UK regulator details concerns over MS proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Xbox responds

UK regulator CMA issues concerns over Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard.

[sparky77]

I can't believe Sony has the balls to say that the merge shouldn't happen because MS will be able to put exclusive content on the Xbox version of COD when this is exactly what Sony is doing now.

Seriously, they are acting like their 1st party lineup isn't good enough to compete with MS and that they need COD to survive.

[purple101]

Ps exclusive content lasts for a year. Ms will be able to make it exclusive permanently

But I know what you mean

[Neonridr]

that's the difference between purchasing temporary marketing / exclusive content rights vs owning the company that makes the game.

[Eonjay]

I hate that everyone is talking about this like it's some Sony vs Microsoft thing without considering consumers. I play Call of Duty on PlayStation and I'm not getting Xbox just to keep playing it. I like that Sony is fighting for it's customers full stop. If it is taken off of PlayStation eventually at least we can all say that Sony's leadership fought to keep it on the console.

[oof46]

@Eonjay: it's not leaving PS.

[LucasRuinedChildhood]

@oof46

Stop gaslighting people, man. It's MS's intention to remove COD from PlayStation. That's why Spencer offered 3 years beyond the existing marketing deal - after that, they intend to pull it. And they only made that offer to try make it easier to get the acquisition approved.

[oof46]

@LucasRuinedChildhood: They've already put it in writing that they're keeping it on PS.

"But they only offered several years after the deal expires!"

Look at when Playstation got the CoD marketing rights? How long was that deal? 5 years from what I've read (2015 - 2020). Sony reupped and, by all accounts, the deal ends in 2024 or 2025. MS has promised to keep the game on PS several years after. You can't promise something into perpetuity because you have no idea what the future holds. So, several years down the line, they renegotiate.

Also, if MS were to go back on their word, they would be in hot water with the FTC, because that governing body can actually go back and file charges if a company changes direction from a previous agreement.

CoD is staying on Playstation. I've always said that the Activision deal wasn't about CoD. It was about King and Mobile.

[HardKnockKid24]

FF7

[tay8701]

@einjay they have said no such thing. they only offered to keep it an additional 3 yrs beyond sony marketing deal. if it goes through guranteed it will be made exclusive.

[anubusgold]

@Eonjay Are you a fool? Then tell sony to stop paying to keep games off xbox they started this and now they are crying wolf. Sony pays to keep game after game off xbox then xbox says screw it we will just buy them this is sonys mess they caused it and its so funny they have the nerve to go cry to the government they are total hypocrites .

[InUrFoxHole]

You're a fool if you think sony is fighting for its customers 🤣 😂 🤷

[vallencer]

@tay8701

"Once again, Microsoft reiterated its intention to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation consoles. It stated that taking Call of Duty away from PlayStation would "alienate" the fanbase and "tarnish both the Call of Duty and Xbox brands"."

Literally in the article they mention they have every intention to keep it on playstation consoles. I get that it all could just be pr speak but to say they never said any such thing is just ignorant.

[crazyCoconuts]

Buying a company is not even remotely close to paying another company for some exclusive content, c'mon.

[Lifexline]

No it’s not but it’s the principle. Excluding people from certain content is what they are arguing about. But they are doing the same thing. Pretty hypocritical but it’s business as usual always trying to stifle the competition so it’s normal.

[crazyCoconuts]

I disagree... The actions (such as exclusive contracts) are in principle fine... It's just capitalism. It's the scale of the actions that at some point cross a threshold where they prevent competition from having a chance and messes capitalism up.

[Lifexline]

Did you attend school? Mergers and acquisitions are also part of capitalism. Bigger companies that acquire smaller companies with the same synergy to better compete is capitalism open a book and find out. Microsoft is in last place. What are you talking about.

At the root of the problem is call of duty going exclusive. But Sony doesn’t mind paying other companies to prevent games from going on game pass or making games exclusive like final fantasy 7? But that’s okay? How is this any different the scale of the principle is not what matters it’s the root of the problem is excluding a group of consumers from products and all companies do that.

I would understand if Microsoft buying activision would place them in first place as far as market share but they would still be third behind tencent and Sony themselves.

[Chevalier]

@Lifexline

That's a pretty narrow view. Microsoft/Xbox would only really need to purchase 1 more moderately sized Publisher and the would jump from 3 to 1 pretty quickly.

[sinspirit]

@Lifexline

So, if I come up to your conpany that makes a product for people, and I pay you extra to change your product for me and select others, is that anti-consumer or excluding others?

If I simply handed you a cheque and said not to give this to other people that is one thing, but if I pay you extra to make some content for a game that you otherwise weren't then that's another. MS couldn't come in and also make an offer for their own exclusive content?

[Lifexline]

@chevalier no it’s a realistic view you want to talk about hypotheticals. We can do that all day it’s still hypothetical we are talking about now reality.

@sinspirit excluding others is anti consumer?!?! Am I dumb or are you? Why not let products go on the free market and everyone gets to choose what or who they want to buy it from? Paying for something so the competition and a group of consumers don’t get access to it is both. No matter how you twist it paying for exclusive content is anti consumer whether Sony or Microsoft or whoever does it. All I’m saying is if Sony is allowed to buy exclusivity and buy out studios why can’t Microsoft as well? As long as it doesn’t give anyone a monopoly then it’s a fair play. This purchase won’t do that.

[strifeblade]

Yeah I don't care. Playstation pays to keep ff7 off xbox?? That's cool, Microsoft can play that game

[Extermin8or3_]

The extra content Sony has recieved has been tiny really. There isn't even anything on this year's COD just some skins.... also the Sony deal for COD occurred because Microsoft struck one years ago that meant every dlc was exclusive to xbox for a month and I remember when they insisted that the feature to play splitscreen online was new and exclusive to xbox.

[1Victor]

It’s not about call of duty it’s much bigger than that and the answer is right in the article they said so in plain English Microsoft is building a monopoly in n the game streaming service with azure, windows and now purchasing developers and publishers(activision) to built itself the word biggest publisher and offer their services as the only place to play the most popular games making it hard for other services to thrive as everyone will go to game pass to play their time “exclusives” first.

We all know that once Microsoft start doing the time exclusives and content people already addicted to CoD will go with it regardless of where it is or have you forgotten the 360 era when Microsoft had content exclusive for CoD and the sales on PlayStation was lower and the same when Sony paid more to have the adds on PlayStation 4 show more, screwing with Sony is just the cherry on the top and Microsoft aim is for Sony to eventually will have to close PS+ and have game pass taking a good chunk of sales and subscriptions

[anubusgold]

@1Victor Nope wrong the US real monopolies are ISP's wont let Microsoft have a monopoly because their service sucks so hard. Google stadia just closed down because the US internet sucks so bad even countries in Africa have better service than us. So to try and use game streaming to block this deal is a bunch of BS it just seems the Uk has alot of PS fanboys in office since the UK is a sony console stronghold. And how are you going to tell number 3 you have a monopoly over number 1 this is just stupid. Even if this deal goes through it just makes micorosft even with sony this is stupid all around someone in the UK and sony fanboys doesnt know what monopoly means. A monopoly is a market structure where a single seller or producer assumes a dominant position in an industry or a sector. Sony is the leader right now so what the crap is the UK talking about? So its ok for sony to be the leader and not Microsoft ? That right there destroys the UK whole competition argument.

