• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

FTC Seeks to Block Microsoft Corp’s Acquisition of Activision Blizzard

Ezekiel_

Ezekiel_

Banned
Punished Miku said:
I never claimed I was entitled. I said I would prefer having options to rent or buy. It saves consumers money. You being unable or unwilling to acknowledge it won't protect them in court.
Click to expand...
Does your local library rent games? Mine does, and the library card is free. You'll need a disc drive console though.
 
Last edited:
//DEVIL//

//DEVIL//

Member
Chiggs said:
My take:

  • Democrats: A move which will be seen as pro-consumer but will likely result in aggressive lobbying in 2024 and 2026 from Microsoft...and reduced campaign donations.
Click to expand...
For that point alone, IF there is any chance this deal will go through, because of this. " support us to support you " MS will have a clear msg behind the scene to Democrats.
 
Kenneth Haight

Kenneth Haight

Gold Member
200.gif


Big Jim and Phil, Royal Rumble at the game awards tonight. Hell in a Cell, make it happen Geoff!
 
H

harmonize

Member
Even if this deal falls through, MS and Activision will be attached to the hip for now on. Do you think Activision, whose entire management and shareholders support this deal, will ever give preferential treatment to Sony again if they're the ones who are primarily responsible for screwing up this deal? Playstation will lose marketing rights for CoD and every future ABK game while MS will have $70 billion more to spend on whatever else. Sony once again is thinking too small and pointlessly making enemies within their own industry.
 
Kagey K

Kagey K

Banned
MisterXDTV said:
Yeah they are spinning it as Activision were forced to sign a deal with Sony....

Maybe ask them why they didn't want to sign a deal with Xbox instead....
Click to expand...
In the CMA filings MS said that they opted to not continue the Co-marketing deal.

So it was either sign with Sony or don't do one.
 
Yoboman

Yoboman

Member
harmonize said:
Even if this deal falls through, MS and Activision will be attached to the hip for now on. Do you think Activision, whose entire management and shareholders support this deal, will ever give preferential treatment to Sony again if they're the ones who are primarily responsible for screwing up this deal? Playstation will lose marketing rights for CoD and every future ABK game while MS will have $70 billion more to spend on whatever else. Sony once again is thinking too small and pointlessly making enemies within their own industry.
Click to expand...
Is this thinking from the same fantasy land as "the deal will close without issue"?
 
jm89

jm89

Member
harmonize said:
Even if this deal falls through, MS and Activision will be attached to the hip for now on. Do you think Activision, whose entire management and shareholders support this deal, will ever give preferential treatment to Sony again if they're the ones who are primarily responsible for screwing up this deal? Playstation will lose marketing rights for CoD and every future ABK game while MS will have $70 billion more to spend on whatever else. Sony once again is thinking too small and pointlessly making enemies within their own industry.
Click to expand...
Well i guess they are looking at the alternative as worse.
 
PaintTinJr

PaintTinJr

Member
feynoob said:
TOP dogs would be off limit for MS/Sony/Nintendo.
Click to expand...
I wonder if the FTC might up-the-ante and threaten to get the Zenimax deal reversed too if Microsoft push against this legal action too hard.

I also wonder if PlayStation will sue Activision (Microsoft in this situation if Microsoft succeeds in acquiring Activision) because the marketing deal they have with Activision has been undermined - compared to Xbox having the deal on 360/early X1- because Activision put themselves up for sale and agreed to sell to a competitor in a drawn out process that has overshadowed the expected marketing power of the deal they agreed. with PlayStation, and indirectly associated the CoD IP with Xbox and game pass since the sale was announced.
 
bentanchorbolt

bentanchorbolt

Banned
Swift_Star said:
A bunch of gaffers also said the deal would go smoothly and that the FTC wouldn’t sue, @SenjutsuSage included.
Click to expand...
This is kind of my point. Who the fuck cares what is said in this thread in regards to the actual outcome? Nobody knows, its all FUD. It's fun to speculate I get that, but anyone here that believes their saying something which holds any weight is deluding themselves. We are all along for the ride and if the outcome is as some predicted, its pretty obvious a coincidence.
 
Chiggs

Chiggs

Gold Member
ChorizoPicozo said:
Wasn't that merge proven to be problematic?
Click to expand...

A complete shit-show, but that didn't stop it from going through. The judge was downright giddy about it.

