Sony's response to the CMA regarding the Microsoft-Activision acquisition has surfaced, and it mentions how it will harm 'consumers." Check out the company's list on why the deal shouldn't happen.
Lol this list is trash
Your comment? If you wanted to add value, you could dispute each point. Good luck with that.
It's desperate times for Sony, they know their days as leader are numbered if this goes through.
Ha. That's hilarious. It's desperation by Microsoft to even do this. To be relevant in gaming. And don't forget they aren't buying Activision to get new games on the platform. They're not going to get any games that they weren't already going to get. They're buying Activision so they can control what goes on other platforms. The end of the day they getting nothing new.
"their days as leader are numbered if this goes through." Well, that's what makes this an anti-consumer move. If you are agreeing the weight of this acquisition will affect them, which it will, then you agree by extension that this acquisition is a monopoly style move. No, a monopoly move isn't protected just because you aren't a top performer. There will be a huge burden on consumer choice if this goes through.
sony why because it raises legit points? sparky that's what sony's point is too and that's why it shouldn't go through
"Both sides make valid points, though I don’t expect this statement to change anything when it comes to blind fanboyism of console wars." this was at the end of the article. story of your life innit haha.
Microsoft is not going to be so nice anymore once this deal passes or fails.
From now on MS should start kicking and screaming every time Sony buys a studio.
As long as they have a long history with releasing games on Xbox then I agree.
Sony has bought mostly studios that made games just forbsony systems anyway. So eh to that. Meanwhile ms buys publishers. Whole publishers. NOT just a studio big difference my guy. Also those publishers games also sold better on sonys systems. What's that tell you. Ms right now is just trying to strong arm their way around cause they had nothing coming out. Idk why ms owned a decent chunk of studios. Sounds like bad management.
@Shinoff 1. Sony can't afford to buy big publishers, lets not act like they're morally above it. 2. Of course COD sales more on PS, have you not seen the sales difference in consoles? 3. Sony has bought studios that weren't exclusively making content for them. You think Destiny 3 will come to Xbox? I don't.
@fated A studio? Sony has bought a more than 1. "large amounts of publishers" Activision and Blizzard, 2 is a large amount? You exaggerate for one company and downplay for the other, you don't seem biased at all. Either you're alright with acquisitions or your not, big or small it has the same effect just on a different scale.
@Asplundh Sony's acquisition of Bungie wasn't mostly for their games. It was for their expertise. They want the developers that basically defined what modern online console gaming is(Halo) to help them develop their online systems, live service(meh), and just to help their studios with these things in mind as they develop their games and support existing ones. The deal to buy Bungie only went through on one condition. It was as long as Bungie is still an independent multiplatform developer. This is a contract. It's not words or a temporary status like the CoD staying third party for X amount of time stuff. They don't want to officially declare CoD as staying multiplatform past a few more years? Then it's not the same. A few years extension means it could easily fall right outside the full development window and release shortly after that fake "good faith" goes out the window.
Making even MS 2 trillion company CEO (satya) angry isn't wise... Despite if this deal go thro or not... I can see a big rivalry in the horizon and im loving it... I'm enjoying this MS vs sony thing... For me Its like Barcelone vs real madrid or snoop dog vs eminem.... I mean im enjoying this fight between both
You sure lead an exciting life, huh.
Super exciting to think about how many poor families or hobby gamers that barely afford one console would now be locked out of major games that were already on both consoles for decades. Especially with the current expensive cost of living.
@sinspirit you mean final fantasy and spiderman.....oh sorry poor gamers are pirating games and jailbroke consoles im a african dont talk to me about being a poor gamer ...in my countrie even xbox hates or ps fans are buying xbox one or xbox series S and gamepass subs to play games for a reasonable price and they (including me) a big fan of COD MW waiting for the deal to go thro to play it on GP!!! dont use poor poeple to cheer for sony!!!! poor poeple cant buy games with 70$ !!! dont speak about poor people if your getting paid by dollars or eur
If this deal passes and there are no concessions, if I were MS I would just pull COD and Minecraft from PS out of spite, but that's just me lol.
And that's why emotional children don't run companies. You realised call.of duty would probably be at dead franchise if not for PlayStation. Even when a game like Vanguard sells millions of copies it's a disappointment to them because it doesn't get those huge sales numbers they need for the franchise to remain successful. Sure go ahead and deny 70% of the user base access. See how long that lasts.
Yes, that's just you. Businesses like to make money and games sell best on PlayStation, compared to their own platform.
It would be funny if NONE of these insinuations came to fruition after the deal is done. Sony will then claim MS made them throw $h!t at the wall to see if it would stick. They are so full of FUD they can't even think correctly.
