I guess access to Call of Duty was the largest limiting factor? It certainly is an industry powerhouse, but it's weird that "open call of duty access" is enough to override any trust criticism of...
Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision has been described as the largest in tech history. It deserves scrutiny. That scrutiny has paid off: Microsoft has committed in writing, in public, and in court to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation for 10 years on parity with Xbox. It made an agreement with Nintendo to bring Call of Duty to Switch. And it entered several agreements to for the first time bring Activision’s content to several cloud gaming services. This Court’s responsibility in this case is narrow. It is to decide if, notwithstanding these current circumstances, the merger should be halted—perhaps even terminated—pending resolution of the FTC administrative action. For the reasons explained, the Court finds the FTC has not shown a likelihood it will prevail on its claim this particular vertical merger in this specific industry may substantially lessen competition. To the contrary, the record evidence points to more consumer access to Call of Duty and other Activision content. The motion for a preliminary injunction is therefore DENIED.
I guess access to Call of Duty was the largest limiting factor? It certainly is an industry powerhouse, but it's weird that "open call of duty access" is enough to override any trust criticism of the largest tech business merger in history.
It certainly seems like it. Absolutely mind-blowing that Microsoft scraped past antitrust laws in the 90s, and here they are again, and even wilder that Call of Duty was such a big factor in the...
It certainly seems like it. Absolutely mind-blowing that Microsoft scraped past antitrust laws in the 90s, and here they are again, and even wilder that Call of Duty was such a big factor in the decision. What is it, about 30% of PS5 owners only play COD?
Less than 30%, but that's if you are being super strict. Sony released numbers about it that basically said there are 1 million PS5 owners who literally only play Call of Duty, nothing else. As in...
Less than 30%, but that's if you are being super strict. Sony released numbers about it that basically said there are 1 million PS5 owners who literally only play Call of Duty, nothing else. As in never played any other games at all. IIRC they said that there were like 6 million PS5 owners who spent 70%+ of their time playing COD and that might have been a while back. Currently they've sold about 38 million units worldwide but when they gathered these numbers they'd sold a lot less (about half of those were sold in the last year).
Yeah this seems... blatant? "We, Microsoft, promise in this specific case to be more open for an arbitrary but limited timeframe in a way the court will find favorable; so that we will have total...
Yeah this seems... blatant?
"We, Microsoft, promise in this specific case to be more open for an arbitrary but limited timeframe in a way the court will find favorable; so that we will have total control over whether we will be open in the future."
To be fair, there hasn't really been a serious console competitor in 20 years. It's effectively locked up between those 3 consoles and then the PC and Mobile market. Unless they leverage those...
To be fair, there hasn't really been a serious console competitor in 20 years. It's effectively locked up between those 3 consoles and then the PC and Mobile market. Unless they leverage those latter 2 platforms, I see it as very hard to ever compete in the ways Sony and Nintendo did in the 90's.
In all honesty, as someone who owns 2/3 current consoles, I feel like consoles are going to go the way of the dodo before long. They'll probably exist in a space like the Xbox does currently --...
In all honesty, as someone who owns 2/3 current consoles, I feel like consoles are going to go the way of the dodo before long. They'll probably exist in a space like the Xbox does currently -- where the Xbox is an OPTION for how to play, but isn't strictly necessary.
The Switch has been immensely popular and I only see that continuing. It's hard to understate how popular it is and how much better it's doing compared to even PS. The Switch is now 6 years old and still selling strong, packed with what is essentially smartphone hardware that wasn't even cutting edge at the time it released. And yet despite releasing 4 years after the others it's the best-selling console of the last generation, it's still selling now and probably will continue to do so for a while... and most importantly, it's still selling at full price. That last bit is really important. As of March 2023 the Switch had sold 125 million units, without a price drop. The PS2 reached the numbers it did because of price drops, without them it never would have got even close to its high sales numbers. By the time it had sold what the Switch has, it was selling a slim hardware revision at $99-129 USD.
The reason I mention all that is -- I think hybrid consoles, and more options, are the future. I can play my Switch on the TV or handheld. I can play Game Pass games through my Xbox, my PC, my phone, or almost any other non-Sony-or-Nintendo device.
I don't think it's possible for a serious console competitor to come in in 2023 because consoles are on the way out. I agree that a company would have to leverage the PC or mobile market somehow -- that's what Valve has done with the Steam Deck. But even that has seen limited success, although I think it seems to be a success (Valve is talking about improving the hardware, so it seems they aren't going to abandon it like they have other projects, which says to me that it's doing what they want it to do). But even the Steam Deck seems to be selling at a loss in order to get people more invested in their ecosystem... and even then, it's hard to say how many units have sold, but numbers from 6 months ago were saying like 1-1.5 million which is not comparable at all to the three consoles.
From what I know, the base model of the steam deck most likely sells at a loss, but the most popular that people bought was the highest tier one, which most likely doesn't. Even if it was, I'm...
But even the Steam Deck seems to be selling at a loss in order to get people more invested in their ecosystem... and even then, it's hard to say how many units have sold, but numbers from 6 months ago were saying like 1-1.5 million which is not comparable at all to the three consoles.
From what I know, the base model of the steam deck most likely sells at a loss, but the most popular that people bought was the highest tier one, which most likely doesn't. Even if it was, I'm sure the cut they got from the Steam Store more than made up from the loss of the highest priced console.
Switch hasn't received a price drop the whole time as it has always been the cheapest option. Xbox One started at $500, then got a revision down to $300-$350. Playstation 4 was $400. Xbox Series S...
Switch hasn't received a price drop the whole time as it has always been the cheapest option. Xbox One started at $500, then got a revision down to $300-$350. Playstation 4 was $400. Xbox Series S is $300 but is clearly 'the bad one' so it's really just the Series X and PS5 and both are $500.
They definitely got much cheaper than that. I bought a PS4 Slim with Spider-Man for $270 CAD. Not the dirt cheap prices of the previous generations, but still.
They definitely got much cheaper than that. I bought a PS4 Slim with Spider-Man for $270 CAD. Not the dirt cheap prices of the previous generations, but still.
I don't see how its remotely reasonable for a multi-billion dollar company to be permitted to expand vertical integration while simultaniously being under investigation for antitrust. "Sure keep...
I don't see how its remotely reasonable for a multi-billion dollar company to be permitted to expand vertical integration while simultaniously being under investigation for antitrust.
"Sure keep serving customers while you're on trial for poisoning your customers."
They're different markets. Antitrust is about a dominant position in a market, whereas this is Microsoft bolstering themselves in a different market where they are a distant 3rd place (4th, if you...
They're different markets. Antitrust is about a dominant position in a market, whereas this is Microsoft bolstering themselves in a different market where they are a distant 3rd place (4th, if you count PC).
I disagree. When every major tech company is pushing for tighter and tighter control over their ecosystems and users, its all deeply intertwined. Pushing ActiBlizz titles to Xbox Cloud Streaming...
I disagree. When every major tech company is pushing for tighter and tighter control over their ecosystems and users, its all deeply intertwined.
Pushing ActiBlizz titles to Xbox Cloud Streaming gives an undue advantage to Xbox, Windows, and Edge. Pushing Teams to Office users "for free" pushes Slack out of the market and insures further dominance of Office. Office dominance perptuates Windows OS dominance, which pushes Edge as hard as it can, and so forth.
Letting Microsoft buy Actiblizz is basically the FTC saying "Having 3 competitors in the console space is fine, further making it difficult for new players to enter is also fine."
And while Xbox doesn't have the international grip that PS/Nintendo do, they are absolutely leading in console sales in the USA, where the most consideration should have been given, considering its a US court.
Its also no secret that I think all mergers and aquisitions should be banned for any company larger than a few hundred million. Grow organically or die. There will never be meaningful antitrust if we allow the largest companies to gobble up anyone and everyone merely because they're not the largest company. A triopoly isn't significantly better than a monopoly.
Microsoft should have been banned from all aquisitions circa 1997.
That's the problem. We have a system where constant growth is the measure of success. You can have the most profitable business in the world in terms of both absolute profit and margins, but if...
Grow organically or die.
That's the problem. We have a system where constant growth is the measure of success. You can have the most profitable business in the world in terms of both absolute profit and margins, but if you aren't more profitable than you were last quarter you're less valuable to investors than a company that's actively losing money but is doing better than last year.
As long a shareholders can jump ship at any time, simply having a good business model and making gobs of money isn't enough.
Microsoft is losing this console generation even in the US: PS5 vs Xbox Series X|S Sales Comparison in the US - January 2023 - Sales. I still think they shouldn't be allowed to leverage their...
And while Xbox doesn't have the international grip that PS/Nintendo do, they are absolutely leading in console sales in the USA, where the most consideration should have been given, considering its a US court.
I still think they shouldn't be allowed to leverage their dominant / near-monopoly positions in several market segments to brute force their way into others.
Sure, but few would say that Meta is a competitor against Amazon. Even if they are employing the same tricks on their platforms to enforce control. Comparing Microsoft/Xbox here is an even more...
When every major tech company is pushing for tighter and tighter control over their ecosystems and users, its all deeply intertwined.
Sure, but few would say that Meta is a competitor against Amazon. Even if they are employing the same tricks on their platforms to enforce control. Comparing Microsoft/Xbox here is an even more distant argument. "Tech" by this point is as wide reaching a word as "Economy". It does little to describe a large company as a monopoly on Tech as a whole, at least the western companies.
Letting Microsoft buy Actiblizz is basically the FTC saying "Having 3 competitors in the console space is fine, further making it difficult for new players to enter is also fine."