[dRanzer]

@Lifexlone
You literary don't know the meaning of "principle"

[sinspirit]

@Lifexline

You glossed over the specifics of that question. Then you seem to be overly reactive about it and insulting.

Wasn't talking about content that exists and is paid to be excluded from other platforms. We are talking about content that received funding to be made in the first place from one platform and thus was made only for that platform. That isn't anti-consumer. It's anti-consumer if you find out they are developing content and then you go in and pay them not to give it to others instead. Like the Ballad of Gay Tony DLC.

"Why not let products go on the free market and everyone gets to choose what or who they want to buy it from?"
Right? This is ideal. I agree I want it to be this way. But, people are bringing up Sony paying for exclusive content, timed games, exclusive deals, etcetera but MS is doing this too so the argument is moot if they occasionally outbid each other or fight for other devs to work with them more. Buying an entire dev and publisher to 100% limit the entire IP is a totally different thing. It's not just the dev. It's the massive market reach and amount of IP's they control and have that means they will greatly affect the entire market and millions of existing customers must now make a decision for future platforms when these games are number 1 in popularity and now only available on one home console platform.

They just bought one leader in the industry for both developing and publishing games. Now they can buy another far bigger developer/publisher that literally control the biggest MMO, biggest FPS, biggest RTS, and hell.. even the biggest puzzle game CandyCrush. Clearly this is seeking a monopoly in a media market. This is clearly why they keep trying to push that CoD isn't going exclusive(yet).

[Crows90]

Nope..theyre not doing the same. How is it the same? They have 1st party content that has never been anywhere else but the playstation.

Microsoft wants to and has grabbed 3rd party content and made it permanently exclusive. Not even close buddy.

[theindiearmy]

Bluepoint Games, Insomniac Games, Firesprite, Guerrilla Games, Housemarque, and Nixxes Software all at one point released a game on an Xbox system before being bought by Sony and now they cannot.

Now of course they aren't making games as big as Call of Duty, but that's not the point be argued. The point being argued is whether or not Sony purchasing studios has in turn made their content exclusive. The answer to that is absolutely yes they have. We have no idea how many games from these studios didn't make it to Xbox because of Sony acquiring them and we never will. The fact remains however that Sony buys up studios, big and small, to strengthen their 1st-party and exclusive offerings as well. So for them to say Microsoft doing the same is anti-consumer is pretty hypocritical.

[Sephiroushin]

@theindiearmy

And most of them failed miserably, Insomniac went to xbox after working kinda as a second party for many years and Sunset Overdrive failed; but yea all of those were mostly a second party studios, bluepoint all they do are remasters and remake, some of those developers where even waiting to be bought (Housemarque)

[Crows90]

@theindiearmy
Failed games and since they werent 1st party they were able to create games for other platforms if they wanted to. The point is that the majority of the time the big devs were not making these decisions and when they did it was likely an effort to seek partnership or possible better publishers. Normal practice in any business.

The point argued is that sony doesnt buy up huge IP or publishers to keep them off competitors. The point argued is that Sony buys smaller studios and raises them up to higher heights. Yes its true if they werent bought there is a possibility of future undetermined known games...but highly unlikely. Were any developer actively releasing games on other platforms with huge sucess? Where there any projects that were known in the works for other platforms? The answer across the board is no. None of the devs you mentionied are very BIG studios and their bigness and renown usually comes from sony 1st party games not from any other games. ITs like if bugnie was making halo games and suddenly sony bought them to instead make halo games for them....this isnt rocket science and not a difficult concept to grasp ...the difference in both is huge and clearly evident. Fanboys cant see past 3ft in front of them but I give you the benefit of the doubt.

The only big studio they have bought that you failed to mention, funnily enough, is Bungie. They are massive due to their massive success with halo and recognition. They decided to partner with them but keep them multiplatform...and yet sony are the bad guys here? Its possible they wont stay multiplat forever but what we know thus far is what we know. Microsoft on the other hand has taken away ALL games from zenimax studios and seeks to do the same with Activision/Blizzard. Jsut compare those 2 approaches and nuff said.

[theindiearmy]

The size of the game and success of them previous doesn't matter. Sony is saying they don't want Microsoft doing exactly what they've done. Which is to buy a studio and make it so they no longer makes games for Playstation. Sony has done that time and time again, so they are hypocrites no matter how you look at it.

[Crows90]

@indiearmy

Wrong yet again. Sonys not saying that they cant buy a studio and make games for microsoft only. They are saying that they shouldnt be able to buy a studio that is making, was making, and would continue to make games for playstation.

[theindiearmy]

@Crows90
You're entirely missing Sony's argument and I suppose that's why you're so confused. Sony is saying the Microsoft is going to take Activision and have them stop making games for Playstation. Which 1. Microsoft has never said is going to be the case and we have history such as Minecraft where it wasn't made the case and 2. SONY DOES THE EXACT SAME THING! They bought studios that made games for other platforms, bought them, and then those studios no longer made games for other platforms. IT'S THE SAME DAMN THING! Sony is being hypocrites and the only reason they are crying about it this time is because "Waaaaaahhhh, but then we'll lose Call of Duty. It's not FAAAAAAIIIIIIIRRRR! You have to be fair, Microsoft. WWWWAAAAAHHHHH!"

[Crows90]

@theindiearmy

Yet again you missed the point. If it was a simple Microsoft is taking games away waaahhhh as you put it then they would've been complaining about it regarding the zenimax purchase...I'd argue those games are worth complaining about more.
The issue in this case is the amount of guaranteed revenue from cod. But the bigger issue is that this is a monopolistic event. They already bought a bunch of big triple A multiplatform publishers but now they're buying even more. Microsoft stepped on the line with the zenimax purchase but now they leaped across it with this next purchase. That's the issue. And no. Not the same thing. No single game expected from any of the studios that they purchased were to be released for any other platform. Not the same. You can speculate all you want but it's not the same and the history of those studios clearly show that it's not the same.

If you tell someone cod is not coming out for PlayStation it will turn heads. Same with the next elder scrolls or fallout. If you tell them that ratchet and clank worlds apart or Operative or whatever random title won't be on Xbox that's not turning any heads. If it was announced that destiny 3 would not come to Xbox that would turn heads as well. This kind of practice is concerning and troubling and Microsoft is balls deep into it.

[gold_drake]

buying out an entire company is not the same as to have exclusive times content.

please atleast educate yourself on the topic before you make statements like that

[RauLeCreuset]

Isn't this about the UK regulator's position?

