• 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

Lasha

Member
It’s a fishy deal all around, they stand to make more money on their own than selling. The COD IP has had its most profitable release ever making 1 Billion in 10 days before the season store was even open. What’s even more scandalous is that Bobby would keep his job despite ongoing sexual misconduct allegations if the deal concluded.

Whats fishy? ATVI shareholders approved the deal. Selling all of my ATVI shares off for 95$ is a profitable closure to a long accumulation of stock. The freed up capital can be used to invest now rather than waiting for shares to appreciate to 95$ organically. Blocking the deal just means that a resurgent Activision now has another 3 billion dollars to use for its own acquisitions. It's good all around.

Still, my question is why care if you aren't invested? Nothing really changes for the average gamer either way. The PS3 had many great games when Microsoft was the default COD console. Microsoft has put out good games while PS has been the cod console. Both consoles will continue to exist either way and PC gamers will probably not notice anything. The cheering is so weird.
 

Aaron Olive

Member
Whats fishy? ATVI shareholders approved the deal. Selling all of my ATVI shares off for 95$ is a profitable closure to a long accumulation of stock. The freed up capital can be used to invest now rather than waiting for shares to appreciate to 95$ organically. Blocking the deal just means that a resurgent Activision now has another 3 billion dollars to use for its own acquisitions. It's good all around.

Still, my question is why care if you aren't invested? Nothing really changes for the average gamer either way. The PS3 had many great games when Microsoft was the default COD console. Microsoft has put out good games while PS has been the cod console. Both consoles will continue to exist either way and PC gamers will probably not notice anything. The cheering is so weird.
Yeah I’m not going to entertain that why do you care attitude I’ve already said my point.

We all know the shareholders just see an instant cash out 🤑.
 
I've never watched him. Just know his name from EZA sponsorship. If anything I'd say he's divided his audience. Never heard anything but positive things about him until this deal.
His analysis is fine but objective. He calls out issues with both MS' and the FTC's arguments it just turns out that the FTC's arguments are far, far worse from a legal perspective. Since he isn't cheering the deal blocking arguments it is interpretated as being biased. I challenge anyone to show why his legal reasonings are wrong. I don't think many here have the credibility or credentials. He is incredibly fair and reasonable.
 

yurinka

Member

"European Commission argues FTC's Microsoft lawsuit is unjustified"​

"The European Commission is looking into Microsoft's merger with Activision Blizzard, but doesn't think the FTC's lawsuit has any real substance..."

https://www.gamedeveloper.com/busin...argues-ftc-s-microsoft-lawsuit-is-unjustified
This article is lying on its title and subtitle. The EC never said that the lawsuit is unjustified or that it lacks substance.

FTC said that MS mentioned to the EC that what it made sense for them was to keep Zenimax in rival consoles, which is what MS really said to the EC. The EC didn't care because they thought that independently of if MS made the games exclusive or not, the acquisition wasn't going to negatively affect the competition or the consumers so approved it independently of what MS said. FTC never said that MS promised to don't make the games exclusive to the EC, or that EC requested MS to do so.

When asked by MLex, what EC replied was perfectly compatible with the FTC claim and never said it's disqualified, that lacks substance or anything similar. They said MS didn't make any commitments to avoid exclusivity and that if the EC approved the Zenimax acquisition wasn't because of what MS told them, but instead because to make these games exclusive wouldn't negatively impact competition because they weren't important enough for the market to do so.

What FTC said:
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ft...AdministrativeComplaintPublicVersionFinal.pdf
Fjj0ForXkAAsK5c


What MS said to EC regarding Zenimax:
Fjj6pZyXEAEeAI2

Fjj4FjUWAAYj60H

Fjj4KxDXgAQ9sfQ

After this screenshoted part, in the report the EC says that independtly of what MS said they'll approve the acquisition because even if they become console exclusive the games aren't that important enough to damage competition or the consumers.
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases1/202124/m10001_438_3.pdf
 
Last edited:

supernova8

Banned
Exactly it doesn't take a genius to work out that, if the deal goes through, Microsoft will absolutely (sooner or later) make all of the ActiBliz IP Xbox and/or Windows exclusive.

