| ConservagameR said: So we went from this: To this?
|
Best post i have seen in a while.
Ryuu96 said:
Microsoft Didn't Mislead EU Over ZeniMax Deal, Watchdog Says in Response to US Concerns Microsoft didn't make any "commitments" to EU regulators not to release Xbox-exclusive content following its takeover of ZeniMax Media, the European Commission has said. US enforcers yesterday suggested that the US tech giant had misled the regulator in 2021 and cited that as a reason to challenge its proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard. Microsoft Didn't Lie to the EU on ZeniMax Deal Like the FTC Said Repeatedly throughout the Zenimax acquisition, Microsoft also stated that future exclusivity would be decided on a "case-by-case" basis. Including in filings for the European Commission. Microsoft said to the European Commission it “would not have the incentive to cease or limit making ZeniMax games available for purchase on rival consoles." But this can very much be taken as talking about existing titles as they've already said that future titles will be case-by-case to the European Commission. They repeatedly said that they would not pull any existing titles from the PlayStation store as well. Such as The Elder Scrolls Online, Skyrim, Fallout 76, etc. On top of that, the CMA also knows that Redfall's PS5 version was cancelled but aren't bothered at all like the FTC are and haven't mentioned it, the CMA also dropped their Console SLC worries. At the end of the day, the European Commission have said that Microsoft didn't mislead them, they made no assurances to not make things exclusive and their actions were deemed acceptable. They also investigated scenarios where Microsoft would make Zenimax titles exclusive at the time of investigation and deemed that it wouldn't hurt Sony/Nintendo enough. "While Microsoft could have the technical ability to implement an exclusivity strategy with regard to ZeniMax games vis-à-vis rival consoles, the Commission considers that the combined entity will not have the ability to engage in a successful input foreclosure strategy. In this regard, as mentioned above, the Commission has carried out such analysis under both scenarios of total and partial foreclosure." If Microsoft did lie to European Commission (which they didn't) then we would not have reports that the European Commission is very likely to approve the deal on Behavioural Remedies or that they've dropped their Console SLC concerns completely because Microsoft doesn't have incentive to make CoD exclusive. Lying to a regulator body would get you in serious shit on your next acquisition. Best you can say is they bent words a little, a bit of lawyer speak to cover their asses on all basis, the European Commission understood it though. The FTC is in a desperation to block the deal and so they tried to claim that Microsoft lied to the European Commission to try to improve their already incredibly weak case and reportedly the FTC rushed a suit to block to put pressure on the European Commission/CMA to not approve the deal which would explain the lie accusation as well. I mean, the FTC is the reason that we have this thread in the first place because they invented up a new market in a desperate attempt to block the deal which is now backfiring and aiding Microsoft...So I wouldn't exactly take what the FTC are saying at face value and instead listen to what the European Commission have said. |
The european commision is claiming that Microsoft never decieved them because the commision incorrectly predicted that MS wouldn't withhold Starfield or other future Zenimax games from rival consoles. They were tricked by Microsoft, made an incorrect prediction, and now are trying to cover their tracks. See below...
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases1/202124/m10001_438_3.pdf
And just for those wondering what an input foreclosure strategy is....
https://www.vogel-vogel.com/faq-items/input-foreclosure-eu/?lang=en
Input foreclosure arises where the new entity would be likely to restrict access to the products or services that it would have otherwise supplied if the merger had not taken place.
Ryu do you seriously think that Starfield wouldn't be supplied to PS5 if the merger hadn't taken place?
Cerebralbore101 said:
The european commision is claiming that Microsoft never decieved them because the commision incorrectly predicted that MS wouldn't withhold Starfield or other future Zenimax games from rival consoles. They were tricked by Microsoft, made an incorrect prediction, and now are trying to cover their tracks. See below... And just for those wondering what an input foreclosure strategy is.... |
The european commision is claiming that Microsoft never decieved them because the commision incorrectly predicted that MS wouldn't withhold Starfield or other future Zenimax games from rival consoles. They were tricked by Microsoft, made an incorrect prediction, and now are trying to cover their tracks. See below..."
No, they aren't, Lol. They're straight up responding to FTC's claims that Microsoft misled them and saying that Microsoft did not misled them.
The entity who is said as being lied to, is saying that they weren't lied to, but you're claiming they're wrong and they were lied to? Okay...Lol.
Furthermore, do you seriously believe that the European Commission, who are well known as going after American companies, or any company really, would be okay with being lied to and wouldn't bring it up when they attempt to make further acquisitions? If European Commission were lied to then they would 100% mention it and call Microsoft up on it and would very unlikely drop their Console SLC concerns.
