Support NeoGAF

[Neofire]

Cloud gaming control was the concession?

I was thinking the same thing lol, CMA's statement is code word for "the check cleared"

 

[Rykan]

I already explained how you missed his point. Until we hear of the other properties, and considering history, it isn't unreasonable to assume more IPs will becomes exclusives.

I'm not missing the point, ironically, you are. What you're doing is speculation. Accept and acknowledge that is what it is.

COD also has a duration. 15 years. There's nothing to "come on" to. History shows that Microsoft will happily pull IPs from other platforms should the opportunity arise. That was his point.

You're assuming that MS will do the same with AB as it did with Bethesda. This is an assumption that doesn't hold up on closer scrutiny of the deal.

 

[adamsapple]

That isn't fair at all. Did you read my post? The original deal was blocked and had an additional clause that the acquisition couldn't be reattempted for a decade. The fact that this deal went through means that the CMA undid their original decision. This is unprecedented.

It's not unprecedented, they spelled out it in the original order.

Don't rely on click bait websites or forum posts, read the actual statement itself.

Prohibition would be effected by accepting undertakings under section 82 of the Act or making an order under section 84 of the Act, prohibiting the Merger and preventing the Parties from attempting to merge for a further period: our normal practice would be to prevent a future merger between the Parties for the next ten years, absent a change of circumstances.

The circumstances have changed, they agreed to the Cloud rights being given to Ubisoft deal.

 

[HeWhoWalks]

I'm not missing the point, ironically, you are. What you're doing is speculation. Accept and acknowledge that is what it is.

I accept the point he made.

 

[Rykan]

I accept the point he made.

Great, we've established that games being "pulled" from other platforms is speculation, and that there are no AB games have been announced to be leaving any platforms. Glad we have this cleared up.

 

[HeWhoWalks]

Great, we've established that games being "pulled" from other platforms is speculation, and that there are no AB games have been announced to be leaving any platforms. Glad we have this cleared up.

Nothing needed clearing up, though. His point was pretty easy to take in, even if it was speculative. No one argued that it wasn't. I'm saying I get it because history supports his theory.

 

[near]

It's not unprecedented, they spelled out it in the original order.

Don't rely on click bait websites or forum posts, read the actual statement itself.

The circumstances have changed, they agreed to the Cloud rights being given to Ubisoft deal.

He could've been referring to that, or he could've been referring to CMA's requested remedy, either way he's wrong.

CMA Press Release April 2023:

Microsoft submitted a proposal to address some of these concerns which the CMA examined in considerable depth. The proposed remedy set out requirements governing what games must be offered by Microsoft to what platforms and on what conditions over a ten-year period.

Given the remedy applies only to a defined set of Activision games, which can be streamed only in a defined set of cloud gaming services, provided they are purchased in a defined set of online stores, there are significant risks of disagreement and conflict between Microsoft and cloud gaming service providers, particularly over a ten-year period in a rapidly changing market.

Microsoft / Activision deal prevented to protect innovation and choice in cloud gaming

The CMA has prevented Microsoft’s proposed purchase of Activision over concerns the deal would alter the future of the fast-growing cloud gaming market, leading to reduced innovation and less choice for UK gamers over the years to come.

www.gov.uk

 

[adamsapple]

He could've been referring to that, or he could've been referring to CMA's requested remedy, either way he's wrong.

CMA Press Release April 2023:

Microsoft / Activision deal prevented to protect innovation and choice in cloud gaming

The CMA has prevented Microsoft’s proposed purchase of Activision over concerns the deal would alter the future of the fast-growing cloud gaming market, leading to reduced innovation and less choice for UK gamers over the years to come.

www.gov.uk

Even in this article, Sarah is kinda taking MS to task about wasting time and not having a remedy like this from the start, they wouldn't have needed to drag it out this long:

But businesses and their advisors should be in no doubt that the tactics employed by Microsoft are no way to engage with the CMA. Microsoft had the chance to restructure during our initial investigation but instead continued to insist on a package of measures that we told them simply wouldn’t work. Dragging out proceedings in this way only wastes time and money.

