopolistic digital storefront.
Maybe Jim Ryan will go back to actually doing something productive.
Who offered them exclusive marketing passed 2024? What were the details of the offer? As far as I knew MS was only offering the infamous 10-year deal.
MS was open to a 10 year COD deal with Sony too. Although it doesn't say if it's an additional 10 years, or if the 10 years includes Sony's current 2 years left. And the invitation was in Dec 2022. So lots of time to iron out a deal. Sony balked at the offer. So they preferred hoping the FTC/CMA would win and MS/Activision trash the acquisition outright.Who offered them exclusive marketing passed 2024? What were the details of the offer? As far as I knew MS was only offering the infamous 10-year deal.
HmmCommon sense prevails. The best decision for gaming as a whole was made today. Walled garden Sony can eat it. Their vision of the future of gaming is locking everyone into a digital only console that you can only buy from them through their Direct store while having the consumer in a choke hold at their mercy of their monopolistic digital storefront.
Maybe Jim Ryan will go back to actually doing something productive.
If you think MS owning Call of Duty means that Playstation will fight LESS for exclusivity, you've lost your mind.
Common sense prevails. The best decision for gaming as a whole was made today. Walled garden Sony can eat it. Their vision of the future of gaming is locking everyone into a digital only console that you can only buy from them through their Direct store while having the consumer in a choke hold at their mercy of their monopolistic digital storefront.
Maybe Jim Ryan will go back to actually doing something productive.
You are not training your soldiers very well.Should someone tell him
So, it was Activisition that made the offer? I wonder if MS could break that agreement once they take over? (Honestly asking, not being a smart ass). Like I said, I think Sony felt they had to go all in.
Failed regulation. How you allowed to buy the pub that ships and makes the most revenue on your direct competitor platform is madness to me.
Worst part is ftc could not make that argument in nearly 2 years. Regulators dropped the ball.
In 2 years(since nothing will change on the scope of hw sales this gen) they will say they need EA or T2 to compete, will pay everyone and regulators will allow.Failed regulation. How you allowed to buy the pub that ships and makes the most revenue on your direct competitor platform is madness to me.
Worst part is ftc could not make that argument in nearly 2 years. Regulators dropped the ball.
More IP to mismanage and kill off. Great, a true day for celebration!
I wonder how MS will feel when this acquisition does nothing to significantly increase their hardware sales
Where majority of console players are? Sorry but this argument is so stupid. You are enforcing consumers to move to a new platform if u make 3rd party content exclusive.Regulators shouldn't care about what's best for Sony, they should care about what's best for gamers.
They don't, which is why they chose to block, but thankfully the courts do, and overruled them.
The acquisition is best for gamers, so should proceed.
This was both MS and Activision.So, it was Activisition that made the offer? I wonder if MS could break that agreement once they take over? (Honestly asking, not being a smart ass). Like I said, I think Sony felt they had to go all in.
MS has a lot of leverage. Exclusive CoD beta on Xbox or even early access on Xbox. Even if Sony isn’t pressured, Sony may not have such a market lead and it may be much harder for them to convince companies to exclude Xbox.If you think MS owning Call of Duty means that Playstation will fight LESS for exclusivity, you've lost your mind.
Proof?MLB The Show obviously doesn’t count as Sony has no choice in that.
I think the line of thought is that blocking COD on PlayStation at the moment, with the big gap in install base, would basically kill COD (not remove COD from existing but turning it into a much smaller game) and takeaway a big benefit from the merger for Xbox.Why would Sony want less games on their platform?
What do these guys smoke?
YesProof?
It’s published by MLB Advanced Media on Xbox and Switch, not Sony.Proof?
you just forgot to mention that all microtransaction profits, and even game sales, would stay with microsoft;MS was open to a 10 year COD deal with Sony too. Although it doesn't say if it's an additional 10 years, or if the 10 years includes Sony's current 2 years left. And the invitation was in Dec 2022. So lots of time to iron out a deal. Sony balked at the offer. So they preferred hoping the FTC/CMA would win and MS/Activision trash the acquisition outright.
A long term COD deal would be great since it would go into even PS6 territory. Sony wouldnt have to worry about no COD until PS7.
Microsoft extends offer to Sony for 10-year deal over Call of Duty video game
Microsoft's bid to buy Activision Blizzard has rivals worried about the fate of the hyper-popular game franchise.www.cbsnews.com
Microsoft extends offer to Sony for 10-year deal over Call of Duty video game
DECEMBER 7, 2022 / 2:27 PM / CBS/AP
Microsoft agreed Wednesday to make the hit video game Call of Duty available on rival platform Nintendo for 10 years if its $69 billion purchase of game maker Activision Blizzard goes through. It made a similar offer to rival Sony, which has raised concerns about the Activision purchase.
The blockbuster merger is facing close scrutiny from regulators in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere. Microsoft, maker of the Xbox game console, faces resistance from Sony, which makes the competing PlayStation console and has raised concerns with antitrust watchdogs about losing access to what it calls a "must-have" game title.
Phil Spencer, the head of Xbox, tweeted that Microsoft "entered into a 10-year commitment" to bring Call of Duty to Nintendo.
Open to "10-year deal for PlayStation"
Microsoft President Brad Smith tweeted his thanks to Nintendo, which makes the Switch game console, saying the same 10-year offer was available for Sony.
"Any day Sony wants to sit down and talk, we'll be happy to hammer out a 10-year deal for PlayStation as well," he said.
Smith said the agreement would bring Call of Duty to more gamers and more platforms, and "that's good for competition and good for consumers."
Im convinced these neo members and some regulars are bots at this point, do you all say the same thing? can you not think for yourself?Regulators shouldn't care about what's best for Sony, they should care about what's best for gamers.
They don't, which is why they chose to block, but thankfully the courts do, and overruled them.
The acquisition is best for gamers, so should proceed.
That applies to being on gamepass. Not on individual platforms. Unless there's a PC version somewhere?It’s published by MLB Advanced Media on Xbox and Switch, not Sony.
That applies to being on gamepass. Not on individual platforms. Unless there's a PC version somewhere?