Support NeoGAF

[bxrz]

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://assets.publishing.service.g...sponses_to_Issues_Statement_MS_Activision.pdf
MICROSOFT/ACTIVISION BLIZZARD PHASE 2 MERGER INQUIRY
Summary of responses from members of the public to the issues statement
Introduction


Summary of views from members of the public
4. Of the 2,100 emails that we reviewed, around three quarters were broadly in favour of the Merger and around a quarter were broadly against the Merger. No clear view was expressed for or against the merger by a small number of respondents.
5. The following views were expressed in favour of the Merger:

• (a) Sony and Nintendo are stronger than Microsoft in console gaming, and the Merger will help Microsoft to compete more closely against them;
• (b) the Merger will not harm rival consoles because Microsoft has made public and private commitments to keep Activision content, including Call of Duty, non-exclusive. The availability of Minecraft on rival consoles shows that Microsoft's commercial strategy is not to make games exclusive;
• (c) it is unlikely that Microsoft would make Call of Duty exclusive due to its multiplayer nature. Making Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox would only create a gap in the market that could be filled by a rival cross-platform shooter game;
• (d) Call of Duty has competition from a number of other games including Battlefield (Electronic Arts), Grand Theft Auto (Take Two) and FIFA (Electronic Arts); (e) the Merger will push Sony to innovate, such as by improving its subscription service or creating more games to compete with Call of Duty;
• (f) the Merger is a reaction to Sony's business model for PlayStation, which has historically involved securing exclusive content or early access to popular cross-platform gaming franchises, such as Final Fantasy and Silent Hill;
• (g) Microsoft's plans to add Call of Duty to Game Pass are pro-competitive and will lower the price of accessing games for consumers; (h) Microsoft would not make Activision's content exclusive to Xbox postMerger because it would lose significant potential revenue from rival platforms;
• (i) consumers could revert to buying games on a buy-to-play basis if Microsoft were to raise the price of Game Pass post-Merger;
• (j) the Merger will lead to more funding and higher-quality games in the industry; (k) the Merger will allow Microsoft to provide Activision with better guidance and leadership, and to encourage it to invest more in games other than Call of Duty;
• (l) the Merger is pro-competitive in the mobile segment because it will create new options for mobile gamers and allow Microsoft to compete against Google and Apple, which are the two dominant mobile platforms; (m)the Merger will not create competition concerns in cloud gaming services because there are other potential competitors, such as Netflix; and some industry participants have said they are not opposed to the Merger.

6. The following views were expressed against the Merger:

• (a) Microsoft is already dominant in PC operating systems, and this Merger is an attempt to gain a similar position in gaming;
• (b) Microsoft has the resources to create an offering that competes with PlayStation exclusives without acquiring Activision;
• (c) the Merger would lead to consolidation and would set a harmful precedent in the gaming industry of acquiring large publishers rather than encouraging organic growth;
• (d) this would be the largest merger in gaming history, paving the way for a potential string of future acquisitions of publishers such as Take Two, EA, Ubisoft, thereby increasing concentration in the market;
• (e) Microsoft will make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox, just as it did with Bethesda after it acquired ZeniMax Media;
• (f) Microsoft will have the incentive to make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox post-Merger. This will adversely affect gamers who cannot afford an additional console and they would therefore switch to Xbox at the launch of the next console generation;
• (g) Microsoft would be able to deteriorate the quality of Call of Duty games on PlayStation post-Merger, which could cause consumers to switch to Xbox;
• (h) Microsoft can capture the multi-game subscription market after the Merger because it can afford to add games to Game Pass at a loss;
• (i) Microsoft is already dominant in cloud gaming, and the Merger could affect the future of new entrants into that space;
• (j) the Merger will raise barriers to entry for smaller studios and independent developers; and (k) the Merger will lead to an increase in Microsoft's bargaining power in relation to game publishers.

Microsoft's 10 year deal cancels out about half of those views against the Merger. The rest are just "Microsoft has a lot of money and capital, think what they can potentially do!!!!"

