Mibu no ookami
Demoted Member® Pro™
There is an internal process before it goes to court. He conflated that process with the extent of the process to suggest this isn't going to court, which it certainly is.
He's a clown and a fanboy.
-
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
- Thread starter kyliethicc
- Start date
There is an internal process before it goes to court. He conflated that process with the extent of the process to suggest this isn't going to court, which it certainly is.
He's a clown and a fanboy.
Banjo64
cumsessed
These fanboys (paid shills?) are an embarrassment to the human race.
We should get educated to be able to understand what is happening.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
The term shill clearly has no meaning any more. Pointing out the glaring flaws in the FTC's suit doesn't make you a shill. Why not point out where he was wrong and the FTC was correct legally?
Banjo64
cumsessed
No. Destin and Jez are actually shills.
ToTTenTranz
Banned
It's mostly because gamepass has a lot of fans who believe if Microsoft buys everything they'll get all the games in the world for $10 a month or less.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
It's been pointed out numerous times to the point where it's become comical. You can't help people who refuse to read.
Destin even had to paraphrase since he couldn't be bothered to fact-check
Last edited:
IFireflyl
Gold Member
Who cares what Sony's aim here is? Sony and Sony's desires is/are irrelevant to this acquisition.
onesvenus
Member
Yeah, let's talk about being hopelessly ideological:
- How would choice be reduced when CoD would go to platforms (Nintendo) where it isn't now?
- What's the source about charging higher prices? Isn't that what Sony did in the first hand?
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Any one else who doesn't prefer the market leader. It's a sad state of affairs to attack people for having a preference. Pretty sure Destin has a PlayStation.
This also an example of his shilling right?
Pointed out how the FTC has superior legal arguments? By whom? The whole MS is not trustworthy because they didn't put all Bethesda games on PlayStation is complete and total nonsense.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Banjo64
cumsessed
Man I don’t give a fuck - I own loads of shit, so fucking what? Wow, a £300 console proves he’s not on a companies pay roll. the guy is a shill.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
I own all consoles therefore I can't be fanboy herp derp
MasterCornholio
Member
As do you.
What I'm saying is that owning multiple systems doesn't really mean anything. It certainly doesn't make you immune to having a bias or a label.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
I own both an X and S so I can understand my enemy.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
True real neutral gamer right here.
Guess that makes you immune to criticism.
Marvel14
Banned
Yea Nintendo haven't had CoD for a loong time and they don't have the hardware for high end 60fps and high specs play that serious CoD players demand. Are.you seriously suggesting the Switch will compete with XSX for CoD players? I bet you're the type of MS fan who on another thread would call Nintendo.kiddie with crap outdated hardware. Not convenient to hold that stance now eh ideologue?
If MS is the only place you can play the next full COD experience - imagine it gets rave reviews as the definitive experience- what stops them from milking the experience for more money,- a higher price, full content behind a pay wall, gamepass subscription requirements? What alternative do the millions of CoD players have? I dare you to say "Nintendo Switch" with a straight face.
Last edited:
DarkMage619
$MSFT
I didn't know working for IGN made you a shill. Just job like any other. Weird to hate like that but do you.
There has been no evidence he has been biased against anyone or anything. Hence why it is far wiser to actually attack the argument over the person. At least he owns the systems he's talking about which cannot be said for many people here. You think the FTC is right? Show the legal reasonings. Name calling is pretty lame.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Are you just not capable of making a response without twisting words?
onesvenus
Member
It's clear you don't want to argue in good faith.
However you spin it, CoD being available on Nintendo consoles again, will increase the reach of the game.
All the shit about Increasing the price is speculation on your part. Seeing how MS has been the last one to increase prices, I dare you to give any reason they would do that with a straight face
Marvel14
Banned
I gave you two coherent arguments.
You've refused to engage with the first one which is about effective competition, the second asked you to explain MS incentives to keep prices down when they have a mini monopoly on a product and you've ignored that and just thrown the q back at me.
And folks I'm the one arguing in bad faith. The internet never let's you down.
Last edited:
Banjo64
cumsessed
I’m full of hate lad ,it’s the way I am.
