• 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

Bitmap Frogs

Mr. Community
The ftc doesn't have the authority to just outright block this deal. They're suing MS, but only within the confines of their commission. There's nothing here actually stopping MS from closing. The ftc would have to file an injunction for that, which would be decided by the legit legal courts.

Also, he stated that the ftc has lost most of it's cases recently when the companies actually went to court. Not sure why you'd bring up them taking on MS in the 1990's, when the government lost that case too. You're just proving his point.

Lol what

If MS just cancels and walks away, they immediately lose over $3 billion. So no, both sides don't just get to "walk away". What "you've seen" apparently isn't what everyone else has.

Even if ms fixes the ftc issue, there's the other side of the pond: and given that microsoft broke the deal they bartered by making zenimax games exclusives, things are not looking good. And the CMA/European authorities don't need to sue.
 
The most recent prominent tech acquisition that the FTC got involved in was the Nvidia-ARM deal. That deal didn’t go through, they walked away after the FTC sued to block it. This is very common.
Incorrect. The FTC gets involved in tech acquisitions all the time. Such as the Illumia/grail merger in September. Which the FTC fought in it's own administrative court, and promptly lost. In fact, the FTC/DOJ lost all three of the cases they took to court that month. As for Nvidia/Arm? They were getting pressure from just about every regulator, not just the FTC.
Also - the government didn’t lose the MS case in the 90s. Quite the opposite. The court held that they were a monopolist. MS managed to avoid a full breakup in the settlement process with the DOJ but this is after the courts held that they were engaging in anticompetitive behavior in violation of the law.
You can't just make shit up as you please? Is that how you try to debate? Does it ever actually work? While I guess you could claim the US government won the case in the 90's on the technicality that it was in 1999 when the verdict was reached. But that doesn't change the fact is that MS promptly appealed the verdict, and that verdict was overturned. MS didn't avoid a breakup in the settlement process, as there was no settlement process. No matter what reality you try to perpetuate, ultimately MS appealed, and the verdict was overturned. That means
US Gov= lost.
Microsoft= win.
 

diffusionx

Gold Member
Incorrect. The FTC gets involved in tech acquisitions all the time. Such as the Illumia/grail merger in September. Which the FTC fought in it's own administrative court, and promptly lost. In fact, the FTC/DOJ lost all three of the cases they took to court that month. As for Nvidia/Arm? They were getting pressure from just about every regulator, not just the FTC.

You can't just make shit up as you please? Is that how you try to debate? Does it ever actually work? While I guess you could claim the US government won the case in the 90's on the technicality that it was in 1999 when the verdict was reached. But that doesn't change the fact is that MS promptly appealed the verdict, and that verdict was overturned. MS didn't avoid a breakup in the settlement process, as there was no settlement process. No matter what reality you try to perpetuate, ultimately MS appealed, and the verdict was overturned. That means
US Gov= lost.
Microsoft= win.
 
Good try. The exact reason they are being taken to court you know the facts are opposed to your breakdown. I’ll let you look that up.this shit is genuinely funny.
It indeed was a good try. Because it worked in completely dismantling your argument.
Otherwise you'd have had an actual rebuttal instead of simply saying "go look it up".

Thanks for playing though.
 
Even if ms fixes the ftc issue, there's the other side of the pond: and given that microsoft broke the deal they bartered by making zenimax games exclusives, things are not looking good. And the CMA/European authorities don't need to sue.
Absolutely. The other side of the pond's regulators have more teeth to their bite so to speak. The CMA/EU have more authority for sure. This would be a far bigger deal if it were either of those two doing this instead of the FTC. And ultimately that may be the case, it's just that the FTC's release today isn't what many are assuming.

It's also worth noting that MS didn't break the deal they bartered with regarding Zenimax. The quotes that are being thrown around today are cherry picked. Go read through the entire thing, or at least the second half of it, and you'll see that. While the FTC might give that as a reason, I can't see the EU doing so as they're the ones who wrote the report. They know exactly what MS stated, as well as what they stated as well. Which doesn't coincide with what the FTC is claiming.
 