There's no viable argument

 

[reksveks]

Hoping to see some more market participants documents, they definitely have them, I have no doubt about that.

 

[xHunter]

Ah yes, Microsoft can now finally compete against Googles and Apples in-house mobile games. Oh wait, those dont exist.

 

[adamsapple]

CMA responses from the public summary.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...sponses_to_Issues_Statement_MS_Activision.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/microsoft-slash-activision-blizzard-merger-inquiry

 

[DeepEnigma]

 

[adamsapple]

 

[Topher]

Like I was saying, even if you are against there hasn't been a really cogent argument against it. The one we're focused on by the FTC is contrived, and publishers and public sentiment in these summaries generally have been supportive of it as well.

I know we go back and forth, but generally speaking, those who are against haven't clearly made a case and spend more time snarking than stating anything.

No one here is making a case either way. The responses here are reactions to the cases being presented by lawyers from the various sides of this thing. I think this acquisition will go through but that doesn't mean that I agree with every argument presented.

As far as the snark.....nothing wrong with folks making fun of all the madness that has come out of all this, imo.

 

[reksveks]

Ah yes, Microsoft can now finally compete against Googles and Apples in-house mobile games. Oh wait, those dont exist.

I really hope that you don't genuinely believe that's Microsoft argument.

You may not believe Microsoft actual argument but you surely don't believe its about in-house games from Apple/Google?

 

[feynoob]

As far as the snark.....nothing wrong with folks making fun of all the madness that has come out of all this, imo.

I am the one who is enjoying the most from this deal.
The clownery argument is top teir. To the point, that I dont watch movies now.
10/10 for entertaining.

 

[Pelta88]

There are 2 languages on those submission.
General language, which you, me and the rest here can read. Then there is the lawyer angle which actually tells us the real meaning behind them.
Even though we can use logic on those document, its better to get people with actual expertise in this field.

This is arguments between big lawyers, and regulators lawyers.

What?

These submissions to regulators are all in English. Why do I need a lawyer to explain "The real meaning behind them?" Look feynoob I get it. You post hoe laws musings, and a lot of people have called you out for it over the course of this thread for copy pasting era members. These same users who went from:

"The deal is a shoo-in. A Guaranteed Certainty!" To "The FTC can't beat Microsoft's super lawyers"

This acquisition is a legal matter now. Whoever "wins" and "looses" is going to be based on the evidence and the legal framework. Not hoe law or idas who have demonstrated bias as Topher mentioned. Which is why I don't take their posts seriously. There are three potential outcomes here.

1. An outright purchase.
2. Regulators block the acquisition.
3. The deal goes through with concessions.

Don't let these people who are trying to build an audience fool you into thinking they've got the inside track. Least of all Hoe Law... I'm actually shocked to see that hoe law is some dude sitting in his basement, with a dirty hoodie on, ranting against Sony. The way you post his musings with such frequency, I thought hoe was working for some top law firm. Imagine my surprise to see some guy with doritos dust on his fingers, letting bias spew from his lips.

 

[KingT731]

That is huge numbers of people supporting this deal.

I remember when they said they would accept emails and all the fanboys Mass E-Emailed them. So I am not surprised. The talking heads were literally telling all their viewers/followers to send emails using a script basically.

 

[feynoob]

What?

These submissions to regulators are all in English. Why do I need a lawyer to explain "The real meaning behind them?" Look feynoob I get it. You post hoe laws musings, and a lot of people have called you out for it over the course of this thread for copy pasting era members. These same users who went from:

"The deal is a shoo-in. A Guaranteed Certainty!" To "The FTC can't beat Microsoft's super lawyers"

This acquisition is a legal matter now. Whoever "wins" and "looses" is going to be based on the evidence and the legal framework. Not hoe law or idas who have demonstrated bias as Topher mentioned. Which is why I don't take their posts seriously. There are three potential outcomes here.

1. An outright purchase.
2. Regulators block the acquisition.
3. The deal goes through with concessions.

Don't let these people who are trying to build an audience fool you into thinking they've got the inside track. Least of all Hoe Law.