[neutralgamer1992]

People on this site giving opinion on this matter when none of us own any Ms, sony or Activision shares

As a gamer I hope this deal doesn't go through. I don't want anyone to buy these publishers because these publishers don't need a bailout. There are enough smaller independent studios who need more resources

How are any gamers defending this? Seriously man how. Timed exclusive content isn't the same as buying whole publishers

Please UK/EU reject this because Ms will make these games exclusives and this whole notion of we want more gamers to play yet their actions go against their statements

[HotMoltenLava]

Did you say the same when Sony purchased Bungie?

[LucasRuinedChildhood]

@HotMoltenLava

From what we know, none of their games will be exclusives as stipulated by Bungie.

Sony mainly bought them (for a much higher price than they're technically worth) because they're trying to make loads of multiplayer games, and Bungie will help guide their other studios to avoid making the same mistakes.

Sony obviously would have wanted their games to be exclusive, but since they're not, it's not having a negative affect on the industry. If MS didn't intend to eventually make all of Activision's and Bethesda's games exclusive, and were just passively buying up assets for future revenue, we'd be having a different conversation.

[SonyStyled]

Remember when Activision and Blizzard Entertainment merged? It was also a big deal then, and there was a lot of questions and articles about it. Now it’s a console manufacturer in the process of legally acquiring Activision/Blizz after removing all future Bethesda games from PlayStation

[neutralgamer1992]

Hot

Is Bungie a publisher worth $7.5 billion or $70 billion ?

Also Bungie didn't need Sony resources so in my humble opinion that money should have gone towards others

Also the reason I am against this deal because the reaction to this from Sony might mean they will try to buy square, Capcom Sega etc

So we as gamers will have to buy multiple platforms to play the games that use to be available on all platforms before their respective acquisitions

[Workshyskiver]

I own shares of all three, its very easy to buy shares these days.

[Sephiroushin]

Talk for yourself i own many of them, granted not enough to be on the board of any of those company, i am not a millionaire, but these kind of purchases should be rejected no matter the side; because it has become a stupid trend, if it goes through i am sure sony will try to acquire Square’s Enix and or Capcom (and its easier for them than MS or Tencent thanks to Japans law), Tencent, MS and Sony are on a buying spree and this is not good for consumers.

[ABizzel1]

Sony is doing exactly what they're supposed to do for the sake of their business.

Let's put it in perspective at your level. If a real estate company was coming to buy you multiple homes around your neighborhood and came to offer you a check for half the cost of your home's value and 3 years to stay there otherwise they'd buy enough of the neighborhood, gain ownership, and evict you.

You're saying you'd sit quietly and not complain once, or do anything to try to stop being evicted? Sony's doing exactly what they're supposed to do, and in the end, they're more than likely going to take the deal if the acquisition goes through.

The only other thing they should be doing is actively scouting Activision Employees to create their own AAAA Exclusive FPS. To MS credit, they're doing the right thing for their business in order to stay competitive, you can't beat 'em, buy 'em, and while I don't like it on a personal level, I understand it on a business level.

[oof46]

To me, it's all just posturing.

[Lightning77]

Next time on Judge Judy the custody over COD continues. What episode is this?

In all seriousness @Eonjay Mr. Joe Shmoe who's a dude bro who only plays COD and sports games will care. That's the kind of customer Sony is taking about here.

[Chevalier]

Pretty shortsighted to assume it's only content/DLC. This isn't a benefit if Xbox/Microsoft lock out whole series from competitors. This isn't a gun unlock or skin that's exclusive for a year it's the whole series of games and new ones going forward not playable on Nintendo, Playstation, Steam or wherever.

There is NO guarantee they keep games on rival platforms. Sure they say they will keep it beyond their contract, but, notice their wording basically says 3 or 4 years basically.

You guys assume Microsoft/Xbox won't turn down more money. But they actually do have a literally crap ton of money they can absorb losses forever basically. Spencer was quite clear Bethesda didn't need to be on rival platforms and what's happened?! ALL new Bethesda games will ONLY be on Xbox/PC/Gamepass streaming. How is Activision Blizzard not the same?! They'll just put expenditures of $10 billion a year towards 'content' to pay off this purchase just like Netflix spends $10 billion on content a year by acquiring content, studios etc. then a whole library of games is only on Xbox.

This isn't a single say Spiderman game it's EVERY series of this publisher. Imagine if say 2K got bought out by Tencent and now Xbox, Nintendo and Playstation will no longer have GTA, Bioshock, Borderlands, NBA 2K all huge franchises no longer available. This is the same COD, Overwatch, Diablo, Starcraft etc are the same as those.

[FlavorLav01]

And you don’t think annual CoD money to a smaller company have you doesn’t go on to support many of Sonys other 1st party projects? You’re daft if you don’t think putting the yearly #1 selling game on gamepass won’t hit Sony’s bottom line in a big way. Which in turn will hamper Sony’s ability to heavily invest in the large AAA games that many have come to love from them. If MS had stopped after Bethesda I could appreciate it as partnerships that fit their brand. ALSO buying Activision/Blizzard is just a monopolist move, cause MS can’t make good games of their own, the one exception being Forza. SMH. People just don’t wanna pay for their favorite hobby anymore.

[ChasterMies]

Big difference between building a game for your audience and buying a game to take away from another audience. This negatively effects Xbox players too. They already have Call of Duty. They are losing whatever game Xbox would have made to compete with Sony. Acquisitions like this aren’t good for consumers.

[XiNatsuDragnel]

Microsoft should learn a lesson about big acquisitions like this imo.

[Crows90]

One thing is a for 3rd parties to absorb other 3rd parties. Microsoft is a platform holder than can buy up the gaming industry. Just because theyre not on top doesnt mean they wont kick and scream their way up there using brute force.

[Silly gameAr]

MS whining about something not going their way when they want it to? You don't say.

[Jericho1337]

Given they’re potential investing 70 billion here, I think it’s justified.

[northpaws]

I think XBox gamers would be more happy if MS spend 70 billions creating more first party games.

[Petebloodyonion]

I think MS just wants to make sure that the regulator understands that Sony is not white in the matter of making things exclusive for their platform in other to hinder the competition.
The best case would be Street fighter 5 known as the most popular fighting game that Sony paid to make sure it didn't appear on competing platforms.
I could also mention Final Fantasy 7 and 16.

[Christopher]

The difference you miss here is that a third party agreed to that, it was not a Sony controlled scenario. This would remove all third party decision from the equation.

And we can look at sfvi going to all platforms now as a reason why this is important versus Microsoft saying only the 3 years in which Sony has an established marketing deal.

And while everyone is trying to make this only about CoD, Sony is using them as an example but it applies to the full catalog. Microsoft will gain the most profitable and well known third party IP but also a few others that will more than double Microsoft's portfolio of the top 50 most profitable video game IP while Sony will still only have 1 in the top 50 (Microsoft already has more than Sony in that ranking).

You then apply that to their subscription and streaming model, and this is a massive shift in the market and, as they mention, a massive limitation for others to compete as new business in the same market.

Edit: I should note that me saying facts doesn't mean I agree with non-timed exclusives. I don't. But those are still the facts and people want to blame only Sony when Capcom and Square signed those deals and should be the primary target of blame.