Sure. But I think the killing blow wasn't any console. It was mobile platforms. Phones even pushed Nintendo to become a hybrid over a handheld/console split of market. It'll be nearly impossible to compete in that space without leveraging Android or IOS in one way or another (and of course, IOS is closed off). That's a problem much bigger than Microsoft, ironically enough the last major attempt to break into that mobile environment.
Its also no secret that I think all mergers and aquisitions should be banned for any company larger than a few hundred million. Grow organically or die.
TBH I simply see this as kicking the can down the road. There would simply be a new way to Embrace/Extend/Extinguish if aquisitions are banned. Make new company, headhunt old talent with deals that are hard to refuse, let them bring more of their talent with them. It feels "organic" but it's having the same effect as simply buying the company themselves.
Maybe. But you can't headhunt your way to IP and trademarks, which is one of the main drivers. Personally I'd make any anti-merger law incorporate releasing all IP of dead companies as copyleft to...
Maybe. But you can't headhunt your way to IP and trademarks, which is one of the main drivers. Personally I'd make any anti-merger law incorporate releasing all IP of dead companies as copyleft to specifically 'taint' it. The name Minecraft and associated copyrights meant a lot more to Microsoft than the actual software.
Lets envision an alternate history for a moment. Microsoft couldn't buy out Bungie, Halo instead gets made for the Mac as originally planned and the Xbox dies out of the gate due to lack of launch titles. Maybe Sega manages to recover after Dreamcast without Microsoft pushing its way in.
Without being able to purchase their way into new segments, entering each new segment and having to build IP from scratch is riskier. There is more room for small businesses to compete. Having more competitors means that its harder for any one competitor to grow too large. They don't have to pitch why their offering as a small startup is better than the small startup that Microsoft attached their name to.
Somewhat seperately, I also don't think we should encourage companies to have broad horizontal or vertical bases. Yea, Meta and Amazon hardly directly compete. Neither one should be able to buy their way into a new market.
Software wise, sure. But the big problem is that the barrier to mass produce the hardware needed is immense. Software without that hardware backbone simply ceases to be. I'm not 100% sure we'd be...
Without being able to purchase their way into new segments, entering each new segment and having to build IP from scratch is riskier. There is more room for small businesses to compete.
Software wise, sure. But the big problem is that the barrier to mass produce the hardware needed is immense. Software without that hardware backbone simply ceases to be.
I'm not 100% sure we'd be better off in this alternate timeline. In an utopic sense, this may push the big companies to invest in new IPs. In the pessimistic sense, they decide to aquire and simply outcompete or outmarket on the now "free" IP. Opening up a game like Minecraft as an IP doesn't mean as much if MS still owns the servers where everyone is.
Or in an even more pessimistic sense, they don't bother and simply strongarm the software front even more, the 90's MS style.
A big part of this purchase will be an attempt to pressure Sony to put Game Pass on PlayStation in some form. Microsoft has been offering it for years now. This is why they say they don't care...
A big part of this purchase will be an attempt to pressure Sony to put Game Pass on PlayStation in some form. Microsoft has been offering it for years now. This is why they say they don't care about exclusives -- they just want to sell their games on platforms they own (XBOX, and through different options on PC but mostly their store), and push them to other platforms via Game Pass, and eventually everything via cloud streaming.
Call of Duty alone generates something like $1 billion/year in revenue for Sony, just from the cut they take of sales. Even if MS keeps the game multi-platform, it will be less attractive to many people to buy the new COD for $70 USD when you could play it through Game Pass elsewhere, especially as XBOX/PC became the main platform for the game. Even if COD stays on PS, it will take a hit in sales, there is no doubt about that.
As of now, regulators in the UK are still blocking this acquisition from going ahead so it's not over for Microsoft just yet. That is my understanding anyway. I have read that the legal challenge...
As of now, regulators in the UK are still blocking this acquisition from going ahead so it's not over for Microsoft just yet. That is my understanding anyway. I have read that the legal challenge is currently on pause for negotiations though, but I don't fully understand the implications of that.
MS will push ahead with the deal and do whatever they need to in order to deal with the UK market, even if that means pulling products from the UK market. The UK isn't big enough to kill this deal...
MS will push ahead with the deal and do whatever they need to in order to deal with the UK market, even if that means pulling products from the UK market. The UK isn't big enough to kill this deal on its own and there's also political pressure from the govt on the CMA to work with MS or reverse their decision.
The UK is MS' second biggest market. Not in terms of Xbox, in terms of MS services. I don't want to predict where this is going, but MS completely ceding the British market to a competitor would...
The UK is MS' second biggest market. Not in terms of Xbox, in terms of MS services. I don't want to predict where this is going, but MS completely ceding the British market to a competitor would be a significant decision.
The UK is their second-biggest market for revenue, but their profits in the UK are pretty meager in part due to higher expenses and taxes relative to other areas. IIRC MS made something like $220...
The UK is their second-biggest market for revenue, but their profits in the UK are pretty meager in part due to higher expenses and taxes relative to other areas. IIRC MS made something like $220 million profit in the UK in FY2021, and ATVI globally made profits of $1.5 billion.
Obviously, there's a lot more profit to be had in bringing ATVI into the fold than catering to the UK. This is also assuming that the only option for MS would be to completely pull out of the UK market with all their products, which would never happen - the UK would scramble to prevent that from happening. What's likely to happen is that there will be limitations on how ATVI games are sold/accessed in the UK (up to and including pulling them from sale completely), ATVI in the UK could be spun off as a separate company in some way, or the CMA will roll over.
Personally I think the last is most likely, like I said there is a lot of political pressure here because the CMA made a poor decision based on bunk information, but because of the way they are set up as a regulator, there is pretty much no accountability. The only way in which the govt can respond to that it seems is by reforming the regulator, which they've already indicated they are going to do in the wake of this decision (although some other past ones led up to this as well). Now the CMA not only made a bad decision, but they stand alone in that decision, putting them at odds with pretty much everyone else but most notably the EU who approved the acquisition. That means the UK is primed to lose business and jobs w/ Microsoft to the EU - the regulator can make whatever decision they want, but those decisions aren't without consequences and the UK govt seems pissed about that (mind you, I'm not the biggest fan of the UK govt, and it's unfortunate that this will probably lead to them stripping the regulator of powers, but at the same time the regulator royally beefed it on this one).
Do you have any references to the British government committing to reforming the CMA in the wake of this decision, in time for it to make a difference? I see no proposed legislation so far. Sunak...
Do you have any references to the British government committing to reforming the CMA in the wake of this decision, in time for it to make a difference? I see no proposed legislation so far. Sunak barely has enough authority to keep his cabinet stable, and is a dead man walking. I'd be very surprised if he had the political capital to spend on this without facing down backbencher rebellions.
You're describing a pretty dystopic future. An American megacorporation doesn't like a decision a foreign regulator has made regarding its monpolitic power, so it uses the monopolistic power on the government of that nation to remove the independence of the regulator. Am I summarising the potential sequence of events here correctly? If Britain can't regulate without the American smashing its system, then nobody is safe. In this case, MS is too powerful and should be broken up.
I wasn't saying that they'd make any changes in time for this to have an effect on the MS situation. Moreso for the future. But that kind of pressure tends to result in more immediate changes too...
I wasn't saying that they'd make any changes in time for this to have an effect on the MS situation. Moreso for the future. But that kind of pressure tends to result in more immediate changes too to try and avoid it in an independent agency.
Sunak is on precarious ground but the CMA is not popular with anyone. This isn't the first decision they've been criticized over but the amount of attention this one has received has made it clear they didn't do their research properly and didn't understand what they are regulating. So I don't think he'll be met with a lot of resistance from other parties on this and he has indicated a desire to reform the regulator.
You're describing a pretty dystopic future. An American megacorporation doesn't like a decision a foreign regulator has made regarding its monpolitic power
Part of the issue here is that the grounds on which the CMA blocked the deal are in an arena which is a) very small and b) Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly at all. They're making assumptions about how cloud gaming will grow and that it will become very popular in the UK when none of the trends are indicating that will happen. Prior to that they were trying to block it on the basis of market share re: Call of Duty and couldn't get their shit together to make any kind of cohesive argument, and it fell apart, but they wanted to block the deal and flex the UK's regulatory muscles post Brexit and used cloud gaming as justification.
The most important bit here - the threat to reform the regulator is NOT just about MS. It's about several decisions before this as well including a proposed merger of large grocery chains in the UK, which was blocked. The problem is that was meant to protect UK consumers and in the end it got a worse result, because the smaller of the two (Asda) was instead purchased by billionaires and their venture capital firm... and has since been widely criticized for a steep decline in quality since. Blocking the sale to a larger competitor just meant that another buyer could snap it up for a lower price, because Asda was going to be sold either way.
I'm not a lawyer, so I can't speak to the specific arguments. But portraying the CMA was being wildly out of step with everyone else just not true. The EU and UK agreed on the vast majority of...
I'm not a lawyer, so I can't speak to the specific arguments. But portraying the CMA was being wildly out of step with everyone else just not true. The EU and UK agreed on the vast majority of their findings. The only difference was that the EU trusted MS' proposed remedies while the CMA did not. They agreed on the substance. Similarly, the FTC felt it had a strong enough case to pursue this. In the US, antitrust law has been destroyed, so it's not surprising they lost, but all three regulators agreed that this was concerning. The CMA went the farthest, but it's not particularly unique.
