Sony says it believes Xbox owning Call of Duty ‘could influence users’ console choice’ | VGC
Regulatory docs reveal the PlayStation firm’s thoughts on the Activision Blizzard acquisition…
www.videogameschronicle.com
Sony says it believes Xbox owning Call of Duty ‘could influence users’ console choice’
- Thread starter Grisham
- Start date
- Watchers 14
- News PlayStation Xbox
Thread: Sony says it believes Xbox owning Call of Duty ‘could influence users’ console choice’
www.videogameschronicle.com
It is absolutely mind-boggling that the major rival and most direct competitor of Microsoft is being consulted with regards to Microsoft acquiring another company.
I remember that Strossel episode where he discussed the laughable case where existing state Truck companies had to beforehand acquiesce to a new competitor coming into the market. That example seems to have been applied to the Gaming sector.
Do the words Free Market mean anything to these people?
I remember that Strossel episode where he discussed the laughable case where existing state Truck companies had to beforehand acquiesce to a new competitor coming into the market. That example seems to have been applied to the Gaming sector.
Do the words Free Market mean anything to these people?
Barnabot
Member
- Platforms
it's a common thing all these major companies, after all the struggle reaching to the top, to give hell to the competitors by making ass pulled regulations in the near future. imo it's a matter of time sony asking for papa government's help because "woe me only i should be able to play with this toy" .
Last edited:
They obviously wrote this text to make Brazil's regulatory body question the acquisition, so they went all out. It's normal.
What I'm interested in is: Is there even a possibility of anything happening? What could Brazils government do?
What I'm interested in is: Is there even a possibility of anything happening? What could Brazils government do?
lock2k
Due a Whippin
Won't it still be multiplat like Minecraft? Wtf are they worried about?
Absolutely nothing. Brazil's government can't even make it a proper country.
The sale is going through. Everyone just needs to accept it. There is nothing about it that makes it anti competitive. MS is not the market leader, so at most this would help them come to parity with Sony. COD may be very popular, but there are many other successful 1st/3rd online shooters out there.
Now if 5-10 years from now MS is owning the market, then they will start stepping in and stop acquisitions and depending on how successful look into breaking them up. But we are a long way from that.
Now if 5-10 years from now MS is owning the market, then they will start stepping in and stop acquisitions and depending on how successful look into breaking them up. But we are a long way from that.
And now MS is saying no one needs those games:
Microsoft defends its acquisition of Activision Blizzard by claiming none of the studio's games are 'must have' experiences in the gaming industry.
Microsoft defends its acquisition of Activision Blizzard by claiming none of the studio's games are 'must have' experiences in the gaming industry.
What, exactly, is a "must have" game?
Gee, I better play Tetris or my life will be in serious danger.
I wish there was an equivalent in legal parlance for "We want to buy. They want to sell. Fuck off":
lock2k
Due a Whippin
Hostile_18
Face/Off
- Platforms
Sounds like there just playing Devils Advocate for the regulators. Sure Sony owning Destiny will influence consoles gamers choice as well.
zebraStraw
Member
- Platforms
It sucks, but it is the biggest game on PS. It will be really interesting to see how this all plays out. If MS makes it exclusive, things will get interesting quick.
lock2k
Due a Whippin
Sure, it's true, but I heard it won't be exclusive anytime soon. Sony is right that hardcore fans would change platforms to play it.
zebraStraw
Member
- Platforms
Which is why I wish they would. The meltdown would be hilarious.
- Platforms
Right, and I'm sure that had nothing at all to do with the decision to re-up the 'timed exclusivity' contract for FF7:R.
Bolivar
Member
- Platforms
It's fair to have the competitors play devil's advocate, as they're the ones who have standing to make unfair competition claims (not the consumers).
I do think there's a generational shift coming before long, as CoD is almost never anywhere near the top of the most streamed games on Twitch, and Warzone struggles to stay in the top 10. But Activision has done a good job planning the series so they don't fall into some of the same pitfalls they did in the transition to the PS4 and Xbox One. We're back to the best selling game of the year being the most recently released CoD, and the second best selling game as last year's CoD.
So I do think it has seismic potential for Microsoft, but that's always going to be lessened in an age when most of these games come to PC anyway as a back door for console warriors to get in on the other team's library. But it also raises the Bethesda paradox - Activision just isn't as valuable if they are not releasing games on PlayStation. All entertainment is consolidating, but I do believe part of the impetus behind these purchases is because of how bad Microsoft messed up on their first party rotation in the past. It would be ironic if the solution to that problem includes Microsoft continuing to make suboptimal financial decisions.
