Support NeoGAF

[adamsapple]

Because, according to the dev for Redfall, MS didn't wait a month until they wanted the PS5 version shitcanned. This was after their statements to regulators to the contrary, and the public statements by Phil Spencer that it was not bought to take games away from Playstation. This happened this console generation. Xbox management have lied before and it would take proof of keeping their word before they regain any trust.

Phil's PR aside, if the 10 year is a mandatory requirement for the deal to go through then there is nothing else MS can do. Like how Sony has to make MLB games for Xbox when they would very likely rather not.

 

[aries_71]

The Xbox One disaster was merely a continuation of the second half of the 360's life.

They wanted to chase the Wii success through Kinect. It was a bet, probably not a crazy one, but it ended in a strategic blunder.

 

[wolffy71]

I wonder if this acquisition will make MS want to speed up the console cycle. They could use COD as a big driver for console sales but this late in the cycle it won't make much of an impact.

If speeding up something that large is even possible

 

[ReBurn]

Why is everyone so quick to jump to this conclusion ? The regulatory bodies work doesn't stop after the acquisition is complete. They can break it up later as well.

Zenimax did not have any such requirement from any regulatory so it wasn't the same case, but with this so far it seems like a 10 year parity clause is MS's own offer to further the acquisition dealings along.

Why would they want to jeopardize the acquisition 3, 4, 6, or 8 years later ?

Before trying to take COD exclusive Microsoft will probably do heavy marketing once the marketing rights revert. Then you'll see Xbox plastered everywhere COD shows up instead of PlayStation. The 10 year deal to Sony probably doesn't include the existing marketing deal, which would be a good reason for Jim Ryan to say it's not adequate.

 

[zapper]

Sony needs to overcome the new market definition first, if they want to buy a major publishers.

Right now the market definition is Xbox vs Sony, not Xbox vs Sony vs Nintendo.

That means Japan would block any major purchase by Sony.

Isn't that right R reksveks ?

nintendo is the market leader in japan, by far. sony can buy there, i think for japan it is better that sony and nintendo go bigger than try block usa companies acquiring japanese. if I remember correctly there was also a list of vital companies for japan, the kind that foreign companies couldn't buy. among these were obviously sony and nintendo, plus square and capcom. maybe sega too

I don't think I can take this buffoonery take again and again.

what? do you think sony can buy capcom? or not?

I correct myself, I think they can merge, but I don't think that osny has the capital to buy like ms did with zenimax and acivision. I don't believe capcom+sony though

 

[SteelCurtain 59]

GTA V has made on average $911m per year from release up to 2022, due to GTA online.

The initial budget for the game was $265m.

Now each CoD (or the more popular ones) will also hits $1b+, but considering the entire development/management costs (having how many major studios working on the cycle?), I'm not sure which option is more lucrative from a business POV.

Oh for sure GTA makes tons of money. I guess I just would think COD being yearly would result in more lift in terms of people switching (purely my opinion, based on no facts), like the people playing COD most years would be spending more consistent time on Xbox and thus would probably be more likely to buy other 3rd party games on Xbox. Whereas with GTA I imagine there's far less "long term" players in the sense that the amount of people who play GTA V for multiple years is probably way less than the amount of people who play COD for multiple years. I'd wager the amount of unique GTA players is higher, whereas the amount of long term GTA players is lower. Unsure which would be more lucrative but I'd guess the long term ones, as they're more likely to be more in the Xbox ecosystem as they're in it way more, whereas somebody could buy a Playstation solely for GTA, play it for a year or two and then go back to PC or Xbox or Nintendo or wherever their main area to play is. Plus given the market share difference between Xbox/Playstation right now, a much larger proportion of people that would buy a Playstation for GTA likely already have a Playstation, compared to the reverse for Xbox and COD, there's less potential people to sway.

Either way, I think everybody agrees that COD and/or GTA going exclusive would be a massive negative to gamers. Personally my debatably unpopular opinion is that exclusive games shouldn't exist, it should be the hardware, services, controller, UI, etc. etc. that sway people, but that would be highly unrealistic to ever happen unfortunately

 

[feynoob]

nintendo is the market leader in japan, by far. sony can buy there, i think for japan it is better that sony and nintendo go bigger than block usa companies.

Nope, Nintendo is not in the equation anymore.
FTC and CMA defined that market, so Nintendo is a separate market by itself.

It's between Xbox and PS.

