Support NeoGAF

[feynoob]

That SpongeBob game is actually supposed to be great but I’ve not played it yet.

Its good platform game.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Who is currently on top? The company that despite its smaller size played its cards over 25 or so years well which is how a properly competitive market rewards producers and consumers.

Nobody is saying poor bullied MS cannot compete, but that does not excuse market altering moves when over the last 20 years and counting they could have competed in a way that created more additional value than taking profits in their other monopolies and just buying the biggest publishers to content starve their competitors… what’s next? Buying AMD to weaken them from the HW side too? Oh yeah, poor poor MS…

This is warrior logic :/…

They'd never let Microsoft buy AMD. The amount of competitive overlap in the PC space and Gaming is a bit too much to swallow there.

Microsoft has definitely thrown around more money in the gaming space than Sony since coming onto the console scene, but I feel as though they've made largely poor investments.

Sony made a poor investment or at least have poorly managed the investment in Gaikai, but Microsoft has spent 20 years without really developing their first party.

I remember when Sony was in a similar situation making poor games like Rise to Honor and mediocre games like The Getaway. The investment started to be there, but the execution just wasn't yet. Even when Sony bought Naughty Dog, Guerrilla, and Sucker Punch, they were still kind of just treading water in the quality department. Sony has had its slides too when it comes to TeamICO, Zipper Interactive, Evolution Studios, Liverpool, and the inability to cultivate a major studio out of Japan Studio, but they've overall done a good job at developing their studios and turning them into something more.

I just haven't seen that from Microsoft yet. I also think this M&A is holding the entire industry hostage and may seriously damper this generation, but I hope succeed or fail things get into gear quickly.

 

[Menzies]

Please see the data above. Crisis Core is also a part of the "generational best-selling Final Fantasy". Sold only 9% on Xbox compared to 72% on PlayStation.

Bigger games like FFVII Remake would be financially more expensive and resource-intensive to port. And they'd be more even cautious about the potential ROI of such a big undertaking when they could be making FF VII Rebirth and other games like FF XVI, which are guaranteed to sell more than 5 million copies and be lucrative projects for the company.

I've spoken to this before in another thread. The Square Enix 'strategy' is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. They will always be able to justify not releasing a mainline FF game on Xbox with poor sales of spin-off titles and the sprinkling off the odd game here and there. If they wanted to foster an audience on Xbox, the selective drip-feeding of content isn't working.

Do we have any developers that can speak to how much more time and resources it is to port FFVII Remake to Xbox over developing Crisis Core/Diofield Chronicles? It appears to be using Unreal 4 and the architectures aren't wildly different between the platforms. I would be surprised if Microsoft weren't blowing up their phones with offers to assist develop and co-fund porting costs. Phil is constantly fielding questions every other day about improving efforts in Japan. Seems like a no-brainer that MS would offer to pay for this, but I speak in ignorance of such backroom deals.

Microsoft does need to compete better and more aggressively. Acquisitions are not the way, though. You could buy all the studios in the world, and it'll not solve this problem because Xbox would be hammering the wrong nail. Studios that Microsoft can't and don't acquire will still be hesitant in porting their games to Xbox.

I imagine for Microsoft they are hoping to envision an eventual domino effect. If they can first get content through these acquisitions, then market share increases and in turn it makes it harder for studios to ignore the platform.

We've been screaming for months now that Xbox users need to buy more games and support developers, instead of just relying on Gamepass. Now sales have dried up up to 80% since the introduction of Gamepass, and we're seeing the effect of that. SquareEnix isn't releasing a single game on Xbox in 2023

According to your link, the 80% figure is in reference to first party titles, the same ones which release day and date and stay permanently on GamePass. I don't think Microsoft is taken aback here and is part of their strategy for more regular cashflow. I imagine CoD and Elden Ring (not on GamePass) still manage to sell well on the platform.

Competition should be in the form of high-quality AAA games from Microsoft using the 23 studios they have (already 4 more studios than PlayStation). In addition, Xbox gamers need to buy more games so Xbox becomes an excellent financially viable platform for third-party developers.

More moral/ethical arguments. They had more studios than Sony for what? 4 years? Over the last 25 years. At times it was Sony with more than 3 times the development studios than Microsoft. The Sony brand power, loyal following, relationship with developers and hold over certain markets really makes the 'just use what you've got' argument fall apart for me. That need to do a heck of a lot more than that to combat the 70% 'high-performance' market share of Sony. Some here really aren't interested in a more balanced market. They'll predict 'doomsday' scenarios of a $1 per month price rise of GamePass as examples of market power, whilst wilfully ignoring and justifying the price rises in front of their eyes.

 

[Panajev2001a]

I've spoken to this before in another thread. The Square Enix 'strategy' is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. They will always be able to justify not releasing a mainline FF game on Xbox with poor sales of spin-off titles and the sprinkling off the odd game here and there. If they wanted to foster an audience on Xbox, the selective drip-feeding of content isn't working.