What prevents Sony from doing all what you just said with Destiny 3? They haven't had to hand 10 year deals to anybody and it's not as if they haven't made things exclusive before. You act as if buying a publisher was a first in history. Welcome to the free economy. Sony has already put several COD features behind a paywall WITHOUT even owning it and you are complaining that you might have a place to play the game for 10 bucks going forward. Take your soul back, Sony hasn't even asked for it.
Marvel14
Banned
Markets are imperfect not free. By highlighting uncompetitive practices by Sony you're supporting my point not undermining it. This is not about which company is a bigger asshole, it's about market concentration and the rational choices and behaviours of firms when that happens.
This is the second MS takeover of one of the biggest software publishers and if I'm not mistaken Bethesda and Activision are both in the top 5 biggest publishers worldwide. So MS would own 2 of the top 5, or 40%....thats got to be a major chunk of the overall market.
Same.points would apply if it had been Sony acquiring them instead of MS.
Dr. Wilkinson
Gold Member
Everyone saying the lack of any Xbox first-party was so noticeable at the TGAs, which it was for sure. I’m just thinking maybe right now’s not the best time for them to trumpet their big first half of 2023 exclusives…
onesvenus
Member
Nintendo Switch has ports of Doom and Witcher 3 to cite a couple of the 8th generation of consoles games. It also supports cloud games in case the developer doesn't want to port them, RE and Control being a couple of examples. Even if you want to dismiss all of those games, there's a thing called CoD: Mobile that runs in much less powerful devices than the Switch.
You can't argue that bringing CoD to a new console wouldn't expand its reach. Even if a single user bought it, that's a new user that couldn't be reached before.
Windows, which is arguably the most similar thing to a Monopoly that Microsoft has, has decreased prices across the years. Windows XP Home edition cost 199$, Windows 11 Home edition costs 129$. That's without taking into account the inflation.
Can you tell me what makes you think they will raise prices above inflation?
I disagree. Buying ABK would make MS the 3rd player in the industry and not overthrow Sony's dominance in consoles overnight. It would however constrain Sony to review its business model and offer more to consumers in order to keep its lead.
You're the first consumer I speak to who cares more about his perception of the ideal market than about the service he gets for his money. Even market scholars have said this is not anti competition.
MasterCornholio
Member
It's not up to you to approve the FTCs decisions. That's the job of the court. The FTC has the right to file this. It's up to the courts to decide if they are right or not. And nothing you say will change that.
You just like me don't have that kind of power. All we can do is watch.
Last edited:
Cheezewizz
Banned
No, you really didn't.
He refused likely because you didn't address his actual point. His first point was about how could choice be reduced when CoD would be available on new platforms such as Nintendo, when that wasn't the case previously.
You replied with a rant about how CoD wouldn't be a serious competitor on Nintendo because of the reduced performance, etc... None of which actually counters his point. You can claim that people's choice will be diminished should the deal pass, but seeing as MS has agreed to port CoD to Nintendo, that claim would be demonstratbly false.
Last edited:
Marvel14
Banned
Cheezewizz
Banned
And you wonder why people accuse you of arguing in bad faith.How are you measuring Sony's "dominance"?
yurinka
Member
Yes, the FTC does their job. But the article writer isn't doing his job when lies on the title and subtitle of an article.
In gaming business revenue, gaming business profitability, console installbase, console monthly active users, game subs revenue and amount of subbers, console game + addons sales and revenue, sales and awards of their exclusives, VR, etc. they are way ahead of MS.
This is why I think that after investigating the market data I think all regulators will allow the acquisition with no concessions and will allow MS even have CoD console exclusive (in PC or mobile MS even has a smaller market share and has more competitors above them).
Last edited:
Marvel14
Banned
You and he both need to differentiate between "reach" and "competition". Will Nintendo compete effectively for CoD consumers on XboxSeries X? That's what matters, not that Nintendo will have access to COD. Anti trust is about competition and neither of you have mentioned competition in your responses which gives the whole game away.
So what is the answer to that question? Is Nintendo an effective competitor to attract CoD consumers away from the otherwise monopoly provider Microsoft? Or will Nintendo expand the COD market so much and the product differential is so marginal that it will dilute MS' enhanced market power?