OsirisBlack

Banned
It indeed was a good try. Because it worked in completely dismantling your argument.
Otherwise you'd have had an actual rebuttal instead of simply saying "go look it up".

Thanks for playing though.
Lol you tried it.

In its statement, the FTC cites concerns that the deal would “enable Microsoft to suppress competitors” to Xbox, including its paid Game Pass subscription service and cloud gaming services.


“Microsoft has already shown that it can and will withhold content from its gaming rivals,” FTC’s Bureau of Competition Director Holly Vedova said. “Today we seek to stop Microsoft from gaining control over a leading independent game studio and using it to harm competition in multiple dynamic and fast-growing gaming markets.”

Why are you arguing against what you claimed were in your favor? the facts.
You did in FACT state that they were not keeping games from consumers, it seems they already LIED about not doing that in the first place which has raised several red flags globally. I understand you would like to be right and are ignoring the facts at hand for whatever reason. You can read the article yourself seeing as it was too difficult for you to look up. You have no point.

To your second post (lets preempt the bullshit on your part)

"While the FTC might give that as a reason, I can't see the EU doing so as they're the ones who wrote the report. They know exactly what MS stated, as well as what they stated as well. Which doesn't coincide with what the FTC is claiming."

Their write up is the basis for the argument as MS already lied about three games in particular. It's simple but some seem to be looking over the facts for ....... obvious reasons.
 
Last edited:

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
Of course not. This isn't Nvidia they're playing with lmao.

Case will be some time around May or June if we're lucky. The case may run for around perhaps 5-6 weeks, 8 weeks at best. And then at the end the Judge will rule in Microsoft's favor and it will be a big fail for the FTC. My assumption is the FTC won't even dare try to appeal after they lose. They know how weak this case is. They've chosen not a case they can win, so they decided to make a show trial out of this in the hopes of forcing the hand of the EU and the UK.
Does FTC really have a fake case? Try looking at it objectively, and you'll see that it is MS with a weak claim.

From FTC's press release:
Microsoft decided to make several of Bethesda's titles including Starfield and Redfall Microsoft exclusives despite assurances it had given to European antitrust authorities that it had no incentive to withhold games from rival consoles.“Microsoft has already shown that it can and will withhold content from its gaming rivals,” said Holly Vedova, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition.

And here is the document that Microsoft shared with EU antitrust regulators while the Zenimax deal was being finalized.
G6LZNVA.png
 
See. It's right there in your own link.

"On Sep 6 2001 the DOJ announced that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft, and was instead seeking a lesser antitrust penalty". Microsoft didn't settle that. The DOJ announced that due to their previous case being lost via appeal.

The negotiations and settlements that took place from that point forward was from the DOJ filing another case due to losing the first one. And while yes, that one was settled. Microsoft being broken up was never a part of that process as the DOJ wasn't asking for that. Ultimately it resulted in almost nothing that could be considered significant, and while it was eventually finalized in 2004, what little results there were expired in 2007.

Not really sure why you'd link that as It really disproves your original point.
 

diffusionx

Gold Member
See. It's right there in your own link.

"On Sep 6 2001 the DOJ announced that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft, and was instead seeking a lesser antitrust penalty". Microsoft didn't settle that. The DOJ announced that due to their previous case being lost via appeal.

The negotiations and settlements that took place from that point forward was from the DOJ filing another case due to losing the first one. And while yes, that one was settled. Microsoft being broken up was never a part of that process as the DOJ wasn't asking for that. Ultimately it resulted in almost nothing that could be considered significant, and while it was eventually finalized in 2004, what little results there were expired in 2007.

Not really sure why you'd link that as It really disproves your original point.
No, this is not an accurate reading of it. MS appealed the case, and the appeals court threw out the judgement of breakup, while NOT overturning the statement of fact (that MS was engaging in anticompetitive behavior). Throughout that did not get overturned, and still holds to this day.