I can speak with a little more certainty on the politics though; Sunak doesn't have time for this. The Tories aren't mentally prepped for a reform around this. Labour and the Lib Dems will use it against him. There's no way it passes the Lords, and Sunak doesn't have the time to work around that. Sunak will make vague promises, some Tories will grumble, but the Tories have a thousand other things they'd rather be talking about.
Now all of this goes out the window if MS pulls out of the UK. But I don't actually think any of us can make predictions as to what happens then. It'd be a pretty extreme move by MS, but the UK can counter with their own extreme actions as well. MS' reputation would be shattered. I personally would have a very powerful tool to stop my organisation from going all in in MS; they can't be trusted.
I think that it's more likely to be the other way around. It's very difficult for the UK government to pass legislation that will compel the CMA to do anything because such legislation is likely...
I think that it's more likely to be the other way around. It's very difficult for the UK government to pass legislation that will compel the CMA to do anything because such legislation is likely to be blocked by the house of lords. The UK government can use the parliament act to force through legislation but they cannot do so within the same session that the legislation was blocked. The earliest they could start the process of overriding lords would be the next session. Sessions normally last one year although they could technically break convention and open a new session before then it would require enormous political capital which our current prime minister does not have. So the earliest that the British government could start the process of overriding lords would be next spring.
So, on that basis, there's an enormous pressure on Microsoft to make concessions to the CMA and concede whatever is necessary to get their approval. I suspect that they'll come to an agreement because it's the only way forward for Microsoft to save the deal.
Look, I don't think it's a great idea for Microsoft to buy em. Are they gonna do multiplatform? Yes, probably for a while to earn that kinda money back. Am I mildly curious if they'd pull really...
Look, I don't think it's a great idea for Microsoft to buy em.
Are they gonna do multiplatform? Yes, probably for a while to earn that kinda money back.
Am I mildly curious if they'd pull really weird moves like finding a way to license the old guitar hero / tony hawk / superhero games and pop the xbox/360 versions on gamepass? Yes.
Imagine them going: Yeah Sony has spiderman, but we've got all these other spiderman games on gamepass. (I'm not saying they're better, but I'd certainly resub to gamepass for a while to play some of em again)
I think with them releasing everything for PC as well they woun't care about how many xbox they sell. Just that they own something popular and they will get some money for every copy thats sold...
I think with them releasing everything for PC as well they woun't care about how many xbox they sell. Just that they own something popular and they will get some money for every copy thats sold even on PC or nintendo.
The ol Windows model: Why bother making the hardware when everyone has to come to you for the software. :P Yeah I hear ya. At the end of the day it is a pretty typical "big tech company" response...
The ol Windows model: Why bother making the hardware when everyone has to come to you for the software. :P
Yeah I hear ya. At the end of the day it is a pretty typical "big tech company" response to just buy something that works and integrate it when you can't do it yourself. Part of me would've preferred seeing them do this kinda spending on their own IPs to see em grow but eh.
I've also wondered how they'd react if they buy ABK, a company that put a lot of eggs into the COD / WOW baskets and those games collapse from some new other hot thing on the market. (I know that seems unlikely but we've seen industry shakeups before)
It wouldn't surprise me to see multiplatform not last forever though. I don't think we'll see Microsoft have a more successful console generation hardware sales wise than Sony again for an...
It wouldn't surprise me to see multiplatform not last forever though. I don't think we'll see Microsoft have a more successful console generation hardware sales wise than Sony again for an incredibly long time unless things go completely unexpectedly bad for Sony, but I could see Microsoft trying to introduce console exclusivity out of some activision stuff once all this heat of scrutiny has long passed.
RE: your Spider-Man point, there's nothing stopping Microsoft from making their own Spider-Man game. The Spider-Man game license is owned by Disney, not Sony.
RE: your Spider-Man point, there's nothing stopping Microsoft from making their own Spider-Man game. The Spider-Man game license is owned by Disney, not Sony.
Oh for sure. I do suspect Sony is however leveraging the movie rights a bit with Disney to secure a bit with these games but as you said it's up to Disney.
Oh for sure. I do suspect Sony is however leveraging the movie rights a bit with Disney to secure a bit with these games but as you said it's up to Disney.
In theory yes. But we don't know the details of the contract and DIsney has contracted exclusive use of an IP in a specific domain before. Spiderman's video games may be like that.
In theory yes. But we don't know the details of the contract and DIsney has contracted exclusive use of an IP in a specific domain before. Spiderman's video games may be like that.
Numerous other companies have used Spider-Man in recent years. Just look at the countless mobile games, or Nintendo's Ultimate Alliance 3, or the multiplatform Midnight Sons. Disney has also...
Numerous other companies have used Spider-Man in recent years. Just look at the countless mobile games, or Nintendo's Ultimate Alliance 3, or the multiplatform Midnight Sons.
Disney has also licensed Iron Man to multiple different studios for multiple different platforms - see the PSVR timed-exclusive Iron Man VR a few years ago, and the upcoming Iron Man 3rd person action game.
To be fair, Disney has a long history of trying and failing to make a video game franchise take off (Remember Spectrobes? Disney Infinity?), so I don't blame them for giving this to a more...
To be fair, Disney has a long history of trying and failing to make a video game franchise take off (Remember Spectrobes? Disney Infinity?), so I don't blame them for giving this to a more experienced partner and just taking in the residuals that scale with their success.
That's not true. Sony has the exclusive solo film rights - nothing else. Disney went to both Microsoft and Sony to discuss collaborating on a game. Microsoft passed, Sony agreed. Sony brought...
That's not true. Sony has the exclusive solo film rights - nothing else.
Disney went to both Microsoft and Sony to discuss collaborating on a game. Microsoft passed, Sony agreed. Sony brought Insomniac in and Disney let Insomniac choose which character they wanted to use. They chose Spider-Man. Nothing is stopping Microsoft from paying Disney for the Spider-Man license to make their own game. Nintendo actually used Spider-Man in their exclusive Ultimate Alliance 3, for example.
Character usage and the whole Spider-Man IP are different things, and the article I linked specifically describes Marvel Games (the actual steward of the game rights to Marvel characters, not...
Character usage and the whole Spider-Man IP are different things, and the article I linked specifically describes Marvel Games (the actual steward of the game rights to Marvel characters, not their parent company Disney) choosing a single publisher to have the IP.
In that article, there's a quote from the sales pitch from Marvel Games to the Sony VPs that specifically metions driving up engagement to their platform over the course of one or multiple quality games. Microsoft's and Nintendo's rejections in the articles are also both a matter of IP.
Everything in the article I linked indicates this is a matter of IP exclusivity, inclusing the headline. Nobody can walk up to Disney and ink a deal to make their own Spider-Man game. When has that ever happened when an actively licensed IP, especially when the IP owners of that license are trying to reverse course on a glut of low quality titles?
Sony has two kinds of Spider-Man rights now. It's no longer accurate to say they only have the film rights. That was true for most of the last 15 years, but this article shows it's no longer the case. They've inked a big deal for the game rights after Marvel Games' previous exclusivity agreement with Activision ended.
If Marvel have learned anything about licensing their IPs out since the 2000's to both Sony and Fox, it's that they shouldn't also license out absolute full control. As we've Spider-Man can show up in other Marvel Games approved games (including the Avengers, where the PlayStation exclusivity of Spider-Man was a whole other matter that nobody is going to repeat again).
I believe you're operating under some assumptions that are inaccurate. Please watch this behind-the-scenes video from Insomniac where they explain how they came to work on Spider-Man. Insomniac...
I believe you're operating under some assumptions that are inaccurate. Please watch this behind-the-scenes video from Insomniac where they explain how they came to work on Spider-Man. Insomniac was given a choice of any character to use, and they chose Spider-Man. Since 2016 Spider-Man has appeared in several non-Sony mobile/Nintendo/cross-platform games. Sony owns the rights to Insomniac's Spider-Man specifically and will certainly release more games with that version of the character, but that only means Microsoft can't make a game called Spider-Man 3 with Yuri Lowenthal rocking a white Spider logo. Legally speaking, nothing is preventing Microsoft from working with Disney on their own unique Spider-Man game.
Your linked article states Sony "staked $100 million" on the game. Disney would not sell the exclusive license to the most popular superhero on the planet for such a low amount. The article also only talks about the licensing of Insomniac's Spider-Man, not the character in general. It isn't worded very clearly so I can understand the confusion. The italicized Spider-Man in the title means it is referring to the game, not the character.
When has that ever happened when an actively licensed IP, especially when the IP owners of that license are trying to reverse course on a glut of low quality titles?
It's happening right now. Disney allowed developer Camoflaj to make an Iron Man game that released in 2020 (and ported to Quest 2 in late 2022), but also is working with EA/Motive on a 3rd-person Iron Man game coming in the next year or two. There are also two separate Black Panther games in development from two different studios.
Insomniac asked to work on Spider-Man after Sony and Marvel Games were already having those talks as described in this article, and Sony approached Insomniac about making a Marvel games after...
Insomniac asked to work on Spider-Man after Sony and Marvel Games were already having those talks as described in this article, and Sony approached Insomniac about making a Marvel games after Marvel asked about them. It was then that Insomniac asked for Spider-Man. The timelines for both ends match up perfectly. Sony was always going to grab that IP from Marvel Games and Insomniac was everyone's choice, and luckily they also seemed to want to work on Spider-Man. And I say "seem" because that interview could also be obfuscating a few things for private business reasons, as gaming promotional pieces can do.