 

[feynoob]

As for you Xbox/gamepass gamers, gz on this feast if this deal gets approved.

 

[Astray]

What does content parity mean to you? Or did they request redaction after CMA changed their stance?

I don't know what it actually means given that everything is redacted. Trying to come up with an interpretation would just lead to an endless loop of us arguing with no real resolution or mutual learnings.

That's what everyone is missing here imo, people who were against the CMA's earlier objections and the ones who are complaining that they did a U-turn now don't know what the redacted info is about and what it signals when it's clearly the reason why they made both assessments.

 

[SABRE220]

Then follows it up with "I'm not a fanboy..."

The mental gymnastics here astounds me sometimes. And they said I don't know about business... WOW!

Newsflash genius being worried about the trend the industry is going towards with high-level consolidation does not equal being a fanboy. If Sony had Microsofts finances or started buying the major publishers I would say the same thing for them. Sony has been complacent this gen and has gone backwards since the end of the ps4 gen because of their strong position being greedy etc.

I hate the idea of taking the highest tier of multiplatform games off the market if youre a neutral you should support that...Activision itself is not the scary part but if you cant objectively be even a bit worried of the concept of the top 2 most valuable companies in the world having an open path to buy the major publishers/developers in the industry due to their funding of Xbox I dont know what to tell you. Its not just Microsoft the tech giants have a history of dominating the market via financial strongarming, so caution is justified.

If its just Activision yeah, Sony can compete but if Microsoft does not stop there then we are in trouble.

 

[zapper]

Nope, Nintendo is not in the equation anymore.
FTC and CMA defined that market, so Nintendo is a separate market by itself.

It's between Xbox and PS.

ftc and cma have no authority in japan, japanese regulator would not block anything from sony because they are not market leader there, and japan market is different from usa or others

 

[XesqueVara]

As for you Xbox/gamepass gamers, gz on this feast if this deal gets approved.

Really doubt than licensed stuff is gonna be added... being able to play every cod campaing tho will be nice.

 

[Three]

Sony needs to overcome the new market definition first, if they want to buy a major publishers.

Right now the market definition is Xbox vs Sony, not Xbox vs Sony vs Nintendo.

That means Japan would block any major purchase by Sony.

Isn't that right R reksveks ?

Why do you assume the new market definition applies to Japan when it's part of the US block? If the market definition passes in the US it might be more damaging to Xbox's case in the US with the ABK deal. Japanese regulators haven't mentioned anything because they haven't even objected.

 

[Elios83]

Nope, Nintendo is not in the equation anymore.
FTC and CMA defined that market, so Nintendo is a separate market by itself.

It's between Xbox and PS.

If you're talking about acquiring Japanese companies the main point is about what they bring and the importance on the market of their games to the different competitors.
Let's take Square Enix for example, Xbox is already missing on most of their games, what damage can their acquisition bring to them?
Zero. And excluding Nintendo has benefits too relatively to Sony.
If Nintendo is an other market and they can live on their own games it doesn't even harm them if they lose some third party games.

Btw I think talking about future acquisitions is pointless atm. The Activision deal drama is not over. Just like this CMA u-turn was totally unexpected we could be in for more unexpected surprises, the FTC chapter is all to be written and the next few weeks are going to be really interesting about the possible Sony's answer as well which could signal if they believe they still have margins with regulators or if it's better to sign a contract with Microsoft and ink the best deal they can get before the final decisions from CMA/EU.

 

[Dick Jones]

Phil's PR aside, if the 10 year is a mandatory requirement for the deal to go through then there is nothing else MS can do. Like how Sony has to make MLB games for Xbox when they would very likely rather not.

Sony is under contract to do so based on the agreement. Bethesda statements were to regulators and they quickly laughed off. There is no 10 year agreement nor should Sony sign it. It is in MS best interests (based on their math) to continue releasing on PS like Minecraft. So if Sony don't sign the agreement why would MS not release on PS. They are happy to release on Steam with the same requirements.

 

[b6a6es]

Sony needs to overcome the new market definition first, if they want to buy a major publishers.

Right now the market definition is Xbox vs Sony, not Xbox vs Sony vs Nintendo.

That means Japan would block any major purchase by Sony.

Isn't that right R reksveks ?

Isn't that market definition only made up by FTC & CMA?, what does japanese regulators have to do with it

Nope, Nintendo is not in the equation anymore.
FTC and CMA defined that market, so Nintendo is a separate market by itself.