The question is whether that's a good or a bad thing. I'd say it's bad because allowing Microsoft to simply buy out massive publishers when most of its own internal studios seem to be shit or just unproductive (aside from perhaps the Forza guys and Rare) rewards inefficiency.

Plus, I've said it before but most of Playstation's studio acquisitions (barring glaring ones like Bungie) have come years after close cooperation (including Playstation funding/publishing those studios' games). You can trace most of them back to some initial partnership that developed and (you could say naturally) ended in Playstation acquiring them.

ActiBliz has never been acquired and it doesn't seem to have any particularly special relationship with Microsoft, which is what puzzled me about it. It seems like a totally random acquisition. It's not like ActiBliz needs money or needs to be acquired.
 
Exactly it doesn't take a genius to work out that, if the deal goes through, Microsoft will absolutely (sooner or later) make all of the ActiBliz IP Xbox and/or Windows exclusive.

The question is whether that's a good or a bad thing. I'd say it's bad because allowing Microsoft to simply buy out massive publishers when most of its own internal studios seem to be shit or just unproductive (aside from perhaps the Forza guys and Rare) rewards inefficiency.

Plus, I've said it before but most of Playstation's studio acquisitions (barring glaring ones like Bungie) have come years after close cooperation (including Playstation funding/publishing those studios' games). You can trace most of them back to some initial partnership that developed and (you could say naturally) ended in Playstation acquiring them.

ActiBliz has never been acquired and it doesn't seem to have any particularly special relationship with Microsoft, which is what puzzled me about it. It seems like a totally random acquisition. It's not like ActiBliz needs money or needs to be acquired.
There is no evidence that MS will remove all Activision content because to this day MS puts IP they own on other platforms now. The talk about how correct way to behave in this industry is to act like Sony is also pretty silly because they have advantages from years of dominance that other platforms cannot.

This deal is certainly good for Activision because they were looking for a buyer after years of being dogged by harassment allegations and lawsuits. Sony's years of dominance will ensure they will survive no matter what happens with this acquisition most likely still #1 but I'm hopeful that Sony will focus on offering their customers better value over trying to fight Xbox's efforts to improve value for their customers.
 

supernova8

Banned
They didn't. People are acting like Psygnosis was this massive publisher, they weren't. And they still published Psygnosis games on other platforms before dissolving them into Sony SCEE after building them up bigger than they ever were. They did not go 3 (arguably) failing gens in a row before wanting to buy the largest 3rd party publishers in the world with all of those IPs and dev studios.

They offered a cheap CD based system, cheap $40-$50 games, and removed third parties from the draconian deals they were locked into with Nintendo. They weren't perfect over the years, but most of their deals were on an equal playing field that others, especially the same MS has been free to do and done so themselves.

Most gamers never even heard of Psygnosis, that's how massive and popular they were for industry defining decades ;)
Exactly Microsoft is the larger company and is losing to Sony, a much smaller company (relatively speaking). Microsoft's operating income ($80b) is literally 10 times that of Sony ($8b).

No matter how you look at it, this attempted ActiBliz acquisition strikes me as Microsoft failing to (in a good amount of time) build up its internal studios and failing to entice third party to enter into exclusivity deals. As you say, there is/was nothing financially stopping Microsoft from doing such deals. It's not like Microsoft couldn't outbid Sony. The only explanation is that developers/publishers consciously chose to work with Playstation over Xbox.

Also I still cannot believe how Microsoft managed to do so well with the Xbox 360 (partly because it launched an entire year ahead of PS3 and Sony screwed itself with the Cell processor early on) even if PS3 kinda edged it out at the end and then totally fuck up with the Xbox One. Xbox Series X seems to be a great piece of hardware but clearly lacking exclusive games.