Anyway, the initial point was that the vast resources and power of MS do not exceed that of the federal government, for better or worse.
 
Last edited:

ProtoByte

Weeb Underling
The legal side of this is interesting. But if you're just interested in gaming, the only reason anyone should care about this one way or the other is that Microsoft might spend at least some of that money on something else. I'm not overjoyed by that idea.
 

OsirisBlack

Banned
See. It's right there in your own link.

"On Sep 6 2001 the DOJ announced that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft, and was instead seeking a lesser antitrust penalty". Microsoft didn't settle that. The DOJ announced that due to their previous case being lost via appeal.

The negotiations and settlements that took place from that point forward was from the DOJ filing another case due to losing the first one. And while yes, that one was settled. Microsoft being broken up was never a part of that process as the DOJ wasn't asking for that. Ultimately it resulted in almost nothing that could be considered significant, and while it was eventually finalized in 2004, what little results there were expired in 2007.

Not really sure why you'd link that as It really disproves your original point.
Ok, you are definitely being ridiculous. Did you read what you posted? You just copy and pasted the FACT that the DOJ is no longer seeking to break up Microsoft. What does that disprove? No one is asking for the dissolution of MS and you posting that single bit out of context and it being irrelevant to the conversation makes what you just did a bit odd.

Lets get to the basic point.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY MICROSOFT IS BEING TAKEN TO COURT?
 

drganon

Member
The legal side of this is interesting. But if you're just interested in gaming, the only reason anyone should care about this one way or the other is that Microsoft might spend at least some of that money on something else. I'm not overjoyed by that idea.
They'd probably be getting the same pushback with this purchase.

Edit: Cope and seethe Adam.
 
Last edited:

OsirisBlack

Banned
No, this is not an accurate reading of it. MS appealed the case, and the appeals court threw out the judgement of breakup, while NOT overturning the statement of fact (that MS was engaging in anticompetitive behavior). Throughout that did not get overturned, and still holds to this day.

Anyway, the initial point was that the vast resources and power of MS do not exceed that of the federal government, for better or worse.
Logic and reading comprehension mixed with common sense are such a rare thing. Thank you.
 
Lol you tried it.
Successfully too I might add.
In its statement, the FTC cites concerns that the deal would “enable Microsoft to suppress competitors” to Xbox, including its paid Game Pass subscription service and cloud gaming services.


“Microsoft has already shown that it can and will withhold content from its gaming rivals,” FTC’s Bureau of Competition Director Holly Vedova said. “Today we seek to stop Microsoft from gaining control over a leading independent game studio and using it to harm competition in multiple dynamic and fast-growing gaming markets.”
There's nothing false about that statement as far as Microsoft withholding content from it's gaming rivals. That's not what you said though. You said that MS buying up 20 IP's and keeping it from consumers. And while I know it might be difficult for those two marbles rolling around in your head to conclude... There is a difference between the two.
Why are you arguing against what you claimed were in your favor? the facts.
You did in FACT state that they were not keeping games from consumers,
See, there you go again with confusing the two. It's funny how you read what they say, change it to what you say, and then pretend as if the two were identical.
it seems they already LIED about not doing that in the first place which has raised several red flags globally. I understand you would like to be right and are ignoring the facts at hand for whatever reason. You can read the article yourself seeing as it was too difficult for you to look up. You have no point.
It seems as if they LIED because you haven't read the actual report. You've just read the cherry picked hot takes that are making the rounds on twitter today. Also, please show me where anyone besides the FTC has cited that as raising a red flag globally. That ZeniMax report was from the EU. So why hasn't the EU themselves cited it as a reason, or even the CMA for that matter?
To your second post (lets preempt the bullshit on your part)

"While the FTC might give that as a reason, I can't see the EU doing so as they're the ones who wrote the report. They know exactly what MS stated, as well as what they stated as well. Which doesn't coincide with what the FTC is claiming."

Their write up is the basis for the argument as MS already lied about three games in particular. It's simple but some seem to be looking over the facts for ....... obvious reasons.
Yes, go read that entire write up. Go read what it says... All of it. And not just what your fanboy worshipping hero on twitter posted.