It's between Xbox and PS.

Unless Sony makes a new handheld

 

[sainraja]

The alternative is Sony and PlayStation ceasing to exist within a decade. Is that what you want? I'm just thinking about what few survival strategies Sony has out loud. They will not survive against Microsoft now that Microsoft has the green light to buy the Western gaming industry.

I don't think things are going to be that bad, at least right away. Sony survived the PS3, where MS was basically doing the same thing people accuse Sony of now; MS simply upped the stakes by going after publishers and getting another big one served to them, but I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with what you were saying. The part I bolded was basically asking, do we really want that?

I know some posters here do, lol.

 

[feynoob]

ftc and cma have no authority in japan, japanese regulator would not block anything from sony because they are not market leader there, and japan market is different from usa or others

They defined a high end market, which excludes Nintendo.

Why do you assume the new market definition applies to Japan when it's part of the US block? If the market definition passes in the US it might be more damaging to Xbox's case in the US with the ABK deal. Japanese regulators haven't mentioned anything because they haven't even objected.

FTC blocked this deal because of the high end market. It will play a huge part, as MS can use that against Sony.

If you're talking about acquiring Japanese companies the main point is about the what they bring and the importance on the market of their games.
Let's take Square Enix for example, Xbox is already missing on most of their games, what damage can their acquisition bring to them?
Zero. And excluding Nintendo has benefits too relatively to Sony.
If Nintendo is an other market and they can live on their own games it doesn't even harm them if they lose some third party games.

Btw I think talking about future acquisitions is pointless atm. The Activision deal drama is not over. Just like this CMA u-turn was totally unexpected we could be in for more unexpected surprises, the FTC chapter is all to be written and the next few weeks are going to be really interesting about the possible Sony's answer as well which could signal if they believe they still have margins with regulators or if it's better to sign a contract with Microsoft and ink the best deal they can get before the final decisions from CMA/EU.

Xbox can't compete in Japan, because of Sony dominance. Allowing Sony to buy those publishers will make it impossible for Xbox to compete in that market.

If Japan doesn't use high end market definition, they will like use Xbox position in Japan as a reason.

The fact that Nintendo and Xbox not having those games will also help Japanese regulators case.

 

[fred420170]

Because, according to the dev for Redfall, MS didn't wait a month until they wanted the PS5 version shitcanned. This was after their statements to regulators to the contrary, and the public statements by Phil Spencer that it was not bought to take games away from Playstation. This happened this console generation. Xbox management have lied before and it would take proof of keeping their word before they regain any trust.

Why wouldn't they cancel it? They own the studio and are now 1st party. The only zenimax games that are going to PS are online MP games and existing software support. The rest will be exclusive. Same goes for ABK with the exception of COD.

 

[Three]

FTC blocked this deal because of the high end market. It will play a huge part, as MS can use that against Sony.

Against US approval of any future mergers maybe if they see an SLC. The US FTC blocked this deal, not the Japanese FTC. The Japanese FTC might not use this market definition and they're unlikely to even mention it because they haven't objected to anything yet. If the US FTC definition is considered a huge part to block then it would only harm the deal currently in the US and have no influence on a Japanese decision on future acquisitions.

 

[feynoob]

Isn't that market definition only made up by FTC & CMA?, what does japanese regulators have to do with it

Because they used it for this case.
Japan will take a que from this deal and assess the competition in their country.

 

[FoxMcChief]

When will it be enough?

I'll let you know when it's been enough.

 

[b6a6es]

Because they used it for this case.
Japan will take a que from this deal and assess the competition in their country.

Unless Sony makes a new handheld

 

[sainraja]

No way it goes through. One of the regulators jobs is to stop monopolies. You can't have the most dominant player in the premium console market getting even more dominate by buying a big publisher.
While it was great to boast in the console wars just how dominate Playstation is, that dominace will prevent them from buying a big publisher.

They won't be after this. Timing is key. Regardless, if ya'll can be in favor of MS doing it, why the complete opposite reaction to Sony doing the same? (Funny thing is, that is likely not even going to happen.)

 

[Thirty7ven]

Nope, Nintendo is not in the equation anymore.
FTC and CMA defined that market, so Nintendo is a separate market by itself.

It's between Xbox and PS.

EC and FTC don't define the Japanese market. They don't regulate the Japanese market.

