I’d expect starfield to exceed 30 million in less than 1 year (6 months IMO) , otherwise it won’t be as big as Forza Horizon 5…and thats not happening. Install base be damned.
It works both ways.
If its exclusive, gamepass goes to the moon, Xbox sales triple…they sell more gamepass, they sell more controllers, they sell more games… they make money that way.
If its on Playstation, Xbox syphons money from playstation, that money goes to more acquisitions and gamepass day 1 launches..Assassins Creed launching on game pass? Paid for with PS5 CoD money…they can do that..until the 10 year deal expires and it goes exclusive. Microsoft can please regulators and be patient until then.
Absolutely no argument there, and it’s not because of the Republicans showboating with their dissension (seriously, those lot are damn-near never on the right side), but because of the ideologue running the place who’s disregarded the laws in place multiple times over to crusade against “muh Big Tech” without actually addressing the Big Tech that should be… or any of the non-Big Tech sectors that have run rampant over the last few years.
I don’t know if this is exactly correct. Can the regulators REQUIRE a deal be signed between MS and Sony? They aren’t there to mediate a deal between them. So if they decide that Microsoft’s contracts with the smaller competitors are good enough to let the deal pass, it would pass without Sony having a new contract. Now would that mean MS could just stop COD from appearing on PS? Not really, they’d still have to uphold the current contact and technically they would be obligated to keep the 10 year deal on the table because they promised they would. (See the FTC tying to say they lied about the Bethesda games).
In the end it still means Sony doesn’t have to sign anything now because they know they’ll still get a deal after the fact.
I think regulators can require Microsoft to continue to release content on Playstation without specifically requiring a deal between Sony and Microsoft to be in place like what they have offered, though technically yes I’d imagine if Microsoft could prove they could actively reach a wider audience without Sony and without overly advantaging their own brand they potentially could avoid it. But that would be pretty tough.
That’s the thing, I don’t think they can actually require MS release content on PS. However the acquisition approval hangs on the belief that MS will or will not withhold content from PS and others. If MS pulls COD content from PS after the deal closes, I suppose Sony could complain to the regulators, but that assumes they are doing so to harm them on purpose. They couldn’t complain if MS offers them a reasonable deal but they just don’t like it for example. Also pulling COD after the deal while possible, will pretty much kill any possibility at future acquisitions.
They can’t. I mean…what if Sony wants to be stupid and doesn’t want CoD on Playstation because…IDK it causes cancer in puppies, MS can’t force their game on to a platform the platform holder doesn’t allow.
At most I think regulators can force MS to come to the table again, but they still don’t have to comply if Sony wants a deal that other parties don’t get or its not workable, it wouldn’t be fair to those early licencees.
They can force them to abide by their contracts though…which they will…but Sony doesn’t have a contract…and if CMA signs off…they don’t need to offer one again, unless its specifically part of the agreements to allow the deal to pass. They offered and Sony declined…do they keep badgering them? Is Phil badgering Gabe because Steam declined as well? Of course not.
And even then…it isn’t globally applicable to everyone who asks, MS can choose who receives a license and who doesn’t, they aren’t obliged to offer their PC library to anyone who asks.
Thing is unless MS breaks their contracts, the merger can’t be undone in Europe or the UK…if it passes there, its for good…it can be recinded in the USA because deals are not approved, just allowed and the FTC can come back and challenge it later…except of course when its publically challenged and taken to court, which it has been…and MS will win, which means it can’t be undone anywhere…so in 10 years, contracts unbroken…MS can absolutely rescind licenses.
I’m not saying they will for everyone…but ultimately its unlikely regulators will attempt to untangle 10 years of a fused entity becuz…videogames and exclusives.
I agree with everything here other than the first bit - I’m certainly no lawyer but if regulators can’t make concessions that would require Microsoft to release content on other platforms what has any of the talk of concessions been about? I don’t think regulators can force Sony to allow Call of duty on their platform if they actually chose to block it’s release after the acquisition closes, but there’s no realistic chance of that happening anyway given how important Sony has stressed it is and how much money they’d be throwing away for no reason.