Subjectively speaking, I don't see how Microsoft has "earned the right" to buy out any big publishers.
 

Marvel14

Banned
Read their complaint for the full case.

The core structure: “Today we seek to stop Microsoft from gaining control over a leading independent game studio and . They'll have a hard time proving any of that, doubly so when titles like Minecraft, Elder Scrolls Online, and Fallout 76 continue to be multiplatform with no degradation to their non-Microsoft releases, titles like Ghost Wire and Death Loop remained non-Xbox exclusives in accordance with existing deals, and its offered Nintendo and Sony 10 years of Call of Duty in writing. The FTC's case is flimsy at best from my perspective, and boils down to "trust us".

Good post.
But as ever the devil is in the details.

On game exclusivity, you do know that Nintendo hardware doesn't compete with MS hardware on power and the negative effect on competition would be greatest on the high end consumer (PS5 and PC) anyway right? A 10 year deal with Nintendo for franchises that haven't appeared on Nintendo platforms for a decade or more is a fig leaf if ever I saw one.


Also there are a myriad of ways they can give themselves a competitive edge while still being multiplatform: time exclusivity, exclusive features, enhanced performance- I suspect these would all be hard to remedy and prove if they come to pass. The fact that they are giving 10 year deals is explicit acknowledgement that the deal concentrates their market power. 10 year deals just delays and adds some uncertainty to the amount of market power they finally end up with...but they do end up with more.

MS will have taken over two of the biggest and most successful independent game studios between Bethesda and Activision with hundreds of millions of loyal customers not only of game franchises but also of streaming and mobile products. The suit is multipronged because the effects on competition are multipronged...its not just a "scattershot" strategy to see what will stick.

Why don't you explain how this concentration of market power and reduced number of AaA multiplatform studios is good for high end gaming consumers of PS5 and PC in terms of price, choice and quality? That should be a good read...
 
Last edited:

Marvel14

Banned
Xbox being better at competing with PlayStation is always a good thing.
You can say acquisitions are not the only way Xbox can increase competition but that's another thing entirely.
Again devil is in the detail

Being better by having innovative products, or developing new intellectual properties that differentiate it from its competitors is good for the consumer.

Being better by reducing choice, withholding content or products from its competition that used to be available to them and charging higher prices is not.

If you add on top of that the relative size of the two companies your comment looks hopelessly naive or ideological.
 
Last edited:
It's truly amazing to me that people think the FTC is doing this to protect Sony. They released documents explaining their reasoning (MS lying about Zenimax games' exclusivity plays into it) and the documents are *in this thread* yet people still substitute the FTC, EU, and CMA for Sony. Does fanboyism really run that deep?
I got no fanboy beef with Sony :) Whatever FTC's reasoning is (I haven't had a look but I was assuming anti monopoly), the action to block the sale helps a company from another country. I was just thinking that FTC would be set up or at least have biases towards US companies.
 

Ozriel

M$FT
This is the crux of the matter.
They just bought a $7B publisher and first thing they did was block their competition out of its software supply.

This did not happen, though. Bethesda games weren't taken off PlayStation, and expansions for Doom Eternal and Fallout 76 showed up as scheduled post acquisition.

so now they're using money to block the competition out of the market.

Yes, we're certainly seeing the impact of MS purchasing Zenimax in the - checks note - record sales for PlayStation hardware and software we're seeing today.

It's so weird how in the sales threads, there's a ton of commentary about how PlayStation is pulling ahead and how Xbox is 'dead' outside select markets. Also plenty of threads with the 'Xbox has no games' mantra. Yet in this thread - and this thread alone - there's constant gaslighting about how Sony is being run out of business.
 