Also, Sony games sell more than Capcom games for example and their relevance to a console's success will be minimal in the regulators eyes.

You are insane if you think Sony wouldn't be allowed to buy a Capcom.

 

[Dick Jones]

As for you Xbox/gamepass gamers, gz on this feast if this deal gets approved.

You mean most games that are already on the system and half can be bought cheap or already in the players back catalogue. The price of gamepass will rise for this feast.

If the deal falls through, could you list what games Xbox players would miss out on the Series X/S?

 

[Elios83]

They defined a high end market, which excludes Nintendo.


FTC blocked this deal because of the high end market. It will play a huge part, as MS can use that against Sony.


Xbox can't compete in Japan, because of Sony dominance. Allowing Sony to buy those publishers will make it impossible for Xbox to compete in that market.

If Japan doesn't use high end market definition, they will like use Xbox position in Japan as a reason.

The fact that Nintendo and Xbox not having those games will also help Japanese regulators case.

It's not like that, as this Activision deal is showing, what regulators are analyzing is the value and importance of certain games to different platforms.
Xbox has no case in telling regulators that the acquisition of a company whose games are already not on their platform, never played a role in their success and when are released sell like shit on their platform would harm them.
Nintendo would be impacted more but like you said...if they're determined to be their own market they're put out of the equation, so what you're saying is a double edged sword.

 

[feynoob]

EC and FTC don't define the Japanese market. They don't regulate the Japanese market.

Also, Sony games sell more than Capcom games for example and their relevance to a console's success will be minimal in the regulators eyes.

You are insane if you think Sony wouldn't be allowed to buy a Capcom.

These agencies don't regulate Japan, but their ruling plays a role in what market definition is.

You can't say that Japan won't use that definition against Sony and expect those purchase to be a breeze.

 

[sainraja]

Disagree here.

I think a lot of the pro-MS/Activision people are simply gamers who fit into one or more of these bullets:

1. Dont give a shit at all (a lot of gamers dont even play COD or Diablo)
2. Xbox/PC gamer with GP who now might get tons of Activision games on sub plan so they can save money (a good deal)
3. Stick it to Sony

Not even the most diehard Xbox fan knows PS isnt going anywhere. So you can cut out the hyperbole.

MS has tried tons of deals, S/X, first party games on GP, EA Play, One X etc.... and it hasnt improved their market position one bit. And I doubt COD will either, especially since the game is still on PS for years (including a 10 year offer), will come to Nintendo and spread to gamers using mobile. If anything, COD is diversifying across platforms, as opposed to trying to consolidate everyone into buying an Xbox where MS cuts the cord and only has it there.

MS even had COD partnership deals during the 360 era and they still finished third.

As for sticking it to Sony, hey some gamers like to troll. To be fair, which platform gamer likes to brag about most sales and profits and GOTY awards? Sony gamers. So hey, if an Xbox gamer wants to chime back saying MS owns Activision and controls the games (which they will have 100% full control after and deals/remedies are done) then that's the comeback.

So, fanboyism is why MS should have been able to get A&B and potentially other huge publishers lol. As for MS and X360 finishing third, um, are you forgetting the red ring of death? That is probably what hurt them the most before their focus changed to Kinect. Those deals they were making, were helping them immensely until they stepped on their own foot. After which they thought, focusing on TV TV TV and online requirement was the right direction.

That wasn't Sony's doing.

 

[feynoob]

You mean most games that are already on the system and half can be bought cheap or already in the players back catalogue. The price of gamepass will rise for this feast.

If the deal falls through, could you list what games Xbox players would miss out on the Series X/S?

????
"Gamepass, if this deal gets approved"

Did you not pay attention to these keywords.

It's not guaranteed that they will get these games on gamepass if this deal fails.
But if it passes, it will be like zenimax gamepass drop.

Also this is for gamepass users, not Xbox users. Two different groups.

 

[NonPhixion]

These agencies don't regulate Japan, but their ruling plays a role in what market definition is.

You can't say that Japan won't use that definition against Sony and expect those purchase to be a breeze.

When you have no idea what you're talking about. You post a lot pretending you do.

 

[Heisenberg007]

They won't be after this. Timing is key. Regardless, if ya'll can be in favor of MS doing it, why the complete opposite reaction to Sony doing the same?