Well I guess you could call it semantics? These regulators are not a court of law where for example one company is suing another and the court orders them to do something. What the regulators are basically doing is saying “Well we think you are going to use the content you acquire to harm your competitors and put you at an unfair advantage. You have to prove to us this is not the case.” So one of the way MS does that is with concessions or contracts that hold them legally obligated to release the content to these competitors. This is where the semantics come in. The regulators can’t force the content to be in specific places they want, but they approve or deny the deal if the content isn’t where they want.
Here’s what Chatgpt had to say about the question that is being debated:
If a regulator requires behavioral concessions from a company to close an acquisition or merger, the company must comply with those concessions in order to move forward with the merger or acquisition. If the concessions include stipulations about releasing content on competitor products and the competitor refuses to allow the company to put the content on their product, the company may need to negotiate with the competitor to find a solution that meets the requirements of the concessions.
In some cases, the company may be required to seek approval from the regulator before making any changes to the concessions or finding an alternative solution. If the company is unable to find a solution that meets the requirements of the concessions, it may be required to abandon the merger or acquisition altogether.
It’s important for companies to carefully consider the potential impact of regulatory concessions before moving forward with a merger or acquisition. Failure to comply with the concessions could result in significant penalties or other legal consequences, so it’s important to work closely with regulatory agencies and affected competitors to find a mutually acceptable solution.
And a followup
It is possible for a competitor to refuse content on their system as a means to sabotage an acquisition. However, this would depend on the specific circumstances and the nature of the acquisition.
If the acquisition is primarily focused on acquiring a particular content provider or platform, and the competitor is a major player in that market, then their refusal to host the content could potentially make the acquisition less attractive to the acquirer. In this case, the competitor may be using their market power to influence the outcome of the acquisition.
On the other hand, if the acquisition is focused on other assets or capabilities, such as technology or talent, then the competitor’s refusal to host the content may not be as impactful on the overall value of the acquisition.
In any case, it is important to note that such actions by a competitor could potentially be viewed as anti-competitive behavior and may be subject to legal scrutiny. It is important for companies to follow antitrust laws and regulations to ensure fair competition in the market
No to the eyes of MS. Hence why theyre handing these out easily.
Also these streaming services offer to play games youve bought. Ok. When MS provides there game for a sub service that has those games period. Then lets talk.
Regulators have already decided that buy to play and subscription to play are the same market, therefore it whether the deals are with subscription service cloud gaming provider or buy to play cloud gaming provider doesnt matter based on their own logic. Now I do think that for the purposes of making behavioral remedies available to any cloud gaming provider it would behooth them to get an agreement with one that offers a subscription.
They’re apparently fine with offering it on PS+ so smart $ says they’d likely be fine with offering it on Luna or even Netflix game streaming or any other sub service as well
Again if Sony doesn’t sign a deal and even if no regulators force Microsoft to release it on Playstation I still think Microsoft would anyway,
it would look bad if they say we have no plans to remove it when under pressure to then not under pressure say get stuffed you’re not getting it HA
It honestly doesn’t make financial sense to do so, I know hoeg goes on about how this isn’t a good argument but I think it’s true, sure they can force people to buy a Xbox by making it exclusive and make money by 3rd party transactions but that’s a lot of guesswork on how many would actually switch vs an almost guaranteed sale on PS
Microsoft can pull players from PS even if cod is on all platforms, just with marketing alone over time. Being the home of Halo, Forza, Starfield, Fallout, Diablo and Call of Duty will be a huge pull.
Agreed, There is no downside to MS releasing COD on Playstation, if anything it would make Sony look bad for refusing it and it wouldn’t hurt them because the scraps from COD alone are worth more than any Sony first party game
That being said, I repeat Sony does not have any veto power, they can take the deal or leave it,