I'm trying give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you're not acting in bad faith, but you obviously insist on making it obvious that you are so what do you want me to do.

So I'll just say this. That write up that you oh so desperately hold dear, and should it have been in physical form I'm sure you'd sleep with under your pillow at night. Is not the grace saving, 10 commandments, or God given scripture level of evidence you think it is. That can only be because of 3 reasons. Its either because...

• You haven't read it and are therefore ignorant.

• You aren't able to read it and are therefore dumb.

• You have read it and are just acting in bad faith.

None of them is a good option to be honest, but it is what it is.
 

EDMIX

Writes a lot, says very little
This is one of the craziest deals we've ever seen in gaming. I'm sure MS will end up with them anyway, but who knows how all that will play out and how long it will take and what MS would need to concede to do so.

I never thought something crazy like this would happen, like sure deals have been stopped by the FTC before, but we've seen some crazy ass deals go thru like that whole Disney Fox thing.

All I know is, we are going to be talking about this deal for generations to come regardless of the outcome lol
 

OsirisBlack

Banned
Successfully too I might add.

There's nothing false about that statement as far as Microsoft withholding content from it's gaming rivals. That's not what you said though. You said that MS buying up 20 IP's and keeping it from consumers. And while I know it might be difficult for those two marbles rolling around in your head to conclude... There is a difference between the two.

See, there you go again with confusing the two. It's funny how you read what they say, change it to what you say, and then pretend as if the two were identical.

It seems as if they LIED because you haven't read the actual report. You've just read the cherry picked hot takes that are making the rounds on twitter today. Also, please show me where anyone besides the FTC has cited that as raising a red flag globally. That ZeniMax report was from the EU. So why hasn't the EU themselves cited it as a reason, or even the CMA for that matter?

Yes, go read that entire write up. Go read what it says... All of it. And not just what your fanboy worshipping hero on twitter posted.

I'm trying give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you're not acting in bad faith, but you obviously insist on making it obvious that you are so what do you want me to do.

So I'll just say this. That write up that you oh so desperately hold dear, and should it have been in physical form I'm sure you'd sleep with under your pillow at night. Is not the grace saving, 10 commandments, or God given scripture level of evidence you think it is. That can only be because of 3 reasons. Its either because...

• You haven't read it and are therefore ignorant.

• You aren't able to read it and are therefore dumb.

• You have read it and are just acting in bad faith.

None of them is a good option to be honest, but it is what it is.
Did you have a good day? how was dinner? See, people like you aren't worth arguing with and I would generally just pretend you didn't exist. I however will be generous and not stoop to your level. You obviously are picking what you want out of not only that article but all of the other articles and information that is readily available. It is also free for you to read. (resisting the human urge to lash back out and stoop to your level) I will assume you are being stubborn and not really attempting to digest the information for what it actually is and are only seeing what you want, or holding on to whatever arguing point you think you have. (bad faith)

Microsoft buying 20 IP's is not an issue never has been and never will be. Them buying those 20 IPs and keeping them away from consumers is called what? (Do not say they aren't keeping them from consumers because that is exactly what they are doing)

I have read the ENTIRE write-up and not just the one. I would advise that maybe you do the same. I would also suggest https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws
Might help you better identify what the actual problem is instead of you relating it to some "your fanboy worshipping hero on Twitter posted." issue.

You keep bringing up the EU, don't worry after this initial move others including the EU may follow suit. That is generally how these things work. I'm expecting a particular government to have something to say. That's when this will actually get interesting.

Enjoy your day and keep up the good fight.
 

EDMIX

Writes a lot, says very little
Microsoft buying 20 IP's is not an issue never has been and never will be. Them buying those 20 IPs and keeping them away from consumers is called what? (Do not say they aren't keeping them from consumers because that is exactly what they are doing)

You keep bringing up the EU, don't worry after this initial move others including the EU may follow suit. That is generally how these things work.