 

[Rykan]

Nothing needed clearing up, though. His point was pretty easy to take in, even if it was speculative. No one argued that it wasn't. I'm saying I get it because history supports his theory.

Exactly. It was speculation. A call to stick to observable facts instead of speculation isn't “missing the point".

 

[HeWhoWalks]

Exactly. It was speculation. A call to stick to observable facts instead of speculation isn't “missing the point".

Fight your fight.

On this side, his opinion holds weight. Until something happens that suggests otherwise moving forward, he keeps his accolades.

 

[StereoVsn]

MS proved these agencies shouldn’t even exist. FTC has been a joke for a long time, letting Disney go on a fucking rampage over the last decade or so and all those telecom mergers. All these agencies do is sniff their own farts and waste tax money.

This is not a good take. Agencies need to exist, they need to have some teeth and some competent people running them.

Issue is becoming that corps are getting so large and have so many politicians on their pay it’s getting ridiculous. We are like 20-30 years away from full on Cyberpunk dystopia it feels.

Well, not in China I guess. There billionaires just disappear, the companies get commissars on their board, and CCP magically owns 30% of the company.

Either way the world is screwed. And clowns in US Congress keep clowning.

 

[Rykan]

Fight your fight.

On this side, his opinion holds weight. Until something happens that suggests otherwise moving forward, he keeps his accolades.

You got this backwards.

No AB games are being pulled from other platforms until proven otherwise. Not the other way around.

 

[HeWhoWalks]

You got this backwards.

No AB games are being pulled from other platforms until proven otherwise. Not the other way around.

Cool.

StereoVsn

Well said. The more this happens, the worse it gets, but it is what it is. The regulators at least need to remain to keep things, to a degree, in check.

 

[IFireflyl]

This is not true at all. CMA prevented the deal after Microsoft's proposals failed to address concerns in cloud gaming. CMA then stipulated requirements governing what games they must offer subject to the merger on conditions over a 10 year period. This concession is over a 15 year period.

We're not talking about the same thing at all. The CMA prevented/blocked the deal. That was their final decision. Then, during Microsoft's appeal of the CMA's final decision, the CMA made an unprecedented move by telling the CAT that they were going to revisit the original decision before the CAT could render a judgement. They were revisiting the original decision because of backroom discussions regarding what the CMA would need from Microsoft to approve the deal, and Microsoft finally acquiesced. The thing is, that's not how the process works. The CMA should not be able to give a final judgement (which includes blocking the acquisition for a decade), and then change their tune after the fact without a decision coming down from the CAT after-the-fact that tells them to revisit it.

It's not unprecedented, they spelled out it in the original order.

Don't rely on click bait websites or forum posts, read the actual statement itself.

Prohibition would be effected by accepting undertakings under section 82 of the Act or making an order under section 84 of the Act, prohibiting the Merger and preventing the Parties from attempting to merge for a further period: our normal practice would be to prevent a future merger between the Parties for the next ten years, absent a change of circumstances.

The circumstances have changed, they agreed to the Cloud rights being given to Ubisoft deal.

I have followed this acquisition closer than most. I have read the CMA's documentation, and the "change of circumstance" that the CMA used was fucking retarded.

The developments outlined by Microsoft are:

(1) the acceptance by the European Commission (the Commission) of Commitments (the Commission 2 Commitments) from Microsoft, which Microsoft submits provide a statutory underpinning and enforcement structure to the cloud gaming licensing agreements Microsoft entered into with NVIDIA, Boosteroid and Ubitus (the Cloud Agreements);
(2) an agreement entered into between Sony and Microsoft providing access to Call of Duty (CoD) (the Sony Agreement);
(3) new evidence that has become available through litigation in the US relating to the Merger;
and (4) new information obtained by Microsoft through UK court proceedings relating to its appeal of the Report.