I feel like no thought other than odd contempt of Sony went into this comment. The only way none of their examples come true is if no Activision/Blizzard games go exclusive.
fear, uncertainty, doubt. you're so full of it that u cant even spell out the word "Shit" haha theres a saying about a glasshouse and a stone. i wonder how that goes, hmm.
This truly reads like a list of propaganda against MS that you would find on multiple gaming forums from only the hardcore Sony fanboys and not actual concerns based on actions or facts that you would think a company, a world market leader, for multiple years would put out in order to stop a deal from going through. Very bad look for Sony
You should see the bullshit Microsoft has been saying.
Call of duty is definitely a huge franchise to have as a first party for anyone. This list brings up interesting points that we already knew, but really brings attention to. Microsoft’s previous acquisitions, which in my humble opinion is damning and a car in point, have had their entire business models changed. Cross platform games were aborted. Most if not all of every Zenimax, double fine, and obsidian title would have undoubtedly been multiplat. Only Sony and Microsoft know what titles were in mid development before they got axed. NOW Microsoft is saying “ hey we aren’t like that” when history shows otherwise. Anyone really think Hellblade 2 would be Xbox exclusive? Not to mention how would anyone enter the market and fairly compete at this point? How would Sega, for example, enter the market with a new console when Microsoft has bought many big multi platform developers and can lock the biggest FPS behind its name. If you want call of duty, you have to go to Xbox. Can’t afford or see the value of two consoles? Are you going to buy the new Sega console or the one you KNOW has call of duty? Sony argues that it’s that powerful. That they lock call of duty behind gamespass and then everyone that plays HAS to subscribe. If gamesfly created a downloadable game rental service for a monthly fee like PS Essential or Gamespass, what game could they have that would give them a shot of competing for subs when one has COD. It really is a bigger picture here than “Lols Xbox has COD and Elder Scrolls! Microsoft is the king!” It’s really a matter of how will this affect the business going forward competitively. Not just between Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo, but anyone else that dared to enter the console or subscription space.
"Anyone really think Hellblade 2 would be Xbox exclusive?" No, because Ninja Theory would have shut their doors. It's documented that Ninja Theory was close to shutting down their studio before the MS purchase. the whole development team had to do freelance work in order to complete work and fund Hellblade 1. Even after it's release they were still in danger of closing their doors, this is the same with Double Fine as well as a few other developers MS bought. So whether or not these devs had games in development for multiple systems is irrelevant. Not to mention the games a lot of these devs had ready or in development even after the purchase were still released on PS. MS honored each deal so it's funny to read Sony saying that MS would do some type of sneak move and prevent games from going to PS even after MS has willingly put their games on other platforms. "Not to mention how would anyone enter the market and fairly compete at this point?" We've already seen others enter the gaming space and mostly all have failed even with CoD available to them. It has been proven that there just isn't any space for a fourth console which is why anyone who does enter into gaming goes the streaming, Android, casual route. No one is entering the console market to compete with Sony, Nintendo and MS. MS is not locking anything behind GP and that is just another scare tactic excuse Sony is using. There isn't one game on GP that you can't buy physically or digitally and it would be suicide for MS to put CoD behind sub paywall.
How does Bleeding Edge align with this narrative?
"How does Bleeding Edge align with this narrative?" The game that was completed but was shelved until the buy out and then put on GP for chance to shine before Ninja Theory stopped supporting it. Aligns pretty well.
Yet Bleeding Edge didn't release on PS (I don't think anyone lost any sleep over that), and if the whole development team had to do freelance work in order to complete work and fund Hellblade 1, then how on earth did they fund Bleeding Edge, which didn't even have a publisher? 'Tucker pitched the game and at the time nothing came of it but she stated that around halfway for Hellblade, Ninja Theory approached her on the idea and development went into production.'. So they couldn't fund and complete Hellblade without 'the whole development team had to do freelance work', but decided to start work on Bleeding Edge halfway through? Doesn't sound very aligned to me, and MS kept it off non-MS platforms to boot.
Why would it be released on PS? It was Ninja Thery's decision to keep put it on Xbox the same way other developers release their games on PS only to no fuss and excuses. The game was small and worked on by a very small team on their spare time and did not interfere with the production of Hellblade. https://www.google.com/amp/... "On average, the team’s size has been about 15 people. At one point, there were 25 people working on Bleeding Edge, which is as large as the development team ever got." So no, it wasn't the whole team that was working on this and Hellblade. Oh and.. https://www.google.com/amp/... "We split our team of 100 people into several smaller teams which worked mostly on work-for-hire projects. These projects helped to fund our own original game, Hellblade: Senua’s Sacrifice." I know you thought you had that "gotcha" moment but you'll have to use Marco Rodriguez with better rymes next time
So a studio that was about to close its doors decided to put it on Xbox, as opposed to going multiplat? Why? Got any sources for that? So quoting GI Biz: 'We put a really small team together, started prototyping some ideas and experimenting to see whether the idea would actually work. And it did, so we made the game.'. Sure doesn't sound like these martyrs worked on it as some kind of spare time project. https://www.gamesindustry.b...