Do we have any developers that can speak to how much more time and resources it is to port FFVII Remake to Xbox over developing Crisis Core/Diofield Chronicles? It appears to be using Unreal 4 and the architectures aren't wildly different between the platforms. I would be surprised if Microsoft weren't blowing up their phones with offers to assist develop and co-fund porting costs. Phil is constantly fielding questions every other day about improving efforts in Japan. Seems like a no-brainer that MS would offer to pay for this, but I speak in ignorance of such backroom deals.


I imagine for Microsoft they are hoping to envision an eventual domino effect. If they can first get content through these acquisitions, then market share increases and in turn it makes it harder for studios to ignore the platform.


According to your link, the 80% figure is in reference to first party titles, the same ones which release day and date and stay permanently on GamePass. I don't think Microsoft is taken aback here and is part of their strategy for more regular cashflow. I imagine CoD and Elden Ring (not on GamePass) still manage to sell well on the platform.


More moral/ethical arguments. They had more studios than Sony for what? 4 years? Over the last 25 years. At times it was Sony with more than 3 times the development studios than Microsoft. The Sony brand power, loyal following, relationship with developers and hold over certain markets really makes the 'just use what you've got' argument fall apart for me. That need to do a heck of a lot more than that to combat the 70% 'high-performance' market share of Sony. Some here really aren't interested in a more balanced market. They'll predict 'doomsday' scenarios of a $1 per month price rise of GamePass as examples of market power, whilst wilfully ignoring and justifying the price rises in front of their eyes.

70% market share by excluding Nintendo? Sounds like you want to make a scarier argument here than warranted .

You are trying to make an argument where the situation is so dire that the rule book need to be thrown out to balance the scales: buying the biggest multiplatform publishers/devs (pouring into the market almost more money than your competitor is worth) is not a move that just strengthens MS but a move designed to weaken the competition. You failed to prove MS was content starved (if anything they played with timed exclusives more than others) and are hand waving the FF VII Remake issue (Xbox customers are not buying games in that new franchise in droves, but you insist it must be Sony’s doing somehow if S-E does not port more games) away… Zenimax and Activision - Blizzard was supporting the entire industry quite equally (Nintendo, PC, Xbox, and PS). Becoming owned by any of the console makers is not a great start, worse when you look at their history.

MS is not content starved, they have been throwing tons of money around and not managing as well perhaps, a healthy competing market is not a market where everyone has the same or similar share (equality of outcome) but a market where the fortunes can switch based on your performance. XSX|S doing better against PS5 than Xbox One against PS4, they had a huge head start with Xbox 360, etc…

 

[mansoor1980]

no recent updated statement from jim ryan , looks like he might have thrown in the towel

 

[Three]

They'd never let Microsoft buy AMD. The amount of competitive overlap in the PC space and Gaming is a bit too much to swallow there.

Microsoft has definitely thrown around more money in the gaming space than Sony since coming onto the console scene, but I feel as though they've made largely poor investments.

Sony made a poor investment or at least have poorly managed the investment in Gaikai, but Microsoft has spent 20 years without really developing their first party.

I remember when Sony was in a similar situation making poor games like Rise to Honor and mediocre games like The Getaway. The investment started to be there, but the execution just wasn't yet. Even when Sony bought Naughty Dog, Guerrilla, and Sucker Punch, they were still kind of just treading water in the quality department. Sony has had its slides too when it comes to TeamICO, Zipper Interactive, Evolution Studios, Liverpool, and the inability to cultivate a major studio out of Japan Studio, but they've overall done a good job at developing their studios and turning them into something more.

I just haven't seen that from Microsoft yet. I also think this M&A is holding the entire industry hostage and may seriously damper this generation, but I hope succeed or fail things get into gear quickly.

There were rumours that MS were trying to buy AMD already. I suspect that no amount of bullshit that "this wouldn't hurt competition" would have let that one get past regulators though.

 

[Three]

That need to do a heck of a lot more than that to combat the 70% 'high-performance' market share of Sony. Some here really aren't interested in a more balanced market. They'll predict 'doomsday' scenarios of a $1 per month price rise of GamePass as examples of market power, whilst wilfully ignoring and justifying the price rises in front of their eyes.

This 70% of the high performance market share is just something MS are pushing now though. Not a reflection of the market at all. It may be the case globally with console units and last gen but that has nothing to do with what MS are trying to do. This purchase won't help them in most geographic regions where they are failing. The regions like Japan mostly don't care about Activison games, the regions where xbox isn't even on sale like eastern Europe. The poorer regions who buy offline last gen consoles and couldn't care about an online service. It would not make a lick of difference to those console units in those regions. MS are just trying to gain where it matters in regions like the US and UK, in the regions they make the most money in. They have also already claimed console sales is not what drives them. They are making a move for their services and concentrating on global last gen console sales now to make them seem like they are the underdog.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

Bo_Hazem GZ on your top 4. Spurs are shit mate.

Newcastle United next.

 

[Menzies]

This 70% of the high performance market share is just something MS are pushing now though. Not a reflection of the market at all. It may be the case globally with console units and last gen but that has nothing to do with what MS are trying to do. This purchase won't help them in most geographic regions where they are failing. The regions like Japan mostly don't care about Activison games, the regions where xbox isn't even on sale like eastern Europe. The poorer regions who buy offline last gen consoles and couldn't care about an online service. It would not make a lick of difference to those console units in those regions. MS are just trying to gain where it matters in regions like the US and UK, in the regions they make the most money in. They have also already claimed console sales is not what drives them. They are making a move for their services and concentrating on global last gen console sales now to make them seem like they are the underdog.