We all know why

 

[vj27]

well, according to the latest reports both the ec and the cma shouldn't ask for remedies on consoles, so after the acquisition they could also make xbox exclusive cod the next day, like zenimax.
there would be the contract with nintendo which, however, I fear will not legally bound by the regulators after yesterday. then I always thought of a snub from nintendo towards sony rather than wanting cod on switch, if it doesn't arrive on switch or next nintendo console or microsoft go back on their word hardly anyone would complain imho

I definitely would and imo it's just leaving money on the table. People keep mentioning zenimax when cod has more in common with Minecraft with mass appeal/sales. If they did it with that, I really can't see why they wouldn't do it with COD. Legal contracts or not. In 10 years time, after bungie launches a destiny 3, battlefield 6, whatever fortnite is doing, might not even be wise to make it exclusive then. People tend to think the markets gonna stay the same when that's far from the case especially when fortnite literally became king within these LAST 10 years. Anything can happen.

 

[Dick Jones]

Why wouldn't they cancel it? They own the studio and are now 1st party. The only zenimax games that are going to PS are online MP games and existing software support. The rest will be exclusive. Same goes for ABK with the exception of COD.

If I told the regulator that it wouldn't be in my interest to cancel games that would release on Playstation, and the first thing I do is cancel games that would release on Playstation, what do you think? Would you be less likely to believe me or more likely to believe me the next time i make that claim?

 

[Heisenberg007]

Because they used it for this case.
Japan will take a que from this deal and assess the competition in their country.

Nintendo was excluded only because COD wasn't available on Nintendo, so that left Xbox and PS as the only two consoles. Not every acquisition/publisher/game will fit that definition.

 

[DrFigs]

Really doubt than licensed stuff is gonna be added... being able to play every cod campaing tho will be nice.

what's stopping you from doing that right now?

 

[feynoob]

It's not like that, as this Activision deal is showing, what regulators are analyzing is the value and importance of certain games to different platforms.
Xbox has no case in telling regulators that the acquisition of a company whose games are already not on their platform, never played a role in their success and when are released sell like shit on their platform would harm them.
Nintendo would be impacted more but like you said...if they're determined to be their own market they're put out of the equation, so what you're saying is a double edged sword.

One key error is that some of these games are important for Xbox in that market.
We know that Xbox has minimum presence there. And in order to compete, they need games from those studios to build audience.

It will be up to Japan agency on how much impact it will have on Xbox if those games were to be taken from the platform.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

FTC and CMA defined that market, so Nintendo is a separate market by itself.

The irony is that it was Sony who actually went with "Nintendo does not count" and then regulators bought into their arguments.

I don't think Sony expected their stupid arguments to be used in country-level trade talks.

 

[Dick Jones]

????
"Gamepass, if this deal gets approved"

Did you not pay attention to these keywords.

It's not guaranteed that they will get these games on gamepass if this deal fails.
But if it passes, it will be like zenimax gamepass drop.

Also this is for gamepass users, not Xbox users. Two different groups.

To quote E Ezekiel

That is one of the most bizarre posts I've ever read and that includes you buying games that are on your gamepass subscription.

You're cheerleading games that are already on your system and will now be taken off others. Boasting about feasting on 5 year old games, get a grip.

 

[feynoob]

Nintendo was excluded only because COD wasn't available on Nintendo, so that left Xbox and PS as the only two consoles. Not every acquisition/publisher/game will fit that definition.

Square enix ff isn't available on switch.
Wouldn't that be a case for Japan? Just like how COD isn't available on switch.

We went this talk forth and back about Nintendo.

 

[feynoob]

To quote E Ezekiel

My god, we are talking about gamepass drops.
I don't get why you are taking this far and making it different issue.
Have that problem with Xbox users.
My point is same as this.

 

[Ozriel]

Because, according to the dev for Redfall, MS didn't wait a month until they wanted the PS5 version shitcanned. This was after their statements to regulators to the contrary, and the public statements by Phil Spencer that it was not bought to take games away from Playstation. This happened this console generation. Xbox management have lied before and it would take proof of keeping their word before they regain any trust.

Not this argument again. MS certainly didn't take away any existing games from PlayStation. Every ongoing game still got multiplatform post launch support eg Doom Eternal and Elder Scrolls Online.

Xbox management have lied before and it would take proof of keeping their word before they regain any trust.

Minecraft is already proof enough. Minecraft Dungeons is on PS+ this month and Minecraft Legends releases soon.
None of this based on contractual agreements.

