Microsoft is trying to acquire Activision Blizzard (UPDATE: CMA says NO!).

[rafaqat]

17 hours ago, MidWalian said:

 

 

 

 

ELI5 - Microsoft wants PlayStation to give them internal info they think will be relevant to this case. Given the extent the FTC's arguments against the Activision deal hinge on impact on PlayStation, this was expected. Sony will try to limit what it has to share

 

[MidWalian]

Some on the internet misunderstand "Production and a discovery schedule". It's not about getting the release date for Spider-Man 2, just the legal discovery process and creating  documents etc.

[rafaqat]

Not sure if this will dig into such things but would be interesting to see if this sort of thing is true which kind of dents some of Sony's arguments.

 

https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/sony-is-requiring-some-developers-to-exclude-xbox-microsoft-says-4292226

 

Quote

As part of the response to the UK government’s probing of the Activision Blizzard deal, Microsoft says that while exclusivity partnerships aren’t uncommon, there are some arrangements that are harmful to developers and gamers.

“In addition to having outright exclusive content, Sony has also entered into arrangements with third-party publishers which require the ‘exclusion’ of Xbox from the set of platforms these publishers can distribute their games on.

“Some prominent examples of these agreements include Final Fantasy VII Remake (Square Enix), Bloodborne (From Software), the upcoming Final Fantasy XVI (Square Enix) and the recently announced Silent Hill 2 Remake [sic] (Bloober team).”

 

 

[JPL]

Silent Hill 2 is PlayStation exclusive? Fuckers!

[MidWalian]

1 hour ago, rafaqat said:

Not sure if this will dig into such things but would be interesting to see if this sort of thing is true which kind of dents some of Sony's arguments.

 

https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/sony-is-requiring-some-developers-to-exclude-xbox-microsoft-says-4292226

 

 

 

 

The Bloodborne example is odd because didn't Sony fund development and publish the title? I know Sony paid for FFVII Remake to be a  timed exclusive but I wouldn't be surprised if some of these companies (Hello Square Enix) may be holding out for the big game pass bung like DQXI.

[Stanley]

It’s no more harmful than, say, buying the company outright and making exclusive titles that way, Bethesda and Starfield for example. 
 

[rafaqat]

1 hour ago, Stanley said:

It’s no more harmful than, say, buying the company outright and making exclusive titles that way, Bethesda and Starfield for example. 
 

i think that’s what they’re aiming for, that this sort of thing exists in the industry already and is something the market leader already does so saying it restricts access for a certain subset of gamers is nothing new.  
 

 

[Stanley]

5 minutes ago, rafaqat said:

i think that’s what they’re aiming for, that this sort of thing exists in the industry already and is something the market leader already does so saying it restricts access for a certain subset of gamers is nothing new.  
 

 

It’s the harmful bit I don’t get. Tbh reading those statements it’s clear the people representing MS are trying it on, they are complaining that Silent Hill 2 is no longer a 12 month exclusive but now wholly PlayStation exclusive, but there’s no evidence of that, and Bloodborne is Sony IP anyway isn’t it? 

[Isaac]

20 minutes ago, Stanley said:

they are complaining that Silent Hill 2 is no longer a 12 month exclusive but now wholly PlayStation exclusive, but there’s no evidence of that

 

I imagine they know rather more than what's been said in the press, and doubt they are speculating.

[footle]

22 minutes ago, Stanley said:

It’s the harmful bit I don’t get. Tbh reading those statements it’s clear the people representing MS are trying it on, they are complaining that Silent Hill 2 is no longer a 12 month exclusive but now wholly PlayStation exclusive, but there’s no evidence of that, and Bloodborne is Sony IP anyway isn’t it? 

I doubt they put that in their response for shits and giggles.

[Stanley]

14 minutes ago, footle said:

I doubt they put that in their response for shits and giggles.

They’re lawyers. 

[David Kenny]

It's not a great argument though is it? Exclusivity arrangements are harmful when Sony does it, now please let us buy all these developers and publishers so we can implement our own exclusivity.

 

They should have argued that Sony's exclusivity hasn't impacted them at all, so MS having such arrangements is unlikely to impact Sony.

[RubberJohnny]

I think it's more "look at what others are doing", the sheer number of third-party exclusivity arrangements Sony have while being in a dominant position does seem like it's more of the 'abusing market power' thing that regulators are supposed to look at rather than an acquisition that while it has a big pricetag doesn't move Microsoft to any sort of dominant position.

 

I mean I think the gaming landscape is pretty competitive, and Sony can simply point to Nintendo as not being harmed by their arrangements, but also we know what they're doing when they lock up the #1 fighting game franchise and then the #2 one for good measure, and then do the same for JRPGs.

[Isaac]

58 minutes ago, David Kenny said:

It's not a great argument though is it? Exclusivity arrangements are harmful when Sony does it, now please let us buy all these developers and publishers so we can implement our own exclusivity.