Last edited:

ToTTenTranz

Banned
This did not happen, though. Bethesda games weren't taken off PlayStation, and expansions for Doom Eternal and Fallout 76 showed up as scheduled post acquisition.
Are you pretending not to know the difference between honoring pre-established contractual obligations (Deathloop, Ghostwire) and not making new contracts for old and new IP (Elder Scrolls VI, Starfield, Redfall)?


Yes, we're certainly seeing the impact of MS purchasing Zenimax in the - checks note - record sales for PlayStation hardware and software we're seeing today.
All Zenimax games released so far have been distributed under contracts that precede the acquisition.
 

Ozriel

M$FT
Are you pretending not to know the difference between honoring pre-established contractual obligations (Deathloop, Ghostwire) and not making new contracts for old and new IP (Elder Scrolls VI, Starfield, Redfall)?

There were no pre-established contractual mandates to bring DLC for Fallout and Doom to PlayStation. No mandates either to also keep software on the platform.
You claimed that the first thing they did was to cut off software from PlayStation. That’s clearly wrong.

All Zenimax games released so far have been distributed under contracts that precede the acquisition.

This has nothing to do with my response. You claimed that making Bethesda games exclusive was stifling PlayStation and preventing competition. The facts on ground do not support that.
 
Not sure where that factor is coming from all of a sudden.
Because Sony can't spend that amount of money and thus it is anti-competitive :messenger_tears_of_joy:
Are you pretending not to know the difference between honoring pre-established contractual obligations (Deathloop, Ghostwire) and not making new contracts for old and new IP (Elder Scrolls VI, Starfield, Redfall)?
Microsoft has no obligation to release new games on Playstation. It was neither a promise nor a concession. So it cannot be a lie or a violation. I have no "incentive" to engage in discussions that run in circles, but I do that anyway 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:

Mibu no ookami

Demoted Member® Pro™
I wonder what Sony's ultimate aim here will be. What concessions would appease them in this case? Because they can't really have more than 10 years of COD in mind. If Microsoft said 20 years, what value is that exactly?

Do they want Activision to be run as an independent subsidiary with its own board?
Do they want Microsoft to release Elders Scrolls 6 on PS5? Surely it's too late for Starfield.
Do they want Microsoft to divest from Crash and Spyro?

There must be an endgame other than the full expectation that this deal will fail, though I think today the deal is more likely to fail than succeed.
 

kaizenkko

Member
I wonder what Sony's ultimate aim here will be. What concessions would appease them in this case? Because they can't really have more than 10 years of COD in mind. If Microsoft said 20 years, what value is that exactly?

Do they want Activision to be run as an independent subsidiary with its own board?
Do they want Microsoft to release Elders Scrolls 6 on PS5? Surely it's too late for Starfield.
Do they want Microsoft to divest from Crash and Spyro?

There must be an endgame other than the full expectation that this deal will fail, though I think today the deal is more likely to fail than succeed.
There will never be any acceptable agreement between both parties. Sony would only accept the following deal: COD available on Playstation platforms forever and never available on gamepass. And for obvious reasons Microsoft will never agree to this...
 
Last edited:

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster
People are still giving Sony way more credit than they deserve in terms of having the power to block this deal.

The reason I thought that MS might find this deal difficult to through from the very start is that I'd become aware of changes in the mindset of regulatory bodies in the US. A bi-partisan movement to focus more on digital commerce and the power of so-called network effects.

That Sony (among others) would make representations about their gripes over such a huge merger was inevitable, however the question always was whether those complaints would be heard favourably by regulators and ultimately lead to an intervention.
 

Swift_Star

Banned
Because Sony can't spend that amount of money and thus it is anti-competitive :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Microsoft has no obligation to release new games on Playstation. It was neither a promise nor a concession. So it cannot be a lie or a violation. I have no "incentive" to engage in discussions that run in circles, but I do that anyway 🤷‍♂️
You can keep saying that, regulators don’t agree with you. It’s that simple.
 
What concessions would appease them in this case?
No regulator cares about the appeasement of Sony. They only look at the market condition.

