Support NeoGAF

[DarkMage619]

Are you just not capable of making a response without twisting words?

You clearly aren't. Just cause a guy gets paid to comment on gaming doesn't make him a shill. You might believe that I don't.

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.

At this point we don't even know if the FTC will accept concessions. They are currently claiming that MS doesn't hold up their agreements and they do not like behavioral remedies. It looks completely political at this point. If the Supreme Court rules that companies can bypass the FTC's internal court then MS can go directly to the federal courts and make their case to a non-FTC judge.

 

[Cheezewizz]

I posted actual data and asked for an alternative and you drive by posted ...your self awareness is low...

You posted actual bullshit.

 

[Marvel14]

You posted actual bullshit.

You know nothing about how markets and companies work eh?

 

[Hestar69]

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.

1.I don't know what else MS can do besides offer sony more years of COD (which itll never leave sony for $$$ reasons)

2. I don't think it'll take that long,done by next year for sure.

3.I wish they would and buy square enix and sega instead.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

1.I don't know what else MS can do besides offer sony more years of COD (which itll never leave sony for $$$ reasons)

2. I don't think it'll take that long,done by next year for sure.

3.I wish they would and buy square enix and sega instead.

I mean I don't know, Hoeg said that it could take years.

People have said how hard is for American companies to own Japanese ones.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Not aware of how long FTC can drag this out but the SEC can drag shit for several years for example.

 

[adamsapple]

This topic is now having the same recycled posts as the main one, can mods merge or close ?

 

[Cheezewizz]

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.

No. You need to learn how to competently address his point, instead of moving the goalpost so that it better fits your narrative. The point was that should the deal pass, it would in fact give people more choices instead of less in regards to where people could play the game. Your shit reply about it's performance and whatnot in no way undermines or disputes his point. Instead you're trying to argue that Nintendo can't competitively compete with MS with CoD, when it would do just that. To what degree is up for debate, but again... That wasn't the question asked or the point. It was about consumers choice. You're the one who sidestepped that point to make it about competition.

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?

An effective competitor? I'm not sure. But it doesn't have to necessarily be one, because the game would also be available on Steam and Playstation as well. It would absolutely expand the CoD market though, and I wouldn't think that is even really debatable. There's no law or reason though that it should have to dilute anyone else's marketshare, especially MS's.

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

Agreed.

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.

Well if I'm playing the role of MS, to your regulator... I would answer that MS is in no way, shape, or form a monopoly within the gaming market, and would continue to not be after the acquisition, and as such wouldn't be able to effectively engage in monopolistic practices. I would point out that while you have given examples of recent anti consumer behavior from both Sony and Nintendo, there are no such examples from MS. Furthermore, MS has fulfilled the promises it's made in the past as to where it would release it's games where possible. Additionally, while there are no such instances of either of it's competitors allowing any of their games or projects to be released on a competitor's platform (outside of MLB The Show which was dictated by MLB), MS has done so multiple times with games such as Minecraft, Cuphead, and Ori being a few examples.

If you don't want to address the substance then just admit you don't have the answers and move on.

I've addressed your substance, just asking for you to do the same instead of changing it.

 

[Hestar69]

I mean I don't know, Hoeg said that it could take years.

People have said how hard is for American companies to own Japanese ones.

I just want all this to be over every day it's all I see on twitter people talking about. I want it to go through so MAYBE sony will start work on a newn socom or killzone game...But I doubt that ever happens.

 

[Cheezewizz]

You know nothing about how markets and companies work eh?

Moreso than you apparently. You posted irrelevant data, and accused me of drive by posting. So I provide you with relevant data, and the best you can do is this drive by post?

Seems you weren't satisfied with just being wrong, and chose to be a hypocrite too.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I just want all this to be over every day it's all I see on twitter people talking about. I want it to go through so MAYBE sony will start work on a newn socom or killzone game...But I doubt that ever happens.

Well that is the point. This ain't over and is just getting started.

 

[vj27]

You posted actual bullshit.

Genuinely surprised that Sony makes more than apple in gaming . Thought it was apple and google then everyone else, granted it’s for this year but I just thought that was the norm.

 

[Greggy]

How are you measuring Sony's "dominance"?

Dude, Microsoft is not (only) a video game company. Amazon and Apple also have game divisions and are bigger than MS. why are they not on there? You manufactured the data that you needed and presented it as evidence, It's almost fraudulent.
If you rank by gaming division revenue (which any fair minded and sane person would o), you get a very different ranking.

 

[Warablo]

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.

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.

He never used "us" as in Microsoft. Believe he was talking about a regulatory body.

He never said the FTC lied. He said it was a grey area.