None of these were relevant to the CMA's blocking of the acquisition. The first point was another country's acceptance of the acquisition, which has no bearing on the CMA's decision making process (according to the CMA themselves).

The second point had nothing to do with the CMA's decision to block the acquisition as it was Sony making sure they weren't shafted if the CMA and FTC failed to block the acquisition, and it still wouldn't resolve cloud gaming concerns that the CMA had.

The third and fourth points are extremely vague, and there were no details that came out on the UK or US proceedings that changed any facet of the cloud gaming concerns.

Finally, the decision to revisit the deal was made during Microsoft's appeal, and it was AFTER Microsoft decided to agree to structural changes (once they lost to the CMA originally, and they went, "Oh crap. That's not good.").

A "change of circumstance" is supposed to be something major that occurred since the original decision-making process. For example, alimony can be reconsidered when a job is gained/lost or there is a major change in pay. No new information came out for the CMA to say there was a change of circumstance. The only change that actually occurred was that Microsoft agreed to structural changes that they had every ability to agree to before the CMA's original decision was rendered.

 

[adamsapple]

A "change of circumstance" is supposed to be something major that occurred since the original decision-making process. For example, alimony can be reconsidered when a job is gained/lost or there is a major change in pay. No new information came out for the CMA to say there was a change of circumstance. The only change that actually occurred was that Microsoft agreed to structural changes that they had every ability to agree to before the CMA's original decision was rendered.

Yes, the article OP is about pretty much says the same thing, they say if these kinds of remedies were offered, the whole process would not have needed to be dragged on this long.

But businesses and their advisors should be in no doubt that the tactics employed by Microsoft are no way to engage with the CMA. Microsoft had the chance to restructure during our initial investigation but instead continued to insist on a package of measures that we told them simply wouldn’t work. Dragging out proceedings in this way only wastes time and money.

Apparently this is a big enough thing that CMA considers it a notable change in circumstance.

Could MS have done this from the get-go to avoid all this CMA drama? very likely.
Would anyone try to squeeze out the most you can before starting offering more remedies ? also very likely.

 

[Rac3r]

This provided no new insight. The CMA buckled under Microsoft's pressure. They had already blocked the deal, and in a unprecedented move they decided to reverse course and accept a new agreement via backroom discussions. I can't think of another time in the CMA's history where they have done this. While they did get some concessions out of Microsoft, this was just another example of how big tech rules the world.

This. They folded under intense lobbying and tactical marketing by Microsoft. Just shows that when you're a company as big as them, you can throw your weight around and basically do whatever you want for the most part. It's sad, but true. Also, Brad Smith is an absolute master at what he does.

 

[NickFire]

When this expires we might be ready for cloud depending on speed of technology advances. So this pretty much does nothing material IMO.

 

[IFireflyl]

Yes, the article OP is about pretty much says the same thing, they say if these kinds of remedies were offered, the whole process would not have needed to be dragged on this long.



Apparently this is a big enough thing that CMA considers it a notable change in circumstance.

Could MS have done this from the get-go to avoid all this CMA drama? very likely.
Would anyone try to squeeze out the most you can before starting offering more remedies ? also very likely.

If altering your original conditions is called a "change of circumstance" that the CMA will reconsider, then no corporation should ever agree to anything the CMA initially asks for because if the CMA blocks them they can just resubmit the acquisition with modified terms. That's the precedent the CMA just left with this acquisition.

 

[RoboFu]

So Linux servers was the answer?? Lol..

Oh my!! Hahahaha!!!

Even MS themselves is going to use Linux servers with containers mainly for cloud gaming!! MS is probably still laughing at that.

 

[BennyBlanco]

This is not a good take. Agencies need to exist, they need to have some teeth and some competent people running them.

Issue is becoming that corps are getting so large and have so many politicians on their pay it’s getting ridiculous. We are like 20-30 years away from full on Cyberpunk dystopia it feels.

