I like the “CMA are thoroughly examining the merger unlike Brazil and EU and can’t be bought off,” to “corrupt CMA made a complete 180!!! M$ paid them off, theres NO other explanation!!111”
The meltdowns on some places of the internet are absolutely hilarious.
https://twitter.com/Gazondaily/status/1639408682197721089?t=kwgRz9mio1nk9E4siysGfg&s=19
I wonder how much of this has just been par for the course. So far they’ve researched the issues, listened to Microsoft’s arguments and taken their evidence on board and dismissed most of the potential problems they brought up. I remember Hoeg saying at the beginning this was how the CMA tended to work - they’d start by identifying all the potential issues then work backwards to see if they were a real threat. If this all hadn’t been public we probably wouldn’t have gone through such a rollercoaster 
To be fair we’ve had pretty much the opposite transition here, I seem to remember people here claiming the CMA were corrupt and paid off by Sony not all that long ago. Perhaps people should just enjoy things going well instead of trying to take joy in other people being wrong 
Lmao! This guy needs help.
Coping is the hardest task I see.
Agree, but the main consensus for that was that during the CMAs Phase 1 PF, some of their statements were almost copy-pasted from the ones Sony claimed. Even some of the verbiage was exactly identical (most likely due to the CMA addressing their exact concerns, but still).
Combine that with Jim Ryan Flyin’ out to talk to the CMA on multiple occasions and… yeah.
Obviously both scenarios are asinine, but one of them is not like the other.
The results of phase 1 were to identify any potential risks, then the purpose of phase 2 was to investigate if these issues were an actual problem. If Sony identified a potential problem in their eyes, then through an investigatory process in phase 2 they dismissed that risk - it sounds like things worked as it should have no?
Granted, it’s perhaps easier for me to say that now in retrospect that this rollercoaster is just about over I’m not gonna say I haven’t been stressed by every twist and turn, but this was the process as Hoeg described it in the beginning.
I honestly think Microsoft should offer Sony the ten year deal for cod access but strip out the need for console parity. There is no reason to offer it. They can have equal cloud access as that will be part of the remedy. But on console they don’t now need to offer it. Microsoft can gobble up the ‘cod advantage’ Sony spent the past decade bragging about.
Depends on exactly what Microsoft has argued doesn’t it? It is in their best interest to respect anything they’ve said to regulators in the context of “it’s in our best interest we do X” or “we have no reason to do Y”.
Point being - I think (not entirely certain, not in a position to check these things) there coulda been some “it wouldn’t make sense to hinder the Playstation version” and similar arguments implying parity was in their best interest - in which case they may as well agree to a parity clause as a show of good faith. Other stuff though like PS+ deals and what not are perhaps free for Microsoft to reconsider, and they likely don’t need a third party to enforce this parity either.
Wow watching Hoeg’s latest video about the recent document the CMA released and I was kind of staggered by the different change of tone the CMA did on the console space of their findings and the nature of the gaming space. O.o
They basically said the believe in MS words, the value of exclusives, they are not protecting competitors an competition is welcome (in short words). Did they look the portrait of God or something? It felt like a change of attitude comparatively that of a strict teacher reprimanding you to a caring mother doing it.
Still I’m with @Zappy5 MS should do more things to make sure this deal is going through 101%+ and thankfully they still have time to do more.
Definitely. The momentum in this deal has finally swung fully to Microsoft. Its a 69 billion dollar deal. Make all the agreement you can now to drag the deal over the finish.
No, it depends on what the CMA allows.
CMA left a opening for Microsoft to be able to buy Take-Two next Sony continues to indirectly make a fool out of themselves.
In the document named SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT OBSERVATIONS ON THE CMA’S PROVISIONAL FINDINGS, dated March 1, 2023, Sony characterized Minecraft in this way on page 5:
“Microsoft points to Minecraft as an example of an acquisition where it did not pursue exclusivity. But this example is not relevant to an exclusivity strategy regarding future releases of Call of Duty.
The CMA correctly points out that Minecraft’s “*legacy monetisation model of a one-time fee for lifetime access and updates…differs significantly from Call of Duty, where users buy the new premium iteration of the game every year for a higher fee.
I think they should go with parity of modes/maps/dlc weapons ect, but they should try to see if they can make it possible to use the tech that they invested on for Xbox and PC that aren’t currently available in rival consoles. As we have seen, whenever Microsoft does something like this, Sony eventually invest in it to not be seen as lacking.
I don’t really want MS bothering to pursue any real exclusive perks regardless of whether it winds up being allowed or not. As far as I’m concerned all I want is for MS to develop COD and the engine in line with their technical choices. IMO that’s one of Sony’s biggest advantages. Unless they do something totally nuts developers and engines work to accommodate them and how they want to do things due to their dominance.
What is allowed is one thing but it seems there’d be repercussions (particularly for future acquisitions) if Microsoft doesn’t stick by what they told regulators.
If they argued “It would not be in our best interests to hinder Call of Duty on Playstation by releasing a worse version/delaying the release of content” or something to this effect then I imagine it’s best they stick with that, and so there’s no reason not to offer that in any deal they continue to offer to Sony. Should stress though, that’s “if” they argued anything specific.
But isn’t Microsoft also offering parity for Nintendo? So, wouldn’t that mean having the game run the best it could on all systems, with all modes available.
Going to be fascinating to see what happens next week. Sounds like MS are so not done with announcements.
I wouldn’t be too surprised if a cloud gaming deal with Amazon is incoming. Amazon Luna already runs on Windows:
Amazon’s Luna game streaming service is powered by Windows and Nvidia GPUs - The Verge
I mean, if a deal could be done, that’s an open goal for MS right there and would kill off concerns regarding competition for the cloud gaming market (or should).
Mind all that stuff MS done you said would have no effect like the survey, the PR etc
I think they’ve offered feature parity but I don’t think there’s any expectation of graphical parity - it should all be pretty clearly defined in the signed deal they have in place either way. When it comes to Sony though they offered a wide range of things in their deal ranging from full graphical and feature parity to allowing Sony to negotiate to put the game on PS+, as well as planned concessions to regulators that would enforce these things including the means to test that graphical parity was being respected.
It doesn’t sound like those kind of concessions are going to be necessary any more, and I can’t imagine there’s any reason they need to continue to offer some stuff like Call of Duty being available to PS+, but I think I remember reading some argument by Microsoft to regulators on why it was in their best interest not to restrict the Playstation version in any way. If that’s true then while they may not be legally bound it’s probably in their best interest to respect that, and if they still want Sony to sign a deal might as well keep offering parity.
I don’t think it’s a particularly big deal either way, I don’t personally think Microsoft has any intention of hobbling the Playstation version anyway.