I don't believe MS were responsible for defining the market to exclude Nintendo. If the regulators want to call this a duopoly market, then recent history shows they only control 30% global market share and are the furthest thing from a monopoly threat.

You're absolutely right that this purchase focuses on their strengths, which is akin to the 'Pumpkin Plan' school of thought. Which is the philosophy of finding your best customers and over-delivering to them for sustained growth.

The other markets in which Microsoft isn't particularly strong in, now lean on global markets these days to meet sales projections; - Square Enix to Shift its Focus to Global Market Success

If Microsoft can further develop their strengths, then Square Enix isn't likely to take the first offer Sony throws at them in future as they need a global market reach.

 

[DenchDeckard]

I just finished Tinykin earlier this evening, great game. Think I’ll play High on Life next what you playing?

Tinykin is really great. Just chill out and surf your little bar of soap baby!

 

[Three]

I don't believe MS were responsible for defining the market to exclude Nintendo. If the regulators want to call this a duopoly market, then recent history shows they only control 30% global market share and are the furthest thing from a monopoly threat.

No, MS just agreed with it and used console units of past gen.

The 70% claim is from a MS statement:

"Sony has 70% of the market, and we have 30%. So the administrative law judge is going to have to decide whether going from 59 to 60 is such a danger to competition that he should stop this from moving forward."

You're pushing the same crap here. Which again ignores the fact that unit sales of PS4 consoles in Japan, other regions where MS don't even offer xbox for sale or less developed countries where online services do not matter this acquisition will not help.

You're absolutely right that this purchase focuses on their strengths, which is akin to the 'Pumpkin Plan' school of thought. Which is the philosophy of finding your best customers and over-delivering to them for sustained growth.

That sustained growth won't be in regions it is struggling in console units. This isn't about those regions is my point. If you look at the regulators who would be looking at the market where they hold jurisdiction you will see it paints a different picture.

The other markets in which Microsoft isn't particularly strong in, now lean on global markets these days to meet sales projections; - Square Enix to Shift its Focus to Global Market Success

If Microsoft can further develop their strengths, then Square Enix isn't likely to take the first offer Sony throws at them in future as they need a global market reach.

Square Enix concentrating on game sales outside of Japan has very little to do with what I'm saying. If anything MS should be trying to get content to cater to Japan to increase units there.

 

[reksveks]

Would say that there is a difference between 'accepting someone's theories re market definition as a basis for an argument' and 'accepting market definition'.

Thier response to the ftc complaints imo clearly argues that they don't believe in the 'high performance console market'

The Complaint fails to allege a plausible relevant product market or markets

 

[Three]

Would say that there is a difference between 'accepting someone's theories re market definition as a basis for an argument' and 'accepting market definition'.

Thier response to the ftc complaints imo clearly argues that they don't believe in the 'high performance console market'

Sure, that's true, but for the sake of the argument Menzies is making I'm only pointing out who is pushing that 70% figure he is repeating here.

 

[onesvenus]

buying the biggest multiplatform publishers/devs (pouring into the market almost more money than your competitor is worth) is not a move that just strengthens MS but a move designed to weaken the competition

What do you think paying for excluding games from XBox does? I'd argue that doesn't strengthen Sony because those games were almost guaranteed to be published on Playstation but paying for that is a move designed to weaken Xbox

Xbox customers are not buying games in that new franchise in droves, but you insist it must be Sony’s doing somehow if S-E does not port more games

Can you explain how it makes sense to port FF7:CC to Xbox but not FF7:Remake which is obviously the biggest game and the one which would have sold more? It doesn't make sense at all unless Sony paid for the exclusive.

a healthy competing market is not a market where everyone has the same or similar share (equality of outcome) but a market where the fortunes can switch based on your performance

The good news then is that according to your definition, even if the merger closes, Sony will be able to keep being the leader, so it will still be a healthy market. I'm glad we agree on this not being a problem for competition

 

[DenchDeckard]

If playstation is so great, or any platform...just get rid of timed exclusives completely. Why are platforms actively paying to keep a game from another platform.

Literally to weaken the opposition, that's all it is.

Fair play if a publisher funds the entire game development.

Make it like movie production...you paid for this director and his team. You paid for creation of the product so you get it exclusively.

If not it should just release on everything imo.

 

[feynoob]

EU definition of relevent market​

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/definition-of-relevant-market.html

Definition of relevant market​

SUMMARY OF:​

Commission Notice on the definition of relevant market for the purposes of Community competition law

WHAT IS THE AIM OF THE NOTICE?​

It seeks to provide guidance to companies and other interested parties on the European Commission’s approach to market definition — a crucial first step in the Commission’s assessment in many antitrust and merger cases.

KEY POINTS​

In the event of a suspected infringement of European Union (EU) competition rules, the first element to be considered is the relevant market. Defining the relevant market means determining the scope of the competition rules in respect of restrictive practices and abuses of a dominant position (Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — see summary), as well as the scope of the merger legislation (Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 — see summary).

