Support NeoGAF

[Unknown Soldier]

The amount of desperate damage control coming in today is suggesting that this email is as damning as humanly possible. It reminds me of when all the emails that MS had saying they wanted to crush Netscape came to light. That nearly resulted in MS being broken up last century.

MS saying it's from 2019 and that's their entire defense suggests what the email is implied to say is true. If it wasn't true, they would have issued a denial or just released the un-redacted email by now.

 

[IFireflyl]

Naughty FTC

Why would the FTC want to provide the company that they are suing access to confidential exhibits? Microsoft is saying they want the FTC to provide certain members of their in-house counsel who don't have involvement in competitive decisions access to confidential exhibits. If the counsel isn't involved in competitive decisions, then how could they possibly be expected to adequately interpret and respond to that confidential information in a matter regarding competitive decisions? And who is to say that Microsoft won't tell their own in-house counsel to share that confidential information with the people who are involved with competitive decisions? If it is in-house counsel, that means it is counsel employed solely by Microsoft. If your boss tells you to do something, you do it.

 

[mansoor1980]

microsoft operates this way , not surprising

 

[adamsapple]

The amount of desperate damage control coming in today is suggesting that this email is as damning as humanly possible. It reminds me of when all the emails that MS had saying they wanted to crush Netscape came to light. That nearly resulted in MS being broken up last century.

MS saying it's from 2019 and that's their entire defense suggests what the email is implied to say is true. If it wasn't true, they would have issued a denial or just released the un-redacted email by now.

- Totilo releases an article with redacted info claimed by lawyer in 'gamers lawsuit'
- Internet runs wild with it, numerous websites run articles, twitter sphere blows up
- An hour or so later, an MS rep clarifies the date of the email to Totilo
- Totilo retracts original tweets and apologizes for his wording, websites start removing articles, tweeters start deleting their videos
- Posts that 'aged like fine wine', turned out to not.

That's a lot of desperate damage control alright.

 

[Ar¢tos]

I wonder if people that work at MS plot for each others jobs this way too, with elaborate plans, scheming, double crossing, scapegoating, etc.
It must be hell to work there!

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I wonder if people that work at MS plot for each others jobs this way too, with elaborate plans, scheming, double crossing, scapegoating, etc.
It must be hell to work there!

ask NOKIA

 

[Solidus_T]

The amount of desperate damage control coming in today is suggesting that this email is as damning as humanly possible. It reminds me of when all the emails that MS had saying they wanted to crush Netscape came to light. That nearly resulted in MS being broken up last century.

MS saying it's from 2019 and that's their entire defense suggests what the email is implied to say is true. If it wasn't true, they would have issued a denial or just released the un-redacted email by now.

Not only have shills closed rank with perfect synchrony while the email remains redacted from the public by MS, but certain people on various forums have been working harder than usual to downplay it. I really want to see those emails to know why the response has to be so swift.

 

[XesqueVara]

After all that Fuss for nothing when the Hearing start?

 

[adamsapple]

Both sides of the FTC case are calling Jimmothy Ryan to do a deposition, hopefully the video or audio is made public cause this is gonna be interesting.

 

[drganon]

- Totilo releases an article with redacted info claimed by lawyer in 'gamers lawsuit'
- Internet runs wild with it, numerous websites run articles, twitter sphere blows up
- An hour or so later, an MS rep clarifies the date of the email to Totilo
- Totilo retracts original tweets and apologizes for his wording, websites start removing articles, tweeters start deleting their videos
- Posts that 'aged like fine wine', turned out to not.

That's a lot of desperate damage control alright.

Yes, your damage control is pretty desperate and pathetic.

 

[bitbydeath]

Totilo retracts original tweets

No he didn’t.
Here’s the original tweet, you’re thinking of Derek Strickland.

 

[THE DUCK]

I dont understand the whole mess. So the FTC, who is supposed to be about competitive markets, is ok with Sony maintaining 70% market share? How exactly does Sony ending up with 80% market share protect consumers?

Plus they expect MS to buy studios in an attempt to compete and have exclusives (the key to selling consoles) but then not make the games exclusive? What a bunch of bs.

 

[bitbydeath]

I dont understand the whole mess. So the FTC, who is supposed to be about competitive markets, is ok with Sony maintaining 70% market share? How exactly does Sony ending up with 80% market share protect consumers?

Plus they expect MS to buy studios in an attempt to compete and have exclusives (the key to selling consoles) but then not make the games exclusive? What a bunch of bs.

Because it’s more about subtraction than addition to become competitive. There’s better, more honourable ways of becoming competitive.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

I hope this soon dies.

I dont understand the whole mess. So the FTC, who is supposed to be about competitive markets, is ok with Sony maintaining 70% market share? How exactly does Sony ending up with 80% market share protect consumers?

Plus they expect MS to buy studios in an attempt to compete and have exclusives (the key to selling consoles) but then not make the games exclusive? What a bunch of bs.