Legally speaking, nobody else is going to make a dedicated Spider-Man game at all right now, based on what the book referenced in the article recently revealed. The character can be used in other Marvel works featuring ensembles because Marvel Games still controls the character's IP in games and can dictate where he can show up. But in terms of an actual Spider-Man game, they shopped that to first-party publishers and promised platform exclusivity by way of increased platform adoption—that's not a pitch for non-exclusivity. There's no indication that Marvel Games decided to make a whole new stream of Spider-Man media unto itself with the Insomniac game, leaving the possibility of other dedicated Spider-Man games open—that article talks about inking deals for the Spider-Man game rights IP whole to a sole, large, first-party publisher.
Also the $100 million figure is the development cost of the game, not the price of the IP rights. That's still undisclosed.
The article also only talks about the licensing of Insomniac's Spider-Man, not the character in general. It isn't worded very clearly so I can understand the confusion. The italicized Spider-Man in the title is referring to the game, not the character.
Yes, I've been saying this, except that it goes beyond only Insomniac's Spider-Man. The concept didn't exist when Marvel Games set out to find a new home for that IP after all. It didn't exist until later, and it still wouldn't be separate from the full Spider-Man video game IP. When they say "Spider-Man IP", they mean the IP to make a game titled and centred around Spider-Man at all e.g. Spider-Man Web of Shadows. It's not the same as the character IP rights, which they previously did sell the film rights to Sony and have regretted it since. That's why Spider-Man can show up in Ultimate Alliance, Avengers, and other ensemble games but nobody is making a dedicated Spider-Man game except Sony and Insomniac.
Marvel Games specifically set out to find one home for the Spider-Man video game IP and they landed with Sony. Whether it was Insomniac or not who ended up working on the game is immaterial, what matters is that Marvel Games was intent and Sony invested heavily into something that by all accounts above looks like an exclusivity deal for the dedicated game rights, not the character rights. Anyone else can go and make a Marvel game with Spider-Man in it, but they're not making a Spider-Man game.
On the Iron Man note: the question was more around when publishers or developers could go up and ink a deal to make a new game of their own volition in such a situation, not when has an IP been spread over a few places. Because if they left that open, and after the success of Insomniac's Spider-Man, the next question would be: Why isn't anyone else making their own Spider-Man game now too? They've had five years to get started.
Once again - the book in your article is referring to Spider-Man the game, not Spider-Man the character. In English grammar when something is italicized it is referring to a specific artwork, not...
Nobody else is going to make a dedicated Spider-Man game at all right now, based on what the book referenced in the article recently revealed.
Once again - the book in your article is referring to Spider-Man the game, not Spider-Man the character. In English grammar when something is italicized it is referring to a specific artwork, not a general noun. For example, "John Wick is the protagonist of John Wick". I think this is the source of your confusion.
Marvel Games specifically set out to find one home for the Spider-Man video game IP and they landed with Sony.
There is no evidence to support this claim.
Sony own's the rights to solo Spider-Man films and this particular verison of the character. That's it. Here's an article that confirms this, and another. I can provide more evidence - this is a well-documented fact. Per ScreenRant,
Sony was never given the exclusive rights to produce a Spider-Man game. They were given the ability to make an exclusive title for the PlayStation platform and Insomniac just so happened to go with Spider-Man.... Although Sony now owns Insomniac Games, neither company has any exclusive game rights to the Spider-Man character, nor did Sony ever have said rights to begin with.
As for your question,
Why isn't anyone else making their own Spider-Man game now too? They've had five years to get started.
The answer is: presumably the same reason no other developer wanted to make a Marvel game in the first place - Nintendo and Microsoft would rather work on their own IP. It says so in your article.
I am trying to make this very clear: I am talking about the IP of a Spider-Man game overall, not the character nor any specific game or series. The character can be used elsewhere (in games) which...
I am trying to make this very clear: I am talking about the IP of a Spider-Man game overall, not the character nor any specific game or series. The character can be used elsewhere (in games) which is why we are seeing it in other games. What we are not seeing is a whole Spider-Man game from anyone else because that is the IP that is locked up. Not the character, the game rights about and starring the character. Again: people can make a Marvel game with Spider-Man in it but they are not making a Spider-Man game. The IP is not locked to a single game or series but the concept of making games around the character of Spider-Man.
I linked an article from May 2023 above with new information that says that Ong went looking for a publisher to work with, and he specifically targetted the console manufacturers instead of a major third-party publisher for a long-term investment. The sell included platform adoption i.e. selling more consoles. All of this indicates an exclusivity deal. Meanwhile both the 3 year old ScreenRant article makes some key claims that are unsubstantiated whereas the 2 year old Fansided one is more factually based and holds back from being as assumptive as ScreenRant's.
ScreenRant:
This brings into question why Marvel’s Spider-Man was a PS4 exclusive when Sony isn’t the exclusive owner of the character's video game rights. According to IGN, Sony Vice President of Product Development Connie Booth met with Insomniac to discuss the development of a Marvel game. It’s likely Sony spoke to Marvel prior to this conversation in order to gain exclusivity rights for this one title alone. However, Sony never went in to speak about a Spider-Man game specifically. Insomniac was allowed to pick any Marvel superhero to work with and ultimately decided that Spider-Man was their best bet. Sony was never given the exclusive rights to produce a Spider-Man game. They were given the ability to make an exclusive title for the PlayStation platform and Insomniac just so happened to go with Spider-Man. This led to Marvel’s Spider-Man being a PlayStation 5 exclusive when it launched in 2018.
This is the part you quoted but it's unsubstantiated. The IGN video (which is almost word-for-word the same statement as Ted Price gives in the GameInformer video) does not state this. This isn't stated by Price. The writer of this article was paraphrasing Price's words for this bit but added more than was actually said.
Fansided says this, which is more precise to what we've seen happen:
Keep in mind, throughout all this, Insomniac Games nor Sony never actually owned the exclusive rights to Spider-Man. It was all part of that initial partnership deal.
Fansided keeps it precise: Sony doesn't have the exclusive rights to Spider-Man, the character (it's not italicized after all). That was always the contention that Marvel had with Sony when it came to the film rights and there's no way they would make that mistake again. ScreenRant extrapolated that to mean Sony didn't have exclusive rights to Spider-Man games but there is no basis I can find for that statement beyond an assumption from the writer.
The book's revelations are all new information that was not previously available. Before it, the only statement anyone had to go on was Ted Price's clearly worked over statement on how Insomniac came to work on a Spider-Man game. As far as I can tell, nobody has ever divulged the details of the agreement between Sony and Marvel, nor Marvel's plans for any Spider-Man games outside of Sony, so nobody can say for sure—and that's why both these ScreenRant and Fansided articles seem openly confused about what the deal must be. But the motivations and statements of Ong, and who he spoke to and what they pitched, and the language of investment on both sides gives a lot of hints about what is going on here.
However, there is one interesting statement Ong made back in 2016:
"We've had a long history of success with Activision, and we still have a great relationship with them," Ong said. "But the future of the Spider-Man console games is with Sony and Insomniac. We're delighted about this partnership, and that's something that's going to continue forward. With [regard to] other console partners, stay tuned. There's many more interesting additional things to come. But Activision is in the past, with regards to Spider-Man."
The bolded part is about as close to an admission of exclusivity to Sony and Insomniac to make any Spider-Man game at all as we may ever get, and it's hard to read this statement in any other way.
Presumably the same reason no other developer wanted to make a Marvel game in the first place - Nintendo and Microsoft would rather work on their own IP.
In this industry where everyone is chasing the next huge game, and other billion dollar gaming publishers like Ubisoft are chasing licensing with other Disney-owned properties like Star Wars? The chances of both this and "Anyone can go to Disney and make a deal to make a new Spider-Man game" being true are pretty small.
You are seeing a lack of Spider-Man games on the market and assuming that is due to licensing. In the article you provided, however, it's clear that neither Nintendo nor Microsoft have a desire to...
You are seeing a lack of Spider-Man games on the market and assuming that is due to licensing. In the article you provided, however, it's clear that neither Nintendo nor Microsoft have a desire to make a Spider-Man game. We know that Ubisoft has been busy the last ~5 years with Avatar and multiple Star Wars projects, Bethesda has been busy with Starfield and Indiana Jones, Square Enix has been doing their own Marvel thing, etc. Believe it or not, most studios are just fine not making Spider-Man games - but that doesn't mean they can't.
Simply look at how Disney has licensed other heroes such as Iron Man and Black Panther. Iron Man VR was a Sony-developed Playstation-exclusive - just like Spider-Man. But that didn't stop EA from working with Disney to make their own Iron Man game. Disney has learned their lesson from Activision's handling of Spider-Man and EA's handling of Star Wars - they will never sell off the rights to a character in an entire medium to a single company again. Hell, just look at the mess they made selling Spider-Man's film rights to Sony in the first place. Do you think Disney would ever willingly put themselves in that exact scenario again for gaming?
If you examine all publicly available knowledge and apply some critical thinking, it's very clear that Disney and Sony simply reached a deal to create a handful of exclusive titles (Spider-Man, Spider-Man: Miles Morales, and Wolverine). They did not sell the game rights to the character.
My assumption is based on a lot more than just that, I've outlined it a few times. It's not the lack of games on the market, it's Ong's statements and actions as the steward of all these licenses....
My assumption is based on a lot more than just that, I've outlined it a few times. It's not the lack of games on the market, it's Ong's statements and actions as the steward of all these licenses. He's the EVP of Marvel Games, reformed after Disney Interactive Studios was shut down, for the sole purpose of maximizing Marvel's licensing in the gaming industry. He's the key player here. I don't see how ignoring him and his statements outright is reasonable.