In a spirit of transparency, the notice explains the methods used by the Commission to define a relevant market on a case-by-case basis. This analysis, which incorporates both the product and the geographical dimensions of the relevant market, can be used to determine whether there are actual competitors which are capable of constraining the behaviour of the firms in question and to assess the degree of real competition on the market.

Defining the relevant market

The relevant market combines the product market and the geographic market, defined as follows.

• A relevant product market comprises all those products and/or services which are regarded as interchangeable or substitutable by the consumer by reason of the products’ characteristics, their prices and their intended use.
• A relevant geographic market comprises the area in which the firms concerned are involved in the supply of products or services and in which the conditions of competition are sufficiently similar.

Analysis to define the relevant market

The Commission has identified a number of criteria which can help it to analyse the behaviour of firms in the market and the specific conditions of the relevant market. However, this methodology may give rise to different results depending on the nature of the competition in question. Therefore, a structured analysis which is also flexible enough to take individual circumstances into account is required.

In a preliminary analysis, the Commission attempts to define the product market by investigating whether two products belong to the same market. It also tries to determine the geographic market by producing an overview of the breakdown of the market shares held by the parties in question and by their competitors, the prices charged and any price differentials.

Once the product market and the geographic market have been defined, the Commission carries out a more detailed analysis based on the concept of substitutability. Firms subject to a competitive system must respect two major constraints: demand substitution and supply substitution. A market is competitive if customers can choose between a range of products with similar characteristics and if the supplier does not face obstacles to supplying products or services on that market.

The substitutability criterion enables research to be targeted on any substitute products, making it possible to define the relevant product market and geographic market with a greater degree of certainty. Only in the final stage is the relevant market analysed to determine the degree of integration in the EU’s markets.

The Commission therefore carries out an assessment of demand-side substitutability (i.e. of customers) and supply-side substitutability (i.e. of suppliers). In the first case, the question is whether customers for the product in question can readily switch to a similar product in response to a small but permanent price increase (of between 5% and 10%). In the second case, the question is whether other suppliers can readily switch production to the relevant products and sell them on the relevant market.

However, this criterion of substitutability does not take account of the conditions in which the firms in question operate. Therefore it is necessary, for instance, to examine the conditions of access to the defined market. In this regard, the Commission assesses the product dimension and the geographic dimension of the relevant market, taking account of the following elements.

• The recent past. In certain cases, it is possible to analyse evidence relating to recent price variations, for example in terms of substitution between two products or in terms of the customer response.
• The results of specific studies. It is possible to assess the elasticity of demand* for a product by means of econometric and statistical tests. It is also useful to assess the geographic market on the basis of factors which have an impact on local preferences (such as culture, language, etc.).
• The views of customers and competitors. The Commission may contact the main customers and competitors of the firm in question to gather factual evidence and to evaluate their reaction in the event of price variations within the geographic area.
• Consumer preferences.: The Commission may ask the firms in question for the market studies they carried out prior to launching a product on the market or setting its price. It may also compare the purchasing habits of customers on the relevant market with those of other customers on a separate geographic market where similar conditions prevail.
• Barriers (regulatory or others) and costs associated with switching demand to other products or areas.
• Different categories of customer and price discrimination. A distinct group of customers for the relevant product may itself constitute a narrower, distinct market when such a group could be subject to price discrimination.

As a final step, the Commission takes into account the process of market integration and how measures to remove barriers to trade and to create an integrated European market may have an impact on competition in a given geographic market.

Before drawing its conclusions, the Commission may consult the main firms in the sector on the limits of the product market and geographic market. Where appropriate, it may also carry out an on-the-spot inspection.

Calculation of market share

Defining the relevant market, in both its product and geographic dimensions, allows the market operators (suppliers, customers, consumers) to be identified. On that basis, the total market size and the market share of each supplier can be calculated with reference to their sales of the relevant product in the relevant area.

Companies’ estimates, studies commissioned by industry consultants or trade associations and companies’ turnover figures help calculate the total market size and the market share of each supplier. Although sales are usually the basis used to calculate market shares, there are other indications that can provide useful information, depending on the specific product or industry in question, such as capacity and the number of players in bidding markets, etc.

BACKGROUND​

In line with Better Regulation principles, the Commission carried out an evaluation of the functioning of its 1997 market definition notice and, in July 2021, issued a report on its findings.

For more information, see:

• Competition: Commission publishes findings of evaluation of Market Definition Notice — press release (European Commission).

KEY TERMS​

Elasticity of demand. The extent to which demand responds to a change in factors such as price, income level, or the availability of substitutes.

MAIN DOCUMENT​

Commission Notice on the definition of relevant market for the purposes of Community competition law (OJ C 372, 9.12.1997, pp. 5–13).

RELATED DOCUMENTS​

Commission staff working document: evaluation of the Commission Notice on the definition of relevant market for the purposes of Community competition law of 9 December 1997 (SWD(2021) 199 final, 12.7.2021).

Commission staff working document: Executive summary of the evaluation of the Commission Notice on the definition of relevant market for the purposes of Community competition law of 9 December 1997 (SWD(2021) 200 final, 12.7.2021).

Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, pp. 1–22).

Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, pp. 1–25).

Successive amendments to Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 have been incorporated in the original text. This consolidated version is of documentary value only.

last update 26.10.2021

Is this what you were implying R reksveks yesterday?

 

[Ar¢tos]

If playstation is so great, or any platform...just get rid of timed exclusives completely. Why are platforms actively paying to keep a game from another platform.

Literally to weaken the opposition, that's all it is.

Fair play if a publisher funds the entire game development.

Make it like movie production...you paid for this director and his team. You paid for creation of the product so you get it exclusively.

If not it should just release on everything imo.

Not all timed exclusivity comes from platform holders asking for it.
Sometimes devs offer it (usually to the platform holder with the biggest install base) because it gives them funding and allows them to focus on less platforms until release, and then start getting some money back while they focus on porting/optimizing other versions.

Also, sometimes small studios simply don't have the resources to release multiple versions at the same time and have to prioritize, and that often gets mistaken for paid timed exclusivity.

 

[Panajev2001a]

What do you think paying for excluding games from XBox does? I'd argue that doesn't strengthen Sony because those games were almost guaranteed to be published on Playstation but paying for that is a move designed to weaken Xbox

Keep pretending that the timed exclusivity deals both companies have been doing (Xbox paid for a LOT of those btw, that is the funny part). I like jumping through hoops in this thread to promote this merger. Theee discussions gave us gems like comparing it to Psygnosis, people blaming Sony for FFXIV not hitting Xbox, same old discussion on SFV and SH (where Sony paid for development), requesting Sony port Bloodborne to Xbox ( and a general pity party of the highest order mixed with threatening statements like cartoon villains .

Can you explain how it makes sense to port FF7:CC to Xbox but not FF7:Remake which is obviously the biggest game and the one which would have sold more? It doesn't make sense at all unless Sony paid for the exclusive.

Sony did pay, exclusivity window stopped, MS was not interested in paying anything to help port it over, and Square-Enix is quite conservative (selling studios btw) and did not think it was worth the opportunity cost.

The good news then is that according to your definition, even if the merger closes, Sony will be able to keep being the leader, so it will still be a healthy market. I'm glad we agree on this not being a problem for competition

I am not the FTC, you do not need to make arguments up to justify why having the balance switch for the $2 Trillion underdog that buys its way into the market with a starve competition strategy is not problematic.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

There were rumours that MS were trying to buy AMD already. I suspect that no amount of bullshit that "this wouldn't hurt competition" would have let that one get past regulators though.

That's 7 years old and never manifested.

 

[feynoob]

I am not the FTC, you do not need to make arguments up to justify why having the balance switch for the $2 Trillion underdog that buys its way into the market with a starve competition strategy is not problematic.

I don't think buying Activision is considered starving competition.
There are tons of IPs and games out there that the competition has compared to the buyer.

We can talk about the userbase, but the content is vast in gaming industry.

While Activision games are big in term of userbase (COD, warzone, overwatch), they are weak in term of content numbers. And the rest are mobile or on PC.

MS isn't starving competition here.

We can argue from userbase side, but content wise it's not close.

 

[Ar¢tos]

People complaining about Sony paid timed exclusivity seem to forget when MS forced unpaid "time exclusivity"-ish on indie devs, forcing them to release games first on Xbox or at the same time as Playstation version , but never after, except if the Xbox version had more content than the PlayStation version (and this had to be negotiated for the game to be approved).

 

[reksveks]

EU definition of relevent market​

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/definition-of-relevant-market.html


Is this what you were implying R reksveks yesterday?

Yeah. I was just sharing how the EC goes about defining relevant markets. Reshared it to resetera cause they are also talking about market definitions.

Another interesting link is the following:
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_21_3585/IP_21_3585_EN.pdf

Has one example re the supply side substitutability

 

[Three]

Yeah. I was just sharing how the EC goes about defining relevant markets. Reshared it to resetera cause they are also talking about market definitions.

Another interesting link is the following:
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_21_3585/IP_21_3585_EN.pdf

Has one example re the supply side suitability

Who on earth proofread that document.

 

[reksveks]

Who on earth proofread that document.

No clue, but yeah there was quite a few errors.

 

[feynoob]

Also if anyone wants the source for R reksveks image, its here
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31997Y1209(01)&from=EN

 

[onesvenus]

Keep pretending that the timed exclusivity deals both companies have been doing (Xbox paid for a LOT of those btw, that is the funny part). I like jumping through hoops in this thread to promote this merger. Theee discussions gave us gems like comparing it to Psygnosis, people blaming Sony for FFXIV not hitting Xbox, same old discussion on SFV and SH (where Sony paid for development), requesting Sony port Bloodborne to Xbox ( and a general pity party of the highest order mixed with threatening statements like cartoon villains .


Sony did pay, exclusivity window stopped, MS was not interested in paying anything to help port it over, and Square-Enix is quite conservative (selling studios btw) and did not think it was worth the opportunity cost.


I am not the FTC, you do not need to make arguments up to justify why having the balance switch for the $2 Trillion underdog that buys its way into the market with a starve competition strategy is not problematic.