MisterXDTV said:
Trivia: AT&T already sold Warner Media to Discovery Inc after a few years of failures

Great win...
Click to expand...

No arguments from me there...but the deal was approved and the FCC looked petty after all was said and done, even if sentiment was on their side.
 
Last edited:
Dirk Benedict

Dirk Benedict

Member
harmonize said:
Even if this deal falls through, MS and Activision will be attached to the hip for now on. Do you think Activision, whose entire management and shareholders support this deal, will ever give preferential treatment to Sony again if they're the ones who are primarily responsible for screwing up this deal? Playstation will lose marketing rights for CoD and every future ABK game while MS will have $70 billion more to spend on whatever else. Sony once again is thinking too small and pointlessly making enemies within their own industry.
Click to expand...

I haven't come to any conclusions about this, yet. But reading your post... I wonder if this is a win/win situation for MS, regardless of what happens.
 
GHG

GHG

Gold Member
Punished Miku said:
Thats a pretty anti-consumer argument that won't look great in court. More options and less consumer cost are good things being blocked by a dominant market player. You guys are blinded by fanboyism.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing about gamepass:
  • There is no guarantee it will be around forever
  • There is no guarantee it will forever be structured as it is today
  • There is no guarantee it will forever be priced as it is today
  • It "costs less" but you own nothing
As such regulators cannot run under the assumption that "gamepass is good for consumers". It is until it suddenly isn't. Activision weren't interested in putting COD on gamepass, why do you think that is? For the fun of it or because it wouldn't allow them to continue putting the reinvestment (money) they have done into the franchise since the original Modern Warfare? One day Microsoft suddenly stop offering gamepass, or change the terms (The monthly fee goes through the roof? Or how about you pay per hour played instead of a set monthly fee? Or they say games will only be available on gamepass/xclould? etc etc), they can do what they want, it's their service. Therefore worst case scenarios need to be looked at by regulators.

The final point above (erosion of ownership for consumers) in particular is under the microscope by the EU and has been for some time.

The great irony is that you want to talk about people being blinded? Take the gamepass goggles off and look around.
 
Last edited:
Swift_Star

Swift_Star

Banned
harmonize said:
Even if this deal falls through, MS and Activision will be attached to the hip for now on. Do you think Activision, whose entire management and shareholders support this deal, will ever give preferential treatment to Sony again if they're the ones who are primarily responsible for screwing up this deal? Playstation will lose marketing rights for CoD and every future ABK game while MS will have $70 billion more to spend on whatever else. Sony once again is thinking too small and pointlessly making enemies within their own industry.
Click to expand...
Good luck thinking they’ll be able to afford losing that sweet Sony revenue after being devalued by the block.
 
E

Elios83

Member
Chiggs said:
  • Microsoft:A complete headache; not unwinnable by any means (see AT&T/Time Warner vs the FCC), but a total mess which really brings to light Phil's abilities as a leader. Does anyone truly believe he's the guy?
    • MS can retaliate by scooping up a bunch of smaller devs if this gets killed, but it won't be what they wanted...and the burden falls on their already beleaguered in-house devs to try and catch Sony (lol).
Click to expand...

Phil definetly comes out as a really poor businessman and tbh it was pretty clear, the only thing he's really good is at pretending to be a good guy on twitter.
They clearly had this plan to buy a dominant position in gaming using money, a result they couldn't obtain otherwise, we all see that but you have to try to execute on it smartly. Bethesda was a nice first step but then they stupidly tried to fly too high and exposed all their intentions in the process.
Now this deal will either be blocked or will be so neutralized by heavy concessions that it won't be worth the money.
And in the meantime it sets a big precedent that will probably rule out all possible acquisitions of similar scale.
This is poor strategy from the Spencer&Nadella duo, they should have kept a lower profile.
 
Last edited:
James Sawyer Ford

James Sawyer Ford

Member
Rac3r said:
“Giving peace a chance”. All these Microsoft execs are so strange with their messaging. They sound entitled as fuck. I wonder if it’s a company culture thing…
Click to expand...