I do think there's a generational shift coming before long, as CoD is almost never anywhere near the top of the most streamed games on Twitch, and Warzone struggles to stay in the top 10. But Activision has done a good job planning the series so they don't fall into some of the same pitfalls they did in the transition to the PS4 and Xbox One. We're back to the best selling game of the year being the most recently released CoD, and the second best selling game as last year's CoD.
So I do think it has seismic potential for Microsoft, but that's always going to be lessened in an age when most of these games come to PC anyway as a back door for console warriors to get in on the other team's library. But it also raises the Bethesda paradox - Activision just isn't as valuable if they are not releasing games on PlayStation. All entertainment is consolidating, but I do believe part of the impetus behind these purchases is because of how bad Microsoft messed up on their first party rotation in the past. It would be ironic if the solution to that problem includes Microsoft continuing to make suboptimal financial decisions.
lock2k
Due a Whippin
I know there are a lot of PS consoles in the wild and that's money on the table if they stopped releasing the games on them but at the same time it's idiotic on their part to not turn it into a killer exclusive.
Yeah lol
- Platforms
- Platforms
lol maybe the shareholders should ask why they're spending $70B on it then
teezzy
Let me have my wanks
- Platforms
Well... no shit?
Isn't influencing users' console choice the entire point of the purchase?
Isn't influencing users' console choice the entire point of the purchase?
Microsoft refutes Sony’s claims that its Activision acquisition is anti-competitive
The claims are “simply unjustifiable under any quantitative or qualitative analysis”, the Xbox company says…
www.videogameschronicle.com
Now, according to ResetEra member Idas, Microsoft has replied to CADE with a lengthy response dismissing Sony's claims.
As Idas reports, Microsoft stated: "Not surprisingly, Sony was the only third party to convey public opinion materially different from MS/ABK and the third parties regarding the competitive analysis of the transaction."
Microsoft claimed that Sony doesn't want to see Call of Duty games on Game Pass on day one, because it "is not resigned to having to compete with Microsoft's subscription service".
"Sony's public outcry on subscription games and the company's response are clear: Sony doesn't want attractive subscription services to threaten its dominance in the market for digital distribution of console games," it claims.
"In other words, Sony rails against the introduction of new monetization models capable of challenging its business model."
Microsoft also shoots down Sony's claim that Call of Duty is a "category of games in itself", stating: "The PlayStation itself has a foundation established by players loyal to the brand.
"This finding, however, does not lead to the conclusion that the PlayStation – or any branded product with loyal consumers – is a separate market from all other consoles.
"Extrapolating from such a finding, the extreme conclusion that Call of Duty is a 'game category in itself' is simply unjustifiable under any quantitative or qualitative analysis."
It also lists five reasons arguing against Sony's claim that the addition of Activision Blizzard games to Game Pass would lead to an unattainable lead in subscription services for Microsoft. According to Microsoft, this claim is wrong because:
- it's not part of Microsoft's strategy to remove content from players, and COD will still be on PlayStation as a paid title
- data shows that players see subscription services as only one way to pay for games
- Sony's claim ignores the "dynamic nature" of subscription services, and the fact that Sony has its own too
- (redacted information)
- there are numerous other game distribution channels and subscription services, many of which include content that isn't available on Xbox
It also claims that Sony actively tries to hamper Game Pass's growth by paying some developers for "blocking rights" to prevent them adding content to Game Pass.
Finally, Microsoft claims that not having Call of Duty games on PlayStation wouldn't make business sense, because it would only be profitable if enough people jumped over to Xbox to make up for the money lost from not selling PlayStation copies.
Concern
Member
- Platforms
Microsoft refutes Sony’s claims that its Activision acquisition is anti-competitive
The claims are “simply unjustifiable under any quantitative or qualitative analysis”, the Xbox company says…
Now, according to ResetEra member Idas, Microsoft has replied to CADE with a lengthy response dismissing Sony's claims.
As Idas reports, Microsoft stated: "Not surprisingly, Sony was the only third party to convey public opinion materially different from MS/ABK and the third parties regarding the competitive analysis of the transaction."
Microsoft claimed that Sony doesn't want to see Call of Duty games on Game Pass on day one, because it "is not resigned to having to compete with Microsoft's subscription service".
"Sony's public outcry on subscription games and the company's response are clear: Sony doesn't want attractive subscription services to threaten its dominance in the market for digital distribution of console games," it claims.
"In other words, Sony rails against the introduction of new monetization models capable of challenging its business model."
Microsoft also shoots down Sony's claim that Call of Duty is a "category of games in itself", stating: "The PlayStation itself has a foundation established by players loyal to the brand.
"This finding, however, does not lead to the conclusion that the PlayStation – or any branded product with loyal consumers – is a separate market from all other consoles.