Love how you are not able to give a single argument. We get it, you are against it because PlayStation is your favorite plastic box and Microsoft is an evil company with multiple monopolies.
Let's see if your doomsday scenario comes true if/when the merger closes

 

[Panajev2001a]

Love how you are not able to give a single argument. We get it, you are against it because PlayStation is your favorite plastic box and Microsoft is an evil company with multiple monopolies.
Let's see if your doomsday scenario comes true if/when the merger closes

Love how you are ignoring and projecting .

 

[Menzies]

Sure, that's true, but for the sake of the argument Menzies is making I'm only pointing out who is pushing that 70% figure he is repeating here.

Ignoring Nintendo, that looks an awful lot like 70/30.

You're pushing the same crap here. Which again ignores the fact that unit sales of PS4 consoles in Japan, other regions where MS don't even offer xbox for sale or less developed countries where online services do not matter this acquisition will not help.

I'm not ignoring anything, what about this is crap exactly? Are we also conveniently forgetting the non-insignificant point about PS4 just handily beating Xbox One in most markets where they do compete? Or are you suggesting that the difference is made up from Japan and "other regions where MS don't even offer Xbox for sale"?

That sustained growth won't be in regions it is struggling in console units. This isn't about those regions is my point. If you look at the regulators who would be looking at the market where they hold jurisdiction you will see it paints a different picture.
Square Enix concentrating on game sales outside of Japan has very little to do with what I'm saying. If anything MS should be trying to get content to cater to Japan to increase units there

You've spectacularly missed my point though. If Microsoft can push to their strengths (US/UK) to a non-insignificant lead, then they may hope to gain some of the content that caters to Japanese audiences by virtue of the fact that AAA production costs need these other markets to sustain it.

 

[Three]

Ignoring Nintendo, that looks an awful lot like 70/30.

VGChartz? Cool. That's still console units for last gen with regional differences in availability, catered content, and a statistic this acquisitions isn't even aimed at addressing. Activision games isn't going to help availability or sales in Japan.

I'm not ignoring anything, what about this is crap exactly? Are we also conveniently forgetting the non-insignificant point about PS4 just handily beating Xbox One in most markets where they do compete? Or are you suggesting that the difference is made up from Japan and "other regions where MS don't even offer Xbox for sale"?

The fact that it concentrates on last gen consoles sold to regions this acquisition would do nothing for anyway and have no relation to the market being investigated. Xbox may not even have availability in regions nor does this content cater to regions it may be behind in.

I'm saying the regulators look at the market in their specific geographic region anyway. Not last gen and not somewhere else.

You've spectacularly missed my point though. If Microsoft can push to their strengths (US/UK) to a non-insignificant lead, then they may hope to gain some of the content that caters to Japanese audiences by virtue of the fact that AAA production costs need these other markets to sustain it.

You've spectacularly missed the point of that article then. If SE is now concentrating on content catered to places like the US/UK then they would release on xbox regardless and you can throw that 70/30 crap out already. you are talking about a near 50/50 split in the US even for last gen. It means they will cater to a different audience, it doesn't mean that buying Activision will lead to more Japanese games.

The FTC look at the US market. The UK will look at the UK market. None of which look like a 70/30 split even for last gen.

I don't understand why you push this idea that it's a play to deter exclusivity deals especially Japanese content which is unrelated.

This is merely about IP and content control and trying to shift targeted audiences. You can go back and see when they lowered their third party deals because of their own strategy of game sales not mattering

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/phil...y-is-the-focus.1088115/page-14#post-173783916

They wanted IP control. Nobody expected them to be buying the third party IPs like COD, Diablo, Doom, Elder Scrolls, Hellblade 2, etc though. They expected new IPs they created.

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

Note what happened when the ideologue took over. Democratic and Republican administrations had both run this agency in that time frame.

Cleanse your mind from the FTC. What they say don't matter because they will have to put up or shut up in court and they will lose.

 

[Menzies]

The fact that it concentrates on last gen consoles sold to regions this acquisition would do nothing for anyway and have no relation to the market being investigated. Xbox may not even have availability in regions nor does this content cater to regions it may be behind in.

I'm saying the regulators look at the market in their specific geographic region anyway. Not last gen and not somewhere else.

Well, I would hope to think anti-trust regulators in the business of predicting future, would look to past trends to guide them (as of an ancient 2 years ago) and not idly dismiss this. It is the regulators defining the market as a duopoly remember, so I would hope to think a worldwide picture at a cursory glance would be noted. It looks like Xbox was outsold in the US by 10 million last generation as well, if you want to keep it within the US bubble.

You've spectacularly missed the point of that article then. If SE is now concentrating on content catered to places like the US/UK then they would release on xbox regardless and you can throw that 70/30 crap out already. you are talking about a near 50/50 split in the US even for last gen. It means they will cater to a different audience, it doesn't mean that buying Activision will lead to more Japanese games.

More like 60/40 split. If Microsoft were to gain more relevancy and a sizeable lead it will be harder to ignore. Microsoft has a better chance of playing to the strengths, versus more expensive and failed attempts to win over Japan. Especially as Square and Sony are happy to lock out the market for them.