It doesn't matter what they're doing with Iron Man and Black Panther because Sony, Marvel Games, and Insomniac specifically made a deal over Spider-Man. Ong effectively said that only Sony and Insomniac are going to be putting out Spider-Man games. Iron Man and Black Panther are nowhere near as valuable to a gaming company as Spider-Man. The nearest Marvel hero who would be is Wolverine. Even Superman doesn't rate, only Batman comes near Spider-Man's level in this context. So of course the deals they make for those games are not going to be mired in exclusivity but Spider-Man would be.
Star Wars is handled by Lucasfilm Games, who are a different subsidiary with a different approach. This is why it's important not to overreduce key players to just "Disney" as Disney is a giant conglomerate with many subsidiaries that operate independently, with different approaches. You don't even have to look at the games for this, the movie situations between Marvel and Star Wars has been widely discussed despite them both being "Disney". In the Star Wars case, they locked the entire IP of Star Wars to EA, they didn't lock only Darth Vader games to EA. A single, very popular and lucrative character from Marvel is a very different scope than all Star Wars games at all. Speaking of overreducing context: the reason why Iron Man VR is a PlayStation exclusive becomes very clear when you count all the consoles that have VR support (and there's even more to this when you analyze PSVR's dealings with third party non-exclusive games). Meta's Oculus is doing the PC port, and they definitely don't have exclusive rights to making Iron Man games—neither Sony nor Oculus seem to have negotiated for it and there is no information out there suggesting they tried to.
Additionally, as we've already covered, of course everyone learned their lesson from the Spider-Man film rights sold to Sony in the late 90's. That's why they did not sell full control of the character this time and Spider-Man can be used in other Marvel games. That lesson has been learned and dealt with already.
When fully considering Ong's actions and statements and not ignoring them outright for some reason, it points to Sony and Insomniac being the ones to make any Spider-Man games on console (and PC) exclusively since that is what Ong plainly said and all information since 2016 has corroborated in some fashion.
Rather than bicker about semantics I just checked the actual credits of the game. Marvel Entertainment is credited - which they would not be if Spider-Man's game rights were exclusively owned by...
Rather than bicker about semantics I just checked the actual credits of the game. Marvel Entertainment is credited - which they would not be if Spider-Man's game rights were exclusively owned by Sony. There are other credits listed that confirm the IP is licensed to Sony, not owned outright.
Also, worth noting that in his E3 2016 speech Ong said the partnership with SIE was simply a partnership for this game and nothing more.
What? On what basis? This only makes sense to me if Sony bought Spider-Man entirely and he was no longer part of Marvel or Disney. Where he also said only Sony and Insomniac are going to be making...
Marvel Entertainment is credited - which they would not be if Spider-Man's game rights were exclusively owned by Sony.
What? On what basis? This only makes sense to me if Sony bought Spider-Man entirely and he was no longer part of Marvel or Disney.
Also, worth noting that in his E3 2016 speech Ong said the partnership with SIE was simply a partnership for this game and nothing more.
Where he also said only Sony and Insomniac are going to be making Spider-Man games for a while?
I'm not arguing semantics, I'm arguing with was actually said outright by the guy who controls the video game rights to all Marvel properties.
Soooo... in 10 years they make CoD exclusive then try to buy EA with the promise of "No, no, see, it's cool... Madden will be multi platform for 10 years..."
Soooo... in 10 years they make CoD exclusive then try to buy EA with the promise of "No, no, see, it's cool... Madden will be multi platform for 10 years..."
Honestly I was hoping that it wouldn't be approved but honestly I would have been surprised if they hadn't approved it. Today's US government has no stomach at all for trying to keep corporations...
Honestly I was hoping that it wouldn't be approved but honestly I would have been surprised if they hadn't approved it. Today's US government has no stomach at all for trying to keep corporations in check. Even the democrats at best just want status quo (It's one of the things why I'd agree with "they're both bad" except for the fact that people who say that are just being disingenuous. But I'd say yeah they are both bad but one is way worse than the others. And I feel we are at the point we don't have the luxury of worrying about fixing the less bad one over trying to focus on getting the worst one out).
But Microsoft is a company that has shown and had history before that they totally would go for trying to kill out all competition and abuse their place on the top. And that what they want is definitely not "consumer friendly". I will say they can also be a good company... when they feel they have to compete. But I really think it's a bad idea to let them keep buying up all competition.
Oh well, at least this doesn't really affect me directly as I don't play Activision games. Just really don't like seeing MS keep buying off major publishers now.
I mean the EU regulator approved the merger ages ago now. Also, I’m not sure if EEE makes all that much sense in this context. Is Microsoft trying to extinguish Activision? Gaming as a whole? I’m...
I mean the EU regulator approved the merger ages ago now.
Also, I’m not sure if EEE makes all that much sense in this context. Is Microsoft trying to extinguish Activision? Gaming as a whole? I’m pretty sure they’re just trying to make money in the space.
It was only a tongue-in-cheek comment more so aimed at the Americans anti-trust failures of the past with MSFT. In reality there is no embrace here, only extension, though one could make the...
It was only a tongue-in-cheek comment more so aimed at the Americans anti-trust failures of the past with MSFT. In reality there is no embrace here, only extension, though one could make the argument that they would be attempting to extinguish competition if anything.
CoD was always going to play it safe. It's the Madden of shooters. There's a dedicated playbase that just wants a light refresh every year. They don't want something new and scary, they want their...
CoD was always going to play it safe. It's the Madden of shooters. There's a dedicated playbase that just wants a light refresh every year. They don't want something new and scary, they want their COD.
I guess access to Call of Duty was the largest limiting factor? It certainly is an industry powerhouse, but it's weird that "open call of duty access" is enough to override any trust criticism of the largest tech business merger in history.
It certainly seems like it. Absolutely mind-blowing that Microsoft scraped past antitrust laws in the 90s, and here they are again, and even wilder that Call of Duty was such a big factor in the decision. What is it, about 30% of PS5 owners only play COD?
Less than 30%, but that's if you are being super strict. Sony released numbers about it that basically said there are 1 million PS5 owners who literally only play Call of Duty, nothing else. As in never played any other games at all. IIRC they said that there were like 6 million PS5 owners who spent 70%+ of their time playing COD and that might have been a while back. Currently they've sold about 38 million units worldwide but when they gathered these numbers they'd sold a lot less (about half of those were sold in the last year).
Open except for any other competition that crops up. So much for any hope of good Steam Deck support.
Yeah this seems... blatant?
"We, Microsoft, promise in this specific case to be more open for an arbitrary but limited timeframe in a way the court will find favorable; so that we will have total control over whether we will be open in the future."
To be fair, there hasn't really been a serious console competitor in 20 years. It's effectively locked up between those 3 consoles and then the PC and Mobile market. Unless they leverage those latter 2 platforms, I see it as very hard to ever compete in the ways Sony and Nintendo did in the 90's.
In all honesty, as someone who owns 2/3 current consoles, I feel like consoles are going to go the way of the dodo before long. They'll probably exist in a space like the Xbox does currently -- where the Xbox is an OPTION for how to play, but isn't strictly necessary.
The Switch has been immensely popular and I only see that continuing. It's hard to understate how popular it is and how much better it's doing compared to even PS. The Switch is now 6 years old and still selling strong, packed with what is essentially smartphone hardware that wasn't even cutting edge at the time it released. And yet despite releasing 4 years after the others it's the best-selling console of the last generation, it's still selling now and probably will continue to do so for a while... and most importantly, it's still selling at full price. That last bit is really important. As of March 2023 the Switch had sold 125 million units, without a price drop. The PS2 reached the numbers it did because of price drops, without them it never would have got even close to its high sales numbers. By the time it had sold what the Switch has, it was selling a slim hardware revision at $99-129 USD.
The reason I mention all that is -- I think hybrid consoles, and more options, are the future. I can play my Switch on the TV or handheld. I can play Game Pass games through my Xbox, my PC, my phone, or almost any other non-Sony-or-Nintendo device.
I don't think it's possible for a serious console competitor to come in in 2023 because consoles are on the way out. I agree that a company would have to leverage the PC or mobile market somehow -- that's what Valve has done with the Steam Deck. But even that has seen limited success, although I think it seems to be a success (Valve is talking about improving the hardware, so it seems they aren't going to abandon it like they have other projects, which says to me that it's doing what they want it to do). But even the Steam Deck seems to be selling at a loss in order to get people more invested in their ecosystem... and even then, it's hard to say how many units have sold, but numbers from 6 months ago were saying like 1-1.5 million which is not comparable at all to the three consoles.
From what I know, the base model of the steam deck most likely sells at a loss, but the most popular that people bought was the highest tier one, which most likely doesn't. Even if it was, I'm sure the cut they got from the Steam Store more than made up from the loss of the highest priced console.
Switch hasn't received a price drop the whole time as it has always been the cheapest option. Xbox One started at $500, then got a revision down to $300-$350. Playstation 4 was $400. Xbox Series S is $300 but is clearly 'the bad one' so it's really just the Series X and PS5 and both are $500.
They definitely got much cheaper than that. I bought a PS4 Slim with Spider-Man for $270 CAD. Not the dirt cheap prices of the previous generations, but still.
And what happens after that?
My unfounded conspiracy theory - US wants Call of Duty in as many teenagers' hands as possible to drive military recruitment.
I feel like they would have blocked the merger in this case so the risk of CoD IP exclusivity wouldn't be a thing
I can't remember the last time any of my friends played anything that wasn't CoD or CS.