Well, not in China I guess. There billionaires just disappear, the companies get commissars on their board, and CCP magically owns 30% of the company.

Either way the world is screwed. And clowns in US Congress keep clowning.

CMA and FTC: we are blocking this deal

MS: actually, no you’re not

CMA and FTC: ok

This process cost MILLIONS in tax payer money. It’s a sham. What’s the point?

 

[Unknown?]

They blocked the deal due to Cloud concerns. They CLEARLY stated the reason why the block happened. We had a big thread on GAF when that happened and the reason was provided in the title. With MS structurally divesting themselves of the cloud rights, those objections were no longer necessary.

This isn't about 'reversing course'. They blocked an attempt by MS to get it passed after they won the FTC case. This is the CMA sticking to their guns and forcing MS into significant concessions.



I'm not sure how you can argue this with a straight face. They didn't want to police a behavioral remedy. This is considered a structural remedy, and backed by a legally binding rights transfer to Ubisoft who will themselves ensure the agreements are held to.



This article was written October 13th and was the medium they used to communicate their decision. They certainly aren't 'commenting on it further'.

Your check is going to be much larger this week, my friend!

 

[PaintTinJr]

What I'm interested to know, now is what would prevent Sony from buying Ubisoft temporarily just for the Acti cloud gaming rights? which Ubisoft will hold in perpetuity for all games made for the next 15years and before, or longer if the CMA extends it at their discretion, and then Sony decide to sell on Ubisoft (ex-cloud rights) to neutralise this situation forever, because in 15years when all games might be cloud based, all those old game would represent the substance of Act, so Sony would have bought the majority of Act for cheap, 5-10years before the value could be realised.

It would also give Sony full control to commission linux version of all those games and shop them to XCloud's linux competitor startups, without placing a software delay and high price burden on the startups, and would allow them to put Microsoft to the sword on actually delivering at the quality level they'd agreed with the CMA, with the scenario that when Microsoft's ability to deliver parity on linux fails because them drowned all the games in Windows' proprietary APIs, like they have Minecraft, Sony can make the argument to the CMA, that would still hold the power to force Microsoft to divest if need be.

People might argue that PlayStation are too big a player to be allowed to buy Ubisoft with those Acti cloud gaming rights, but given the criteria raised for this merger, Sony don't have their own desktop OS with 95% of the gaming market, and they don't have their own market leading Cloud infrastructure, as they use Azure from Microsoft for the bulk of their cloud needs.

 

[adamsapple]

Your check is going to be much larger this week, my friend!

Is this your shtick or something? Kinda lazy TBH.

 

[PaintTinJr]

So Linux servers was the answer?? Lol..

Oh my!! Hahahaha!!!

Even MS themselves is going to use Linux servers with containers mainly for cloud gaming!! MS is probably still laughing at that.

The difference is that only Microsoft and their hand in glove partner Nvidia have access to the source code for the HAL(Hardware Abstraction Layer) for Windows DirectX for them to port it to linux and have those linux servers run the graphics perfectly without the need for Proton/WINE like everyone else.

 

[Three]

Is this your shtick or something? Kinda lazy TBH.

Says the guy who posted the same forza gif in several threads over a week.

 

[adamsapple]

Says the guy who posted the same forza gif in several threads over a week.

Posting a related game gif in relevant topics is the same thing?

 

[MarkMe2525]

Posting a related game gif in relevant topics is the same thing?

It was gif of a MS related property, by definition that makes you a astroturfing shill.

 

[adamsapple]

It was gif of a MS related property, by definition that makes you a astroturfing shill

I bet he's furiously searching my post history right now trying to find a zinger gotcha

 

[Three]

Posting a related game gif in relevant topics is the same thing?

Yes it in fact is pretty much the same thing. It was your shtick to be trying to promote that thing by posting the same thing over and over again like it's his shtick to make the same comment to said promotion. The gif and the comment are as "relevant" as each other.