He provides a decent look from both sides and says which argument he'd go with and which ones he doesn't think are good. Also good at speeding through a lengthy document providing the juicy details.

Just because you don't like what he says, doesn't mean its bias.

 

[OsirisBlack]

He never used "us" as in Microsoft. Believe he was talking about a regulatory body.

He never said the FTC lied. He said it was a grey area.

He provides a decent look from both sides and says which argument he'd go with and which ones he doesn't think are good. Also good at speeding through a lengthy document providing the juicy details.

Just because you don't like what he says, doesn't mean its bias.

I didn't like or dislike anything that he said outside of the biased raise-the-price comment that every one of his defenders is conveniently omitting.

He stated that the deal would go through easily/quickly for "US" and also used that same wording several times in the other video.

He did say that the EU called the FTC out/liars however he worded it.

I am not rewatching both of those long-ass videos to find the exact quotes. The price hike comment is in the first 45 minutes of the FTC video. And the easily for "US" is I think within the first 30 minutes of the acquisition video.

Again my issue was the bias, not the legal commentary.

 

[3liteDragon]

Wrong thread

 

[supernova8]

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.

Sony's years of dominance have been based on Sony putting in the elbow grease to get Playstation to where it is now. Don't forget Sony launched the PS1 and it won that entire generation. What happened when Microsoft launched the OG Xbox? Did it win like PS1 did? No. PS2 did. PS1 had no "right" to win given Nintendo's dominance at the time but it won anyway.

In comparison to all of that, Microsoft has spent around twenty years in the console business and hasn't managed to decisively win a single generation. Now in 2022/2023, they have reverted to simply buying their way to the top spot. We failed to do "it" ourselves so fuck it we'll just buy out the biggest third party publisher/developer.

 

[DarkMage619]

Sony's years of dominance have been based on Sony putting in the elbow grease to get Playstation to where it is now. Don't forget Sony launched the PS1 and it won that entire generation. What happened when Microsoft launched the OG Xbox? Did it win like PS1 did? No. PS2 did. PS1 had no "right" to win given Nintendo's dominance at the time but it won anyway.

In comparison to all of that, Microsoft has spent around twenty years in the console business and hasn't managed to decisively win a single generation. Now in 2022/2023, they have reverted to simply buying their way to the top spot. We failed to do "it" ourselves so fuck it we'll just buy out the biggest third party publisher/developer.

Yeah Sony beat a Nintendo that stuck with cartridges and a Sega that had years of failures prior to PlayStation hitting the market. PlayStation hit the market and almost immediately won a major third party exclusive in Final Fantasy 7 that solidified them as the home for third parties for two generations with PS2 being the most successful console of all time. Elbow grease indeed. Plus they didn't have to deal with the cultural issues MS did with Japan. So an entire country that would not even touch their American competition. Sony had the good fortune of having years of almost no real competition in console gaming.

Hats off to their success but let's not act like they have ever had any real competition and now they are fighting tooth and nail to keep from having to deal with any competition now. MS' issues are well documented but let's not act like this acquisition will have any real impact on Sony's place in the industry. PlayStation is like the 7th most popular brand in the world Xbox doesn't crack the top 50. Sony will easily survive an acquisition of Activision by MS.

 

[zzill3]

Sony's years of dominance have been based on Sony putting in the elbow grease to get Playstation to where it is now. Don't forget Sony launched the PS1 and it won that entire generation. What happened when Microsoft launched the OG Xbox? Did it win like PS1 did? No. PS2 did. PS1 had no "right" to win given Nintendo's dominance at the time but it won anyway.

In comparison to all of that, Microsoft has spent around twenty years in the console business and hasn't managed to decisively win a single generation. Now in 2022/2023, they have reverted to simply buying their way to the top spot. We failed to do "it" ourselves so fuck it we'll just buy out the biggest third party publisher/developer.

Why do you call it ‘buying their way to top spot’ when Microsoft do it but ‘elbow grease’ when Sony do it? It’s the same thing.
Sony threw around loads of cash when they launched playstation, buying developers and publishers and getting third party exclusive content, and they’re still doing that same thing to this day.

 

[hyperbertha]

Its clear MS has no real faith in their first party studios with their focus on acquisitions. People should lower expectations for all their hyped up but zero actual gameplay games.

 

[zzill3]

Its clear MS has no real faith in their first party studios with their focus on acquisitions. People should lower expectations for all their hyped up but zero actual gameplay games.

You can be happy with what you already have but still want to buy a new thing when it becomes available.
The opportunity to own the makers of one of the biggest game series of all time shouldn’t be passed up by any serious gaming company that can afford it.