 

They should have argued that Sony's exclusivity hasn't impacted them at all, so MS having such arrangements is unlikely to impact Sony.

 

The argument is that it's ridiculous for the regulator to stop it when Sony are already doing it and have been for years.

 

I think it's a fair argument to be honest, and I have no horse in this race (I'm a PC gamer).

[Stanley]

36 minutes ago, Isaac said:

 

The argument is that it's ridiculous for the regulator to stop it when Sony are already doing it and have been for years.

 

I think it's a fair argument to be honest, and I have no horse in this race (I'm a PC gamer).

The argument they’re putting forward is that it’s harmful, so I don’t really see how it helps their case. I mean they even use SH2 and Bloober Team, when they themselves had their last game, The Medium, exclusively on their platform. 

[Sarlaccfood]

Yeah agreed. I would have thought highlighting a model/approach that lends itself much more to tit-for-tat competition is an own goal. 
 

If I was a regulator worried about monopolies or that MS were gonna turn around and do a Palpatine and be all “oh….I’m afraid COD won’t be coming to other consoles” once the deal goes though, my reply to being shown those examples would be “yeah…can’t you just do that too then?”

[Gabe]

34 minutes ago, Stanley said:

The argument they’re putting forward is that it’s harmful, so I don’t really see how it helps their case. I mean they even use SH2 and Bloober Team, when they themselves had their last game, The Medium, exclusively on their platform. 

Eh? The Medium was released on PS5.

[layten]

50 minutes ago, Stanley said:

The Medium, exclusively on their platform. 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Koch-Distribution-199236-The-Medium/dp/B097Z8B8C9

[MidWalian]

44 minutes ago, Gabe said:

Eh? The Medium was released on PS5.

 

Yes, but about 6 months later and after many had reported it as an exclusive game.

[footle]

8 minutes ago, MidWalian said:

 

Yes, but about 6 months later and after many had reported it as an exclusive game.

that being different from “permanently blocked”. This isn’t hard to see the difference of, and something only the market leader could really add to their contracts.

[Mr. Gerbik]

1 minute ago, footle said:

that being different from “permanently blocked”. This isn’t hard to see the difference of, and something only the market leader could really add to their contracts.

Going by the last few posts above yours the difference between permanently contractually blocked and a timed exclusive is impossible to understand depending on your preferred platform

 

[El Spatula]

Basically both MS and Sony are cunts. A preference is simply silly. Nintendo are also cunts but are protected from being called so somehow.

[MidWalian]

2 minutes ago, footle said:

that being different from “permanently blocked”. This isn’t hard to see the difference of, and something only the market leader could really add to their contracts.

 

I agree. I was just pointing out that somebody can be mistaken why they thought The Medium remained an exclusive.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if Sony tried to block some third-party titles, but seeing Bloodborne as an example seems odd. Elsewhere in the document they mention Sackboy: A Big Adventure which I doubt many would expect to come to Xbox.

 

 

[MidWalian]

For people pretending everything has to be seen through "console war" goggles my machines for this generation are a Series S and a Nintendo Switch.

 

I just think these massive corporations smell a bit. 

 

 

[Mr. Gerbik]

I have to post this again 

[Uncle Mike]

It's not even a very accurate meme. One of our most PC-centric users is also one of the most invested in MS/Sony warz.

[layten]

55 minutes ago, Uncle Mike said:

It's not even a very accurate meme. One of our most PC-centric users is also one of the most invested in MS/Sony warz.

[layten]

It’s all just a bit of fun on the internet isn’t it? Well here at least, Twitter needs to burn. 

[Stanley]

If you’re arguing that exclusivity is harmful to the player and developer, then it’s harmful timed or otherwise in that respect. I just find it bizarre they’d ignore games such as Redfall and Starfield which would otherwise have been simultaneously released on PlayStation, but now are not because you’ve made them exclusive on your platform. 

[Mr. Gerbik]

16 minutes ago, Stanley said:

If you’re arguing that exclusivity is harmful to the player and developer, then it’s harmful timed or otherwise in that respect. I just find it bizarre they’d ignore games such as Redfall and Starfield which would otherwise have been simultaneously released on PlayStation, but now are not because you’ve made them exclusive on your platform. 

This is a very weird take. Surely timed exclusivity means a third party developer can enjoy the financial and marketing benefits of being exclusive, while also not excluding ither platforms because the game will appear there also eventually? I own all platforms because I have more money than I have time and common sense, but I'm happy to wait until a third party game appears on the platform with my personality preferred controller. Which is way better than said game being locked down due to contractual obligations and never ever appearing - surely?

 

At the very least you have to admit it's the lesser of two evils.

 

Personally, I'm fine with first party games being exclusive because of course they are. I'm also fine with a developer sticking to a single platform *if they want to*. But it's a bad look when a developer presumably wouldn't mind releasing on multiple platforms but aren't allowed to.