I don't see how its remotely reasonable for a multi-billion dollar company to be permitted to expand vertical integration while simultaniously being under investigation for antitrust.
"Sure keep serving customers while you're on trial for poisoning your customers."
They're different markets. Antitrust is about a dominant position in a market, whereas this is Microsoft bolstering themselves in a different market where they are a distant 3rd place (4th, if you count PC).
I disagree. When every major tech company is pushing for tighter and tighter control over their ecosystems and users, its all deeply intertwined.
Pushing ActiBlizz titles to Xbox Cloud Streaming gives an undue advantage to Xbox, Windows, and Edge. Pushing Teams to Office users "for free" pushes Slack out of the market and insures further dominance of Office. Office dominance perptuates Windows OS dominance, which pushes Edge as hard as it can, and so forth.
Letting Microsoft buy Actiblizz is basically the FTC saying "Having 3 competitors in the console space is fine, further making it difficult for new players to enter is also fine."
And while Xbox doesn't have the international grip that PS/Nintendo do, they are absolutely leading in console sales in the USA, where the most consideration should have been given, considering its a US court.
Its also no secret that I think all mergers and aquisitions should be banned for any company larger than a few hundred million. Grow organically or die. There will never be meaningful antitrust if we allow the largest companies to gobble up anyone and everyone merely because they're not the largest company. A triopoly isn't significantly better than a monopoly.
Microsoft should have been banned from all aquisitions circa 1997.
That's the problem. We have a system where constant growth is the measure of success. You can have the most profitable business in the world in terms of both absolute profit and margins, but if you aren't more profitable than you were last quarter you're less valuable to investors than a company that's actively losing money but is doing better than last year.
As long a shareholders can jump ship at any time, simply having a good business model and making gobs of money isn't enough.
Microsoft is losing this console generation even in the US: PS5 vs Xbox Series X|S Sales Comparison in the US - January 2023 - Sales.
I still think they shouldn't be allowed to leverage their dominant / near-monopoly positions in several market segments to brute force their way into others.
Sure, but few would say that Meta is a competitor against Amazon. Even if they are employing the same tricks on their platforms to enforce control. Comparing Microsoft/Xbox here is an even more distant argument. "Tech" by this point is as wide reaching a word as "Economy". It does little to describe a large company as a monopoly on Tech as a whole, at least the western companies.
Sure. But I think the killing blow wasn't any console. It was mobile platforms. Phones even pushed Nintendo to become a hybrid over a handheld/console split of market. It'll be nearly impossible to compete in that space without leveraging Android or IOS in one way or another (and of course, IOS is closed off). That's a problem much bigger than Microsoft, ironically enough the last major attempt to break into that mobile environment.
TBH I simply see this as kicking the can down the road. There would simply be a new way to Embrace/Extend/Extinguish if aquisitions are banned. Make new company, headhunt old talent with deals that are hard to refuse, let them bring more of their talent with them. It feels "organic" but it's having the same effect as simply buying the company themselves.
Maybe. But you can't headhunt your way to IP and trademarks, which is one of the main drivers. Personally I'd make any anti-merger law incorporate releasing all IP of dead companies as copyleft to specifically 'taint' it. The name Minecraft and associated copyrights meant a lot more to Microsoft than the actual software.
Lets envision an alternate history for a moment. Microsoft couldn't buy out Bungie, Halo instead gets made for the Mac as originally planned and the Xbox dies out of the gate due to lack of launch titles. Maybe Sega manages to recover after Dreamcast without Microsoft pushing its way in.
Without being able to purchase their way into new segments, entering each new segment and having to build IP from scratch is riskier. There is more room for small businesses to compete. Having more competitors means that its harder for any one competitor to grow too large. They don't have to pitch why their offering as a small startup is better than the small startup that Microsoft attached their name to.
Somewhat seperately, I also don't think we should encourage companies to have broad horizontal or vertical bases. Yea, Meta and Amazon hardly directly compete. Neither one should be able to buy their way into a new market.
Software wise, sure. But the big problem is that the barrier to mass produce the hardware needed is immense. Software without that hardware backbone simply ceases to be.
I'm not 100% sure we'd be better off in this alternate timeline. In an utopic sense, this may push the big companies to invest in new IPs. In the pessimistic sense, they decide to aquire and simply outcompete or outmarket on the now "free" IP. Opening up a game like Minecraft as an IP doesn't mean as much if MS still owns the servers where everyone is.
Or in an even more pessimistic sense, they don't bother and simply strongarm the software front even more, the 90's MS style.
Captured agency.
That's how.
A big part of this purchase will be an attempt to pressure Sony to put Game Pass on PlayStation in some form. Microsoft has been offering it for years now. This is why they say they don't care about exclusives -- they just want to sell their games on platforms they own (XBOX, and through different options on PC but mostly their store), and push them to other platforms via Game Pass, and eventually everything via cloud streaming.
Call of Duty alone generates something like $1 billion/year in revenue for Sony, just from the cut they take of sales. Even if MS keeps the game multi-platform, it will be less attractive to many people to buy the new COD for $70 USD when you could play it through Game Pass elsewhere, especially as XBOX/PC became the main platform for the game. Even if COD stays on PS, it will take a hit in sales, there is no doubt about that.
As of now, regulators in the UK are still blocking this acquisition from going ahead so it's not over for Microsoft just yet. That is my understanding anyway. I have read that the legal challenge is currently on pause for negotiations though, but I don't fully understand the implications of that.
MS will push ahead with the deal and do whatever they need to in order to deal with the UK market, even if that means pulling products from the UK market. The UK isn't big enough to kill this deal on its own and there's also political pressure from the govt on the CMA to work with MS or reverse their decision.
The UK is MS' second biggest market. Not in terms of Xbox, in terms of MS services. I don't want to predict where this is going, but MS completely ceding the British market to a competitor would be a significant decision.
The UK is their second-biggest market for revenue, but their profits in the UK are pretty meager in part due to higher expenses and taxes relative to other areas. IIRC MS made something like $220 million profit in the UK in FY2021, and ATVI globally made profits of $1.5 billion.
Obviously, there's a lot more profit to be had in bringing ATVI into the fold than catering to the UK. This is also assuming that the only option for MS would be to completely pull out of the UK market with all their products, which would never happen - the UK would scramble to prevent that from happening. What's likely to happen is that there will be limitations on how ATVI games are sold/accessed in the UK (up to and including pulling them from sale completely), ATVI in the UK could be spun off as a separate company in some way, or the CMA will roll over.
Personally I think the last is most likely, like I said there is a lot of political pressure here because the CMA made a poor decision based on bunk information, but because of the way they are set up as a regulator, there is pretty much no accountability. The only way in which the govt can respond to that it seems is by reforming the regulator, which they've already indicated they are going to do in the wake of this decision (although some other past ones led up to this as well). Now the CMA not only made a bad decision, but they stand alone in that decision, putting them at odds with pretty much everyone else but most notably the EU who approved the acquisition. That means the UK is primed to lose business and jobs w/ Microsoft to the EU - the regulator can make whatever decision they want, but those decisions aren't without consequences and the UK govt seems pissed about that (mind you, I'm not the biggest fan of the UK govt, and it's unfortunate that this will probably lead to them stripping the regulator of powers, but at the same time the regulator royally beefed it on this one).
Do you have any references to the British government committing to reforming the CMA in the wake of this decision, in time for it to make a difference? I see no proposed legislation so far. Sunak barely has enough authority to keep his cabinet stable, and is a dead man walking. I'd be very surprised if he had the political capital to spend on this without facing down backbencher rebellions.
You're describing a pretty dystopic future. An American megacorporation doesn't like a decision a foreign regulator has made regarding its monpolitic power, so it uses the monopolistic power on the government of that nation to remove the independence of the regulator. Am I summarising the potential sequence of events here correctly? If Britain can't regulate without the American smashing its system, then nobody is safe. In this case, MS is too powerful and should be broken up.
I wasn't saying that they'd make any changes in time for this to have an effect on the MS situation. Moreso for the future. But that kind of pressure tends to result in more immediate changes too to try and avoid it in an independent agency.
Sunak is on precarious ground but the CMA is not popular with anyone. This isn't the first decision they've been criticized over but the amount of attention this one has received has made it clear they didn't do their research properly and didn't understand what they are regulating. So I don't think he'll be met with a lot of resistance from other parties on this and he has indicated a desire to reform the regulator.
Part of the issue here is that the grounds on which the CMA blocked the deal are in an arena which is a) very small and b) Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly at all. They're making assumptions about how cloud gaming will grow and that it will become very popular in the UK when none of the trends are indicating that will happen. Prior to that they were trying to block it on the basis of market share re: Call of Duty and couldn't get their shit together to make any kind of cohesive argument, and it fell apart, but they wanted to block the deal and flex the UK's regulatory muscles post Brexit and used cloud gaming as justification.
The most important bit here - the threat to reform the regulator is NOT just about MS. It's about several decisions before this as well including a proposed merger of large grocery chains in the UK, which was blocked. The problem is that was meant to protect UK consumers and in the end it got a worse result, because the smaller of the two (Asda) was instead purchased by billionaires and their venture capital firm... and has since been widely criticized for a steep decline in quality since. Blocking the sale to a larger competitor just meant that another buyer could snap it up for a lower price, because Asda was going to be sold either way.
I'm not a lawyer, so I can't speak to the specific arguments. But portraying the CMA was being wildly out of step with everyone else just not true. The EU and UK agreed on the vast majority of their findings. The only difference was that the EU trusted MS' proposed remedies while the CMA did not. They agreed on the substance. Similarly, the FTC felt it had a strong enough case to pursue this. In the US, antitrust law has been destroyed, so it's not surprising they lost, but all three regulators agreed that this was concerning. The CMA went the farthest, but it's not particularly unique.
