By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Activision is pissed off at the FTC and Sony, Activision COD developers are too angry thats scary

zero129 said:
snyps said:

I’m against Microsoft continuing to buy its way in to 1st place. But in the end, this merger changes nothing. Xbox always be in last. PlayStation has the “cool” image locked in.

Xbox needs a complete rebranding to succeed. “X” as a branding image, was a trend in the late 90s. It doesn’t work to sell consoles. I like it in all but.. it’s not working. 

Its good to know we are still living in the 90's early 2000's .

Teens, twenties, and superficial adults very much care about their image. “Xbox is gay” is something you can still hear in the high school walls. 

Come to think of it, that sounds like something a Call of Duty player might say online. Maybe this deal will work after all! 😄



Around the Network
snyps said:
zero129 said:

Its good to know we are still living in the 90's early 2000's .

Teens, twenties, and superficial adults very much care about their image. “Xbox is gay” is something you can still hear in the high school walls. 

Come to think of it, that sounds like something a Call of Duty player might say online. Maybe this deal will work after all! 😄

I guess as an adult i never thought of school yard things like that in a long time, pretty much thought it died with Nintendo and Sega. However ive not once heard my kids or their friends saying xbox is gay. I guess them self implanted images of how a person would still like things to be stick with a person even into adult hood.



smroadkill15 said:

Being against this merger because "big tech gets bigger" isn't a sufficient enough argument and it's not a good enough reason for this to be blocked by regulators.
How does this deal negatively effect consumers? I can give plenty of examples how this benefits consumers. There will be more choices of where and how to play these games with Game Pass and Xcloud. Nintendo will gets CoD, Steam gets CoD and more, Sony doesnt lose CoD.
This benefits the employees since MS is neutral about Unions and Unions supports this merger.
This deal is not anti competitive or makes this close to a monopoly like some claim. Basically, MS will get a piece of pie in the console, PC, and mobile markets, but no where does it give them a monopoly or make it anti competitive in any of those markets. Sony and Nintendo are still larger in the console space and I really don't see that changing much if this deal goes through. PC gaming is dominated by Steam and this doesn't change anything. Apple and Google have the mobile market to themselves. At least MS could make some moves to disrupt mobile.

This reads like regurgitated PR. This isn’t necessary. You don’t work for Microsoft. More or less, what Microsoft is trying to do is dog shit… put the right PR on it and people will swallow up that dog shit and flap their lips about regulation bodies doing their jobs and regulating this kind of dog shit that Microsoft is slinging.

Ignore the PR and be honest about what this is: a big tech conglomerate swallowing up the largest third party company in the console gaming industry.

“Well, it’s not a monopoly” is a dog shit argument.

No one is saying Call of Duty shouldn’t be on Xcloud (or whatever service) and no one is saying Call of Duty shouldn’t be on Nintendo consoles—but Microsoft doesn’t need to literally swallow up the largest third party in the console gaming industry for any of that to happen. If you think this is such a good thing, why are you dancing around the issue with a motte and bailey argumentative fallacy? You can’t, because there isn’t a good argument for it.

I’m half cut and only half thinking in English, so my post reads way angrier than my intent :D
I actually don’t give much of a shit about Microsoft or Activision (I do kinda care about Blizzard, and I’ve considered buying an Xbox), somehow I got sucked into the argument a few days ago when I saw this zombified PR regurgitation and big tech apologetics by people on this forum, and decided “I’m going to take that bait and argue” because this is so fucking obvious. It’s unbelievable how many people are jumping through hoops to ignore the shit, and actually support this kind of predatory expansionism of big tech conglomerates.
Fucking Internet :D

Bottom line is we should he breaking up big tech conglomerates, not cheering their predatory expansionism. Running apologetics on behalf of their corporate PR team as they swallow more companies, increase their bulk, and allow these behemoths to even further dip their filthy fingernails into every pot of soup. Don’t choke down shit because it’s got a PR coating… It’s still shit you’re eating.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

zero129 said:
snyps said:

Teens, twenties, and superficial adults very much care about their image. “Xbox is gay” is something you can still hear in the high school walls. 

Come to think of it, that sounds like something a Call of Duty player might say online. Maybe this deal will work after all! 😄

I guess as an adult i never thought of school yard things like that in a long time, pretty much thought it died with Nintendo and Sega. However ive not once heard my kids or their friends saying xbox is gay. I guess them self implanted images of how a person would still like things to be stick with a person even into adult hood.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Jumpin said:
zero129 said:

I guess as an adult i never thought of school yard things like that in a long time, pretty much thought it died with Nintendo and Sega. However ive not once heard my kids or their friends saying xbox is gay. I guess them self implanted images of how a person would still like things to be stick with a person even into adult hood.