“Giving peace a chance” sounds so diabolical lmao

Like some cartoon villain in a superhero movie that was trying to play the good guy only to reveal their true motivations at the end
 
Last edited:
ZehDon

ZehDon

Gold Member
Swift_Star said:
Yes. What's your source on them being "ideological"?
Click to expand...
Oh, that's easy. The FTC didn't an raise anti-suit over Disney buying Fox, which many observers had anti-trust reservations about. However, its new leader, Lisa Khan, has taken a staunch "anti-big tech" stance, effectively saying that even though things are legal, or that anti-trust laws don't apply, it doesn't make them ok (article has her direct quotes). That's not the mandate of any competition regulator, its just people using a regulatory body to push an ideological position. Khan's FTC tried and failed with Amazon's MGM take-over, and it reads like they're going to try again - and they'll fail again, because the laws haven't changed. Khan not liking "big tech" doesn't make their actions illegal.
 
Mr Moose

Mr Moose

Member
DeepEnigma said:
Activision agreed to that deal, eh? They are not on PS+ either, I wonder why that is? Think long and hard, especially after the record setting sales just recently.
Click to expand...

"Activision is concerned that participation in subscription services could impact its [REDACTED] and would lead to brand dilution and cannibalisation of buy-to-play sales (especially of new releases)."

"Historically, a very limited number of Activision titles have featured on PlayStation Plus, but these titles have always been older releases that have been provided to PlayStation Plus many years after their initial release via buy-to-play, and are only made available for a limited time. Activision has never published any newer content on multigame subscription services and has no intention to do so in the future."
 
Ezekiel_

Ezekiel_

Banned
Elios83 said:
Phil definetly comes out as a really poor businessman and tbh it was pretty clear, the only thing he's really good is at pretending to be a good guy on twitter.
They clearly had this plan to buy a dominant position in gaming using money, a result they couldn't obtain otherwise, we all see that but you have to try to execute on it smartly. Bethesda was a nice first step but then they stupidly tried to fly too high and exposed all their intentions in the process.
Now this deal will either be blocked or will be so neutralized by heavy concessions that it won't be worth the money.
And in the meantime it sets a big precedent that will probably rule out all possible acquisitions of similar scale.
This is poor strategy from the Spencer&Nadella duo, they should have kept a lower profile.
Click to expand...
They all looked like amateurs these past few weeks : Nadella with the 'let us compete' bullshit argument, MS president Brad with the Netflix and Blockbuster comparison, Spencer with the flip flopping deals for CoD, 'we want to expand gaming for all' while simultaneously making multiplatform games exclusive, throwing meaningless 10 year 'commitment deals' left and right, all their childish Twitter snides
 
Last edited:
M

MisterXDTV

Member
Mr Moose said:
"Activision is concerned that participation in subscription services could impact its [REDACTED] and would lead to brand dilution and cannibalisation of buy-to-play sales (especially of new releases)."

"Historically, a very limited number of Activision titles have featured on PlayStation Plus, but these titles have always been older releases that have been provided to PlayStation Plus many years after their initial release via buy-to-play, and are only made available for a limited time. Activision has never published any newer content on multigame subscription services and has no intention to do so in the future."
Click to expand...

So basically they told Microsoft: "If you want CoD on GamePass, just pay us $70 billions, then it's all yours"

:messenger_beaming:
 
Last edited:
Ar¢tos

Ar¢tos

Member
Mibu no ookami said:
Bad management how, expand on that for us. Give us specifics of bad management.
Click to expand...
With Sony pulling the management strings, its long list of UK studios were streamlined. The Leeds studio, which had created WipEout 3, the final game in the series for PSone, was no more. A Manchester studio hadn't lasted long. It was time for a name change. Psygnosis became Studio Liverpool.

Around this time Sony decided it would put all its eggs in the Formula One basket.
Click to expand...
www.eurogamer.net

WipEout: The rise and fall of Sony Studio Liverpool

In a sweeping investigation into the studio's history, Eurogamer asks: why did Sony send WipEout to the scrapheap?
www.eurogamer.net www.eurogamer.net

After Formula One they didn't do anything decent (except, maybe, Wipeout 3 - meh-, and the Vita Wipeout) ).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The FTC’s noncompete agreements ban is blocked
News
1
647
GHG replied
  • Locked
FTC accuses Microsoft of misrepresenting its Activision Blizzard plans after layoffs
News
12
1K
ChuckeRearmed replied
Microsoft has settled its Antitrust Gamers Lawsuit Over $69B Activision Blizzard Buy.
News
26
2K
DenchDeckard replied
FTC appeals to block already-completed Microsoft-Activision deal
2
63
6K
Mythoclast replied
  • Locked
Microsoft and Activision Blizzard accused of 'bad faith bargaining' by Raven Software union workers
News Business
3
435
Topher replied
Top Bottom