In fact, that FTC conclusion tells me that the deal is gonna pass - if the most rabid regulator was unable to come up with any strong argument against the deal and went after their internal courts instead of a federal one (where they can actually block if their concerns are valid) - it means that the deal will pass. The idea that CMA would look at that and decide that "we want to do the same" is not realistic as even CMA does not have its internal courts where they can argue with itself for years.

You can keep saying that, regulators don’t agree with you. It’s that simple.
What regulators? FTC? FTC thinks that there are only 4 publishers that make AAA games (+ Epic) so I am not sure if it can be considered an authority in anything :messenger_tears_of_joy:

What I can see though, that at this point, the last hope of some folks that want this deal to be blocked is CMA, because even the most rabid anti-ABK deal folks don't buy into FTC arguments (especially after EC statement).
 
Last edited:

OsirisBlack

Banned
His analysis is fine but objective. He calls out issues with both MS' and the FTC's arguments it just turns out that the FTC's arguments are far, far worse from a legal perspective. Since he isn't cheering the deal blocking arguments it is interpretated as being biased. I challenge anyone to show why his legal reasonings are wrong. I don't think many here have the credibility or credentials. He is incredibly fair and reasonable.

(read it with a deep southern texas accent)

So you think a "LAWYER" not on Microsoft's payroll referring to said company as "US" is unbiased?
And you would have me believe, that you also think a "LAWYER" (air quotes) not on Microsoft's payroll stating, I personally feel they should charge Play Station owners, which he states specifically your honor $100 and give it to Gamepass players free" is unbiased?

There is much more evidence your honor but this is simply exhibit A, common sense dictates that we shouldn't need to move on any further as the foundation has already been laid. You see your honor, the dictionary definition of the word Unbiased is simply showing no prejudice for or against something, impartial. The above evidence shows an obvious bias and lack of impartiality.

As to the bolded part in our discovery, there is no evidence that the accused did in fact call out issues toward Microsoft, (to be known henceforth as the corporation) in said video. Having gone over the video in its entirety for review the handling of the corporation was done with care and kid gloves, outside of civil cases, feelings have no jurisdiction or place in the courtroom. It has also been brought to my attention that the accused partakes in playing games that are not owned or published by the corporation. This point must surely prove that he is unbiased your honor, outside of the fact that Phil Spencer also plays games that are not owned or published by the corporation. Now I do believe at one point in time this "Lawyer" may have in fact been an impartial participant in the legalities of this case. However, financial gain and social status seem to have skewed this man's judgment.

This man has also in the past shown his bias when stating that this should go easy for "US" there's that word again. Let's take a closer look at the word us.

You see, the good book of webster, superseded only by the good book, defines the word us as follows. used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people as the object of a verb or preposition. Himself (long break) and one or more other people? What one or more other people is he referring to in this case? The prosecution rests for now, your honor.


Edited:
No more fun stuff (remove country accent)
Everyone that thinks this is about the FTC looking out for Sony needs to pull their heads out of their asses. Read what the actual problem is it's out there for you to read. This is to prevent Microsoft from building another monopoly. Not that this one acquisition would make them a monopoly but future purchases could. Microsoft has proved its ineptitude with its own studios so has decided to buy its way to the top and eliminate the competition on the way up. This is also (unfortunately) becoming a political issue, which does not bode well for Microsoft. It's odd how most people don't connect the dots. The problem is what they are trying to do with Gamepass, It's call consolidation. As fun as it might seem its bad for competition and business in general. See windows as an example of what that model looks like.
 
Last edited:
(read it with a deep southern texas accent)

So you think a "LAWYER" not on Microsoft's payroll referring to said company as "US" is unbiased?
I'm going to need a citation on this 'us' comment. And I'm going again ask the question. What areas of LAW do you disagree with him on? Poke a hole in is legal analysis outside of any biases you have for or against Sony and MS. If you think you know the law better than him present your arguments.
 