Lawyer language. Its not that complicated.
The people who are handling this document are lawyers, and they are using lawyer argument.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

The arguments against were so embarrassingly weak I almost laughed out loud during a work meeting.

 

[feynoob]

I remember when they said they would accept emails and all the fanboys Mass E-Emailed them. So I am not surprised. The talking heads were literally telling all their viewers/followers to send emails using a script basically.

It was going to be a chaos for them.
Glad they stated that for us.

 

[xHunter]

I really hope that you don't genuinely believe that's Microsoft argument.

You may not believe Microsoft actual argument but you surely don't believe its about in-house games from Apple/Google?

I know that these are from some twitter warriors. Never said this is Microsofts argument. Was just trying to make fun of this.

 

[DeepEnigma]

The arguments against were so embarrassingly weak I almost laughed out loud during a work meeting.

We almost had a glimpse of self awareness just then. Almost.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Justletthisdealgothrough

Better fot the industry and gamers.


But I will agree triple trillion-dollar company sweating its balls off is funny. And this circus while annoying is kind of fascinating (from a mental illness research point of view).

 

[drganon]

We almost had a glimpse of self awareness just then. Almost.

By "work meeting", he meant bathroom.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

 

[gothmog]

There's so many respondents because Microsoft rallied their fanboys. Obviously they have time to write emails since they have nothing to play

 

[Topher]

Lawyer language. Its not that complicated.
The people who are handling this document are lawyers, and they are using lawyer argument.

I learned that "foreclosure" isn't just about houses. Of course, if MrFunSocks wasn't banned he could have explained that to me.

 

[DenchDeckard]

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://assets.publishing.service.g...sponses_to_Issues_Statement_MS_Activision.pdf
MICROSOFT/ACTIVISION BLIZZARD PHASE 2 MERGER INQUIRY
Summary of responses from members of the public to the issues statement
Introduction


Summary of views from members of the public
4. Of the 2,100 emails that we reviewed, around three quarters were broadly in favour of the Merger and around a quarter were broadly against the Merger. No clear view was expressed for or against the merger by a small number of respondents.
5. The following views were expressed in favour of the Merger:

• (a) Sony and Nintendo are stronger than Microsoft in console gaming, and the Merger will help Microsoft to compete more closely against them;
• (b) the Merger will not harm rival consoles because Microsoft has made public and private commitments to keep Activision content, including Call of Duty, non-exclusive. The availability of Minecraft on rival consoles shows that Microsoft's commercial strategy is not to make games exclusive;
• (c) it is unlikely that Microsoft would make Call of Duty exclusive due to its multiplayer nature. Making Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox would only create a gap in the market that could be filled by a rival cross-platform shooter game;
• (d) Call of Duty has competition from a number of other games including Battlefield (Electronic Arts), Grand Theft Auto (Take Two) and FIFA (Electronic Arts); (e) the Merger will push Sony to innovate, such as by improving its subscription service or creating more games to compete with Call of Duty;
• (f) the Merger is a reaction to Sony's business model for PlayStation, which has historically involved securing exclusive content or early access to popular cross-platform gaming franchises, such as Final Fantasy and Silent Hill;
• (g) Microsoft's plans to add Call of Duty to Game Pass are pro-competitive and will lower the price of accessing games for consumers; (h) Microsoft would not make Activision's content exclusive to Xbox postMerger because it would lose significant potential revenue from rival platforms;
• (i) consumers could revert to buying games on a buy-to-play basis if Microsoft were to raise the price of Game Pass post-Merger;
• (j) the Merger will lead to more funding and higher-quality games in the industry; (k) the Merger will allow Microsoft to provide Activision with better guidance and leadership, and to encourage it to invest more in games other than Call of Duty;
• (l) the Merger is pro-competitive in the mobile segment because it will create new options for mobile gamers and allow Microsoft to compete against Google and Apple, which are the two dominant mobile platforms; (m)the Merger will not create competition concerns in cloud gaming services because there are other potential competitors, such as Netflix; and some industry participants have said they are not opposed to the Merger.

