I dunno... I think making such a big deal about your competitor's video game is a mistake. Because it gives Microsoft incredible leverage once the merger happens. Seems pretty short sighted to me on Sony's part.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
No one is arguing Sony's ability to be a pain in the tail to this deal happening. Business is business. Businesses jockey for market leverage every day all the time and always will. Like how long Sony fought and paid to keep Final Fantasy off of Xbox for so many years.
My final thought is, none of this matters at the end of the day. This will go through, it was always going to go through and everyone involved already knows this. Sony is trying to leverage for a better COD deal. The real concern for the future, which many have already publicly said, is their cloud infrastructure. It is something Sony will never be able to match.
Agreed, but you seem to be defaulting to an idea that regulators only have two options: not approve, or approve as proposed. That's not at all true.
Sony is likely merely pushing for regulators to require Microsoft provide access to AB's titles as part of the deal, not to refuse the deal altogether (wrt the studio exclusives). The first strategy is much more likely to work than the latter. This strategy can be extended to the cloud infrastructure too- attaching strings that prevent Microsoft from using it's new position to damage the health of the market.
Edit-- also, you are placing far too much importance on the cloud gaming infrastructure. Cloud gaming is only forecasted to enjoy about 6% of consumer spending in this industry by 2026. The price per gig for storage is bottoming out, and data caps are still commonplace.
I mean, sure, they might lose ability to sell there, but I'd say Microsoft holds the upper hand, they could practically bring down the UK economy by refusing to sell any of their products including their operating systems.
Sort of like the Russian energy situation all over again
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I mean, sure, they might lose ability to sell there, but I'd say Microsoft holds the upper hand, they could practically bring down the UK economy by refusing to sell any of their products including their operating systems.
Sort of like the Russian energy situation all over again
Not like the UK is part of the EU anymore, right.
The UK isn't the only country reviewing the deal- and this is exactly why UK's review should never have been reported like it was.
The only country to actually sign off so far is, drumroll please........ Saudi Arabia.
I mean, sure, they might lose ability to sell there, but I'd say Microsoft holds the upper hand, they could practically bring down the UK economy by refusing to sell any of their products including their operating systems.
Sort of like the Russian energy situation all over again
Not like the UK is part of the EU anymore, right.
The UK isn't the only country reviewing the deal- and this is exactly why UK's review should never have been reported like it was.
The only country to actually sign off so far is, drumroll please........ Saudi Arabia.
But at the end of the day it is kind of like what Kyleran said. The world, at least the West (no idea on others) is so reliant on Microsoft who really has the leverage?
Would you want to put an economy at risk because some people can't play a specific video game?
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I mean, sure, they might lose ability to sell there, but I'd say Microsoft holds the upper hand, they could practically bring down the UK economy by refusing to sell any of their products including their operating systems.
Sort of like the Russian energy situation all over again
Not like the UK is part of the EU anymore, right.
The UK isn't the only country reviewing the deal- and this is exactly why UK's review should never have been reported like it was.
The only country to actually sign off so far is, drumroll please........ Saudi Arabia.
But at the end of the day it is kind of like what Kyleran said. The world, at least the West (no idea on others) is so reliant on Microsoft who really has the leverage?
Would you want to put an economy at risk because some people can't play a specific video game?
What? Microsoft's video game division deal won't affect their OS business. They've had a monopoly there for decades and there's no signs that will change.
What economy are you referring to here? Microsoft isn't going to pull out of the UK market because regulators say they can't buy AB without some guarantees. Regulators won't outlaw Microsoft in general.
I mean, sure, they might lose ability to sell there, but I'd say Microsoft holds the upper hand, they could practically bring down the UK economy by refusing to sell any of their products including their operating systems.
Sort of like the Russian energy situation all over again
Not like the UK is part of the EU anymore, right.
The UK isn't the only country reviewing the deal- and this is exactly why UK's review should never have been reported like it was.
The only country to actually sign off so far is, drumroll please........ Saudi Arabia.