The FTC look at the US market. The UK will look at the UK market. None of which look like a 70/30 split even for last gen.

Sure. I would say that this is a good case study for the requirement of a global regulatory body with a holistic view of multiple markets to weigh in on. The fact that there are so many markets where Xbox doesn't stack up against the competition, and their respective regulatory bodies don't need to blink twice at this deal should say something.

I don't understand why you push this idea that it's a play to deter exclusivity deals especially Japanese content which is unrelated.

You were posing the question about this deal and why they are playing to their strengths as opposed to their weaknesses? In my humble view, should Square ever release another FF game on Xbox, it won't be because they've managed to win over the Japanese market, it will be because they don't want to pass up the opportunity in the US market.

 

[Ronin_7]

Note what happened when the ideologue took over. Democratic and Republican administrations had both run this agency in that time frame.

Cleanse your mind from the FTC. What they say don't matter because they will have to put up or shut up in court and they will lose.

FTC isn't worried about the court, FTC is working close with EC, even if FTC loses in court & this is a Big if because the case will take a years since FTC can appeal, the EC Will block the deal since both are synchronized now.

See Ilumina Grail deal.

Source 1: https://commission.europa.eu/live-w...sumer-protection/international-cooperation_en

The European Commission (DG Justice and Consumers) and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have a longstanding history of cooperation on consumer protection issues, including in multilateral settings, such as in the Committee on Consumer Policy at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and in the International Consumer Protection and Enforcement Network (ICPEN).

Source 2:

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_7403

Your fantasy where Microsoft can win against governments is nothing more than a Fantasy, enjoy it

 

[feynoob]

FTC isn't worried about the court, FTC is working close with EC, even if FTC loses in court & this is a Big if because the case will take a years since FTC can appeal, the EC Will block the deal since both are synchronized now.

See Ilumina Grail deal.

Source 1: https://commission.europa.eu/live-w...sumer-protection/international-cooperation_en

The European Commission (DG Justice and Consumers) and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have a longstanding history of cooperation on consumer protection issues, including in multilateral settings, such as in the Committee on Consumer Policy at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and in the International Consumer Protection and Enforcement Network (ICPEN).

Source 2:

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_7403

Your fantasy where Microsoft can win against governments is nothing more than a Fantasy, enjoy it

That is not how that partnership works.

 

[Ronin_7]

That is not how that partnership works.

Watch & see

 

[feynoob]

Watch & see

Again that is not how that partnership works. EU, FTC, and CMA cant cooperate together to shutdown a deal like that, without a proper cause which they have yet to find them.
Only FTC is leading this block battle, while the others are somewhat leaning toward approval with concessions, and not straight block like ftc.

 

[feynoob]

Also people beware of fake rumors.


New year promotes fake guys like these to post fake news.

 

[Ronin_7]

Again that is not how that partnership works. EU, FTC, and CMA cant cooperate together to shutdown a deal like that, without a proper cause which they have yet to find them.
Only FTC is leading this block battle, while the others are somewhat leaning toward approval with concessions, and not straight block like ftc.

False. CMA & EC based on phase 1 documents are very likely to block. You're just saying non sense since nobody knows what's going on Phase 2.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

No, MS just agreed with it and used console units of past gen.

The 70% claim is from a MS statement:

"Sony has 70% of the market, and we have 30%. So the administrative law judge is going to have to decide whether going from 59 to 60 is such a danger to competition that he should stop this from moving forward."

You're pushing the same crap here. Which again ignores the fact that unit sales of PS4 consoles in Japan, other regions where MS don't even offer xbox for sale or less developed countries where online services do not matter this acquisition will not help.


That sustained growth won't be in regions it is struggling in console units. This isn't about those regions is my point. If you look at the regulators who would be looking at the market where they hold jurisdiction you will see it paints a different picture.


Square Enix concentrating on game sales outside of Japan has very little to do with what I'm saying. If anything MS should be trying to get content to cater to Japan to increase units there.

You're confused. Microsoft is demonstrating the flaw of the FTC's argument. If you exclude Nintendo as a serious competitor in the space, leaving just Playstation and Xbox, then Xbox's market share is even worse and Sony's is even higher without Nintendo being present. No matter which way the FTC tries to define the market it will lose. The same ALJ judge they're before now is the same one that tossed out their previous case against another merger, but of course in the ALJ process the appeal goes right back to the FTC Commissioners. Which is why the Supreme Court case in May/June that will basically give Microsoft its legal out from the ALJ process is more important than what the FTC judge says.

Even if the ALJ judge rules in Microsoft's favor, and they likely would, that judge is powerless before the FTC who can just overrule anything he says.

 

[feynoob]

False. CMA & EC based on phase 1 documents are very likely to block. You're just saying non sense since nobody knows what's going on Phase 2.

Nothing in that document states any blocking intent.
Why do you think CMA is going around and asking 3rd party devs and publishers about this deal, if they had the intent to block this deal?

The possiblity is there, but phase 1 has no intent of blocking. all it does is suggesting a concession.

They do that, by highlighting the 3 areas of impact, which MS would have to offer a concession.

 

[Ronin_7]

Nothing in that document states any blocking intent.
Why do you think CMA is going around and asking 3rd party devs and publishers about this deal, if they had the intent to block this deal?

The possiblity is there, but phase 1 has no intent of blocking. all it does is suggesting a concession.

They do that, by highlighting the 3 areas of impact, which MS would have to offer a concession.

It went to phase 2 because didn't Pass phase 1 aka would get blocked.

Deals going to phase 2 mostly collapse, are abandoned or major concessions will be needed like selling Activision & keep Blizzard & King.

Also this FTC shit delayed the Deal YEARS:

"
January 3rd 2023: prehearing conference with the FTC Administrative Law Judge. It's virtual and public.

- Early January 2023: provisional findings and remedies (if required) from the CMA. My guess would be between January 3rd and 17th.

- January 18th 2023: original outside date (when the parties expected the merger to be done). If MS quits before that date they have to pay a termination fee of $2,000,000,000; if they don’t, the outside date gets extended until April 18th 2023.

- Late January 2023: Statement of objections from the EC (unless MS can offer a convincing remedy package to avoid it).

- February 3rd 2023: decision from New Zealand.

- March 1st 2023: final report and remedies (if required) from the CMA.

- April 11th 2023: final decision from the EC (if MS didn’t close the deal in before in Europe).

- April 18th 2023: second extension of the original outside date. If MS quits before that date they have to pay a termination fee of $2,500,000,000; if they don’t, the outside date gets extended until July 18th 2023.

- April - May 2023: decision from the SAMR in China.

- July 18th 2023: The end of the second extension and final outside date in the merger agreement. If MS quits before that date they have to pay a termination fee of $3,000,000,000; if they don’t, they’ll have to renegotiate the outside date with ABK.

- August 2nd 2023: beginning of the FTC in-house trial.

- Early 2024: decision from the FTC administrative law judge.

- Anything beyond that: unknown
"

"
The FTC in-house trial is in August 2023, but a ruling will take 7-10 months. And even if that's positive for MS, then it goes back to the Commission. So, add 6-9 extra months before MS can go to federal court (add 6-9 extra months for that process alone).

The administrative process is a dead end for MS, the FTC knows it and uses it in that way. MS now has to play ball with the FTC because there is no other way, but they know perfectly well that they need a shortcut to bypass-it one way or another.
"

 

[feynoob]

It went to phase 2 because didn't Pass phase 1 aka would get blocked.

Deals going to phase 2 mostly collapse, are abandoned or major concessions will be needed like selling Activision & keep Blizzard & King.

Wont happen like that. Block maybe, but not major concessions.

The FTC in-house trial is in August 2023, but a ruling will take 7-10 months. And even if that's positive for MS, then it goes back to the Commission. So, add 6-9 extra months before MS can go to federal court (add 6-9 extra months for that process alone).

The administrative process is a dead end for MS, the FTC knows it and uses it in that way. MS now has to play ball with the FTC because there is no other way, but they know perfectly well that they need a shortcut to bypass-it one way or another.

Would change, if MS can get a pass from EU and CMA. As their pass means MS can challenge the FTC decision.

Beyond that, I dont have expertise on it. Maybe R reksveks can help us on these parts.

 

[Ronin_7]

Wont happen like that. Block maybe, but not major concessions.

Would change, if MS can get a pass from EU and CMA. As their pass means MS can challenge the FTC decision.

Beyond that, I dont have expertise on it. Maybe R reksveks can help us on these parts.

The whole shit is a shitshow that's all I know.

 

[gothmog]

The whole shit is a shitshow that's all I know.

How so? Deals this large take time. Even ones that were not heavily contested take a while This could go on for years.

 

[dibella360]

I am surprised no one brought up what happened to Hoag Law... his videos were referenced here a lot. Get well soon Richard.

 

[The Tourmaline Gorilla]

I have a wonderful idea guys; can we all agree that BOTH parties have paid for timed exclusivity (and total exclusivity), throughout their history, with the sole intent of both bolstering their offerings and starving the competition? Can we agree on that? Is that an accurate statement?

Good. What other points do you guys have, for or against this A&M?

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I have a wonderful idea guys; can we all agree that BOTH parties have paid for timed exclusivity (and total exclusivity), throughout their history, with the sole intent of both bolstering their offerings and starving the competition? Can we agree on that? Is that an accurate statement?

Good. What other points do you guys have, for or against this A&M?

Oh . I just understood how this is a monopolistic move from MS.

Since Phill Spencer said that Xbox competition is Amazon, Google.

Well:

Amazon has only 3 studios
Google has 0.

Xbox has almost 30 right?

Amazon, Google market share pales in comparison against Xbox.

Case close Lina Khan wins

 

[reinking]

I am surprised no one brought up what happened to Hoag Law... his videos were referenced here a lot. Get well soon Richard.

What happened?

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I am surprised no one brought up what happened to Hoag Law... his videos were referenced here a lot. Get well soon Richard.

I figure he wanted to be private?

 

[3liteDragon]

What happened?

 

[Topher]

I am surprised no one brought up what happened to Hoag Law... his videos were referenced here a lot. Get well soon Richard.

Ah man. Had no idea. Hope he comes through ok.