[Petebloodyonion]

I'm Sorry but Sony's narrative has been regarding COD and only COD if you can find one statement from Sony regarding other IPs from Activision or Blizzard then I will concede
https://www.gamedeveloper.c...
https://www.gamedeveloper.c...

And what's the difference between a 3rd party agreement for preventing a super major game like Final Fantasy 16 to be released on Xbox (basically killing it in Japan) and a 3rd party accepting money to be purchased?
Last I check no one is forcing a 3rd party into accepting both scenarios.

[Christopher]

Did you just ask what's the difference between an agreement for a single game and complete ownership of the entire IP?

[Petebloodyonion]

Nope, what I ask is what's the difference in the level of freedom in accepting money from a company?
Activision has no obligation (after the current deal) to always make a COD version for Playstation just like they never made a Switch version. Activision had no obligation to accept the Microsoft deal (just like they had no obligation to accept Sony's money).
Also. is there a rule that says that MS can't publish games on PlayStation?

And again Sony's rant has been COD and COD only yet they had no problem signing a multiyear deal to make sure that the Playstation version had time exclusives modes, maps, DLC etc.

[LucasRuinedChildhood]

Lad, Street Fighter 5 came out 3 months after Rise Of The Tomb Raider (a traditionally PS franchise) which was one of the most egregious examples of this practice. Back then, nobody was forthcoming about the exclusivity period either. Titanfall 1 was a full exclusive and arguably killed the long term health of that franchise.

I still remember being really disappointed that Episodes from Liberty City didn't seem like it was coming to PS3. They introduced the policy of DLC coming a month early to the 360 versions of COD. MS relied heavily on this practice, to their own detriment.

Here are some of examples of games this gen which MS paid for timed exclusivity:
- Stalker 2
- Ark II
- The Medium
- Warhammer 40,000: Darktide
- Yakuza: Like a Dragon (next-gen version)
- Scorn (may be no other versions)
- Sable
- The Gunk (no other versions planned due to "strong partnership")
- The Artful Escape
- Shredders
- Tunic
- The Ascent
- Second Extinction
- Call of the Sea

3 month exclusivity periods:
- Death's Door
- Twelve Minutes.

Stop pretending that they're not doing this stuff as well. That narrative is pure fanboyism. If an indie game comes only to Xbox before Switch (the most lucrative platform for indie games), and especially if it's not a demanding game for the hardware, you know MS paid for it. lol

[LucasRuinedChildhood]

I forgot to mention Valheim (a very successful game on PC) being a 2023 timed exclusive as well.

[Anomander]

@Lucas
I just checked Steam, Scorn ist still listed there and showing for $34.99 (10% off) so it looks like it is coming to PC as well. I think MS just has the console rights. I may pick it up on Steam just to see how it looks on PC.

[Petebloodyonion]

Did I say that MS never did pay for exclusive?
Of course, they have done so in the past.
The point is Sony is trying to bring a case about how this deal is bad when they have often done a similar thing
Case point how come there's no Spiderman game on Xbox?
Sony owns the right to the MOVIE but now seems, for some unknown reason own, the gaming rights in the console space.

Surely preventing one of the most popular superheroes can't be good for Xbox or Nintendo, right?

[LucasRuinedChildhood]

@Petebloodyonion
"Sony owns the right to the MOVIE but now seems, for some unknown reason own, the gaming rights in the console space." You've connected the dots incorrectly. The reason is not unknown. tinyurl.com/2x24ja93

Microsoft passed on an offer to partner up with Marvel to make games based on Spider-Man. They decided to focus on their own IP instead. It was given to them on a silver platter. They were paying for stuff like Rise Of The Tomb Raider and Titanfall at the time - they had the money.

Marvel went to BOTH Microsoft and Sony. They wanted to move away from Activision because of the low quality of Spider-Man games they'd been putting out.

Marvel Games convinced Sony that it could drive adoption of their platform (meaning higher sales for Marvel as well) but they wanted to get an Arkham-quality game. Sony put in the effort to make the game at that high level of quality. Marvel had to convince Sony, not the other way around.

[Imalwaysright]

"traditionally PS franchise"

Oh the irony.... that's because Sony paid for its exclusivity in the PS1 days. A deal that led to the cancellation of the already in development Sega Saturn version of TR2 and prevented TR2, TR3 AND TR Chronicles from being released on other consoles. Three games and this before MS introducing the Xbox brand to the console market and unlike Sony's deal with EIDOS, the deal that MS did with SE for Rise of TR was a timed exclusive deal so PS gamers got to play it if they wanted to.

Sony was the biggest bully in town when it came to signing exclusivity deals to the point that the closest we ever got to a monopoly in this industry was the PS2. A console that sold 3x the amount of all the consoles of their competition combined (Dreamcast, Gamecube and Xbox) and now they're crying because MS took a page from their own playbook. I don't care if MS gets to close this deal because I'm primarily a PC gamer and I know that MS will support my platform of choice but if MS manages to close this deal all I'm going to say is that Sony reaped what they sowed.

[gold_drake]

in the case of SF 5 and ff 7 and 16, those are 3rd party timed exclusives.

if Capcom or Square dont want to port it somewhere else, because they could have, than thats their decision.

people talk about exclusive content and outright making a 3rd party franchise exclusive to one co soles as if they were the same.

they are not.

[Petebloodyonion]

https://www.ign.com/article...
https://www.ign.com/article...

I'm sorry but paying to make sure that the most popular fighting game is not on the brand that was used for the Street fighter 4 tournament is basically the same as MS saying we won't put COD this year.
Sony could have signed an exclusivity for numerous versions.

Do you have a date for the Xbox version of the Final Fantasy 7 remake? but I'm sure Crisis Core Reunion is the better seller since it will also be on Xbox at the release
Again what's the most popular RPG of all time?

[Bathyj]

Sony didn't pay to keep Street fighter off other platforms they paid to have it made. A game that wasn't going to be made otherwise. It's like saying I paid a pizza place to keep pizza away from your house in reality I just paid to have pizza at my house.

[Petebloodyonion]

MS paid to have Cuphead made
MS paid to have Ori made
MS fund Tomb Raider
MS paid for 2 GTA DLC
MS funded tons of indies projects via ID@Xbox
MS funded tons of games via Gamepass
Call them a deal, funding, paying in advance, etc. It's still giving money to make sure the game is not on another platform.

And I love your I paid for Pizza comment just find it funny how it didn't matter when MS Xbox was just asking for an Xbox parity clause regarding games funded via the ID@Xbox program.

[Chevalier]

Its funny that Final Fantasy and Street Fighter keep being brought up when let's be honest the sales of both series are pitifully bad on Xbox, where talking about 80 to 20% split and when you consider cost going up along with advertising and publishing 15-20% doesn't even cover either cost or advertising. Japanese games don't do well enough on Xbox to even compare.

Also if SF and FF are issues then you might want to go see how many Bethesda games won't be coming to Playstation/Nintendo. It's not just a handful of games like you mentioned either. Whole series going forward completely Xbox exclusive. Whereas Xbox is getting FF Crisis core and SF6 too .