Agreed completely.

The biggest issue with this move by MS is their intent to withhold that content and it looks like that is what will do em in regarding this deal. If EU does the same, I don't see how this deal would go thru. Good points all around though
 

zzill3

Banned
Agreed completely.

The biggest issue with this move by MS is their intent to withhold that content and it looks like that is what will do em in regarding this deal. If EU does the same, I don't see how this deal would go thru. Good points all around though

MS said they are going to keep COD on playstation while playstation exists. They want Sony to sign a contract agreeing to that for 10 years - a guarantee that Sony don’t have with Activision at the moment.
Same for switch - COD isn’t on switch at the moment, MS would bring it to them, and MS would put it on cloud and gamepass. It’ll be available to more people for a cheaper price.

Where in this do you get the idea that they’re withholding content?
 

Lex Tenebris

Neo Member
Maybe MS and Acti will stop the merge but there are other methods to achieve the goal.
Activision can become a subsidiary or they can form a joint venture. But my knowledge in the subject is very limited,so I don't know if it's feasible.
 

xHunter

Member
LfLb8Lk.png
BL0qQZS.png



116 outlines the reasons why they're exclusive, outcome is unlikely doesn't mean MS doesn't foresee those games as system sellers.

And 125 states that EU came to the conclusion that even afterward, there would be no material impact on the competition.

🤷‍♂️
116 just sums up what MS said in 108 and 109, that it is highly unlikely they would make the games exclusive.
125 has nothing to do with them breaking their own statements.

This isnt the gotcha you think it is.
 
No, this is not an accurate reading of it. MS appealed the case, and the appeals court threw out the judgement of breakup, while NOT overturning the statement of fact (that MS was engaging in anticompetitive behavior). Throughout that did not get overturned, and still holds to this day.
Ultimately, the Circuit Court overturned Jackson's holding that Microsoft should be broken up as an illegal monopoly. However, the Circuit Court did not overturn Jackson's findings of fact, and held that traditional antitrust analysis was not equipped to consider software-related practices like browser tie-ins.[26] The case was remanded back to the D.C. District Court for further proceedings on this matter, with Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly presiding.[27]

While they didn't throw out his findings of fact (Not sure why you changed it to statement of facts), it wasn't really necessary to do so, as the result would've been the same regardless. No need to kick the judge while he was down so to speak. His ruling was overturned, and that is what ultimately remains to this day.
Anyway, the initial point was that the vast resources and power of MS do not exceed that of the federal government, for better or worse.
I can go along with that point, and had that actually been your initial point, we wouldn't have had this conversation. But that wasn't really your point, or at least that's not what it appeared to be.

Instead, your initial point was that this acquisition was almost certainly deemed to fail. That most likely MS would abandon the whole thing and walk away. You suggested that the FTC and it's actions today were more authoritative than they are. You then went on to try and correct another person who pointed out (correctly I might add) that other regulators had significantly more authority than the FTC did. Stating that it was US that took on MS and won back in the 90's.

And to all of that. You largely missed the target. No, the FTC doesn't have the same degree of authority as other regulators do such as the CMA or EU. No, MS won't most likely abandon the deal at this point and walk away as that would cost them $3 billion for nothing. No, the actions the FTC took today even prevents MS closing the deal, as they didn't even file an injunction to do so. And finally... Yes, the US did take on MS back in the 90's, but no, they didn't ultimately win that case as it was overturned. You walking it back step by step as "they weren't broken up because they settled", and "well, the statement of fact" (Again wtf?) doesn't change that.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
116 just sums up what MS said in 108 and 109, that it is highly unlikely they would make the games exclusive.
125 has nothing to do with them breaking their own statements.

This isnt the gotcha you think it is.

Wasn't meant to be a gotcha, but a firm statement from EU that even if MS stops making new Bethesda games for other consoles, it won't disrupt the market in any way.

An argument that isn't even a factor in this acquisition as there have been commitments to keep CoD on other platforms and adding it to *new* platforms it hasn't been on for near a decade, instead of holding anything back.
 