6. The following views were expressed against the Merger:

• (a) Microsoft is already dominant in PC operating systems, and this Merger is an attempt to gain a similar position in gaming;
• (b) Microsoft has the resources to create an offering that competes with PlayStation exclusives without acquiring Activision;
• (c) the Merger would lead to consolidation and would set a harmful precedent in the gaming industry of acquiring large publishers rather than encouraging organic growth;
• (d) this would be the largest merger in gaming history, paving the way for a potential string of future acquisitions of publishers such as Take Two, EA, Ubisoft, thereby increasing concentration in the market;
• (e) Microsoft will make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox, just as it did with Bethesda after it acquired ZeniMax Media;
• (f) Microsoft will have the incentive to make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox post-Merger. This will adversely affect gamers who cannot afford an additional console and they would therefore switch to Xbox at the launch of the next console generation;
• (g) Microsoft would be able to deteriorate the quality of Call of Duty games on PlayStation post-Merger, which could cause consumers to switch to Xbox;
• (h) Microsoft can capture the multi-game subscription market after the Merger because it can afford to add games to Game Pass at a loss;
• (i) Microsoft is already dominant in cloud gaming, and the Merger could affect the future of new entrants into that space;
• (j) the Merger will raise barriers to entry for smaller studios and independent developers; and (k) the Merger will lead to an increase in Microsoft's bargaining power in relation to game publishers.

Those against points are hilariously bad vs the pros. I feel pretty confident this will go through after that.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I learned that "foreclosure" isn't just about houses. Of course, if MrFunSocks wasn't banned he could have explained that to me.

a house is a house

 

[DarkMage619]

What would be my motive for saying something that I don't believe?

If saying something you don't believe results in something you desire to see happen happen. No one here argued that the XSS was high end or that Nintendo wasn't a video game competitor before. But now some regulators say that and it's like people always believed MS was second not third in consoles and Nintendo doesn't exist. Based on your previous commentary I know you don't believe that but that was also before this acquisition came along so I get it.

Do you ever say things that you don't believe?

Absolutely. I've said people who don't like the Xbox brand will ignore the platform and focus on what they actually like. I know its not true but if I keep saying it maybe one day it will come true.

The Series S is a high-performance device relative most gaming devices on the market, and it's designed to play all of the same games as its more powerful sibling, Series X, just at lower resolution. This was Microsoft's own sales pitch for the system at release and continued to be it until they pivoted more towards it as a value sale.

Even if it's a weaker console than Series X & PS5, if it's designed to effectively run all of the same games a Series X can run just at lower resolution, then it likely meets the criteria of a high-performance game device. Compared to a Switch, PS4, XBO, the majority of iGPUs used for PC gaming, and most smartphones, the Series S is a high-performance gaming device.
You guys keep underestimating the thoroughness of these regulators, it's not a good look.

The XSS is not a high performance device relative to the other devices it is grouped with: the PS5 and XSX. The FTC didn't separate the XSS from the other more powerful and expensive devices implying that there was no distinction. You also didn't mention that the XSS marketing targets casuals, families and kids similarly to the Switch. That marketing mentions games like Rocket League and Fortnite games that are also on the Switch. The XSS is certainly more powerful than the Switch but that is more due to the fact it is far newer than an attempt to put it outside of the casual market it is targeting.

There has been no real indication that the regulators are knowledgeable of the video game industry as a whole and that is shown by comments like the Switch isn't for 'serious gamers' or that the Switch is for people looking for a 'low performance system'. CADE is really the only regulator that had analysis that bared some actual resemblance to historical norms when it comes to the defining the gaming industry.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

H: It is not Microsoft's problem that Sony don't want to compete in multi-game subscription market

Just like how it's not Sony's fault Microsoft had done so little with cultivating experiences they clearly would have liked to such as TLOU Part 2 (enough to do an internal review of the game!), or making deals with companies like Marvel for Spiderman or Capcom for SFV, to end up in a position where they need to try selling the public on the idea their only way to "compete" is through buying the largest 3P publisher in the industry only two years after they already acquired a large 3P publisher in Zenimax?