Plus SF V ONLY got made because Sony paid for its development. Maybe you're forgetting Capcom was in a very bad state with strings of failed game releases when this game got made.

[Petebloodyonion]

Even funnier when Square Enix will be releasing Crisis Core Reunion on Xbox, released Dragon Quest 11 but never released the most popular RPG of all time.
Also funny that before Street fighter 5, the tournament version of Street fighter 4 used at EVO was the Xbox 360 version of the game. guess the sales were bad if all major tournaments and players used that version of the game

I also recall MS saying they funded Tomb Raider 2 development
Last I checked Capcom self-published SF5 on PC and PS5
Sony published the PS4 version of USF4

And I have been vocal about how preventing Starfield from being on Playstation is an idiotic decision just to please a bunch of fanboys who can scream the word Exclusive.

[neutralgamer1992]

pete

that was on capcom more than sony since capcom didn't want to fund SF5 development for whatever weird reason. also MS has in the past paid to make games exclusive to their platforms too. We are talking about a publisher being bought for 70 billion vs paying for a game to be exclusive

[Petebloodyonion]

"that was on capcom more than sony since capcom didn't want to fund SF5 development for whatever weird reason." And do you have the reason why Cacpom would not make SF5? No, we don't! the only narrative we have is that Sony " Funded" the project another word for paying.

"We are talking about a publisher being bought for 70 billion vs paying for a game to be exclusive"
Actually, nope we're talking about a response from Microsoft regarding how Sony has 5 times more exclusives with 1st party and 3rd parties compared to Xbox, can easily increase the price of the PS5 with no problem but are afraid of the risk for PlayStation of what would happen if more ppl would pick the game on Xbox versus Playstation due to Gamepass.

[Chevalier]

@Pete

"Microsoft regarding how Sony has 5 times more exclusives with 1st party and 3rd parties compared to Xbox"

Okay this absolutely 💯 is idiotic. Maybe it hasn't occurred to you, but, small indies and games by small developers don't make exclusives for Playstation because Sony paid them so much as they can't afford to release on every console and when you can't you choose the platform that gives them the chance at Success. That's exactly why if you look at TGS games the vast majority of games announced were coming to Playstation along with Switch/PC. Simply because Xbox does not have enough consoles sold to take the risk.

Just look at Mages which were exclusive to Xbox completely in Japan for many years! Their games and IPs did so incredibly bad they had to announce going forward none of their games will be exclusive to Xbox any more. Simply it wasn't feasible. And guess what happened since?! No more exclusive Mages games not a single one. In fact every game has only been on Playstation/Nintendo since. Xbox versions were doing so bad they shifted focus away from Xbox. It'd either that or go bankrupt. Many small indies and developers are the same.

You're literally being gullible by believing Xbox BS. Ask yourself if you were a small developer and you had a choice between 150 million Playstation consoles (since PS4 games also work on PS5) vs 60 million Xbox systems or 120 million Switch systems which would you release on knowing YOUR company was on the line and failure meant folding your company which would you choose?!

I would bet you would choose Playstation/Switch or both along with potentially PC. That's EXACTLY why Playstation and Switch have more exclusives than Xbox. Because don't forget the scale of your audience makes your decision easier especially when between Playstation, Nintendo, PC and Xbox the percentage paid is the same percentage whereas size of your audience changes vastly.

The vast majority of those 'exclusives' are small indie games and developers. So they avoid Xbox because as the system with the lowest adoption it's by far the riskiest to release exclusives too.

[Chevalier]

"And I have been vocal about how preventing Starfield from being on Playstation is an idiotic decision just to please a bunch of fanboys who can scream the word Exclusive"

Sure you did. But the point is whole series of games going forward won't be on Playstation or Nintendo. Not a single game in a series.

All new games for Doom, Skyrim, Wolfenstein, Elder Scrolls, Dishonored along with Starfield. All very established franchises that were released on Playstation and Nintendo.

Then you want to add COD, Diablo, Starcraft, Overwatch and many more IPs too?! I highly doubt these games get released on Playstation and Nintendo going forward beyond a handful of years. Guaranteed Spencer will give some BS reason when the rug gets pulled out from everyone.

Remember Phil Spencer clearly say he didn't think removing games from Platforms was good for gamers? Then they purchased Bethesda?! Then when asked if Bethesda games would come to other consoles what he said?! That they didn't need to and could survive only on Xbox and PC?! So you're telling Microsoft making a $70 billion purchase will NOT do that with Activision Blizzard?!! Doubtful. It's all platitudes where they will do the minimum amount of contracted years then they will remove all these franchises from competitors.

They have literally a trillion dollars they can eat losses and write off losses as content purchases till forever to pay off any purchases because Microsoft doesn't need to worry about profit. It's crazy that you compare a handful of games in a series to multiple series and IPs risk disappearing forever as if they're the same.

[Vithar]

Sony does what every good company would do, protect their profit margins.
Yes exclusive sucks but everyone does it.
Keep in mind that 48% of Activision-Bilzzard products are bought on Playstation and have been an endemic part of Sony's platform for 20 years, that is no small loss and I would do anything in my power to protect that.

[HotMoltenLava]

I get it. Microsoft should listen to all you Sony fanboys because your feelings might be hurt. Grow up. They are a trillion dollar company and 1 reason that is is because they don't cater to Sony fanboys hurt feelings.

[FlavorLav01]

MS being a trillion dollar company doesn’t even have anything to do with Xbox shills either. Lol Xbox is a drop in the bucket compared to Windows money. They’re only just now really trying to invest. They could’ve made all these big purchases years ago, and actually won a single generation. Oh yea, but they didn’t…

[Vithar]

LOL who's the fanboy?: nowhere in my post do I take any sides. I do not give a shit about Blizzard acquisition. I was merely stating WHY Sony is doing that
People keep brining up the exclusif that Sony does and COD doesn't mean much etc etc, you have no idea

[RAF-TECH]

Brazil’s reasons for making this deal go through was well put…..

If u look at this dispute. The UK is simply trying to protect Sony, not the consumers….. as what was well articulated further by Brazil.

However fanboys want to spin it. What Brazil has declared…. Is straight LEGIT!!!

Can Sony fanboys comprehend the response from brazil?

[elazz]

How is big corporations absorbing other big corporations good for consumers? That is almost never the case. Regardless whether it is Sony, Microsoft, Apple...

[RAF-TECH]

As a consumer…. I would like this to happen so that all games come to game pass….so that is a win for me! Cheaper.

For consumers with ps5, they still get COD for the time being. So that is still a win.

It is a win win…..

Whether consumers want to pay full price for COD, or pay the service and get access to everything. It’s a win for consumers.

The only losers are Sony, in which the CMA are not obligated to protect them.

Simple.

[Desperadoo]

Brazil is corrupt, microsoft knows and im sure they sent some money their wayy

[RAF-TECH]

Again, just read their response…. And see if there is any corrupt in it….. or see if they are telling the truth.

It is that simple.