OsirisBlack

Banned
I'm going to need a citation on this 'us' comment. And I'm going again ask the question. What areas of LAW do you disagree with him on? Poke a hole in is legal analysis outside of any biases you have for or against Sony and MS. If you think you know the law better than him present your arguments.
The matter in question was bias, your honor. I will however go over the legalities after sifting through the rhetoric and assessing the facts.
 

Mibu no ookami

Demoted Member® Pro™
No regulator cares about the appeasement of Sony. They only look at the market condition.

In fact, that FTC conclusion tells me that the deal is gonna pass - if the most rabid regulator was unable to come up with any strong argument against the deal and went after their internal courts instead of a federal one (where they can actually block if their concerns are valid) - it means that the deal will pass. The idea that CMA would look at that and decide that "we want to do the same" is not realistic as even CMA does not have its internal courts where they can argue with itself for years.


What regulators? FTC? FTC thinks that there are only 4 publishers that make AAA games (+ Epic) so I am not sure if it can be considered an authority in anything :messenger_tears_of_joy:

What I can see though, that at this point, the last hope of some folks that want this deal to be blocked is CMA, because even the most rabid anti-ABK deal folks don't buy into FTC arguments (especially after EC statement).

I'm not talking about regulators.

Microsoft approached Sony first before discussing with regulators. If Microsoft can get Sony to sign off, the regulators won't have any room to block the deal.

You're conflating two different processes, one which is still likely to come.

The idea that you think the FTC is completely clueless and don't have advisors on this or any other industry is hilarious.

The idea that the EU has signed off on this is also a delusion.
 
The matter in question was bias, your honor. I will however go over the legalities after sifting through the rhetoric and assessing the facts.
Well just because he poked major legal holes in the FTC's arguments doesn't mean he is biased. Bias would be him supporting an idea DESPITE lacking a legal reason. Show where his legal options lacked merit and then you might be on to something.

It's funny how the narrative is switching again.

Last year I've seen Xbox fans saying Sony can't compete with MS and that their competitor is Amazon and Google.

NOW they're saying they need ABK to be more competitive. lol.

Fucking hell. lol
No one said this. MS said they consider Amazon and Google to be their main competitors and out side of console gaming that is absolutely true. You can toss in Apple as well. MS is a considerably larger than just the Xbox branch.
 

OsirisBlack

Banned
Well just because he poked major legal holes in the FTC's arguments doesn't mean he is biased. Bias would be him supporting an idea DESPITE lacking a legal reason. Show where his legal options lacked merit and then you might be on to something.


No one said this. MS said they consider Amazon and Google to be their main competitors and out side of console gaming that is absolutely true. You can toss in Apple as well. MS is a considerably larger than just the Xbox branch.
To your first point, he didn't poke holes in anything. His legal argument is based on the FTC lying, (which he states repeatedly and loudly even drags the EU into this which is hilarious) which they did not. His failure to grasp that simple concept eliminates his entire argument after that point as he is arguing a nonissue for the vast majority of the video.

To the bolded and italicized point.
I would then ask you what legal reasoning did he have to say that there should be a price hike for the same game on a competitor's machine? I also notice how you ignored this the first time around. Everyone can argue legally and convincingly when they choose the facts that they will admit and omit.
 
Last edited:
MS and that their competitor is Amazon and Google.
People took that phrase out of context and ran with it. First time on the Internet? For a lot of folks here, the world revoles around Sony.

Microsoft approached Sony first before discussing with regulators. If Microsoft can get Sony to sign off, the regulators won't have any room to block the deal.
The goal of Microsoft - as we can at this point infer - was to make Sony to complain less and thus fast track the deal. Faster the deal is done, faster it is closed. The point was not whether there is a room to block the deal or not - it would be decided by the regulators in the first place, regardless of Sony's claims that without COD their cannot invest in their own first party to compete.