 

[Monad]

Its clear MS has no real faith in their first party studios with their focus on acquisitions. People should lower expectations for all their hyped up but zero actual gameplay games.

Neither does Sony, apparently.

 

[Mozza]

The illusion that these people actually care, in the end of the day money will talk as it always has done, and the deal will go through, but the FTC have to look as if they are doing something, and are outraged at this takeover and it's negative impacts to all gamers..... yea right.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Was Rikky one of your alts, by the way?

More like an alternative personality. I've stopped injecting VRRoom VRRoom into my veins so he's under control for now

 

[Kagey K]

Barring any roadblocks, MS will already own Acti before they go to court.

How much sense does that make on the FTC side?

 

[bender]

More like an alternative personality. I've stopped injecting VRRoom VRRoom into my veins so he's under control for now

 

[Marvel14]

Dude, Microsoft is not (only) a video game company. Amazon and Apple also have game divisions and are bigger than MS. why are they not on there? You manufactured the data that you needed and presented it as evidence, It's almost fraudulent.
If you rank by gaming division revenue (which any fair minded and sane person would o), you get a very different ranking.

Already admitted as much and I posted it asking for alternatives.
Someone posted gaming data to counter me anyway but actually both are relevant. The gaming data shows that Microsoft + Activision are bigger than Sony by annual gaming revenue. Now add the fact that Microsoft is a multiple times bigger company and you've got them as biggest console manufacturer and largest company by many multiples with exclusive access to millions of loyal brand consumers...and you lot don't see a problem?

 

[Marvel14]

Moreso than you apparently. You posted irrelevant data, and accused me of drive by posting. So I provide you with relevant data, and the best you can do is this drive by post?

Seems you weren't satisfied with just being wrong, and chose to be a hypocrite too.

Size of company overall is not "irrelevant data" . Go back to school buddy

 

[SoloKingRobert]

Massive copro consolidation is always bad for consumers, full stop.

MS should grow their own studios from now on.


People malding because they wanted Diablo with their Gamepass rent, I don't feel sorry for you. Just buy games on sale, it'll cost you less long term.

Purchasing games on Game Pass for 20% discount cost alot less than buying it in full. Same with the DLCs 10% discount. It's a win, win situation for gamers. They have options.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Barring any roadblocks, MS will already own Acti before they go to court.

How much sense does that make on the FTC side?

They'll seek an injunction if all other relevant parties approve it before then

 

[Marvel14]

No. You need to learn how to competently address his point, instead of moving the goalpost so that it better fits your narrative. The point was that should the deal pass, it would in fact give people more choices instead of less in regards to where people could play the game. Your shit reply about it's performance and whatnot in no way undermines or disputes his point. Instead you're trying to argue that Nintendo can't competitively compete with MS with CoD, when it would do just that. To what degree is up for debate, but again... That wasn't the question asked or the point. It was about consumers choice. You're the one who sidestepped that point to make it about competition.

An effective competitor? I'm not sure. But it doesn't have to necessarily be one, because the game would also be available on Steam and Playstation as well. It would absolutely expand the CoD market though, and I wouldn't think that is even really debatable. There's no law or reason though that it should have to dilute anyone else's marketshare, especially MS's.

Agreed.

Well if I'm playing the role of MS, to your regulator... I would answer that MS is in no way, shape, or form a monopoly within the gaming market, and would continue to not be after the acquisition, and as such wouldn't be able to effectively engage in monopolistic practices. I would point out that while you have given examples of recent anti consumer behavior from both Sony and Nintendo, there are no such examples from MS. Furthermore, MS has fulfilled the promises it's made in the past as to where it would release it's games where possible. Additionally, while there are no such instances of either of it's competitors allowing any of their games or projects to be released on a competitor's platform (outside of MLB The Show which was dictated by MLB), MS has done so multiple times with games such as Minecraft, Cuphead, and Ori being a few examples.

I've addressed your substance, just asking for you to do the same instead of changing it.

Great post although you can lose the condescending attitude. Just note that I think about economics for a living and that is my perspective not whether MS good Sony bad.

So on the first point...Competition is the whole damn point. That you don't get that is in itself telling but let's get back to substance. MS promises to make the franchises available on some other platforms though not on its main competition. Are those platforms effective alternatives to the MS offering for the bulk of franchise consumers? That's THE question. If you imagine for a minute that the promise is solely to make it available on Stadia would you see the point? Stadia is not a credible alternative because of its tiny install base and the uncertainty and improbability that having COD would expand it enough. The issue is more complex and harder to define clearly if you bring Steam and Nintendo into it but the question remains the same. If 80%-90% of CoD players would feel compelled to game with MS because any other option does not provide a comparable alternative than MS IS capturing the market. You can scream about reach all you want but that is the anticompetitive crux. I don't know enough to definitely answer this but there is definitely a basis for questioning and analysing it.