And how do you explain the fact that CMA knows Microsoft cancelled the PS5 version of Redfall but have dropped their Console SLC concerns and won't even require Microsoft to provide a contract for Call of Duty because they trust them on their word that they would still supply it to PlayStation...
"Ryu do you seriously think that Starfield wouldn't be supplied to PS5 if the merger hadn't taken place?"
Obviously not, it would have been on PS5. What's your point?
But you're telling the European Commission, the entity who spent months talking back and forth with Microsoft, that they're wrong? Lol. If that is the case then there's nothing further to discuss since you're set in the opinion that it's actually European Commission who are the liars despite them being the ones apparently lied to, Lol.
It's a he said she said except it's You vs European Commission...
Subjects like these are really interesting to me. Its very telling when someone holds on to their opinion so strongly they are willing to basically call anything that does not support that opinion a lie. It just shows me how powerful information and the ability to manipulate it to fit someone bias.
The FTC saying MS misled the EU was already debunked and discussed months ago. Now it's being brought up again. 😮💨 Even after Ryuu came in and explained what happened, it's still being argued. This is exactly how misinformation is so easily spread.
| Ryuu96 said: The european commision is claiming that Microsoft never decieved them because the commision incorrectly predicted that MS wouldn't withhold Starfield or other future Zenimax games from rival consoles. They were tricked by Microsoft, made an incorrect prediction, and now are trying to cover their tracks. See below..." No, they aren't, Lol. They're straight up responding to FTC's claims that Microsoft misled them and saying that Microsoft did not misled them. The entity who is said as being lied to, is saying that they weren't lied to, but you're claiming they're wrong and they were lied to? Okay...Lol. Furthermore, do you seriously believe that the European Commission, who are well known as going after American companies, or any company really, would be okay with being lied to and wouldn't bring it up when they attempt to make further acquisitions? If European Commission were lied to then they would 100% mention it and call Microsoft up on it and would very unlikely drop their Console SLC concerns. And how do you explain the fact that CMA knows Microsoft cancelled the PS5 version of Redfall but have dropped their Console SLC concerns and won't even require Microsoft to provide a contract for Call of Duty because they trust them on their word that they would still supply it to PlayStation... "Ryu do you seriously think that Starfield wouldn't be supplied to PS5 if the merger hadn't taken place?" Obviously not, it would have been on PS5. What's your point?
But you're telling the European Commission, the entity who spent months talking back and forth with Microsoft, that they're wrong? Lol. If that is the case then there's nothing further to discuss since you're set in the opinion that it's actually European Commission who are the liars despite them being the ones apparently lied to, Lol. It's a he said she said except it's You vs European Commission... |
If European Commission were lied to then they would 100% mention it and call Microsoft up on it and would very unlikely drop their Console SLC concerns.
Source for the commission dropping their SLC concerns?
And how do you explain the fact that CMA knows Microsoft cancelled the PS5 version of Redfall but have dropped their Console SLC concerns and won't even require Microsoft to provide a contract for Call of Duty because they trust them on their word that they would still supply it to PlayStation...
They don't trust them on their word. They think that it's not financially feasible for MS to pull CoD from Playstation.
https://mp1st.com/news/microsoft-activision-deal-unlikely-to-hurt-console-gaming-market-admits-cma
Per the CMA - "While the arguments of Microsoft’s competitors in the console gaming market claimed that the Redmond company does have an incentive to engage in foreclosure strategies with Call of Duty, the CMA believes – after revising its predictive model based on input from all concerned parties – would lead to a net loss for all these parties in every scenario the regulator “found plausible.”
Obviously not, it would have been on PS5. What's your point?
My point is the European Commission concluded that MS/Zenimax wouldn't have an incentive to engage in an input foreclosure strategy. And yet MS/Zenimax did exactly that by ending the development of Starfield and Redfall for PS5.
And no, it's not a he said/she said. Anybody can look at the fact that they made an incorrect prediction concerning an input foreclosure strategy. 
Cerebralbore101 said:
If European Commission were lied to then they would 100% mention it and call Microsoft up on it and would very unlikely drop their Console SLC concerns. They don't trust them on their word. They think that it's not financially feasible for MS to pull CoD from Playstation. Obviously not, it would have been on PS5. What's your point? |
Congratulations, you're a paralegal.