The idea that you think the FTC is completely clueless and don't have advisors on this or any other industry is hilarious.
Considering that FTC has invented "Big 4 + Epic" and "high performance home console market" their advisors are doing something else or were on vacation :messenger_tears_of_joy: Though FTC invented "VR fitness market too" so I guess their advisors were just laid off :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 
This article is lying on its title and subtitle. The EC never said that the lawsuit is unjustified or that it lacks substance.

FTC said that MS mentioned to the EC that what it made sense for them was to keep Zenimax in rival consoles, which is what MS really said to the EC. The EC didn't care because they thought that independently of if MS made the games exclusive or not, the acquisition wasn't going to negatively affect the competition or the consumers so approved it independently of what MS said. FTC never said that MS promised to don't make the games exclusive to the EC, or that EC requested MS to do so.

When asked by MLex, what EC replied was perfectly compatible with the FTC claim and never said it's disqualified, that lacks substance or anything similar. They said MS didn't make any commitments to avoid exclusivity and that if the EC approved the Zenimax acquisition wasn't because of what MS told them, but instead because to make these games exclusive wouldn't negatively impact competition because they weren't important enough for the market to do so.

What FTC said:
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ft...AdministrativeComplaintPublicVersionFinal.pdf
Fjj0ForXkAAsK5c


What MS said to EC regarding Zenimax:
Fjj6pZyXEAEeAI2

Fjj4FjUWAAYj60H

Fjj4KxDXgAQ9sfQ

After this screenshoted part, in the report the EC says that independtly of what MS said they'll approve the acquisition because even if they become console exclusive the games aren't that important enough to damage competition or the consumers.
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases1/202124/m10001_438_3.pdf

Still, FTC are full of shit. What ever happens Xbox will be more competitive, not reduce it.
 

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
No one said this. MS said they consider Amazon and Google to be their main competitors and out side of console gaming that is absolutely true. You can toss in Apple as well. MS is a considerably larger than just the Xbox branch.

People took that phrase out of context and ran with it. First time on the Internet? For a lot of folks here, the world revoles around Sony.

Pay attention. I'm telling you what XBOX fans are saying.

Did I not make that clear when I said "Xbox fans"?

Sony isn't prepared for the fight this generation​


Of course, the usual Xbox fans on this thread liked the first post.

How would Sony compete against Cloud players like MS, Google, Amazon in Cloud Gaming?​


Microsoft acquires Zenimax/Bethesda​


No one said they won't have anything after 2021, I said they will just get blown out of the water by the amount of games that Xbox will be releasing from their 1st party studios.

I don't understand how this so difficult to understand, Sony won't be able to compete with MS's output from 23 studios compared to Sony's 11 or 12 especially when you consider the development cycles of Sony's 1st party.

MS will have almost twice as many studios, if it stays this way and their IP library is absurd now. It is only logical to see where this is heading.


I can keep finding comments.

Stop with the "No one said this" bs when PS fans know very well what Xbox fans have been saying over the years. DarkMage619 DarkMage619 you're always ready to run to the defense of other Xbox fans whenever they get called out.
 

Loxus

Member
This article is lying on its title and subtitle. The EC never said that the lawsuit is unjustified or that it lacks substance.

FTC said that MS mentioned to the EC that what it made sense for them was to keep Zenimax in rival consoles, which is what MS really said to the EC. The EC didn't care because they thought that independently of if MS made the games exclusive or not, the acquisition wasn't going to negatively affect the competition or the consumers so approved it independently of what MS said. FTC never said that MS promised to don't make the games exclusive to the EC, or that EC requested MS to do so.

When asked by MLex, what EC replied was perfectly compatible with the FTC claim and never said it's disqualified, that lacks substance or anything similar. They said MS didn't make any commitments to avoid exclusivity and that if the EC approved the Zenimax acquisition wasn't because of what MS told them, but instead because to make these games exclusive wouldn't negatively impact competition because they weren't important enough for the market to do so.