 

[adamsapple]

Yes it in fact is pretty much the same thing. It was your shtick to be trying to promote that thing by posting the same thing over and over again like it's his shtick to make the same comment to said promotion. The gif and the comment are as "relevant" as each other.

 

[RoboFu]

Says the guy who posted the same forza gif in several threads over a week.

There are people who have been constantly refreshing steam’s starfield user score since launch in a thread made exclusively for tracking starfield’s user score. And you are trying to call him out for posting the same gif a few times?

 

[Slicker than your average]

They blocked the deal due to Cloud concerns. They CLEARLY stated the reason why the block happened. We had a big thread on GAF when that happened and the reason was provided in the title. With MS structurally divesting themselves of the cloud rights, those objections were no longer necessary.

This isn't about 'reversing course'. They blocked an attempt by MS to get it passed after they won the FTC case. This is the CMA sticking to their guns and forcing MS into significant concessions.



I'm not sure how you can argue this with a straight face. They didn't want to police a behavioral remedy. This is considered a structural remedy, and backed by a legally binding rights transfer to Ubisoft who will themselves ensure the agreements are held to.



This article was written October 13th and was the medium they used to communicate their decision. They certainly aren't 'commenting on it further'.

I knew you would quote this poster. I've never seen someone damage control as much as you.

According to the Xbox fanatics here, the CMA were this nobody clown organisation and little UK should be ignored. That MS should pullout out of the UK. Now it seems CMA are great.

 

[Three]

I bet he's furiously searching my post history right now trying to find a zinger gotcha

Again, says the guy who furiously searched somebody's post history for "check" over 4 months to find 3 posts.

 

[adamsapple]

Again, says the guy who furiously searched somebody's post history for "check" over 4 months to find 3 posts.

The fact that I posted a literal picture of his post history should have clued you in on that, very perceptive

Keep an eye on me posting some more forza gifs soon. Shit's good.

 

[Three]

The fact that I posted a literal picture of his post history should have clued you in on that, very perceptive

Keep an eye on me posting some more forza gifs soon. Shit's good.

What? I'm glad you still don't see the irony in complaining about somebody's shtick for repeated posts AND preemptively bitching about searching somebody's post history. All while doing those things yourself to an even worse degree.

 

[Unknown?]

Is this your shtick or something? Kinda lazy TBH.

Uh-oh, you seem to be sweating!

 

[ArtHands]

It really shows that the armchair analysts who deemed it is anti-competitive all along, really know nothing here.

 

[Three]

There are people who have been constantly refreshing steam’s starfield user score since launch in a thread made exclusively for tracking starfield’s user score. And you are trying to call him out for posting the same gif a few times?

I'm not calling anybody out for anything. Just found it funny he of all people searched the guys history and was accusing somebody of having a shtick. For making a similar joke 3 times over 4 months, meanwhile he's posting the same gif everywhere in a single week (sometimes in the same thread acting surprised by it!). At least the other guy was just somebody trying to be funny. Not really sure why he was spamming the same gif everywhere though.

 

[adamsapple]

Uh-oh, you seem to be sweating!

Well of course padawan, I haven't received my promised check yet.

I'm not calling anybody out for anything. Just found it funny he of all people searched the guys history and was accusing somebody of having a shtick. For making a similar joke 3 times over 4 months, meanwhile he's posting the same gif everywhere in a single week (sometimes in the same thread acting surprised by it!). At least the other guy was just somebody trying to be funny. Not really sure why he was spamming the same gif everywhere though.

The fact that you think posting a relevant racing game gif in a relevant racing game topic is the same as the absolutely hilarious comment of saying 'your check is in the mail' to anyone you intellectually disagree with, just because that poster is aligned with your platform of choice, is just *chef's kiss*.

bueno my friend, muy bueno.

 

[freefornow]

CMA: we’ve made sure Microsoft can’t have a stranglehold over this important and rapidly developing market. As cloud gaming grows, this intervention will ensure people get more competitive prices, better services and more choice.