"Extrapolating from such a finding, the extreme conclusion that Call of Duty is a 'game category in itself' is simply unjustifiable under any quantitative or qualitative analysis."
It also lists five reasons arguing against Sony's claim that the addition of Activision Blizzard games to Game Pass would lead to an unattainable lead in subscription services for Microsoft. According to Microsoft, this claim is wrong because:
Microsoft also claims that arranging exclusivity deals has been at the heart of Sony's strategy to strengthen its position in the games industry, and that as well as having its own first-party exclusives it also has exclusivity deals with third-party publishers.
- it's not part of Microsoft's strategy to remove content from players, and COD will still be on PlayStation as a paid title
- data shows that players see subscription services as only one way to pay for games
- Sony's claim ignores the "dynamic nature" of subscription services, and the fact that Sony has its own too
- (redacted information)
- there are numerous other game distribution channels and subscription services, many of which include content that isn't available on Xbox
It also claims that Sony actively tries to hamper Game Pass's growth by paying some developers for "blocking rights" to prevent them adding content to Game Pass.
Finally, Microsoft claims that not having Call of Duty games on PlayStation wouldn't make business sense, because it would only be profitable if enough people jumped over to Xbox to make up for the money lost from not selling PlayStation copies.
Exactly what this feels like. They're both guilty of the same shit. Not a fan of all these acquisitions but I definitely look forward to the meltdowns every time news like this comes out. Always manage to have a good laugh at those on gaf.
Clever words with a dash of revenge.
Sony are saying that the deal shouldn't go through because CoD is too big of a game to have exclusivity on (it won't be exclusive), which is implying that Microsoft will monopolise that genre of gaming.
With Microsoft under investigation again for becoming a monopoly, the last thing they need is their biggest rival accusing them of becoming on a monopoly.
Sony are saying that the deal shouldn't go through because CoD is too big of a game to have exclusivity on (it won't be exclusive), which is implying that Microsoft will monopolise that genre of gaming.
With Microsoft under investigation again for becoming a monopoly, the last thing they need is their biggest rival accusing them of becoming on a monopoly.
Nikana
I'm A Power Ranger 'Til The End
I hate siding with corporations but Sony is bringing up a lot of nonsense here. If this is all they have the purchase will pass with zero issues.Microsoft refutes Sony’s claims that its Activision acquisition is anti-competitive
The claims are “simply unjustifiable under any quantitative or qualitative analysis”, the Xbox company says…
Now, according to ResetEra member Idas, Microsoft has replied to CADE with a lengthy response dismissing Sony's claims.
As Idas reports, Microsoft stated: "Not surprisingly, Sony was the only third party to convey public opinion materially different from MS/ABK and the third parties regarding the competitive analysis of the transaction."
Microsoft claimed that Sony doesn't want to see Call of Duty games on Game Pass on day one, because it "is not resigned to having to compete with Microsoft's subscription service".
"Sony's public outcry on subscription games and the company's response are clear: Sony doesn't want attractive subscription services to threaten its dominance in the market for digital distribution of console games," it claims.
"In other words, Sony rails against the introduction of new monetization models capable of challenging its business model."
Microsoft also shoots down Sony's claim that Call of Duty is a "category of games in itself", stating: "The PlayStation itself has a foundation established by players loyal to the brand.
"This finding, however, does not lead to the conclusion that the PlayStation – or any branded product with loyal consumers – is a separate market from all other consoles.
"Extrapolating from such a finding, the extreme conclusion that Call of Duty is a 'game category in itself' is simply unjustifiable under any quantitative or qualitative analysis."
It also lists five reasons arguing against Sony's claim that the addition of Activision Blizzard games to Game Pass would lead to an unattainable lead in subscription services for Microsoft. According to Microsoft, this claim is wrong because:
Microsoft also claims that arranging exclusivity deals has been at the heart of Sony's strategy to strengthen its position in the games industry, and that as well as having its own first-party exclusives it also has exclusivity deals with third-party publishers.
- it's not part of Microsoft's strategy to remove content from players, and COD will still be on PlayStation as a paid title
- data shows that players see subscription services as only one way to pay for games
- Sony's claim ignores the "dynamic nature" of subscription services, and the fact that Sony has its own too
- (redacted information)
- there are numerous other game distribution channels and subscription services, many of which include content that isn't available on Xbox
It also claims that Sony actively tries to hamper Game Pass's growth by paying some developers for "blocking rights" to prevent them adding content to Game Pass.
Finally, Microsoft claims that not having Call of Duty games on PlayStation wouldn't make business sense, because it would only be profitable if enough people jumped over to Xbox to make up for the money lost from not selling PlayStation copies.