Phil will give Jim what the regulators want. It’d take Sony actively blocking CoD from Playstation for it to not come.
1 Like
Sure but we’re talking relatively close - the switching rate a separate issue. The EU numbers are something like 3:1 in many markets and worse in others. So the markets are different in those terms.
1 Like
I think it would be pretty stupid. I literally have no interest in exclusive call of duty. I do want it on gamepass so I can play every year without buying it (I don’t buy it often).
And given the argument is it makes little difference to their market share - what advantage would they get from it? Lose playerbase for a massive title they own…not sure that would make sense.
In fact I’d say it would be completely counter productive. As everyone says it won’t make a significant number of people invest in Xbox so I’d not really see the point.
I do think they should utilise the ABK studios better to make some xbox/PC exclusives though. And reduce the number of COD’s. Biannual would be fine.
4 Likes
That’s just not true. Based on the numbers reported in this thread yesterday there’s a 28% difference.
They rely on the switching rates and the incentive to remove COD based on their incorrect calculation to indicate there would be a significant lessening of competition. Its clear to absolutely anyone that
A. Switching rates that do not even result in a swap of market poaitions cannot be a lessening of competition.
B. If the calculation is incorrect and 5 years of profits were tabulated while only 1 year of lost profits were tabulated, and the data when tabulating the same period indicates they do not have incentive, then there is no reason to believe a foreclosure strategy would exist.
Either of those things remove the SLC, but with the combination of no change in market position AND no incentive to foreclose, its clear that the CMA has no legitimate choice other than to dismiss that SLC.
2 Likes
Microsoft will be very careful and follow to the letter their commitments because they realize the long term gains for the whole company would far out way the short term benefits to the gaming division
7 Likes
What exactly have the CMA done to “defy” logic and the will of the industry? I notice you keep saying this over and over but never give any examples
What you say makes absolutely zero sense and has no logic behind it
2 Likes
We all know COD is going to keep releasing on PS for the foreeseable, simply because that is the option that makes more money. However, my point is that if, over time, a considerable amount of COD only players transition towards Xbox, attracted by marketing rights or for the Game Pass releases of the titles, Xbox could have the freedom to decide stop releasing the games on PlayStation if they see it fit, for example because at a point “X” this will “push” the remaining users to make the jump. If point “X” arrives at 7 years instead of 10, Xbox could have the freedom to do this, I am not saying they are going to do it right away nor necessarily.
What’s going on with Brad Sams? He keeps putting up these weird negative titles when the news isn’t negative.
I took a screenshot instead of linking because I’m not encouraging this type of videos.
5 Likes
Might be a troll or reverse clickbait or downfail has a meaning that I don’t know of.
2 Likes
Maybe this isn’t the first time I’ve seen him try to clickbait something.
Same reason Jez puts up clickbait, traffic is low
2 Likes
Oddly enough, bad news is what we’re lacking as of late, so we have to make one.
2 Likes
So the EC will announce their final decision on May 22nd, pending another delay. This will never end.
So much for that “the only BS is me”…bullshit.
1 Like
Now it makes sense why the FTC is crying over documents the lawyers who probably initially worked on the case quit. Now they want Microsoft to give them specific documents they need for the case instead of using man hours to go back and find those documents. It’s not Microsoft’s job nor should they give them anything outside what they’ve already given them. If this actually goes to court Khan would have wasted a lot more money and they’ll have to pay Microsoft & Activision’s Lawyer fees.
We did it fam.
You don’t have to change the market leader for an SLC to occur based on the CMA definition though. Simply reduce market share through the vertical merger to reduce incentive to invest. According to their logic. Market position is less relevant than share. If Ms had a share like they do in the EU that SLC couldn’t exist.
Even in UK, Xbox and Playstation are not neck and neck. The CMA’s polls were done in the scenario that MS will make COD exclusive and even by their poll results, the switch rate was nothing to write home about. And knowing that MS is committing to keeping COD multiplatform, the switch rate will be even less and not likely to result in a drastic market share reduction for Playstation.
That SLC in Console Gaming exists, but there is a slight possibility that CMA drops it in their final report as their concern is more with SLC in Cloud Gaming.
Sonys incentive to invest is increased by having to compete more to either maintain market share or gain back some of the little market share they would lose.
There have not been any statistics that the CMA presented that stated that Sony’s incentive to invest has been reduced, so that is not their claim here.
That SLC doesnt exist based on their current analysis because they incorrectly calculated incentive to foreclose.