 

[ReBurn]

The CMA saved the future of gaming, y'all.

 

[MarkMe2525]

The CMA is my favorite regulatory body.

 

[HoofHearted]

What I'm interested to know, now is what would prevent Sony from buying Ubisoft temporarily just for the Acti cloud gaming rights? which Ubisoft will hold in perpetuity for all games made for the next 15years and before, or longer if the CMA extends it at their discretion, and then Sony decide to sell on Ubisoft (ex-cloud rights) to neutralise this situation forever, because in 15years when all games might be cloud based, all those old game would represent the substance of Act, so Sony would have bought the majority of Act for cheap, 5-10years before the value could be realised.

It would also give Sony full control to commission linux version of all those games and shop them to XCloud's linux competitor startups, without placing a software delay and high price burden on the startups, and would allow them to put Microsoft to the sword on actually delivering at the quality level they'd agreed with the CMA, with the scenario that when Microsoft's ability to deliver parity on linux fails because them drowned all the games in Windows' proprietary APIs, like they have Minecraft, Sony can make the argument to the CMA, that would still hold the power to force Microsoft to divest if need be.

People might argue that PlayStation are too big a player to be allowed to buy Ubisoft with those Acti cloud gaming rights, but given the criteria raised for this merger, Sony don't have their own desktop OS with 95% of the gaming market, and they don't have their own market leading Cloud infrastructure, as they use Azure from Microsoft for the bulk of their cloud needs.

Just curious - do you actually read what you post?

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I do think Sony is going to have to respond in kind with their own M&A strategy and a more aggressive one than we've seen so far.

I don't think setting off a nuclear arms race in gaming and creating mass consolidation is creating competition.

Cloud gaming was a concern, but this should have been stopped largely on the SLC in the gaming market alone.

If Sony acquires T2 as a response to this, I don't think that will benefit gamers to not be able to play GTA6 on Xbox and given the Xbox userbase, that's a foreclosure Sony would probably be comfortable making.

 

[HoofHearted]

I do think Sony is going to have to respond in kind with their own M&A strategy and a more aggressive one than we've seen so far.

I don't think setting off a nuclear arms race in gaming and creating mass consolidation is creating competition.

Cloud gaming was a concern, but this should have been stopped largely on the SLC in the gaming market alone.

If Sony acquires T2 as a response to this, I don't think that will benefit gamers to not be able to play GTA6 on Xbox and given the Xbox userbase, that's a foreclosure Sony would probably be comfortable making.

I’d seriously doubt Sony would make a run at T2 …

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I’d seriously doubt Sony would make a run at T2 …

I think it makes a lot of sense

• Safeguards their purchase by Microsoft or others at a later date
• Gives them immediate access to GaaS revenue from Red Dead Online and GTA Online, but also allows them to expand into additional Sports rather than just MLB The Show, giving them access to NBA, WWE, PGA
  • With ClapHanz they could make a fortune on PGA via VR and Mobile
  • They could also enter into FIFA which safeguards their position in Europe
  • If the NFL ends their exclusivity deal with EA, they could bring back NFL 2K
• Red Dead 3 and GTA6 could launch exclusively for PC on their storefront, immediately giving their storefront a massive boost
• Transmedia properties for Red Dead and GTA
  • Including the ability to promote music from Sony Music
• Would give significant separation between PS5 and XS
• Would add significant backlog catalog to PS+

The real question Sony has to ask themselves is can they afford NOT to buy T2. So you have to walk through a scenario where there is either full foreclosure or partial foreclosure and see what that looks like in regard to revenue.

If I'm Sony I'd rather be on the other end of it, particularly since if they can create significant revenue through a PC storefront, that could be worth billions of dollars per year by itself.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

How much would a full foreclosure cost Sony of JUST GTA?

Let's not even look at the impact on hardware sales and just focus on software alone for this part of the exercise.