Well it took 7 months for Sony to close the Bungie deal so there is plenty of time
This has little to do with the misguided idea that Microsoft ignoring UK would guarantee any other country would accept the deal as advertised.
And that was the problem with reporting UK's review as if it were the hinge to this deal, when UK's review is one of a dozen.
I am not defaulting to anything ideawise. This is the facts. Sony wants shared custody and Microsoft wants full custody. At the end of the day, in my opinion, Sony will not get what they want. They are leading MS in market share so their position is not as advantageous as it could be to jockey for this position. They wont get anywhere with the cloud infrastructure part. This is really just about COD for Sony and for the countries involved it is about the cloud. It isnt about feelings I agree with you 100% It is the rule of law. The law will be on MS side more than Sony's the same way it will be on Sony's for the Bungie deal. Yet we all know things can be.......circumvented regardless of rulings.
All bigger gaming companies are doing this. Sony just bought Bungie after years of buying other studios Take2 bought Zynga
Microsoft can ease regulators concerns by doing what Sony did with Bungie and say that Acti-Blizz will publish themselves and remain 'independant' lol yeah right
It is very disingenuous to act as if this is just another acquisition like the rest... When this one is five times larger than the next largest acquisition in the entire history of the industry.
It will be fine and everyone involved knows this. These kinds of deals just can't be stopped. Whether Disney or Microsoft or Meta or Google or Tencent or countless others No matter how many people want to whip pencils at it they will get what they want.
Maybe it's a product of being an American over the past half decade, but I wouldn't be so sure about how governments will act about anything these days, specifically with tech. They're made up of the same unpredictable human beings that make up our community here!
And that extends all the way through every judiciary in the world.
I don't think the cloud bit will have much weight specifically because it's not, and not forecasted to be, a significant factor for the industry.
It's a bit like arguing that Starbucks has an unfair monopoly on the distribution of Pumpkin Spice lattes. Sure, they probably do, but it's such a small slice of the coffee business it's not worth the time or effort.
Edit-- to avoid anyone misinterpreting my example, allow me to specify: it was tongue-in-cheek, of course, but offered to illustrate the point that having a monopoly over 2% of an industry's revenue potential is not a monopoly at all. At least, not an unfair monopoly worthy of regulation.
I don't think the cloud bit will have much weight specifically because it's not, and not forecasted to be, a significant factor for the industry.
It's a bit like arguing that Starbucks has an unfair monopoly on the distribution of Pumpkin Spice lattes. Sure, they probably do, but it's such a small slice of the coffee business it's not worth the time or effort.
Edit-- to avoid anyone misinterpreting my example, allow me to specify: it was tongue-in-cheek, of course, but offered to illustrate the point that having a monopoly over 2% of an industry's revenue potential is not a monopoly at all. At least, not an unfair monopoly worthy of regulation.
Whether or not you believe it's forecast to have a significant potential for revenue or popularity doesn't actually change that it's probably the single most important shift in the gaming industry this decade.
Games are being built with a cloud native infrastructure. GeForce now has over 14 million subs. Xbox is working on better cloud capabilities. But Xbox isn't a strong cloud service yet.
The point is, whether or not you expect cloud to matter, it does. And over the next several years it's going to shift the market further.
I don't think the cloud bit will have much weight specifically because it's not, and not forecasted to be, a significant factor for the industry.
It's a bit like arguing that Starbucks has an unfair monopoly on the distribution of Pumpkin Spice lattes. Sure, they probably do, but it's such a small slice of the coffee business it's not worth the time or effort.
Edit-- to avoid anyone misinterpreting my example, allow me to specify: it was tongue-in-cheek, of course, but offered to illustrate the point that having a monopoly over 2% of an industry's revenue potential is not a monopoly at all. At least, not an unfair monopoly worthy of regulation.
Whether or not you believe it's forecast to have a significant potential for revenue or popularity doesn't actually change that it's probably the single most important shift in the gaming industry this decade.
Games are being built with a cloud native infrastructure. GeForce now has over 14 million subs. Xbox is working on better cloud capabilities. But Xbox isn't a strong cloud service yet.