 

[reksveks]

Sony needs to overcome the new market definition first, if they want to buy a major publishers.

Right now the market definition is Xbox vs Sony, not Xbox vs Sony vs Nintendo.

That means Japan would block any major purchase by Sony.

Isn't that right R reksveks ?

1) Japan I don't think has defined markets yet regarding the ABK/MS deal and each regulator are free to define markets as they want to so the markets as defined by FTC is largely irrelevant. Remember that the CMA did accept that Nintendo was apart of the market but they weren't just harmed by the deal. EC market definitions are unknown (https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_22_6578).
2) Yeah, it would be unusual for a regulator/commission to define the market one-way one year and then then go against it a year later but not sure that there is anything that may prevent them from doing so.

 

[feynoob]

Really doubt than licensed stuff is gonna be added... being able to play every cod campaing tho will be nice.

For someone that is trying to get in to COD, it will be nice on PC gamepass (if they resolve license issues)

It's been long time since I played too much fps. I have been SP person these days.

 

[Dick Jones]

Not this argument again. MS certainly didn't take away any existing games from PlayStation. Every ongoing game still got multiplatform post launch support eg Doom Eternal and Elder Scrolls Online.



Minecraft is already proof enough. Minecraft Dungeons is on PS+ this month and Minecraft Legends releases soon.
None of this based on contractual agreements.

Are you seriously asking me not to use a recent example of bad faith but look at one game (that has a rumour of a multiplatform clause) from years ago?

 

[Drell]

EC and FTC don't define the Japanese market. They don't regulate the Japanese market.

Also, Sony games sell more than Capcom games for example and their relevance to a console's success will be minimal in the regulators eyes.

You are insane if you think Sony wouldn't be allowed to buy a Capcom.

Well FTC and EC could deny US and Europe for Sony respectivly if they wanted to but after letting a buyout as big as activison pass, it would be a dick move to not let Sony buy Japanese studios.

 

[Elios83]

One key error is that some of these games are important for Xbox in that market.
We know that Xbox has minimum presence there. And in order to compete, they need games from those studios to build audience.

It will be up to Japan agency on how much impact it will have on Xbox if those games were to be taken from the platform.

Xbox has no chance to compete there for cultural reasons, the same reasons why japanese agencies would never rule in favour of an american company anyway.
But they would literally have no legal case.
The games of these japanese companies are not vital contents based on their absolute sales, there is ample proof that either they were already not released before a possible acquisition so you can't even create the case of removing access or when released they sell like shit.
Again zero case, you're focusing on the wrong company.
It's Nintendo that could have the right to make more noise but here the definition of the market that you've mentioned before would play against them.
Also there is no single third party japanese game that can be considered of vital importance for Nintendo and even if Nintendo is considered to be a direct competitor in Japan they are the market leader by far.

So seriously there is nothing stopping anyone from byuing small/mid sized Japanese publishers.
Anyway I think this discussion is completely premature, we have seen the pendulum swinging enough times since last year about this Activision deal. When it's over and the conditions at which it will be over are clear we'll be able to move on with a better understanding.

 

[zapper]

I definitely would and imo it's just leaving money on the table. People keep mentioning zenimax when cod has more in common with Minecraft with mass appeal/sales. If they did it with that, I really can't see why they wouldn't do it with COD. Legal contracts or not. In 10 years time, after bungie launches a destiny 3, battlefield 6, whatever fortnite is doing, might not even be wise to make it exclusive then. People tend to think the markets gonna stay the same when that's far from the case especially when fortnite literally became king within these LAST 10 years. Anything can happen.

I agree, I replied that legally they are no longer bound by anything, so they are free to do as with minecraft or as with zenimax.

 

[adamsapple]

Sony is under contract to do so based on the agreement. Bethesda statements were to regulators and they quickly laughed off. There is no 10 year agreement nor should Sony sign it. It is in MS best interests (based on their math) to continue releasing on PS like Minecraft. So if Sony don't sign the agreement why would MS not release on PS. They are happy to release on Steam with the same requirements

Hence I said if it's a mandatory requirement to approve the deal. If the regulatory bodies approve the deal with certain requirements in place, Sony has no say in the matter and it will be on MS to honor those requirements or risk breaking up the acquisition.

 

[Ozriel]

They are mentally broken at this point and don't really care about their console.

Wut?
Some weird takes here. Of course this isn't true