Let's say 45 million copies across PS3, PS4, and PS5. Let's go with an average per-unit price of 35 dollars. That's 1.575 billion, of which let's say a full 30% went to Sony, which is 472.5 million dollars...

Let's swing that per unit price to 40 dollars. 1.8 billion, with a Sony cut of 540 million.

So we're easily looking at, especially with the increase in game prices, at least half a billion dollars lost just by not having access.

Now consider the other factors like Sony probably had to pay for some marketing deal and we can probably at an additional 150 million dollars that they wouldn't have to pay if they owned the company, not to mention the actual profit from the game AND the hardware sales AND in the case of the PC market opening up potentially billions in annual revenue to them. You're probably looking at billions in losses rather than billions in gains.

We're not even considering Red Dead or other games like Borderlands, Mafia, 2K Sports, e.t.c.

I think if you look at 2K Sports alone without doing much else because a much bigger brand by including MLB The Show, but if you add claphanz to PGA Tour, and expand that to PC, Mobile, and VR, and now you add in FIFA and maybe in the near future NFL...

T2 puts you in a position where you no longer have to be so reliant on 3rd party developers and that's a reality that will become more relevant the more the industry consolidates.

 

[IFireflyl]

How much would a full foreclosure cost Sony of JUST GTA?

Let's not even look at the impact on hardware sales and just focus on software alone for this part of the exercise.

Let's say 45 million copies across PS3, PS4, and PS5. Let's go with an average per-unit price of 35 dollars. That's 1.575 billion, of which let's say a full 30% went to Sony, which is 472.5 million dollars...

Let's swing that per unit price to 40 dollars. 1.8 billion, with a Sony cut of 540 million.

So we're easily looking at, especially with the increase in game prices, at least half a billion dollars lost just by not having access.

Now consider the other factors like Sony probably had to pay for some marketing deal and we can probably at an additional 150 million dollars that they wouldn't have to pay if they owned the company, not to mention the actual profit from the game AND the hardware sales AND in the case of the PC market opening up potentially billions in annual revenue to them. You're probably looking at billions in losses rather than billions in gains.

We're not even considering Red Dead or other games like Borderlands, Mafia, 2K Sports, e.t.c.

I think if you look at 2K Sports alone without doing much else because a much bigger brand by including MLB The Show, but if you add claphanz to PGA Tour, and expand that to PC, Mobile, and VR, and now you add in FIFA and maybe in the near future NFL...

T2 puts you in a position where you no longer have to be so reliant on 3rd party developers and that's a reality that will become more relevant the more the industry consolidates.

 

[HoofHearted]

I think it makes a lot of sense

• Safeguards their purchase by Microsoft or others at a later date
• Gives them immediate access to GaaS revenue from Red Dead Online and GTA Online, but also allows them to expand into additional Sports rather than just MLB The Show, giving them access to NBA, WWE, PGA
  • With ClapHanz they could make a fortune on PGA via VR and Mobile
  • They could also enter into FIFA which safeguards their position in Europe
  • If the NFL ends their exclusivity deal with EA, they could bring back NFL 2K
• Red Dead 3 and GTA6 could launch exclusively for PC on their storefront, immediately giving their storefront a massive boost
• Transmedia properties for Red Dead and GTA
  • Including the ability to promote music from Sony Music
• Would give significant separation between PS5 and XS
• Would add significant backlog catalog to PS+

The real question Sony has to ask themselves is can they afford NOT to buy T2. So you have to walk through a scenario where there is either full foreclosure or partial foreclosure and see what that looks like in regard to revenue.

If I'm Sony I'd rather be on the other end of it, particularly since if they can create significant revenue through a PC storefront, that could be worth billions of dollars per year by itself.

Sorry - wasn’t clear earlier - I meant from a pure purchase perspective.. Better stated… I don’t think that Sony can realistically afford to take a run at T2 …

 

[Brigandier]

I'm taking a break from this site. It's become just a corporate news dump spot and I'm sick of it.

You could always use the ignore thread function... Give it a try it works.