Also it's funny to see some of you support this idea that MS need to buy publishers to compete in a multi-game subscription service, but never once do I see any of you suggest that Sony have to do the same if they want to compete in a similar market (a market that accounts for less than 4% of gaming revenue annually, BTW). Because apparently somehow the only way MS can provide content for such a model is through buying what's already on the market, suggesting that the model needs a LOT of money involved to be sustainable, money that I keep hearing Sony doesn't have.

So, how is Sony supposed to compete in a model that requires dozens of billions in sunk costs to even compete in, when they seemingly don't have that type of money, and where the idea of just making the content yourself doesn't seem to factor because otherwise all of the people championing for MS to acquire ABK wouldn't be doing that?

Do you know anyone with law expertice?
Because all of us are shit, and dont know shit about legality of this deal.
Aside of Idas and him, we are in the dark of this deal.

You saw what happened here. We are arguing on useless stuff, that is not even the point of this merger.

IIRC Hoeg has only worked on very small deals, nothing even approaching the scale of an ABK, Zenimax, or Bungie type of acquisition. He has insight obviously, otherwise he would not have a profession as a lawyer. But the scale of a deal like this introduces a lot of things in the background he probably would have no experience with firsthand, and that's something people need to keep in mind.

Even so at the end of the day, his opinion is just one of many. You're allowed to disagree even if you think he brings up good points.

CMA responses from the public summary.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...sponses_to_Issues_Statement_MS_Activision.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/microsoft-slash-activision-blizzard-merger-inquiry

You mean to tell me a bunch of Xbox fans & owners, who had too much free time on their hands, flooded the CMA with letters strongly in support of the deal? I'm shocked!

 

[Topher]

a house is a house

I don't see the difference.....do you?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I don't see the difference.....do you?

The one on the right was cooler than the one on the left

 

[DeepEnigma]

a house is a house

 

[akimbo009]

Bookmarked.

Seen the cost of the Edge? Not sure I can afford next gen gaming anymore

 

[DeepEnigma]

Seen the cost of the Edge? Not sure I can afford next gen gaming anymore

 

[Topher]

The one on the right was cooler than the one on the left

Damn.....@MrFunSocks was right.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Seen the cost of the Edge? Not sure I can afford next gen gaming anymore

 

[SenjutsuSage]

You mean to tell me a bunch of Xbox fans & owners, who had too much free time on their hands, flooded the CMA with letters strongly in support of the deal? I'm shocked!

You seem upset the public ratio in favor of the deal is nearly as strong as the videogame industry participant ratio in favor of the deal. Sony is literally the lone market participant heavily opposed to the deal. Seems to me the public is representative of where practically all major market participants are at. You either accept that or don't, it really makes no difference.

The public largely represents the same views as the entirety of the industry, except Sony.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Sony is literally the lone market participant heavily opposed to the deal.

Stop spreading lies.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Just like how it's not Sony's fault Microsoft had done so little with cultivating experiences they clearly would have liked to such as TLOU Part 2 (enough to do an internal review of the game!), or making deals with companies like Marvel for Spiderman or Capcom for SFV, to end up in a position where they need to try selling the public on the idea their only way to "compete" is through buying the largest 3P publisher in the industry only two years after they already acquired a large 3P publisher in Zenimax?

Also it's funny to see some of you support this idea that MS need to buy publishers to compete in a multi-game subscription service, but never once do I see any of you suggest that Sony have to do the same if they want to compete in a similar market (a market that accounts for less than 4% of gaming revenue annually, BTW). Because apparently somehow the only way MS can provide content for such a model is through buying what's already on the market, suggesting that the model needs a LOT of money involved to be sustainable, money that I keep hearing Sony doesn't have.

So, how is Sony supposed to compete in a model that requires dozens of billions in sunk costs to even compete in, when they seemingly don't have that type of money, and where the idea of just making the content yourself doesn't seem to factor because otherwise all of the people championing for MS to acquire ABK wouldn't be doing that?