@Knushwood Butt "Why? Got any sources for that?" Why would I need a source for that? I never claimed that it needed to come out for all platforms, that was you. I see you've gone into grasping at straws mode. I've already sourced and backed up everything I said that you wrongly claimed, I think i did more than enough proving you wrong. "Sure doesn't sound like these martyrs worked on it as some kind of spare time project." Oh yeah, was this when you also thought the whole team worked on the project or was it after?
Death's original point, to which YOU replied to,was: NOW Microsoft is saying “ hey we aren’t like that” when history shows otherwise. I never claimed that it needed to come out for all platforms either, but common sense would suggest it was intended to be multiplat because however else was it going to be a viable proposition? Apparently though you have insider information to state that, 'It was Ninja Thery's decision to keep put it on Xbox '. Uh huh. 'Oh yeah, was this when you also thought the whole team worked on the project or was it after?'. I never thought, nor wrote that. I'll remind you that you wrote, 'The game was small and worked on by a very small team on their spare time.'. The spare time bit is total BS! But hey, feel good knowing MS bagged a studio that delivers games for free, using their personal time!
@butt Common sense eh... a company that was struggling to get their main game out the door, had to do freelance work to fund Hellblade, then when it came out, only released on PlayStation. But for Bleeding Edge, a game much smaller made by a much smaller team should have been multiplatform, after the MS purchase because it's common sense it would be a viable proposition. Naw, keep reaching for the stars you'll grab one some day.
I'm seeing a pattern here. 1) Try to glaze over all of the inaccuracy and false information you yourself have written 2) Try to achieve that by posting more information that misses out key points to try and mould it around your narrative 3) Throw in some sly remarks 'Common sense eh... a company that was struggling to get their main game out the door, had to do freelance work to fund Hellblade, then when it came out, only released on PlayStation.'. Hellblade was self-published, or didn't you know that? It was released worldwide for Windows and PlayStation 4 in August 2017, Xbox One in April 2018, Nintendo Switch in April 2019, and Xbox Series X and Series S in August 2021. 'But for Bleeding Edge, a game much smaller made by a much smaller team should have been multiplatform, after the MS purchase because it's common sense it would be a viable proposition.'. I never wrote 'after the MS purchase'. Do you have more insider information that Bleeding Edge was pitched and greenlit as an MS exclusive? I hope you're following the World Cup. If you're paying attention, you might notice that the goal posts don't move.
But Spider-Man exclusively on Playstation was great for "consumers"
Microsoft could have had it first. They turned Marvel down. They went to Sony after and a both Sony and Marvel funded it (this was before Insomniac was bought by Sony). Are Starfield, Redfall, and Elderscroll 6 being Xbox exclusives great for "consumers"?
Sure it is. Almost as good as raising game prices and paying for next gen upgrades.
Well they own the rights. And the Spiderman game was paid for by Sony so obviously it's going to be exclusive. Microsoft has had opportunities to work with star wars and marvel...nuff said.
The difference is Microsoft literally got offered any Marvel game first. MS turned it down. Sony said yes and chose Spider-Man. The market worked itself out. They didn't waltz in and start making offers for the sake of removing games off competing platforms.
Sony has the movie rights to Spiderman, why wouldnt it be exclusive if Marvel went to them after they got shut down by MS?
It sure was. Xbox could've had something like that if Xbox didn't turn Marvel down. Thank God PS didn't turn Marvel down. Don't blame PS for Xbox's stupidity.
Looks like Sony copy and pasted some of the ramblings on this site.
Looks like Microsoft's copy and pasting from Twatter.
It seems Sony understand fully the consequence both short and long term of recent and current purchase attempts. as I've said and they mention, a large portion of gamers simply love call of duty...restricting or having the ability to restrict it would force players to move towards an Xbox platform and away from Sony. This move would affect Sony in every single market...that's how big cod is...anyone not seeing that is blind to simple mathematics.
They are not there to save a Company they are for the consumers. Sony for sine reason thanks its the same. Hint its not
So what about the people who want to play games like FF7 on Xbox? And many other titles Sony paid to keep off Xbox? If it’s good for one it’s good for the other of course unless you’re a hypocrite…
Except its not...its not good for either and nobody claims its good when sony does it..only xbox fans seem to claim that stance on behalf of sony fans. Final Fantasy is not equally big in all markets.