If u stop being prejudice and put the fan boy glasses down…. You would come to realization that they are telling the truth.

Xbox is going to acquire ABK. And no real reason not to.

[oof46]

So...what if the FTC passes the deal? Are they corrupt? What if the EU green lights it? Are they corrupt, too? And the UK and CMA? If they say yes...is everyone corrupt?!?

[EvertonFC]

So if Google, apple, and Amazon joined forces and bought all the main studios leaving Xbox and playstation with very little would that be ok too?

[badz149]

it's only ok for you trolls because it's MS but when Tencent do it, it's BAD! HYPOCRITES!

[RAF-TECH]

@deathmarvin…….

MS isn’t forcing anyone to pay monthly fee…. Xbox users can still buy the game full price…. LOL.

But I like the game pass service they provide for me. Why would I care for others? As a consumer, the game pass is the best value, even better when all of COD is on there. Do you trolls really have no space for intelligence? It’s very simple.

[OptimusDK]

Xbox is totally right. Sony is pissing their pants but this will only lead to increased competition which should benefit gamers. As Brazil said they where looking after gamers not specific gaming companies

[Redemption-64]

😂🤣😂
29315;😂

[FlavorLav01]

Brazil likes burning the Amazon for profit. Not sure they give a rats @ss about corporate morality.

[OptimusDK]

Is that the best you got ?

[MegaLogic]

Most of the Watchdogs and Regulating bodies in the UK are scam artists and extortionist, If MS laywers up they will all scurry like roaches and fold.

[gold_drake]

"These unsupported theories of harm are not sufficient to justify a reference to Phase 2,"

and yet, many gamers see it as a big issue and harm for the industry.

so, whats the tea, MS?

[RauLeCreuset]

Question:

Where are these numbers the article reports MS presented supposed to represent?

"It cites PlayStation's current market-leading position with a console install base of 150 million vs Xbox's install base of 63.7 million."

PS4 numbers aren't that high, and it's way too low to represent all time sales for every PS generation. It seems likely that's a sum of the PS consoles sold for the two currently supported gens, PS4 and PS5. If so, wouldn't that also mean the 63.7 million figure represents both the Xbox One and Xbox Series family?

[rob-GP]

nm

[darthv72]

I believe it is PS4/5/Vita combined which would be right around 150m. For XB it is XBO/Series. And they are for the end of calendar year 2021. If it were up to today it would be 157m to 67m

[purposed2k]

Sony's way to compete with Microsoft is through concessions and regulations via this round. Money talks and they don't have the type of funds that MS has so weaken them through regulation. Besides, they know Microsoft isn't done with purchasing studios.

Smart but hypocritical move!

[RauLeCreuset]

Connect the dots:

"Microsoft argued that bringing Activision Blizzard games to Game Pass, which is the company's big motivation behind the deal, would offer gamers more choice in how they access content."

Game Pass = More Choice is what they're saying there. Now...

"Should any consumers decide to switch from a gaming platform that does not give them a choice as to how to pay for new games (PlayStation) to one that does (Xbox), then that is the sort of consumer switching behavior that the CMA should consider welfare enhancing and indeed encourage."

Connect the arguments. They clearly established that they are equating "choice" with being on GP. They then argued that it would be Sony's fault if consumer's switched for not offering "a choice."* They're arguing that it would be Sony's fault if they don't allow Game Pass on Playstation.

*Before anyone tries to spin it as a broader critique of Sony not releasing their own games to subscription Day 1, that wouldn't make sense given: 1) The comments were made specifically in defense of the AB acquisition, and 2) the idea that MS would allow Sony to put Call of Duty Day 1 on PS+ is laughable.

Edit: Let me amend that last sentence somewhat. The idea that MS would allow Sony to put Call of Duty Day 1 on PS+ under anything resembling fair terms is laughable.

[OptimusDK]

Who are you defending - gamers in general or just one company

[RauLeCreuset]

My comment was not a defense of any person or entity. It was a textually supported analysis of Microsoft's argument, whether you agree with that analysis or disagree. Look inward to resolve any confusion arising from your ignorance of the definition of a material word that you misused in a one sentence post.

[RaiderNation]

I would rather see MS spend their billions on starting up new studios and cultivating talent internally and develop an actual gaming identity than "Hoovering" up publishers in order to keep those games away from the competiton.

[Chocoburger]

Yes, but that requires actually giving a crap, which MS hasn't in a long time.
The first gen Xbox felt sincere by people who actually liked gaming. The first half of the Xbox 360 gen as well.

But somewhere along the way, all the original guys that I liked left MS, and the entire culture changed at the Xbox division. Fake promises with Kinect, and relying on third party games during the second half of the Xbox 360 gen.

The entire Xbox One gen was pathetic, and MS got rightfully hammered all those years because they earned our scorn. So how do they respond? By putting in the work to improve? No, they sell you the same DRM dream they've always had, but under a different name, with GamePass, and then they flaunt their bucks around buying up the competition instead of actually putting in the effort to be competitive.

So many drones claim that MS has changed or improved after the Xbox One DRM fiasco, but its all a boot-licking lie. They've done nothing of the sort. The most exciting thing MS has done in over a decade in this industry is offer better looking and performing Xbox and Xbox 360 games backwards compatibility. And yes, I'd like to own an Xbox Series X to play improved 360 games, but I'm not buying an expensive console specifically for that. Its embarrassing that's the only exciting thing they have to offer gamers.

The truth is, its because they simply do not care about gaming, and are only using it as a means to make money, there's no passion involved.

[OptimusDK]

LOL - 70 USD games - remake on remake not development for real back combat... there is no more 4 the gamers left in SONY. They are the greedstation.

[OptimusDK]

Ohh just as SONY did in the old days when they where the underdog..... right? - you might not be old enough to reember the monyhatting that was started by Sony and drew Sega in the ground.

[RaiderNation]

Clearly you dont understand the difference between buying a developer and buying a publisher. Tell me, what game did Sony take away from Sega or Nintendo when they bought Naughty Dog? What franchise did MS or Nintendo lose when Sony bought Media Molecule? What MS is doing or attempting to do is unprecedented, which is to purchase entire publishers and take established, existing IP's off of competing platforms in an effort to squeeze them out. This is NOT good business practice and despite Xbox fans thinking this is a good thing, in the long run, moves like this are not beneficial.

[Orchard]

So the market leader by a large margin doesn’t want competition (which would be good for us). That pretty much sums up PS during the Jim Ryan days.

Also kinda ironic to be calling others anti-competitive / bad for consumers when you are the one selling $70 games, paid upgrades & trying to evade past promises about free upgrades, increasing console prices and remastering games that don’t need it 🤔

Ultimately, this will still very likely pass - either through phase 2 review or through the courts.

[Christopher]

So the third most valuable company in the world, by a large margin, wants to compete by spending over 6x the revenue of the division they are representing (not profit, revenue) and remove existing third-party games from a specific platform (just the one they are competing with directly) and they see that as good for the industry and beneficial to the consumers even though the majority of sales and gamers for those IP are on the competing platform. This pretty much sums up Xbox during Phil Spencer days.