The point is, whether or not you expect cloud to matter, it does. And over the next several years it's going to shift the market further.
To regulate based on that item is to ask regulators to guess, beyond market forecasts, that cloud gaming will *eventually* be significant enough to warrant antitrust regulation.
It amazes me that the same posters here who discard the largest video game publisher acquisition in the history of the industry would think that a segment of the market worth less than 3% of the entire industry market is super duper important.
I mean, sure, they might lose ability to sell there, but I'd say Microsoft holds the upper hand, they could practically bring down the UK economy by refusing to sell any of their products including their operating systems.
Sort of like the Russian energy situation all over again
Not like the UK is part of the EU anymore, right.
The UK isn't the only country reviewing the deal- and this is exactly why UK's review should never have been reported like it was.
The only country to actually sign off so far is, drumroll please........ Saudi Arabia.
But at the end of the day it is kind of like what Kyleran said. The world, at least the West (no idea on others) is so reliant on Microsoft who really has the leverage?
Would you want to put an economy at risk because some people can't play a specific video game?
What? Microsoft's video game division deal won't affect their OS business. They've had a monopoly there for decades and there's no signs that will change.
What economy are you referring to here? Microsoft isn't going to pull out of the UK market because regulators say they can't buy AB without some guarantees. Regulators won't outlaw Microsoft in general.
I've long joked the Windows TOS has a clause to make everyone Bill Gate's pool boy should he so wish.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I mean, sure, they might lose ability to sell there, but I'd say Microsoft holds the upper hand, they could practically bring down the UK economy by refusing to sell any of their products including their operating systems.
Sort of like the Russian energy situation all over again
Not like the UK is part of the EU anymore, right.
Microsoft could ignore the UK regulators, they'd just have to exclude the parts of Activision Blizzard that are in UK from the deal.
It would just cost them a lot of money, be a large PR hit, and for a company as large and important as Microsoft also be a huge political hit: Microsoft makes billions each year by selling to non-US governments and officials. If they were to give middle finger to a government like Britain too openly, they might stand to lose a lot of business from a lot of governments.
I don't think the cloud bit will have much weight specifically because it's not, and not forecasted to be, a significant factor for the industry.
It's a bit like arguing that Starbucks has an unfair monopoly on the distribution of Pumpkin Spice lattes. Sure, they probably do, but it's such a small slice of the coffee business it's not worth the time or effort.
Edit-- to avoid anyone misinterpreting my example, allow me to specify: it was tongue-in-cheek, of course, but offered to illustrate the point that having a monopoly over 2% of an industry's revenue potential is not a monopoly at all. At least, not an unfair monopoly worthy of regulation.
Whether or not you believe it's forecast to have a significant potential for revenue or popularity doesn't actually change that it's probably the single most important shift in the gaming industry this decade.
Games are being built with a cloud native infrastructure. GeForce now has over 14 million subs. Xbox is working on better cloud capabilities. But Xbox isn't a strong cloud service yet.
The point is, whether or not you expect cloud to matter, it does. And over the next several years it's going to shift the market further.
To regulate based on that item is to ask regulators to guess, beyond market forecasts, that cloud gaming will *eventually* be significant enough to warrant antitrust regulation.
It amazes me that the same posters here who discard the largest video game publisher acquisition in the history of the industry would think that a segment of the market worth less than 3% of the entire industry market is super duper important.
And you're completely missing the point of cloud gaming.
It's not a point of revenue for the market it's an end to end cost of entry point.
They don't go into cloud gaming because the process itself will generate money alone. It's a game delivery system which enables addition service options. Currently, game pass is not considered a cloud service despite utilizing cloud services. The overlap between cloud service companies would put the numbers somewhere in the 50+ million subscribers range. Not including services like Luna, which is a free service for prime members.