On the second point...i don't know enough to dispute how MS has behaved but three things to consider:

1. someone else posted the example of Starlight i think which was meant to be multiplatform from Bethesda as part of the MS takeover and now isn't. Others will be better placed to argue this than me but MS being innocent of monopolistic behaviour whlle Sony and Nintendo are nasty is suspect from the get go. Also a company s past record of behaviour does not determine what they will do in future although it is a factor that merits consideration - see also my point 3 below.

2. The market dynamics are plenty complex. MS longterm strategy seems to be to emulate Amazon and eventually hold a gaming infrastructure monopoly via gamepass. If that's true then this move shouldn't just be seen as being about consumers of software but how MS is using brand loyalty and consumer capture to drive their long term strategy. Just something else to throw into the mix to show this stuff is hard to untangle.

3. Overall size of companies matters too - not just the gaming side. You call this bullshit if either you don't understand how companies can use overall size advantage to strengthen their market position or if you're a console ideologue and can't see beyond that. The data you posted shows that the acquisition would make MS the biggest console manufacturer by annual revenue while it is also a multiple times bigger company overall. That is not bullshit. Its a pertinent fact that needs to be considered as well..MS as market leader is likely to behave differently than MS as lagging competitor.

 

[Mattyp]

Best in the business? They’re the eternally 3rd place, they lost the smartphone market and MacOS is way more valued than windows. AWS is bigger and better than Azure. What are you talking about?

Reading comprehension. Their lawyers are the best in the business.

 

[Rudius]

Microsoft could create and expand many studios with all that money instead of monopolizing what is already available. Anyone who likes games should be pissed with the waste of resources.

 

[EDMIX]

Microsoft could create and expand many studios with all that money instead of monopolizing what is already available. Anyone who likes games should be pissed with the waste of resources.

Agreed.

I'd be more ok with those purchases if they focused on correcting their issues internally. To see Halo fail the way it did shows they have work to do with how they manage if its not 343 or something, so how good can i feel about MS buying such teams when they are still fucking up the way they are?

Its like if EA bought some teams, yet changed nothing internally or something.

Granted, MS has made efforts or at least has been vocal on efforts to change like EA, but I think EA has shown that a bit more then MS has (or at least it appears).

Not all fucking games need to be some GAAS and I'm surprised its EA thats doing a lot of single player titles and removing those MP modes to allow those games to just be what they were suppose to be. Maybe MS is still deep in their restructuring and we've yet to see the changes take effect or something. Regardless, I'd like to see the effort in fixing what they already have.

 

[Clintizzle]

People saying "MS might be better off spending the money on creating new studios that will grow naturally" might not fully understand the decision making process in most companies these days.

To build, maintain and grow studios that match the output of ABK will almost certainly cost much more than $69b. Not to mention the time in years it will take to do that.

 

[Greggy]

Already admitted as much and I posted it asking for alternatives.
Someone posted gaming data to counter me anyway but actually both are relevant. The gaming data shows that Microsoft + Activision are bigger than Sony by annual gaming revenue. Now add the fact that Microsoft is a multiple times bigger company and you've got them as biggest console manufacturer and largest company by many multiples with exclusive access to millions of loyal brand consumers...and you lot don't see a problem?

Your point that Xbox gaming + activision is bigger than Sony in gaming revenue is factually incorrect. Not even a Sony contends that this merger would put Xbox ahead of them.
As for Microsoft’s size, where are your complaints about Sony being multiple times the size of Nintendo? The arguments are getting a bit childish. You are against the deal form your own reasons and you’re entitled to it. I think it’s good for consumers and I’m looking for proof is this forum that it’s not. The fact that the FTC doesn’t make that case well if at all is telling though.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Your point that Xbox gaming + activision is bigger than Sony in gaming revenue is factually incorrect. Not even a Sony contends that this merger would put Xbox ahead of them.

Now remove the revenue Sony gets due to the lack of equal access to the publishers MS buys and you see why allowing a bigger company to grow by content starving their competition is a problem.

 

[Ronin_7]

Barring any roadblocks, MS will already own Acti before they go to court.

How much sense does that make on the FTC side?

Microsoft ain't stupid, this would be literally insane and Government would crush Microsoft.

Most likely Microsoft drops altogether this by January, deal only goes through after the Court process which can take years.

If CMA & EC Phase 2 is going well Microsoft might delay the acquisition and fight the FTC but if CMA & EC are going badly I fully expect Microsoft to drop this acquisition by January/February.