IIRC Hoeg has only worked on very small deals, nothing even approaching the scale of an ABK, Zenimax, or Bungie type of acquisition. He has insight obviously, otherwise he would not have a profession as a lawyer. But the scale of a deal like this introduces a lot of things in the background he probably would have no experience with firsthand, and that's something people need to keep in mind.

Even so at the end of the day, his opinion is just one of many. You're allowed to disagree even if you think he brings up good points.

You mean to tell me a bunch of Xbox fans & owners, who had too much free time on their hands, flooded the CMA with letters strongly in support of the deal? I'm shocked!

There's like twice as many Sony fans on the planet supposedly, are we saying that they couldn't be bothered to write an email? Or is it that the majority of Sony players outside of extreme fanboys don't give a shit if this deal goes through or not?

You'd think the people who are more against it are the ones who are going to write a letter with good reasons why it shouldn't go through. The against arguments read Like Jim Ryan and his mates wrote the emails after a night of heavy drinking.

The pros actually read pretty well. It will force Sony to improve their output and more importantly their services so don't we win in that scenario. There's no way MS cut off call of duty after what they've said.

 

[akimbo009]

Just get a second job, amirite Ken?

 

[gothmog]

I'm now poor. Just pulled the trigger on a 77" LG OLED. Had to upgrade from my shitty 65" LG.

 

[zzill3]

So, how is Sony supposed to compete in a model that requires dozens of billions in sunk costs to even compete in, when they seemingly don't have that type of money, and where the idea of just making the content yourself doesn't seem to factor because otherwise all of the people championing for MS to acquire ABK wouldn't be doing that?

Microsoft's business dealings shouldn't be limited to what Sony can afford to do because it would make it fair for Sony, they should be limited to what isn't anti-consumer and anti-industry.
Regulators should not be looking to refuse the deal because Sony can't compete with it, they should be looking to refuse the deal if, and only if, it would have a negative effect on the industry.

That only Sony and Google have come out against it, workers unions have come out in favour and most of the industry doesn't care, it's clear that it's not going to have a negative effect on the industry.

 

[gothmog]

There's like twice as many Sony fans on the planet supposedly, are we saying that they couldn't be bothered to write an email? Or is it that the majority of Sony players outside of extreme fanboys don't give a shit if this deal goes through or not?

You'd think the people who are more against it are the ones who are going to write a letter with good reasons why it shouldn't go through. The against arguments read Like Jim Ryan and his mates wrote the emails after a night of heavy drinking.

The pros actually read pretty well. It will force Sony to improve their output and more importantly their services so don't we win in that scenario. There's no way MS cut off call of duty after what they've said.

The big assumption here is that the CMA actually gives a shit about the responses. I'm not sure they care other than giving it some proper lip service. That's why I didn't write in about it.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

because Sony can't compete with it, they should be looking to refuse the deal if, and only if, it would have a negative effect on the industry.

If Sony can't compete because of this deal, doesn't that mean it would have a negative effect on the industry

 

[SenjutsuSage]

There's like twice as many Sony fans on the planet supposedly, are we saying that they couldn't be bothered to write an email? Or is it that the majority of Sony players outside of extreme fanboys don't give a shit if this deal goes through or not?

You'd think the people who are more against it are the ones who are going to write a letter with good reasons why it shouldn't go through. The against arguments read Like Jim Ryan and his mates wrote the emails after a night of heavy drinking.

The pros actually read pretty well. It will force Sony to improve their output and more importantly their services so don't we win in that scenario. There's no way MS cut off call of duty after what they've said.

This is exactly the case. The majority of Playstation fans don't care one way or the other. Did you see that basically Sony fan lawsuit to stop the Activision deal in federal court? It'd be hilarious if Microsoft decided to take that case seriously enough and quite literally get a federal judge to declare their merger legal based on antitrust law even before the FTC process begins.

And it IS possible btw. Federal Judges have an enormous degree of power if they so choose to wield it. That silly lawsuit could be a blessing in disguise for Microsoft to get its merger into court if it doesn't get immediately dismissed.