This maneuver isn't to compete, it's to dominate. It's the exact same practices Microsoft is known for since the 90s. It's bolstered by the fact that Microsoft is competing with other IT companies in the cloud industry and want to ensure a foothold against them as well. They want to dominate it all.

I don't care about how Sony is hurt in this. But I do care about how anti-consumer the maneuver is as well as how it will only lead to more practices of buying and consolidating the gaming industry under fewer umbrellas. That's anti-competitive. That's why we need to stop major buyouts in general.

But, hey, why didn't Microsoft take the advice of not only people on N4G who told Sony to do this but also the DOJ when they said: "It should not have needed to use all of these illegal business strategies. Rather, it could have relied simply on delivering a better product in a networked industry."

But, hey, that's my opinion. Both companies aren't good, but there is definitely a greater "worse for the industry" at play here. Ignoring it because it knocks one company down a few notches isn't the right view in this game.

[Orchard]

I honestly don’t believe they will remove COD from PS though. That would be a crazy financial decision given the platform split.

The reason I see this as competitive / good for us is COD going into GamePass. If that decision was going to bankrupt Sony or make everyone be forced to buy an Xbox or a MS product, I would say this is anti-competitive and should be blocked.

Ultimately though, I think all the doom and gloom here for/from Sony isn’t accurate or realistic. I don’t believe this will really hurt Sony, nor will it affect their position as #1 in gaming.

[lonewolf10]

It's the way of the world now, if you trace a lot of consumer goods, you'll see a lot fall under one umbrella even though you would think they are all individual company's products. Not saying it's right at all I hasten to add.

[badz149]

@Orchard

"I honestly don’t believe they will remove COD from PS though"

shows how little you know MS. MS is maybe just next after Google in pumping money down the drain. remember Nokia? that's $7bil down the drain! taking COD off PS is something they will do voluntarily. everybody knows it, you know it.

[RauLeCreuset]

@Orchard

Your arguments in your OP and in response to Christopher beg the question, if you're so certain MS buying up some of the biggest 3rd party publishers won't really hurt Sony or affect Sony's position as #1 in gaming, why does MS need to buy these publishers?

If purchasing both Bethesda and Activision Blizzard is still not enough to really hurt or threaten a company with a mere fraction of the wealth and resources at MS' disposal, why is MS pursuing this path of buying up large 3rd party publishers rather than pursuing the path Sony has taken that has so solidified them at #1 that not even MS acquiring both Bethesda and Activision Blizzard threatens Sony's position?

Some reason other than nonsense about having to gobble them up before Amazon or some company that's a 3rd party publisher did. Those games were coming to Game Pass regardless, and a fraction of what MS spent acquiring those studios would have been enough to ensure it, just as they cut a deal to put Ark in Game Pass in perpetuity. Please explain that.

[oof46]

Revenue.

[RauLeCreuset]

Revenue?

Let's avoid for a moment that revenue ≠ profit, for sake of indulging this one word argument you gave in response to a question to Orchard.

They're cutting off a source of revenue by making games like Starfield exclusive.

PS pulls in more revenue than Xbox. Remember the reports about PSN alone pulling in more revenue than the entirety of Microsoft gaming?

Your answer is undermined by Microsoft's actions and doesn't resolve the original questions about why MS isn't pursuing the same path to success as a company that has apparently been so successful in this market that not even MS' vast resources and acquisitions of Bethesda and Activision Blizzard are enough for MS to really hurt Sony or affect Sony's position some 20+ years after MS entered the market.

[oof46]

@RauLeCreuset: Revenue.

More games into GamePass, like CoD, equals more subscribers, which means more revenue.

King and mobile, which was the main driving force behind this acquisition, makes more money for Activision than consoles and pc combined. That is an extremely lucrative revenue stream.

[tdogg]

So what happen if uk doesn’t approve of the acquisition But the other countries do?

[RaiderNation]

it has to be unanimous for it to go through.

[Orchard]

It would need to be unanimous unless MS are comfortable not selling COD in the UK (seems unlikely).

They still have the option of going to court if the CMA says no - and I’d assume they would given how big their legal department must be.

[nibblo]

Depends, if it a large enough market for them they won't be able to put CoD on Gamepass there and that could be enough for MS not to want to go through with the deal. If it was a smaller market MS probably wouldn't care. I think MS will fight tooth and nail against any regulatory board who were against the deal, 95% chance it's going through.

[Rdeal]

it will go to court and MS will win, CMA have already lost a cast against meta, even buying this publisher MS will still be third

[JayRyu]

I said this before and I'll say it again. This deal is going to go through. This is all just posturing by Sony to get a better deal from MS who will be acquiring ABK.

Company A (Activision) WANTS to be acquired by Company B (MS). This is not a hostile take over of a company.

This is ultimately about 💰 and Activision shareholders want thier cut of this deal.

[jivah]

Just because it isn't a hostile takeover doesn't mean it'll automatically go through.
Ie: TMobile and AT&T. They wanted to bought back in the days and it was deemed as anticompetitive. That was a $39 billion deal that fell through.
Likewise Time Warner and Comcast were set to merge for a hefty $45 billion and that fell cause again the anticompetitive nature of what that can do to cable companies and hey there are dozens of other ISPs and media companies. but nope it was deemed too impactful to the landscape.
More recently Softbank was ready to sell ARM to Nvidia for $40 billion but that also fell through due to the anticompetitive nature of the possibilities of what that can do to the market.

[JayRyu]

Good points!

However I still think this will go through though, because the acquisition is not anticompetitive.

[Thundercat77]

Interesting that Xbox has never publicly acknowledge that they are last in the market until now that they are trying to make a case practically saying... "we are last in the market, we cannot compete against Nintendo and Sony so we deserve to buy Activision".

One thing is having exclusive content versus having the whole game exclusive. Microsoft strategy right now is... So we cannot compete against them? Ok.. Let's buy the whole industry then.

[UltimateRacer]

Lol MS talking about gamers having a choice, Spencer decided to take Elder Scroll 6 and Starfield away from PlayStation even though they were already in development, some choice. MS talking Bollocks as usual.

[Gravesinger_]

Microsoft's response is really good actually, and still expect this to go through. Sony looks like a whiny bitch and they're at the front of the industry, its quite pathetic

[UltimateRacer]

Actually your wrong, TenCent is no.1 not Sony.

[badz149]

wow...fighting a bully with a huge amount of money from taking away your bread and butter makes Sony a whiny bitch?

[Anomander]

I still can't wait for this deal to go through and listen to crying to get worse on here. For fucks sake I shudder to think where we would be if MS didn't enter the industry with the Xbox. I'm not sure if either Sony or Nintendo would have had the balls to push network play as MS did all those years ago. They both would have been more than happy to keep you all playing in their own yard!

The simple matter at hand is MS is just not reliant on console sales. As seen from the Brazillian trial Game Pass revenue is pulling in 2.9 Billion a year. That is nothing to sneeze at. Of course, they want to grow that. The fact they can acquire Activision/Blizzard and still come in Number #3 behind Sony shows it's no threat.