The fight against FTC starts August 2nd but that's just the first hearing, Court cases can go on for months.

 

[Marvel14]

Your point that Xbox gaming + activision is bigger than Sony in gaming revenue is factually incorrect. Not even a Sony contends that this merger would put Xbox ahead of them.
As for Microsoft’s size, where are your complaints about Sony being multiple times the size of Nintendo? The arguments are getting a bit childish. You are against the deal form your own reasons and you’re entitled to it. I think it’s good for consumers and I’m looking for proof is this forum that it’s not. The fact that the FTC doesn’t make that case well if at all is telling though.

Cheezewizz posted this. Is the data "factually incorrect" or do you think you shouldn't add MS and Activision together? Is the Activision revenue stream going to get smaller because of the acquisition? Why? How and by how much?

Sony isn't acquiring properties that would limit Nintendo's offering. Or did I miss something?

 

[BootsLoader]

what is FTC?

 

[HoofHearted]

Apparently this topic is now spawning multiple threads from the OT…

 

[64bitmodels]

To build, maintain and grow studios that match the output of ABK will almost certainly cost much more than $69b. Not to mention the time in years it will take to do that.

they have plenty of inhouse studios from the bethesda acquisition and other studios they've bought/built up over the years like 343 and The Coalition. I'm sure it wouldn't cost nearly that much to whip them into shape.

 

[64bitmodels]

I do like Windows 11 spending some time with it. I even keep it looking like iOS with the centered taskbar

man i dont see the hate myself. It looks better and there's less ads pushed in my face and more stuff i actually want to see.
its my favorite windows in a long time. that being said if the compatibility on linux gets literally perfect (like 100% everything is working day one) there is no reason i wouldnt want to switch

 

[@gkTH]

In Jim, I do beleive !

 

[bluecowboys]

The FTC statements are very misleading against MS in regards to no competitions in high performance gaming. Besides Playstation and Xbox we have PC gaming. At this point in time the only difference between Consoles and PC in terms of gaming is consoles are closed platform while PC is open platform. Not to mention excluding Nintendo is also misleading because the Switch came out in 2017. The next Nintendo gaming console should be powerful enough to run all the multi-platform games since they are still releasing on last gen consoles. The only high selling multi platform games that are getting released constantly and isn't on Switch is COD and the EA sports games. COD being a moot point since MS will be releasing the games on Nintendo Switch. Also, valve's Steam deck is apparently doing well and should be getting more investments which will be another competitor.

 

[DarkMage619]

The FTC statements are very misleading against MS in regards to no competitions in high performance gaming. Besides Playstation and Xbox we have PC gaming. At this point in time the only difference between Consoles and PC in terms of gaming is consoles are closed platform while PC is open platform. Not to mention excluding Nintendo is also misleading because the Switch came out in 2017. The next Nintendo gaming console should be powerful enough to run all the multi-platform games since they are still releasing on last gen consoles. Also, valve Steam deck is apparently doing well and should be getting more investments which will be another competitor.

The FTC carved up the console market in ways that have never been done before to file their lawsuit. Using their logic the XSS is a high performance device and many, many people here would disagree with that claim. No one actually believes that the Switch is not a competitor. People here laugh at Xbox being in third place all the time. Can't be in third if there are only two players. The sooner their suit is brought to federal court the sooner we can actually get some fairness in this acquisition review process.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

The FTC statements are very misleading against MS in regards to no competitions in high performance gaming. Besides Playstation and Xbox we have PC gaming. At this point in time the only difference between Consoles and PC in terms of gaming is consoles are closed platform while PC is open platform. Not to mention excluding Nintendo is also misleading because the Switch came out in 2017. The next Nintendo gaming console should be powerful enough to run all the multi-platform games since they are still releasing on last gen consoles. The only high selling multi platform games that are getting released constantly and isn't on Switch is COD and the EA sports games. COD being a moot point since MS will be releasing the games on Nintendo Switch. Also, valve's Steam deck is apparently doing well and should be getting more investments which will be another competitor.

You can't really call them misleading when you aren't even reading what they're saying in the first place

 

[Swift_Star]

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?

The glaring flaws only exist in the head of the fanboys.

 

[bluecowboys]

You can't really call them misleading when you aren't even reading what they're saying in the first place

Explain how I'm not reading them correctly? High performance is subjective and the main concern here is running the big AAA multiplatform games, right?

For example, some people think Xbox series S isn't high performance or consoles in general are weak.

 

[DarkMage619]

The glaring flaws only exist in the head of the fanboys.

And corporate acquisition lawyers and people who can read and know the video game industry.