I can speak with a little more certainty on the politics though; Sunak doesn't have time for this. The Tories aren't mentally prepped for a reform around this. Labour and the Lib Dems will use it against him. There's no way it passes the Lords, and Sunak doesn't have the time to work around that. Sunak will make vague promises, some Tories will grumble, but the Tories have a thousand other things they'd rather be talking about.
Now all of this goes out the window if MS pulls out of the UK. But I don't actually think any of us can make predictions as to what happens then. It'd be a pretty extreme move by MS, but the UK can counter with their own extreme actions as well. MS' reputation would be shattered. I personally would have a very powerful tool to stop my organisation from going all in in MS; they can't be trusted.
I think that it's more likely to be the other way around. It's very difficult for the UK government to pass legislation that will compel the CMA to do anything because such legislation is likely to be blocked by the house of lords. The UK government can use the parliament act to force through legislation but they cannot do so within the same session that the legislation was blocked. The earliest they could start the process of overriding lords would be the next session. Sessions normally last one year although they could technically break convention and open a new session before then it would require enormous political capital which our current prime minister does not have. So the earliest that the British government could start the process of overriding lords would be next spring.
So, on that basis, there's an enormous pressure on Microsoft to make concessions to the CMA and concede whatever is necessary to get their approval. I suspect that they'll come to an agreement because it's the only way forward for Microsoft to save the deal.
The implication is that the CMA is folding and will get some token concessions from Microsoft in return for unblocking the deal.
Look, I don't think it's a great idea for Microsoft to buy em.
Are they gonna do multiplatform? Yes, probably for a while to earn that kinda money back.
Am I mildly curious if they'd pull really weird moves like finding a way to license the old guitar hero / tony hawk / superhero games and pop the xbox/360 versions on gamepass? Yes.
Imagine them going: Yeah Sony has spiderman, but we've got all these other spiderman games on gamepass. (I'm not saying they're better, but I'd certainly resub to gamepass for a while to play some of em again)
I think with them releasing everything for PC as well they woun't care about how many xbox they sell. Just that they own something popular and they will get some money for every copy thats sold even on PC or nintendo.
The ol Windows model: Why bother making the hardware when everyone has to come to you for the software. :P
Yeah I hear ya. At the end of the day it is a pretty typical "big tech company" response to just buy something that works and integrate it when you can't do it yourself. Part of me would've preferred seeing them do this kinda spending on their own IPs to see em grow but eh.
I've also wondered how they'd react if they buy ABK, a company that put a lot of eggs into the COD / WOW baskets and those games collapse from some new other hot thing on the market. (I know that seems unlikely but we've seen industry shakeups before)
It wouldn't surprise me to see multiplatform not last forever though. I don't think we'll see Microsoft have a more successful console generation hardware sales wise than Sony again for an incredibly long time unless things go completely unexpectedly bad for Sony, but I could see Microsoft trying to introduce console exclusivity out of some activision stuff once all this heat of scrutiny has long passed.
RE: your Spider-Man point, there's nothing stopping Microsoft from making their own Spider-Man game. The Spider-Man game license is owned by Disney, not Sony.
Oh for sure. I do suspect Sony is however leveraging the movie rights a bit with Disney to secure a bit with these games but as you said it's up to Disney.
In theory yes. But we don't know the details of the contract and DIsney has contracted exclusive use of an IP in a specific domain before. Spiderman's video games may be like that.
Numerous other companies have used Spider-Man in recent years. Just look at the countless mobile games, or Nintendo's Ultimate Alliance 3, or the multiplatform Midnight Sons.
Disney has also licensed Iron Man to multiple different studios for multiple different platforms - see the PSVR timed-exclusive Iron Man VR a few years ago, and the upcoming Iron Man 3rd person action game.
They can't, Sony got the exclusive rights. Microsoft actually passed on a Spiderman exclusivity deal before Sony snapped it up.
To be fair, Disney has a long history of trying and failing to make a video game franchise take off (Remember Spectrobes? Disney Infinity?), so I don't blame them for giving this to a more experienced partner and just taking in the residuals that scale with their success.
That's not true. Sony has the exclusive solo film rights - nothing else.
Disney went to both Microsoft and Sony to discuss collaborating on a game. Microsoft passed, Sony agreed. Sony brought Insomniac in and Disney let Insomniac choose which character they wanted to use. They chose Spider-Man. Nothing is stopping Microsoft from paying Disney for the Spider-Man license to make their own game. Nintendo actually used Spider-Man in their exclusive Ultimate Alliance 3, for example.
Character usage and the whole Spider-Man IP are different things, and the article I linked specifically describes Marvel Games (the actual steward of the game rights to Marvel characters, not their parent company Disney) choosing a single publisher to have the IP.
In that article, there's a quote from the sales pitch from Marvel Games to the Sony VPs that specifically metions driving up engagement to their platform over the course of one or multiple quality games. Microsoft's and Nintendo's rejections in the articles are also both a matter of IP.
Everything in the article I linked indicates this is a matter of IP exclusivity, inclusing the headline. Nobody can walk up to Disney and ink a deal to make their own Spider-Man game. When has that ever happened when an actively licensed IP, especially when the IP owners of that license are trying to reverse course on a glut of low quality titles?
Sony has two kinds of Spider-Man rights now. It's no longer accurate to say they only have the film rights. That was true for most of the last 15 years, but this article shows it's no longer the case. They've inked a big deal for the game rights after Marvel Games' previous exclusivity agreement with Activision ended.
If Marvel have learned anything about licensing their IPs out since the 2000's to both Sony and Fox, it's that they shouldn't also license out absolute full control. As we've Spider-Man can show up in other Marvel Games approved games (including the Avengers, where the PlayStation exclusivity of Spider-Man was a whole other matter that nobody is going to repeat again).
I believe you're operating under some assumptions that are inaccurate. Please watch this behind-the-scenes video from Insomniac where they explain how they came to work on Spider-Man. Insomniac was given a choice of any character to use, and they chose Spider-Man. Since 2016 Spider-Man has appeared in several non-Sony mobile/Nintendo/cross-platform games. Sony owns the rights to Insomniac's Spider-Man specifically and will certainly release more games with that version of the character, but that only means Microsoft can't make a game called Spider-Man 3 with Yuri Lowenthal rocking a white Spider logo. Legally speaking, nothing is preventing Microsoft from working with Disney on their own unique Spider-Man game.
Your linked article states Sony "staked $100 million" on the game. Disney would not sell the exclusive license to the most popular superhero on the planet for such a low amount. The article also only talks about the licensing of Insomniac's Spider-Man, not the character in general. It isn't worded very clearly so I can understand the confusion. The italicized Spider-Man in the title means it is referring to the game, not the character.
It's happening right now. Disney allowed developer Camoflaj to make an Iron Man game that released in 2020 (and ported to Quest 2 in late 2022), but also is working with EA/Motive on a 3rd-person Iron Man game coming in the next year or two. There are also two separate Black Panther games in development from two different studios.
Insomniac asked to work on Spider-Man after Sony and Marvel Games were already having those talks as described in this article, and Sony approached Insomniac about making a Marvel games after Marvel asked about them. It was then that Insomniac asked for Spider-Man. The timelines for both ends match up perfectly. Sony was always going to grab that IP from Marvel Games and Insomniac was everyone's choice, and luckily they also seemed to want to work on Spider-Man. And I say "seem" because that interview could also be obfuscating a few things for private business reasons, as gaming promotional pieces can do.
Legally speaking, nobody else is going to make a dedicated Spider-Man game at all right now, based on what the book referenced in the article recently revealed. The character can be used in other Marvel works featuring ensembles because Marvel Games still controls the character's IP in games and can dictate where he can show up. But in terms of an actual Spider-Man game, they shopped that to first-party publishers and promised platform exclusivity by way of increased platform adoption—that's not a pitch for non-exclusivity. There's no indication that Marvel Games decided to make a whole new stream of Spider-Man media unto itself with the Insomniac game, leaving the possibility of other dedicated Spider-Man games open—that article talks about inking deals for the Spider-Man game rights IP whole to a sole, large, first-party publisher.
Also the $100 million figure is the development cost of the game, not the price of the IP rights. That's still undisclosed.
Yes, I've been saying this, except that it goes beyond only Insomniac's Spider-Man. The concept didn't exist when Marvel Games set out to find a new home for that IP after all. It didn't exist until later, and it still wouldn't be separate from the full Spider-Man video game IP. When they say "Spider-Man IP", they mean the IP to make a game titled and centred around Spider-Man at all e.g. Spider-Man Web of Shadows. It's not the same as the character IP rights, which they previously did sell the film rights to Sony and have regretted it since. That's why Spider-Man can show up in Ultimate Alliance, Avengers, and other ensemble games but nobody is making a dedicated Spider-Man game except Sony and Insomniac.
Marvel Games specifically set out to find one home for the Spider-Man video game IP and they landed with Sony. Whether it was Insomniac or not who ended up working on the game is immaterial, what matters is that Marvel Games was intent and Sony invested heavily into something that by all accounts above looks like an exclusivity deal for the dedicated game rights, not the character rights. Anyone else can go and make a Marvel game with Spider-Man in it, but they're not making a Spider-Man game.
On the Iron Man note: the question was more around when publishers or developers could go up and ink a deal to make a new game of their own volition in such a situation, not when has an IP been spread over a few places. Because if they left that open, and after the success of Insomniac's Spider-Man, the next question would be: Why isn't anyone else making their own Spider-Man game now too? They've had five years to get started.