Once Sony's contract runs out with CoD. I'm sure they can contact MS about a new one but I highly doubt they would get a new one. Personally, if I was MS I'd keep that game on all Platforms, but for all Game Pass members, it would be Free. Ultimate members would get the campaign a week early. Anyone outside of that would need to get the Deluxe version to get the campaign a week early.

[badz149]

"The fact they can acquire Activision/Blizzard and still come in Number #3 behind Sony shows it's no threat." - so dumb

that's Sony WITH COD. Do you think Sony will stay 2nd WITHOUT COD? maybe math is not your strongest subject

[darkrider]

Taking games from others because you can't make them. Trying to force gamers in to buying their products... Microsoft with this kind of money could make hundreds of new triple AAA games or bring back other triple AAA games, instead is tryng to buy its way. Can't beat them buy them.... They should try and by Nintendo and Sony and then gamepass would be profitable. We would be force to get it.

[ApocalypseShadow]

I used to say it for years on what Microsoft was like. Used to get the usual, "apocalypse, why are you so down on Microsoft or in the thread?" When I knew their agenda was going to be revealed and was coming. Said it over and over. The typical Embrace Extend Extinguish is their philosophy. It's embedded in their DNA.

Instead of competing like Nintendo and Sony, they don't put in the work, less effort to get where the other two are. Buying Halo, buying Gears, buying publishers, buying timed exclusives, pushing services and subscriptions. You could tell years ago what being under Microsoft market leadership would come to if they get their way. Which is why I've always been against their philosophy. We'd lose a while lot more under them.

The defenders either can't see it or were so hurt that Sony, being worth a whole lot less, has done a whole lot more for the game industry than one of the richest companies in the world. It's like a "we're getting back at Sony and defending Microsoft because Sony whooped their ass again and again using the same strategy: ***making high quality games.***

It's not like it's that hard a concept. Make great games, be consistent, create a fan base that comes back for more. Make great hardware that you can rely on to play those games on. Instead, these guys support Microsoft spending billions to buy up third parties that were succeeding on PlayStation. They complain about not getting FF when it doesn't sell on Xbox. Complain about Spider-Man but never mention that Microsoft got first shot at making a Marvel game and said no. Not the first time. Marvel Universe Online was cancelled on Xbox. It's the second time Microsoft didn't make a Marvel game. But they blame Sony for succeeding. Succeeding with VR while 2 TRILLION can't bring "high fidelity VR."

They believe we are wrong for defending what's right. Microsoft not putting in the work, but they are fine for them buying Indies who's games are still not out. Buying Bethesda and their games are still not out. Microsoft's 1st party like Turn 10, their game is still not out. Perfect Dark, still not out. We could go down the line. Microsoft spending billions but still under delivering. But they're mad because we support who is delivering and deserves their market position because they put in the work. It's a so funny that it's not even funny how the Xbox fan has fallen for the dangling carrot. Or how they try and Jedi mind trick that buying Activision and Cod is good for the industry. Again, buying up to take away than compete with what has worked for Sony and Nintendo for decades.

[nibblo]

Nothing anybody types into these comment sections will make one blind bit of difference. Atm it's Sony lawyers vs MS lawyers and who can be the most convincing to these different countries. My moneys on MS's lawyers and I think Sony knows deep down they can't win but if they can delay the purchase until after Diablo and the next CoD it will be a win of sorts for them as it will hurt GP a bit and gives them some time to get their systems in place to counter..

[ApocalypseShadow]

It may go through. But it's pretty sad that one of the richest companies can't compete directly with a company that's worth less. Way less.The concept of making games people want to buy. Sony and Nintendo beat them fairly each time.

And with all that effort in COD marketing and timed exclusivity, it backfired on them last generation when Sony did the same thing what Microsoft did religiously. COD played more and making more on PlayStation.

Microsoft acquiring them under the guise of saving them is a fallacy. It's a lie. Then going after two publishers shows desperation in the fact that Sony dominated them so much last gen and they don't want a repeat. It shows they still aren't interested in spending money internally to be a better game company. They're rather buy out the competition.

But we're supposedly wrong for stating the obvious.

[JayRyu]

It also shows that Sony is shook that they could potentially loose the market lead.

[hotnickles]

In uneventful news we find out shameless lobbying works well on institutions of power.

[Ristul]

Thats why Im not suprised Brazil approved the deal so quickly, corrupt to the core.

[hotnickles]

Corruption is the core of every country.

[Wrex369]

The same people laughing at the Ls Microsoft have taken over the years trying to compete are now saying their size and weight in the industry should be preventing this deal because Microsoft is already as substantial as they should be, that the deal would make them TOO competitive. Lmfaooo. They will most likely take concessions but a lot of folks already assumed that. Will likely go through though.

[Tedakin]

Sony's going to wish they hadn't interfered when this gets shut down, freeing Xbox up to go buy Capcom, Sega, WB, and Ubisoft instead. :)

[YourMommySpoils]

As I previously stated, if they didn't have enough money from other revenues, Xbox wouldn't survive. They might even become the next Stadia with a game streaming service and possibly end the same fate, till they finally enter game publishing for Nintendo and Sony.

[darkrider]

After the numbers they reveal from GP. Thats a fact

[Binarycode]

Lets spin this.

Sony is Purchasing Take-Two Interactive Software for Grand theft auto.

Are xbox owners going to be pleased?

[Gravesinger_]

Wouldn't care, I'm a PC gamer first off so I would still get to play it and if I didn't and needed to play it that bad I would get ps5 or whatever, secondly..Sony couldn't afford Take-Two..at least not currently

[Ristul]

I sometimes imagine a world were Microsoft didnt enter the gaming market, it brings a smile on my face.

[Rdeal]

you would be sitting there playing single player only games that are $100 a pop with the console costing in the 1000s

[DigitalDaniel]

If CMA blocks this Microsoft will take it to court, just like Meta did. And they won. But since this is going to a round 2 first, there will be more eyes on this from everyone involved. It's very unlikely CMA will be able to stop the aqusition based on what they've presented so far.

Sony is coming off as very entitled and hypocritical in this particular situation. They're not losing Call of Duty. There's a few IP's in gaming where exclusivity wouldn't benefit the owner of the IP, Call of Duty is one of those IP's. Even on a bad year it crushes everything else. And they have a very good crossplay system in place, so removing it makes zero sense.

Sony can't expect to keep marketing rights and to keep CoD off Game Pass when MS is spending $70B and will be bankrolling the development of every CoD for the future.

All this is just noise. Aqusition will happen. Just weird seeing both Sony and Microsoft acting so weak. One is the dominant market leader and the other one is one of the largest tech companies to ever exist.

I get that both are trying their best to serve their own interests, it's business after all. But this facade by both is not a good look. Especially not for Sony who's been on top for so long.

[Gravesinger_]

Meh, if the UK Regulators don't let this go through, Activision/Blizzard should and likely WILL sell the COD studios to Microsoft, that shit would be hilarious