It's missing the point entirely to believe that cloud revenue would or should be a major revenue factor. It's not meant to be. Because of cloud gaming, it will reduce the cost of consoles, reduce the consumer point of entry with local storage, and provide developers faster and more director control of update and fixes. That's why games themselves are going cloud native. And you can believe that their revenue won't be considered as part of the cloud market
In my opinion this is good for many gamers. Blizzard is sitting on a wealth of IPs that they don't have the funds/manpower to properly develop these last few years.
With Microsoft's deep pockets we may finally see sequels to Diablo, Starcraft & new Warcraft properties that don't take 10+ years.
Heck, after nearly 20 years maybe it's time for a WoW sequel?
Comments
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Sony is likely merely pushing for regulators to require Microsoft provide access to AB's titles as part of the deal, not to refuse the deal altogether (wrt the studio exclusives). The first strategy is much more likely to work than the latter. This strategy can be extended to the cloud infrastructure too- attaching strings that prevent Microsoft from using it's new position to damage the health of the market.
Edit-- also, you are placing far too much importance on the cloud gaming infrastructure. Cloud gaming is only forecasted to enjoy about 6% of consumer spending in this industry by 2026. The price per gig for storage is bottoming out, and data caps are still commonplace.
I mean, sure, they might lose ability to sell there, but I'd say Microsoft holds the upper hand, they could practically bring down the UK economy by refusing to sell any of their products including their operating systems.
Sort of like the Russian energy situation all over again
Not like the UK is part of the EU anymore, right.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The only country to actually sign off so far is, drumroll please........ Saudi Arabia.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Would you want to put an economy at risk because some people can't play a specific video game?
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
What economy are you referring to here? Microsoft isn't going to pull out of the UK market because regulators say they can't buy AB without some guarantees. Regulators won't outlaw Microsoft in general.
And that was the problem with reporting UK's review as if it were the hinge to this deal, when UK's review is one of a dozen.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
And that extends all the way through every judiciary in the world.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
It's a bit like arguing that Starbucks has an unfair monopoly on the distribution of Pumpkin Spice lattes. Sure, they probably do, but it's such a small slice of the coffee business it's not worth the time or effort.
Edit-- to avoid anyone misinterpreting my example, allow me to specify: it was tongue-in-cheek, of course, but offered to illustrate the point that having a monopoly over 2% of an industry's revenue potential is not a monopoly at all. At least, not an unfair monopoly worthy of regulation.
Games are being built with a cloud native infrastructure. GeForce now has over 14 million subs. Xbox is working on better cloud capabilities. But Xbox isn't a strong cloud service yet.
The point is, whether or not you expect cloud to matter, it does. And over the next several years it's going to shift the market further.
To regulate based on that item is to ask regulators to guess, beyond market forecasts, that cloud gaming will *eventually* be significant enough to warrant antitrust regulation.
It amazes me that the same posters here who discard the largest video game publisher acquisition in the history of the industry would think that a segment of the market worth less than 3% of the entire industry market is super duper important.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
It would just cost them a lot of money, be a large PR hit, and for a company as large and important as Microsoft also be a huge political hit: Microsoft makes billions each year by selling to non-US governments and officials. If they were to give middle finger to a government like Britain too openly, they might stand to lose a lot of business from a lot of governments.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
That's an assumption you inserted.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/cloud-gaming-market#:~:text=Report Overview,45.8% from 2022 to 2030.
And you're completely missing the point of cloud gaming.
It's not a point of revenue for the market it's an end to end cost of entry point.
They don't go into cloud gaming because the process itself will generate money alone. It's a game delivery system which enables addition service options. Currently, game pass is not considered a cloud service despite utilizing cloud services. The overlap between cloud service companies would put the numbers somewhere in the 50+ million subscribers range. Not including services like Luna, which is a free service for prime members.
It's missing the point entirely to believe that cloud revenue would or should be a major revenue factor. It's not meant to be. Because of cloud gaming, it will reduce the cost of consoles, reduce the consumer point of entry with local storage, and provide developers faster and more director control of update and fixes. That's why games themselves are going cloud native. And you can believe that their revenue won't be considered as part of the cloud market