Im not sure if the kids today would handle the school yards back when Nintendo and Sega war was going on .



Around the Network
Jumpin said:
smroadkill15 said:

Being against this merger because "big tech gets bigger" isn't a sufficient enough argument and it's not a good enough reason for this to be blocked by regulators.
How does this deal negatively effect consumers? I can give plenty of examples how this benefits consumers. There will be more choices of where and how to play these games with Game Pass and Xcloud. Nintendo will gets CoD, Steam gets CoD and more, Sony doesnt lose CoD.
This benefits the employees since MS is neutral about Unions and Unions supports this merger.
This deal is not anti competitive or makes this close to a monopoly like some claim. Basically, MS will get a piece of pie in the console, PC, and mobile markets, but no where does it give them a monopoly or make it anti competitive in any of those markets. Sony and Nintendo are still larger in the console space and I really don't see that changing much if this deal goes through. PC gaming is dominated by Steam and this doesn't change anything. Apple and Google have the mobile market to themselves. At least MS could make some moves to disrupt mobile.

This reads like regurgitated PR. This isn’t necessary. You don’t work for Microsoft. More or less, what Microsoft is trying to do is dog shit… put the right PR on it and people will swallow up that dog shit and flap their lips about regulation bodies doing their jobs and regulating this kind of dog shit that Microsoft is slinging.

Ignore the PR and be honest about what this is: a big tech conglomerate swallowing up the largest third party company in the console gaming industry.

“Well, it’s not a monopoly” is a dog shit argument.

No one is saying Call of Duty shouldn’t be on Xcloud (or whatever service) and no one is saying Call of Duty shouldn’t be on Nintendo consoles—but Microsoft doesn’t need to literally swallow up the largest third party in the console gaming industry for any of that to happen. If you think this is such a good thing, why are you dancing around the issue with a motte and bailey argumentative fallacy? You can’t, because there isn’t a good argument for it.

I’m half cut and only half thinking in English, so my post reads way angrier than my intent :D
I actually don’t give much of a shit about Microsoft or Activision (I do kinda care about Blizzard, and I’ve considered buying an Xbox), somehow I got sucked into the argument a few days ago when I saw this zombified PR regurgitation and big tech apologetics by people on this forum, and decided “I’m going to take that bait and argue” because this is so fucking obvious. It’s unbelievable how many people are jumping through hoops to ignore the shit, and actually support this kind of predatory expansionism of big tech conglomerates.
Fucking Internet :D

Bottom line is we should he breaking up big tech conglomerates, not cheering their predatory expansionism. Running apologetics on behalf of their corporate PR team as they swallow more companies, increase their bulk, and allow these behemoths to even further dip their filthy fingernails into every pot of soup. Don’t choke down shit because it’s got a PR coating… It’s still shit you’re eating.

At least I presented some reasons why the deal can be a good thing for consumers, employees, and the data shows this won't shift the market in any dramatic way in MS favor. Call it regurgitated talking points, but at least there is data and agreements in place to support it. You didn't even touch on the employee side of it. Let me guess? ABK will figure it out. Just like how they figured out how to support CoD on a Nintendo platform? You say MS shouldn't have to acquire ABK to get CoD on Nintendo, but can you say this for certain? ABK has failed to show otherwise, while MS has already promised for it to happen. 

MS didn't force this deal. ABK went to MS and said they were interested in selling. Its sounds to me, if MS wasn't interested then there was a very good chance someone else was.
I generally don't find video game mergers to be terribly concerning on the list of issues I should care about and do care about. At least with this deal, I will benefit directly and there is nothing that scream red flag with this merger. There are plenty of unknowns. But I'm not going to be for or against something based on unknowns. 



zero129 said:
Dante9 said:

Let's be honest here. If the situation was reversed and Sony was the one trying to make this acquisition happen, most of the people here now defending the deal would be arguing against it.
It's just a matter of who do you like.

I think the main reason for that would be Sonys stance when it comes to supporting other consoles and PC. Most likely if Sony was the ones making this deal PC players would have to wait at least a year for releases and xbox could kiss their ass.

However if Sony gave the same deal they gave bungie that all their games would come to PC and xbox day and date with all the same features and nothing cut i dont think many pc players or Xbox players would have a problem with it. But we all know that would never happen.