Kagey K

Banned
If MS has to fight thier way through court and win all previous concessions are off the table.

Odds are this is going to pass without anyone setting foot in a courtroom, and most judges will think thier concessions are enough, in the current climate.

This is strictly for posturing and negotiations.
 

xHunter

Member
Wasn't meant to be a gotcha, but a firm statement from EU that even if MS stops making new Bethesda games for other consoles, it won't disrupt the market in any way.

An argument that isn't even a factor in this acquisition as there have been commitments to keep CoD on other platforms and adding it to *new* platforms it hasn't been on for near a decade, instead of holding anything back.
The first is irrelevant since no one said that. The FTC noted that MS had the same type of language in that PDF for the EC for upcoming Bethesda games as for CoD. We are seeing the same pattern in both cases. This is also why many are saying that MS lied to the EC, because it can definetly be interpreted as them not making future games exclusive.

I dont even know why they put 108 and 109 in there.
 

MScarpa

Member
Ftc is from all accounts a massive toothless tiger, likely fail anyhow.

But just for fun, let's say they somehow block the acquisition, big deal, ms just takes its 66 billion left and buys 4 other studios. Might actually be better.....
Please buy Ubisoft!!
 
Wasn't meant to be a gotcha, but a firm statement from EU that even if MS stops making new Bethesda games for other consoles, it won't disrupt the market in any way.

An argument that isn't even a factor in this acquisition as there have been commitments to keep CoD on other platforms and adding it to *new* platforms it hasn't been on for near a decade, instead of holding anything back.
I saw many people claiming MS lied. Did MS tell regulators the same things about Bethesda titles as they did about CoD? I don't recall any ten year pledges for Starfield, Redfall, and the next single player Elder Scrolls. More importantly why is it a problem when a MS first party makes an exclusive game? Is MS just not allowed to do so? Regulators realize other platforms have exclusives right?
 

xHunter

Member
I saw many people claiming MS lied. Did MS tell regulators the same things about Bethesda titles as they did about CoD? I don't recall any ten year pledges for Starfield, Redfall, and the next single player Elder Scrolls. More importantly why is it a problem when a MS first party makes an exclusive game? Is MS just not allowed to do so? Regulators realize other platforms have exclusives right?
Go back a few quotes und you will find the statement they made to the EC, about 5 months before they announced Starfield and Redfall as exclusives. No is saying that MS shouldnt be allowed to make their games exclusive. But making it look like that releasing future Bethesda games exclusively is highly unlikely at the current time and then announcing 2 (+TES6) as exclusives a few months later can be seen as a lie.
 
Go back a few quotes und you will find the statement they made to the EC, about 5 months before they announced Starfield and Redfall as exclusives. No is saying that MS shouldnt be allowed to make their games exclusive. But making it look like that releasing future Bethesda games exclusively is highly unlikely at the current time and then announcing 2 (+TES6) as exclusives a few months later can be seen as a lie.
What happened with updates to ESO, Fallout 76 and Doom? Surely MS could have made expansions to their newly purchased IP exclusive in an attempt to make their platform more attractive right? I also saw that Quake remake come out not too long ago. I assume that didn't hit PlayStation right?
 

xHunter

Member
What happened with updates to ESO, Fallout 76 and Doom? Surely MS could have made expansions to their newly purchased IP exclusive in an attempt to make their platform more attractive right? I also saw that Quake remake come out not too long ago. I assume that didn't hit PlayStation right?
Do you seriously compare updates to existing games, which btw they said they would still support thos on other platforms, to upcoming games?
Comparing it to a remaster of an 25 year old game is also bold.
 

jufonuk

not tag worthy
Marketshare should be earned, not bought.

Let them compete on their merits, and not their balance sheets.
If this was the case Nintendo should get all the things

Seeing as they saved gaming from the crash.
Helped to bring around the PlayStation.
Also inspired Microsoft to enter the console gaming space.

So if we go with those merits.