It’s like watching a ex boyfriend (Sony) beg his ex girlfriend (Activision) not to leave him….
Not really since Sony was giving activision a butt load of money with their install base....its more like seeing jealous boy (MS) decide to ....well that would be inappropriate here but I think you get the point.
I love PlayStation but Sony is so full of shit on this. It all comes down to money. Sony doesn’t want to risk losing one cent to MS owning Call of Duty. They’ve bought off the exclusive content and advertising for years to secure PlayStations footing with the IP and have gotten used to the revenue that brings. Sony is the leader in console sales and COD will continue to be in PlayStation, but they will have to renegotiate their deals with MS instead of activision and they know MS won’t let them buy advantages anymore. This is all greed and dents the strategic content blocks that Sony has been using to gain advantages since the ps2. MS just wants the deal to scrape revenue from mobile and PlayStation users and to bolster gamepass. Nothing more, nothing less.
Sony has been making deals with third party devs/publishers to benefit their platforms since the PS1 days.
Just like MS did, there are many examples to give. But MS stopped making this deals. And now they are crying? They could have made deals just like Sony did, whose fault is that?
AmUnRa Where did you see me saying that MS didn't make deals with 3rd party publishers? Everyone knows that MS took a page from Sony's playbook and made them as well.
Just like they didn't buy Bethesda/Zenimax in order to keep games away from competitors, and then immediately did that when the deal finalized. Motive or not, it doesn't mean they don't provide good reasons that hurt the market as to why these IP's altogether will hurt the open market if the ability to restrict them exists. The reason to downplay what owning Activision means versus buying marketing rights is ridiculous. MS does this too. This is a huge reason 360 did so well. They put a stranglehold on third party exclusive content and marketing during 360 days and Sony came back strong against that. MS literally markets Lara Croft as an XBox character on stages just because they repeatedly pay for timed exclusivity. The whole topic is completely different from this purchase going through.
Tbh this drama is just getting spicy imo.
Couldn't Activision just decide they will no longer make COD for PlayStation? What would be the difference?
No they couldn't, because around 65% (if I remember correctly from recent news) of COD sales are generated from PlayStation alone. Activision are a game publisher, not a platform holder, so every platform they don't ship on is money lost as they don't have any other revenue streams from hardware etc like MS and Sony. It would be like a supermarket just not selling to 65% of the customers who walk in, it simply isn't going to happen.
They could work a deal to make COD and other Activision titles lifetime exclusives. What's the difference?
It would make 0 business sense to do that and it would never happen IRL. The difference is that it's a ridiculous scenario/question that's not grounded in reality.
@343_Guilty_Spark That's exactly what they are doing by acquiring them. Trying to do a temporary extension of CoD is just to appear nicer for when this goes to court. They also have tons of other number 1 franchises for several other genres that they would control. While they are third party, they have shareholders that have a say in big decisions like that, and they lose hundreds of millions per IP by not being on PlayStation. They aren't going to remove their best seller that has no issues being funded from its most profitable platform, which also keeps the brand recognition going. This acquisition will do nothing to grow the market.
2nd comment to add stuff I didn't edit in time. Activision has no incentive to not sell to someone for the reasons I said above, but the issue is that MS does have both the deep wallet to tank the initial loss of PS sales and the incentive to do so as a means to drive people to their xbox hardware to recoup that loss over time. That's where the "anti-competitive" part comes in, that would just be denying a product to a platform that they would have been and already are getting on their own hardware. There's no gain for them, only denial to others to drive people their way when they may not want to buy MS hardware to continue playing what they had before the acquisition.
Because why would they ever do that?
I understand this is a Pro-Playstation message board. Me personally Im neutral when it comes to the Console Wars. I own and play video games on the PlayStation 5, The Xbox Series X, Nintendo Switch and PC. Im 46 years old and have been playing video games since 1980. Now with that being said... Microsoft is set to purchase Activision/Blizzard for 70 Billion dollars. Also If you dont know they still have 50- to 60 Billion left in the banks that they still need to spend even after the Activision deal goes through. Lets say the Activision/Blizzard deal doesn't go through. Do you guys really want SONY going to "WAR" with a Trillion Dollar company like Microsoft that is mad, and have 130 Billion dollars to spend? Remember guys this is not Microsoft of last generation, this is a different Animal. I wouldnt poke that bear if I was certain companies. Again im not picking a side, Im just using common sense.
MS should go for the jugular once thins deal is done, what a horibble company Sony has become.
quite honestly, this list is fairly comprehensible. the point about MS changing the business model after acquisitions is very daunting and true. we've seen that happen.