 

[adamsapple]

 

[DeepEnigma]

If Sony can't compete because of this deal, doesn't that mean it would have a negative effect on the industry

 

[Topher]

There's like twice as many Sony fans on the planet supposedly, are we saying that they couldn't be bothered to write an email? Or is it that the majority of Sony players outside of extreme fanboys don't give a shit if this deal goes through or not?

You'd think the people who are more against it are the ones who are going to write a letter with good reasons why it shouldn't go through. The against arguments read Like Jim Ryan and his mates wrote the emails after a night of heavy drinking.

The pros actually read pretty well. It will force Sony to improve their output and more importantly their services so don't we win in that scenario. There's no way MS cut off call of duty after what they've said.

Basically......"I agree with those who agree with me".

 

[reksveks]

Re the private lawsuit, does anyone know where they got the fact that Microsoft is 23.9% of game publishing in the United States?

 

[akimbo009]

If Sony can't compete because of this deal, doesn't that mean it would have a negative effect on the industry

Nah, just that they need to get richer.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

The XSS is not a high performance device relative to the other devices it is grouped with: the PS5 and XSX. The FTC didn't separate the XSS from the other more powerful and expensive devices implying that there was no distinction.

That's because there actually isn't much of a distinction. The Series S has a general MSRP of $299. If most people are buying based off the MSRP, then $299 isn't just casual money to blow away on what's basically a games console. And outside of things like resolution and RT, the Series S generally performs at parity with PS5 & Series X when it comes to the overall game experience (same framerates for similar modes, same modern SSD tech, same RDNA2 GPU arch & Zen 2 CPU arch, same support for modern DX12U API tools as Series X, etc.).

Moreover, it's a stationary sit-under-the-TV home gaming console very much like PS5 and Series X; virtually many of the other lower-performance gaming devices like Switch, or most smartphones & tablets, provide means of portability because they have the lower power consumption to do that. The Series S does not.

You also didn't mention that the XSS marketing targets casuals, families and kids similarly to the Switch. That marketing mentions games like Rocket League and Fortnite games that are also on the Switch. The XSS is certainly more powerful than the Switch but that is more due to the fact it is far newer than an attempt to put it outside of the casual market it is targeting.

I didn't know High on Life was a kid's game? Plague Tale Requiem is fun for the whole family and something casuals lap up? Scorn must be a hit with Dora & friends!

Look, Series S is no more targeted at casuals, families & kids as the PS5, similar to the Switch.

There has been no real indication that the regulators are knowledgeable of the video game industry as a whole and that is shown by comments like the Switch isn't for 'serious gamers' or that the Switch is for people looking for a 'low performance system'. CADE is really the only regulator that had analysis that bared some actual resemblance to historical norms when it comes to the defining the gaming industry.

So now Switch is for power users and people who want high performance in their games? Because that's what statements like "serious gamers" sound like to me. You are lucky to get a multiplat on Switch that runs even 60% as well as if it were also available on the Series S, and people who want decent performance in their games if they're on a television or monitor, at the bare minimum would probably want something that can at least deliver 1080p at a steady framerate like the Series S does (which was actually advertised as a 1440p machine but that's a different point).

Just because CADE had a ruling that you were in support of doesn't mean they are the only regulatory body putting in some effort investigating the pros and cons of this deal.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Nah, just that they need to get richer.

 

[oldergamer]

Ah yes, Microsoft can now finally compete against Googles and Apples in-house mobile games. Oh wait, those dont exist.

Don't be obtuse, you know MS wants to create a third marketplace for cellphone apps not controlled by google or apple right? It has nothing to do with in house games

 

[Topher]

This is exactly the case. The majority of Playstation fans don't care one way or the other. Did you see that basically Sony fan lawsuit to stop the Activision deal in federal court? It'd be hilarious if Microsoft decided to take that case seriously enough and quite literally get a federal judge to declare their merger legal based on antitrust law even before the FTC process begins.

And it IS possible btw. Federal Judges have an enormous degree of power if they so choose to wield it. That silly lawsuit could be a blessing in disguise for Microsoft to get its merger into court if it doesn't get immediately dismissed.