My second point is standard economic analysis of antitrust. The whole point is that competition or the threat of competition stops firms from.gouging consumers and producing higher priced/lower quality/fewer goods to make.abnormal profits which are a bad and inefficient outcome for the market
You can approach the issue from the regulators side or the company's. The questions I asked are the kind a regulator would ask the firm under investigation. Since you're defending Microsoft you should be able to answer these substantively and not throw them back or claim they are loaded. What holds Microsoft back from monopolistic behaviour after the acquisition? Bearing in mind that Sony and Nintendo as well engage in anti competitive behaviour within the realms of their respective ecosystems. We've already had an example from Sony, from Nintendo you can see it in how they manage to keep the price of old games artificially high.
If you don't want to address the substance then just admit you don't have the answers and move on.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
That is not the issue
Marvel14
Banned
I posted actual data and asked for an alternative and you drive by posted ...your self awareness is low...And you wonder why people accuse you of arguing in bad faith.
Hestar69
Member
The only issue is the FTC acting like they care when they've let other huge mergers happen. Just look at what disney owns now.
splattered
Member
So in your mind a company/publisher should never be able to sell itself to another company? Or forced to splinter itself and sell off the pieces for potentially less money? Or sell ONLY if the buyer isn't large like Microsoft or Sony? You seem to only be looking at this from Sony/MS's perspective and who could lose/gain what in either case and not from the perspective of the company that actually agreed to and wants to be purchased. They no longer can decide what they want?
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Irrelevant at this point
Hestar69
Member
then what IS the point?
MS has already said COD isnt leaving playstation or steam and even bringing it to nintendo consoles.
Last edited:
Griffon
Member
As a matter of fact corporations are regulated all the time, be it the big boys or your local restaurant.
This is not a lawless world. If there was no laws or regulation to corpos, MacDonalds would have crack in your fries for maximum profits, and yes, every big company would just buy huge market chunks instead of competing.
I dream of a world where Adobe gets finally fucked up by an FTC with balls.
Last edited:
Marvel14
Banned
Unfortunately I don't think the gaming market specific numbers are publicly available. But Microsoft is overall a much bigger company than any other in the videogame industry. Surely that matters too as it means they can potentially outspend all of their competitors (eg use another profitable division to fund the videogame division to gain market share and competitive advantage)
splattered
Member
I also have to wonder how many Sony fans would even be complaining if Sony got a wild hair up their butt and went out and bought capcom square or namco etc? I feel like it would be complete double standard arguments everywhere.
Hestar69
Member
Once this goes through I guarantee you sony buys square enix and it'll go through no problem.
James Sawyer Ford
Member
Any of those acquisitions would be less than 1/10th the size of Activision, more in line to the Bethesda cost or less.
So it's a false equivalence.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Is the process for the next months.
It seems there are two options:
1. More concessions from MS to satisfy regulators.
2. MS is willing to go all the way in this process = could take years.
There is another possibility but i dont think is going to happen at all.
3. MS drops the acquisition.
M1chl
Currently Gif and Meme Champion
Was Rikky one of your alts, by the way?
yurinka
Member
Some of these numbers are public, others are internally tracked by the industry even if not shared publicly (only between the companies involved), others can be guessed and when regulators ask for them to the companies they provide them to the regulators.
Yes, MS can outspend many companies and they are doing it spending almost $100B in a few years on a market where they had billions in loses. But even doing that other companies perform better than then in gaming in terms of revenue and profit, and in the case case of consoles Sony outperforms them in basically any metric.
ABK represents a small portion of the console market to the point that making their games console exclusive wouldn't significatively the console market (and even less PC or mobile markets), and for this reason several regulators approved it and I expect the remaining ones to approve it once all the paperwork is done.
Capcom, Square or Namco (separatedly, each one) are several times smaller than ABK, so getting them exclusive would affect even less the market than doing it with ABK. So I think regulators would approve their acquisitions too. But in any case, as with Mojang, Zenimax, ABK and Bungie, it would be smarter to keep them multiplatform if acquired because since to make them exclusive wouldn't change the market enough and only would highly decrease their revenue and profits, it makes more sense to keep them multi.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked