Microsoft-Activision-Blizzard Discussion Thread (Part 1)

[AllianceOfficer]

@TavishHill

He will just recuse himself and let the FTC handle it I bet.

That would be great cause it would fall outside these new things tighter restrictions the DOJ is talking over.

[TavishHill]

@AllianceOfficer

I do not have Playstation specific knowledge, but I have released games and apps on the Android store and there were terms and conditions as there are for everything. That’s not what Phil is talking about with contracts.

He is referring to any legal agreements and prior commitments that require MS paying out to shred the agreement.

[QuietGamer90 (Tawsif (Rafee))]

@TavishHill

I explained the reasoning in this thread already. To answer your question, yes it is an unfair competitive advantage because MS unilaterally gets to decide whether Sony gets a giant gaping hole in their ecosystem revenues or not. Company A should not be able to unilaterally and directly control the revenue outcomes for a competing Company B in the space the two compete. CoD as a property represents a huge portion of PSX ecosystem revenue and w/o commitments/assurances, MS would be able to blow up PSX ecosystem revenues on a whim. That sounds a lot like something bordering on anti-competitive practices to me.

I mentioned this in another thread, but the wording is left vague enough for me to think that perhaps future CoD ‘multiplayer’ may be multiplatform, but the ‘SP campaigns’ remain exclusive (you can also include perks, unlockables, and other extra content). We know that multiplayer is usually where the long-term user engagement is. If this were to happen, his statement would still be true .

Also, it may sound funny, but I do find it interesting that he used ‘intent’ for existing agreements and ‘desire’ for the last statement.

Either way, we shall find out in about 12-18 months time lol.

[Twinblade]

@TavishHill

Company A should not be able to unilaterally and directly control the revenue outcomes for a competing Company B in the space the two compete. CoD as a property represents a huge portion of PSX ecosystem revenue and w/o commitments/assurances, MS would be able to blow up PSX ecosystem revenues on a whim. That sounds a lot like something bordering on anti-competitive practices to me.

Existing games will stay on all platforms, including Warzone. Are the mainline CoD games really that important for PS revenue?

WW sold ~ 13 million on PS. Given the 30% cut Sony earned ~ 281 million in revenue € from the game. 281 million is a nothing burger when a company has 25 billion in revenue.

[Weaam]

@Twinblade

Existing games will stay on all platforms, including Warzone. Are the mainline CoD games really that important for PS revenue?

WW sold ~ 13 million on PS. Given the 30% cut Sony earned ~ 281 million in revenue € from the game. 281 million is a nothing burger when a company has 25 billion in revenue.

With Mtx should be more but you are right it’s nothing when company has 25 billion in revenue.

[CallMeCraig]

thanks Parris!

https://twitter.com/vicious696/status/1484263026589011971

@Ratchet_231

I’d be concerned if I were Sony, since their strategy to keep Japanese support intact seems to just be moneyhatting SE games, and then just continuing to be the best selling console in the console market,

Have you looked at sales in Japan the last couple of months? Sony is not existent there anymore, its all Nintendo.

[saintsflow20]

@CallMeCraig

Have you looked at sales in Japan the last couple of months? Sony is not existent there anymore, its all Nintendo.

They may have meant worldwide, but that’s not true either because that is still Switch lol

“Selling better than Xbox” was probably more what they meant I’m guessing.

[cinste (Pete)]

@TavishHill

Company A should not be able to unilaterally and directly control the revenue outcomes for a competing Company B in the space the two compete.

Haven’t been keeping up with this massive thread so you may have already commented on why this statement wouldn’t also apply to any of the multitude of sometimes years long exclusive deals Sony has done with various companies to keep ip off Xbox, some of which don’t even have a disclosed end date? What’s the difference between this and that that makes one anti-competitive and the other not given that Sony had the same opportunity to bid on Acti Bliz as anyone else? By your logic surely it was an anti-competitive action that gained Sony’s large CoD revenues in the first place?

[TavishHill]

@QuietGamer90

… I mentioned this in another thread, but the wording is left vague enough for me to think that perhaps future CoD ‘multiplayer’ may be multiplatform, but the ‘SP campaigns’ remain exclusive (you can also include perks, unlockables, and other extra content). We know that multiplayer is usually where the long-term user engagement is. If this were to happen, his statement would still be true . Also, it may sound funny, but I do find it interesting that he used ‘intent’ for existing agreements and ‘desire’ for the last statement. Either way, we shall find out in about 12-18 months time lol.

Still, you are trying to find a way to make both things true at once instead of just looking for the most rationale interpretation (which should be coupled to the statements from MS, Activision and Sony as well as insider sources too).

[TavishHill]

@cinste

Haven’t been keeping up with this massive thread so you may have already commented on why this statement wouldn’t also apply to any of the multitude of sometimes years long exclusive deals Sony has done with various companies to keep ip off Xbox, some of which don’t even have a disclosed end date? What’s the difference between this and that that makes one anti-competitive and the other not given that Sony had the same opportunity to bid on Acti Bliz as anyone else? By your logic surely it was an anti-competitive action that gained Sony’s large CoD revenues in the first place?

Those deals are too small to equate with ‘undue’ influence over the revenue stream of the competing ecosystem I’d wager. CoD as a property represents a HUGE portion of PSX ecosystem revenue. The same can’t be said for those other cases. Also, Sony is free to pay for exclusives that are big on Xbox if they like since the FTC doesn’t need to approve of those deals in the same way as a $70bil acquisition. Also, those are deals b/t Sony and a 3rd party, not decisions Sony is making unilaterally as would be the case here.

@Twinblade

Existing games will stay on all platforms, including Warzone. Are the mainline CoD games really that important for PS revenue?

WW sold ~ 13 million on PS. Given the 30% cut Sony earned ~ 281 million in revenue € from the game. 281 million is a nothing burger when a company has 25 billion in revenue.

…that is an individual title. CoD games from multiple entries are top sellers year in and year out on PSX systems. Also, you ignore the MTX’s, which are a HUGE chunk of change by themselves (so roughly double your value). You think revenues well north of $600mil a year is ‘nothing’! It doesn’t have to bankrupt PlayStation to constitute a potential regulatory issue. It just has to pose a risk of restricting competition. If you take that much $$$ from Sony’s yearly budget that will absolutely restrict their ability to compete and limit some of their decision making.

[Callangoso]

@AllianceOfficer

This is interesting, the DOJ may have to kick over any investigation to the FTC because the DOJ head was a former Microsoft lobbyist.

From the article:

“In a sign that Activision-Blizzard is hedging its bets against regulatory trouble, the deal includes a massive $3 billion “breakup fee” that Microsoft will pay the game developer if the acquisition falls through. “

[Twinblade]

@TavishHill

CoD as a property represents a HUGE portion of PSX ecosystem revenue.

A huge portion would be 5-15 billion given Sony is a company with 25 billion. CoD at unrealistic best is 1-2 billion a year for Sony. That’s certainly not a HUGE portion.

@TavishHill

It just has to pose a risk of restricting competition. If you take that much $$$ from Sony’s yearly budget that will absolutely restrict their ability to compete and limit some of their decision making.

Are you saying a company with 20+ billion in revenue can’t compete in gaming? That figure accounting for CoD loss would still make Sony the second force. Please don’t tell me top 3 companies in a business can’t compete. Sony without CoD will be fine and still be one of the major players.

[Twinblade]

@TavishHill

Also, you ignore the MTX’s, which are a HUGE chunk of change by themselves (so roughly double your value).

Have the mainline games a lot of MTX or do you mean Warzone? The F2P game will stay in PS.

[Staffy]

@Joe_Sinister1

I don’t usually like to bring posts from “other Era” here, but this is such an excellent post about how Sony’s timed exclusivity has basically hurt the xbox brand when it comes to certain genres. It should really be read by as many people as possible, especially gaming media types getting salty over this.

What a fantastic post!

I wonder how they’re reacting to it there. See, this is one of the many reasons Xbox needs none of that good guy attitude. Let that relentless attitude from the Xbox and 360 days come back please. Show Sony what Xbox is really about and let them feel how nasty it really is, and you do that by as soon as contractual obligations end…stopping with shipping games to their platform, any game. As much as that sucks for the players. It is how it’s going to be for Bethesda games, it should with this too. We’ll eventually find out exactly what Phil meant, if his words were indeed smartly…well…worded.

Who knows, maybe Sony actually agreed to quitting their nonsense, it would be a fantastic outcome and I don’t think any Xbox fan would hate on it.

[Biggzy (Hassan)]

@Plagueborne

Not really worried about the US Gov cause they are lazy bums and incompetent at their jobs.I think EU would be a stinker (if they even have a say this time?)

Honestly, I know the EU has a hard on for American Tech companies atm, but they will have a harder time than the US in proving the deal will cause enough decrease in competition that it will negatively effect consumers due to Xbox’s lack of significant presence in the EU.

I would also like to point out to people that Microsoft is on the verge of closing another massive deal for Nuance Communications, a deal that actually should have come under more scrutiny due to Microsoft’s more dominant position in the cloud business.

What we are seeing is mostly hot air as regulatory disapproval still needs to be based on some semblance of legal foundation and not just a 100% political decision.

[Roronoa_Zoro90]

@Biggzy

Honestly, I know the EU has a hard on for American Tech companies atm, but they will have a harder time than the US in proving the deal will cause enough decrease in competition that it will negatively effect consumers due to Xbox’s lack of significant presence in the EU.

Yep, EU scrutiny is non-consequential for Xbox, their presence is not big enough to raise concerns. It isn’t in US also, at least near monopoly levels, now it’s only political enemies of MS and/or newspapers owned by its enemies that are speaking nonsense, lol. This if the new “law” is not “Sony must win at all cost” lmaooo.

[Biggzy (Hassan)]

@Roronoa_Zoro90

This if the new “law” is not “Sony must win at all cost” lmaooo.

Lol. Speaking of Sony. I guess all the people who are crying about ‘monopoly’ and ‘industry consolidation’ will also not want Sony buying any more developers since, you know, they have a bigger market share than Microsoft.

[FindTheGamer (Tarik)]

Lol if Facebook or tencent bought Activision, it would literally be stuck on the COD titles and nothing else. Few days in and Phil is already name dropping stuff like hexen. It’s arguably one of the best possible outcomes for Activision blizzard.

[Roronoa_Zoro90]

@Biggzy

Lol. Speaking of Sony. I guess all the people who are crying about ‘monopoly’ and ‘industry consolidation’ will also not want Sony buying any more developers since, you know, they have a bigger market share than Microsoft.

Obviously not, lol. I can see this deal destroying the industry bias once and for all, at long last.

[saintsflow20]

@FindTheGamer

Lol if Facebook or tencent bought Activision, it would literally be stuck on the COD titles and nothing else. Few days in and Phil is already name dropping stuff like hexen. It’s arguably one of the best possible outcomes for Activision blizzard.

Best meme to come out of this