Episode 4 Nbc GIF by Brooklyn Nine-Nine



But it doesn’t work like that. Money talks and all that.
MS have the biggest wallet.
 
Last edited:
So what companies are Microsoft allowed to buy and what companies are Sony allowed to buy?

Its not a hostile takeover, two parties came to a agreement.
It sounds like another 'organic growth' argument. I honestly think it was the size that got the negative attention. Couple that with an activist FTC and you get a suit based on optics and not the law. I'm guessing 8-10 billion will be the upper limit but that also assumes Sony won't say anything. Although seeing what people are saying about Bethesda I would not be surprised to see a suit to force MS to divest from them too.
 

Three

Member
It hasn't nor has FTC filed for any injunctions so far



-

Please don't spent too much on the celebrations just yet, this might come back to bite you :messenger_tears_of_joy:

They haven't filed a preliminary injunction but they are trying to block the deal. A preliminary injunction isn't even required. What harm could MS cause during the trial? MS would only be harming itself and the FTC wouldn't have to worry about much in terms of competition harm because Activision has prior obligations.
Maybe MS and Acti will stop the merge but there are other methods to achieve the goal.
Activision can become a subsidiary or they can form a joint venture. But my knowledge in the subject is very limited,so I don't know if it's feasible.
In either case the company would have separate shareholders and an appointed board with an obligation to do what's best for that company and not a single entity.
 
Do you seriously compare updates to existing games, which btw they said they would still support thos on other platforms, to upcoming games?
Comparing it to a remaster of an 25 year old game is also bold.
Well people are claiming MS has lied. They directly stated they would support existing titles but I don't recall them promising all future unreleased Bethesda games to PlayStation. We've see what a MS promise looks like and this wasn't it. The fact remains that they did not have to put any games on other platforms but they have on multiple titles. Odd for them now to be 'liars'.
 

gothmog

Gold Member
I read through the full complaint. It's pretty simple. It's basically says that it is likely that Microsoft will not only be in the position to abuse their place in the market, but that they are incentivized to abuse it based on multiple factors if allowed to complete the deal.

I actually think it's a powerful complaint because of its simplicity. One of the mistakes I thought Microsoft was making was basically just talking too much. Now there's a ton of comments and actions that can be used as part of the legal process to do all kinds of fun stuff like impeach witnesses. I'm also curious how much influence ex-Microsoft employees like Mike Ybarra had on this deal since he's the president of Blizzard.
 

DenchDeckard

Moderated wildly
Lmao did the geniuses at MS think that different regulatory bodies do not talk to each other?








MS told the EU during the Zenimax acquisition that they'd only make Zenimax games exclusive under implausible (their words) circumstances.



They lied. 100% chance CMA kills this deal now too.

This is damning as all hell. MS tried to pull a fast one and it could be their downfall which I personally think is deserved.

I always thought that the intent for zenimax was to bolster their exclusive line up, which I thought was fair due to their past relationship and that zenimax wanted to sell.

But, lying straight up to get the deal through is out of line. So, I can't blame anyone for questioning their intent with Acti Blizz. I'll be honest, I wanted ABK games to continue to launch on ps5 day one I just wanted more game pass games day one in my subscription. This deal needs some serious scrutiny.
 

xHunter

Member
Well people are claiming MS has lied. They directly stated they would support existing titles but I don't recall them promising all future unreleased Bethesda games to PlayStation. We've see what a MS promise looks like and this wasn't it. The fact remains that they did not have to put any games on other platforms but they have on multiple titles. Odd for them now to be 'liars'.
Like i said, their statement to the EC regarding future games can be interpreted in different ways. If you think they didnt lie then that is fine. Others might disagree.
 

DenchDeckard

Moderated wildly
So Microsoft are going to have to cough up 3 billion if this doesn’t happen?

Absolutely, and then have 65 billion they'd put to one side ....coupled with some serious embarrassing egg on their face, pissed off execs with hate boners and pride like monkeys throwing shit at the wall to state their dominance.

It's officially gonna be awful which ever way it goes.
 
Top Bottom