What FTC said:
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ft...AdministrativeComplaintPublicVersionFinal.pdf
Fjj0ForXkAAsK5c


What MS said to EC regarding Zenimax:
Fjj6pZyXEAEeAI2

Fjj4FjUWAAYj60H

Fjj4KxDXgAQ9sfQ

After this screenshoted part, in the report the EC says that independtly of what MS said they'll approve the acquisition because even if they become console exclusive the games aren't that important enough to damage competition or the consumers.
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases1/202124/m10001_438_3.pdf
It's not like they are picking on Microsoft either, they did the same with Sony.
It's their job after all.

FTC Probing Sony's Bungie Acquisition As Gaming Merger Oversight Gets More Aggressive
The FTC is reportedly focused on concerns that Sony might be motivated to prevent competing companies and services, such as Xbox, from accessing Bungie's games such as Destiny 2. That means examining how popular Destiny is, and whether a possible restriction would meaningfully harm Sony's competitors and create antitrust violations. While Sony has publicly committed to keeping Bungie games cross-platform, its ability to restrict both current titles and future releases in the future is a point of antitrust concern.
 

Ronin_7

Member
Still, FTC are full of shit. What ever happens Xbox will be more competitive, not reduce it.
Activision acquisitions just like Bethesda reduces competition by not making games available on competing Platforms.

Starfield & Redfall are prime examples. Previously Multi platform games I'm damn sure, same for ES6.

This deal is anti competitive and only benefits people invested in Xbox ecosystem.
 

sainraja

Member
Why are people angry that another massive Merger and Acquisition might get blocked? Why are people angry that market consolidation might be avoided?
Why?

Why is this even a stance? Are people's affinity to plastic boxes that play games that powerful, that they must throw consumer interests in the bin so their corporate overlord can get a W?

Why is it that Microsoft buying ABK a good thing, just because people with GamePass get more games? What about people who use PS++? What about those subscribers? Why does Microsoft need to be the one to control which subscription services get what?
If most people rooting for this acquisition were reasonable, you wouldn't be asking those questions. Most of them will revert to childish statements like "Sony does it too!" "Why won't they let MS get something over Sony?" as if that automatically makes it all okay. What they really want are games on a subscription service that will provide them value (many ways that can be done) but sometimes I have to doubt even that, when they start acting like a child.

Just watch the video (I did) The fact that when he speaks of MS he keeps saying "Us" and not them or him making jokes about thinking MS should raise the price of CoD to $100 on PS and make it free on game pass. There is a lot of unusual talk in this for him to be unbiased. Most of what I stated can be found in the first 50 minutes of the video. He also said that MS can be trusted because of a deal they made recently with Nintendo which is nothing more at this point than a handshake. It's all over the place and smells of bullshit.
Yeah, that is certainly odd. I mean, why would you say 'Us' when referring to MS? Just invest internally, you don't need to buy out IP that has been available on other platforms for ages. Anyway, in the end, they are all businesses right...so they will all do what they need to, in order to try to get customers. This is probably the "gray" side of it all.
 
Last edited:

Mibu no ookami

Demoted Member® Pro™



Pay attention. I'm telling you what XBOX fans are saying.

Did I not make that clear when I said "Xbox fans"?

Sony isn't prepared for the fight this generation​


Of course, the usual Xbox fans on this thread liked the first post.

How would Sony compete against Cloud players like MS, Google, Amazon in Cloud Gaming?​


Microsoft acquires Zenimax/Bethesda​





I can keep finding comments.

Stop with the "No one said this" bs when PS fans know very well what Xbox fans have been saying over the years. DarkMage619 DarkMage619 you're always ready to run to the defense of other Xbox fans whenever they get called out.


You're literally arguing what xbox fanboys said or didn't say to an xbox fanboy... It's not going to work
 
Top Bottom