Once again - the book in your article is referring to Spider-Man the game, not Spider-Man the character. In English grammar when something is italicized it is referring to a specific artwork, not a general noun. For example, "John Wick is the protagonist of John Wick". I think this is the source of your confusion.
There is no evidence to support this claim.
Sony own's the rights to solo Spider-Man films and this particular verison of the character. That's it. Here's an article that confirms this, and another. I can provide more evidence - this is a well-documented fact. Per ScreenRant,
As for your question,
The answer is: presumably the same reason no other developer wanted to make a Marvel game in the first place - Nintendo and Microsoft would rather work on their own IP. It says so in your article.
I am trying to make this very clear: I am talking about the IP of a Spider-Man game overall, not the character nor any specific game or series. The character can be used elsewhere (in games) which is why we are seeing it in other games. What we are not seeing is a whole Spider-Man game from anyone else because that is the IP that is locked up. Not the character, the game rights about and starring the character. Again: people can make a Marvel game with Spider-Man in it but they are not making a Spider-Man game. The IP is not locked to a single game or series but the concept of making games around the character of Spider-Man.
I linked an article from May 2023 above with new information that says that Ong went looking for a publisher to work with, and he specifically targetted the console manufacturers instead of a major third-party publisher for a long-term investment. The sell included platform adoption i.e. selling more consoles. All of this indicates an exclusivity deal. Meanwhile both the 3 year old ScreenRant article makes some key claims that are unsubstantiated whereas the 2 year old Fansided one is more factually based and holds back from being as assumptive as ScreenRant's.
ScreenRant:
This is the part you quoted but it's unsubstantiated. The IGN video (which is almost word-for-word the same statement as Ted Price gives in the GameInformer video) does not state this. This isn't stated by Price. The writer of this article was paraphrasing Price's words for this bit but added more than was actually said.
Fansided says this, which is more precise to what we've seen happen:
Fansided keeps it precise: Sony doesn't have the exclusive rights to Spider-Man, the character (it's not italicized after all). That was always the contention that Marvel had with Sony when it came to the film rights and there's no way they would make that mistake again. ScreenRant extrapolated that to mean Sony didn't have exclusive rights to Spider-Man games but there is no basis I can find for that statement beyond an assumption from the writer.
The book's revelations are all new information that was not previously available. Before it, the only statement anyone had to go on was Ted Price's clearly worked over statement on how Insomniac came to work on a Spider-Man game. As far as I can tell, nobody has ever divulged the details of the agreement between Sony and Marvel, nor Marvel's plans for any Spider-Man games outside of Sony, so nobody can say for sure—and that's why both these ScreenRant and Fansided articles seem openly confused about what the deal must be. But the motivations and statements of Ong, and who he spoke to and what they pitched, and the language of investment on both sides gives a lot of hints about what is going on here.
However, there is one interesting statement Ong made back in 2016:
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/spider-man-leads-marvels-epic-new-console-strategy
The bolded part is about as close to an admission of exclusivity to Sony and Insomniac to make any Spider-Man game at all as we may ever get, and it's hard to read this statement in any other way.
In this industry where everyone is chasing the next huge game, and other billion dollar gaming publishers like Ubisoft are chasing licensing with other Disney-owned properties like Star Wars? The chances of both this and "Anyone can go to Disney and make a deal to make a new Spider-Man game" being true are pretty small.
You are seeing a lack of Spider-Man games on the market and assuming that is due to licensing. In the article you provided, however, it's clear that neither Nintendo nor Microsoft have a desire to make a Spider-Man game. We know that Ubisoft has been busy the last ~5 years with Avatar and multiple Star Wars projects, Bethesda has been busy with Starfield and Indiana Jones, Square Enix has been doing their own Marvel thing, etc. Believe it or not, most studios are just fine not making Spider-Man games - but that doesn't mean they can't.
Simply look at how Disney has licensed other heroes such as Iron Man and Black Panther. Iron Man VR was a Sony-developed Playstation-exclusive - just like Spider-Man. But that didn't stop EA from working with Disney to make their own Iron Man game. Disney has learned their lesson from Activision's handling of Spider-Man and EA's handling of Star Wars - they will never sell off the rights to a character in an entire medium to a single company again. Hell, just look at the mess they made selling Spider-Man's film rights to Sony in the first place. Do you think Disney would ever willingly put themselves in that exact scenario again for gaming?
If you examine all publicly available knowledge and apply some critical thinking, it's very clear that Disney and Sony simply reached a deal to create a handful of exclusive titles (Spider-Man, Spider-Man: Miles Morales, and Wolverine). They did not sell the game rights to the character.
My assumption is based on a lot more than just that, I've outlined it a few times. It's not the lack of games on the market, it's Ong's statements and actions as the steward of all these licenses. He's the EVP of Marvel Games, reformed after Disney Interactive Studios was shut down, for the sole purpose of maximizing Marvel's licensing in the gaming industry. He's the key player here. I don't see how ignoring him and his statements outright is reasonable.
It doesn't matter what they're doing with Iron Man and Black Panther because Sony, Marvel Games, and Insomniac specifically made a deal over Spider-Man. Ong effectively said that only Sony and Insomniac are going to be putting out Spider-Man games. Iron Man and Black Panther are nowhere near as valuable to a gaming company as Spider-Man. The nearest Marvel hero who would be is Wolverine. Even Superman doesn't rate, only Batman comes near Spider-Man's level in this context. So of course the deals they make for those games are not going to be mired in exclusivity but Spider-Man would be.
Star Wars is handled by Lucasfilm Games, who are a different subsidiary with a different approach. This is why it's important not to overreduce key players to just "Disney" as Disney is a giant conglomerate with many subsidiaries that operate independently, with different approaches. You don't even have to look at the games for this, the movie situations between Marvel and Star Wars has been widely discussed despite them both being "Disney". In the Star Wars case, they locked the entire IP of Star Wars to EA, they didn't lock only Darth Vader games to EA. A single, very popular and lucrative character from Marvel is a very different scope than all Star Wars games at all. Speaking of overreducing context: the reason why Iron Man VR is a PlayStation exclusive becomes very clear when you count all the consoles that have VR support (and there's even more to this when you analyze PSVR's dealings with third party non-exclusive games). Meta's Oculus is doing the PC port, and they definitely don't have exclusive rights to making Iron Man games—neither Sony nor Oculus seem to have negotiated for it and there is no information out there suggesting they tried to.
Additionally, as we've already covered, of course everyone learned their lesson from the Spider-Man film rights sold to Sony in the late 90's. That's why they did not sell full control of the character this time and Spider-Man can be used in other Marvel games. That lesson has been learned and dealt with already.
When fully considering Ong's actions and statements and not ignoring them outright for some reason, it points to Sony and Insomniac being the ones to make any Spider-Man games on console (and PC) exclusively since that is what Ong plainly said and all information since 2016 has corroborated in some fashion.
Rather than bicker about semantics I just checked the actual credits of the game. Marvel Entertainment is credited - which they would not be if Spider-Man's game rights were exclusively owned by Sony. There are other credits listed that confirm the IP is licensed to Sony, not owned outright.
Also, worth noting that in his E3 2016 speech Ong said the partnership with SIE was simply a partnership for this game and nothing more.
What? On what basis? This only makes sense to me if Sony bought Spider-Man entirely and he was no longer part of Marvel or Disney.
Where he also said only Sony and Insomniac are going to be making Spider-Man games for a while?
I'm not arguing semantics, I'm arguing with was actually said outright by the guy who controls the video game rights to all Marvel properties.
Soooo... in 10 years they make CoD exclusive then try to buy EA with the promise of "No, no, see, it's cool... Madden will be multi platform for 10 years..."
I know there are several serious considerations to make. This is not one of them.
I really wanna play WoW on the Xbox.
Honestly I was hoping that it wouldn't be approved but honestly I would have been surprised if they hadn't approved it. Today's US government has no stomach at all for trying to keep corporations in check. Even the democrats at best just want status quo (It's one of the things why I'd agree with "they're both bad" except for the fact that people who say that are just being disingenuous. But I'd say yeah they are both bad but one is way worse than the others. And I feel we are at the point we don't have the luxury of worrying about fixing the less bad one over trying to focus on getting the worst one out).
But Microsoft is a company that has shown and had history before that they totally would go for trying to kill out all competition and abuse their place on the top. And that what they want is definitely not "consumer friendly". I will say they can also be a good company... when they feel they have to compete. But I really think it's a bad idea to let them keep buying up all competition.
Oh well, at least this doesn't really affect me directly as I don't play Activision games. Just really don't like seeing MS keep buying off major publishers now.
Well that's a shame. Though unsurprising as I would never expect the American government to stop Microsoft from embracing and extending.
I mean the EU regulator approved the merger ages ago now.
Also, I’m not sure if EEE makes all that much sense in this context. Is Microsoft trying to extinguish Activision? Gaming as a whole? I’m pretty sure they’re just trying to make money in the space.
It was only a tongue-in-cheek comment more so aimed at the Americans anti-trust failures of the past with MSFT. In reality there is no embrace here, only extension, though one could make the argument that they would be attempting to extinguish competition if anything.
If you thought games like CoD were bland and trite now, I shudder to think how mindless it's going to be with Microsoft at the helm.
CoD was always going to play it safe. It's the Madden of shooters. There's a dedicated playbase that just wants a light refresh every year. They don't want something new and scary, they want their COD.