Now go buy an Xbox if you want to play future new Zenimax games.
| Machiavellian said: Subjects like these are really interesting to me. Its very telling when someone holds on to their opinion so strongly they are willing to basically call anything that does not support that opinion a lie. It just shows me how powerful information and the ability to manipulate it to fit someone bias. |
Web sites like these are very interesting to me. It's very telling when the vast majority of articles posted on a web site are overwhelmingly pro-microsoft. Even the mods will go so far as to call someone with a conclusion different than their own biased (even when that person proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt). Stay classy vgchartz. ;)
Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 29 March 2023
Cerebralbore101 said:
If European Commission were lied to then they would 100% mention it and call Microsoft up on it and would very unlikely drop their Console SLC concerns. They don't trust them on their word. They think that it's not financially feasible for MS to pull CoD from Playstation. Obviously not, it would have been on PS5. What's your point? |
Source for the commission dropping their SLC concerns?
Microsoft's EU Remedies Target Only Cloud Streaming Rivals, Sources Says | Reuters
Others have reported on it, that Microsoft has only offered the European Commission aimed at Cloud, the logical reason for that would be that the European Commission has dropped their Console concerns because Microsoft would have zero reason not to offer them otherwise, they already have the contract written up for Sony.
They don't trust them on their word. They think that it's not financially feasible for MS to pull CoD from Playstation.
https://mp1st.com/news/microsoft-activision-deal-unlikely-to-hurt-console-gaming-market-admits-cma
Per the CMA - "While the arguments of Microsoft’s competitors in the console gaming market claimed that the Redmond company does have an incentive to engage in foreclosure strategies with Call of Duty, the CMA believes – after revising its predictive model based on input from all concerned parties – would lead to a net loss for all these parties in every scenario the regulator “found plausible.”
Just like the European Commission then who found that Microsoft doesn't have the financial incentive to make Zenimax titles exclusive.
Not having the financial incentive doesn't mean it is impossible. Once again, if Microsoft lied to the European Commission then it would be very easy for CMA to force a legally binding contract on them because they can't trust that Microsoft won't just eat the costs and go back on their word that they won't make Call of Duty exclusive.
And no, it's not a he said/she said. Anybody can look at the fact that they made an incorrect prediction concerning an input foreclosure strategy.
It is.
Who do I believe? The regulator who was apparently lied to who spent months and dozens of hours talking to Microsoft or you who is interpreting a document in the way you want it to be...Once again, Microsoft told EC right from the start that future titles will be decided on a case-by-case basis. Most of the rest of the conversations were related to current support.
The European Commission aren't an agency who would accept being lied to without calling a company up on it, Lol.
Furthermore, if Microsoft did lie to the European Commission about keeping future Zenimax titles multiplatform.
Then why are regulators all over the world approving the deal on the assumption that Microsoft won't remove Call of Duty from PlayStation? Why are they not forcing Microsoft into legally binding contracts? Are they all just stupid and naïve? Lol. Why have European Commission and CMA dropped their Console SLC?
Lets pretend that the EC is only trying to save face by saying that Microsoft didn't lie to them, they can still force Microsoft into a legally binding contract to release CoD on PlayStation without "admitting" that Microsoft lied to them, but instead they have reportedly dropped their console concerns entirely and will no longer require that from Microsoft.
Then there is the CMA who have dropped their Console SLC entirely despite the fact that up until recently they were suggesting that Microsoft should divest Activision due to CoD. They dropped it instead of formulating a legally binding contract with Microsoft to force them to release CoD on PlayStation even though Microsoft offered it.
Why would both of them do that if Microsoft lied to the European Commission about Zenimax? Why would they believe that Microsoft won't make CoD exclusive? Why would they trust Microsoft's word that there wouldn't be a financial incentive to do so? They wouldn't. Especially not the traditionally strict European Commission and newly tough CMA.
If you lie to one regulator, all major regulators will take note of that, these guys aren't entirely disconnected from one another, they pay attention to the decisions that each other make and sometimes even collaborate on decisions. If you lie to one then that will 100% be taken into account when you verbally promise another something. It tells them all that you aren't trustworthy.
There's one regulator left with a console concern, the FTC. They are accusing Microsoft of being liars but also gave us the gem that Nintendo isn't in the same market as Xbox/PlayStation and completely made up a market in order to weaken Microsoft's own arguments and justify their decision to sue to block whilst at the same time accidentally putting Nintendo in a market on its own therefore making it a de facto monopoly.
They also reportedly rushed to sue to block in order to put pressure onto the CMA and EC to also block the deal because on the same date they were in talks with the EC who stated that they are leaning towards approving. The FTC knows they will lose in court so they are trying to angle for someone else to block it and do the work for them.
They have repeatedly lost in court over the past few years and are on a losing streak because the cases they keep bringing are incredibly weak, they just got their asses handed to them in court after attempting to block Meta's acquisition of a VR fitness app, start-up company that literally nobody cares about, a start-up company...Lina even overruled her own staff who advised against it.
So I'm sorry but I believe the European Commission way more than anything the FTC tries to claim.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
Currently Online 