However you would see many of the same Sony fans who are against this deal praising it and calling it good for the industry even if Sony did block all that content from PC and Xbox and Nintendo.

Its just like i said in another earlier some Sony fans are making a bigger deal of this and saying it doesnt compare to what Sony does with money hats for the simple reason being the price MS are paying. Yet to me Sony money hatting 4-6 AAA exclusives every single year does more damage then Ms buying a company who atm pretty much only release 3-4 games and only one of them release yearly. and when Ms have said they will keep that yearly released game on other platforms.

Well said over all.

@The bold missing and Nintendo wouldn't even be mentioned as an option lol.

This deal would have benefited more gamers including Nintendo gamers and Sony gamers once Sony come to the party an agreed.

Would Microsoft screw everyone in 10 years time? Perhaps, but let's be honest, how many of us oldskool gamers still going to be alive in 10 years time to care? In 10 years time it will all be cloud based gaming probably, with Nintendo only releasing a traditional console. Sadly the world is moving more and more digital that you can see the impact now. Game stores that used to be huge are downsized to 1/4 the size the used to be as more and more people buying digital.

Personally I don't think they would screw gamers because Microsoft's core business is software. They will sell it to as many platforms as necessary if it makes them money.



 

 

Jumpin said:
smroadkill15 said:

Being against this merger because "big tech gets bigger" isn't a sufficient enough argument and it's not a good enough reason for this to be blocked by regulators.
How does this deal negatively effect consumers? I can give plenty of examples how this benefits consumers. There will be more choices of where and how to play these games with Game Pass and Xcloud. Nintendo will gets CoD, Steam gets CoD and more, Sony doesnt lose CoD.
This benefits the employees since MS is neutral about Unions and Unions supports this merger.
This deal is not anti competitive or makes this close to a monopoly like some claim. Basically, MS will get a piece of pie in the console, PC, and mobile markets, but no where does it give them a monopoly or make it anti competitive in any of those markets. Sony and Nintendo are still larger in the console space and I really don't see that changing much if this deal goes through. PC gaming is dominated by Steam and this doesn't change anything. Apple and Google have the mobile market to themselves. At least MS could make some moves to disrupt mobile.

This reads like regurgitated PR. This isn’t necessary. You don’t work for Microsoft. More or less, what Microsoft is trying to do is dog shit… put the right PR on it and people will swallow up that dog shit and flap their lips about regulation bodies doing their jobs and regulating this kind of dog shit that Microsoft is slinging.

Ignore the PR and be honest about what this is: a big tech conglomerate swallowing up the largest third party company in the console gaming industry.

“Well, it’s not a monopoly” is a dog shit argument.

No one is saying Call of Duty shouldn’t be on Xcloud (or whatever service) and no one is saying Call of Duty shouldn’t be on Nintendo consoles—but Microsoft doesn’t need to literally swallow up the largest third party in the console gaming industry for any of that to happen. If you think this is such a good thing, why are you dancing around the issue with a motte and bailey argumentative fallacy? You can’t, because there isn’t a good argument for it.

I’m half cut and only half thinking in English, so my post reads way angrier than my intent :D
I actually don’t give much of a shit about Microsoft or Activision (I do kinda care about Blizzard, and I’ve considered buying an Xbox), somehow I got sucked into the argument a few days ago when I saw this zombified PR regurgitation and big tech apologetics by people on this forum, and decided “I’m going to take that bait and argue” because this is so fucking obvious. It’s unbelievable how many people are jumping through hoops to ignore the shit, and actually support this kind of predatory expansionism of big tech conglomerates.
Fucking Internet :D

Bottom line is we should he breaking up big tech conglomerates, not cheering their predatory expansionism. Running apologetics on behalf of their corporate PR team as they swallow more companies, increase their bulk, and allow these behemoths to even further dip their filthy fingernails into every pot of soup. Don’t choke down shit because it’s got a PR coating… It’s still shit you’re eating.

Hmm.. let's see..

Option A: Pay $140 to play CoD and Diablo IV..

Option B: Pay $140 to play CoD, Diablo IV, Forza Motorsport, Age of Empires, RedFall, Ghostwire Tokyo, Hollow Knight, Atomic Heart, Stalker 2, Wo Long Fallen Dynasty, Starfield, Minecraft Legends, Age of Empires IV, MLB The Show 23, etc, etc, etc..

Yeah.. I think you're gonna need to give me a little bit more than just "we should be breaking up big tech conglomerates, not cheering their predatory expansionism".  Apparently their PR team has done way too good of a job to convince me that option B is better for me than option A.