Sony isn’t trying to close the market to competitors by purchasing the largest independent entity in the market.

 

[Yoboman]

I dont understand the whole mess. So the FTC, who is supposed to be about competitive markets, is ok with Sony maintaining 70% market share? How exactly does Sony ending up with 80% market share protect consumers?

Plus they expect MS to buy studios in an attempt to compete and have exclusives (the key to selling consoles) but then not make the games exclusive? What a bunch of bs.

The FTC is ensuring a healthy and competitive gaming market continues. Microsoft clearly want one where they can just buy enough that their competition is squeezed out

 

[Heisenberg007]

I dont understand the whole mess. So the FTC, who is supposed to be about competitive markets, is ok with Sony maintaining 70% market share? How exactly does Sony ending up with 80% market share protect consumers?

Plus they expect MS to buy studios in an attempt to compete and have exclusives (the key to selling consoles) but then not make the games exclusive? What a bunch of bs.

The important thing to understand here is that:

1) Sony is not a monopoly in gaming or even the niche high-end consoles segment. PlayStation's revenue is $25 billion, while Xbox's revenue is $17 billion. That's a not "monopoly" difference.

2) Even if PlayStation were a monopoly, monopolies, by law, are not illegal. What matters, as per the law, the anti-competitive acts in an attempt to monopolize. So if Sony gained that market share by producing great games, then that is completely fine. On the other hand, if Xbox attempts to gain that market share by acquiring the biggest third-party publishers, then that is considered anti-competitive and gets blocked. That's in the FTC and CMA's anti-trust laws.

 

[THE DUCK]

The important thing to understand here is that:

1) Sony is not a monopoly in gaming or even the niche high-end consoles segment. PlayStation's revenue is $25 billion, while Xbox's revenue is $17 billion. That's a not "monopoly" difference.

2) Even if PlayStation were a monopoly, monopolies, by law, are not illegal. What matters, as per the law, the anti-competitive acts in an attempt to monopolize. So if Sony gained that market share by producing great games, then that is completely fine. On the other hand, if Xbox attempts to gain that market share by acquiring the biggest third-party publishers, then that is considered anti-competitive and gets blocked. That's in the FTC and CMA's anti-trust laws.

I'm not so sure your numbers accurate, is that worldwide or just USA? The global numbers I'm seeing is 45% market share for Sony, 25% each to MS and Nintendo. That 20% is a huge gap.

Ok so lets go with the notion that buying other developers is "anticompetitive" and making their games exclusive. Where was the FTC every time Sony gobbled up a fantastic smaller company? Death by 10 small knives has the same result as one large one.

Also lets run that theory further, it's not ok for MS to buy a large software company, but you would be ok with the starting one from scratch and putting 70 billion into it? You could probably lure 90% of the staff from Activision with money hats.
I'd argue they would suck up a very large percentage of the talent on the market and potentially emerge with more product that what they are buying from Activision, how does it really change?

One person mentioned Honor, I don't see how smart acquisitions is not honorable, many large companies have been successful at this with no moral grey area. Sometimes it's a lot smarter to see how the market plays out. (sometimes not)

 

[Sleepwalker]

Oh at least you can recognize it is a smart move selling it.

Of course it was, he made out like a bandit. 10/10 play

 

[Ar¢tos]

The important thing to understand here is that:

1) Sony is not a monopoly in gaming or even the niche high-end consoles segment. PlayStation's revenue is $25 billion, while Xbox's revenue is $17 billion. That's a not "monopoly" difference.

2) Even if PlayStation were a monopoly, monopolies, by law, are not illegal. What matters, as per the law, the anti-competitive acts in an attempt to monopolize. So if Sony gained that market share by producing great games, then that is completely fine. On the other hand, if Xbox attempts to gain that market share by acquiring the biggest third-party publishers, then that is considered anti-competitive and gets blocked. That's in the FTC and CMA's anti-trust laws.

Don't waste your breath trying to explain, some people are blind because they choose not to see.

They subconsciously refuse to understand that a market leader existing by consumer choice is not the same as a market leader existing by elimination of the competition.

 

[feynoob]

No he didn’t.
Here’s the original tweet, you’re thinking of Derek Strickland.

No, the email was 2019 before Activision deal.


It's a case of journalism jumping the gun faster and we eat that shit.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I'm not so sure your numbers accurate, is that worldwide or just USA? The global numbers I'm seeing is 45% market share for Sony, 25% each to MS and Nintendo. That 20% is a huge gap.

FFXVI - 'Death'

Also lets run that theory further, it's not ok for MS to buy a large software company, but you would be ok with the starting one from scratch and putting 70 billion into it? You could probably lure 90% of the staff from Activision with money hats.
I'd argue they would suck up a very large percentage of the talent on the market and potentially emerge with more product that what they are buying from Activision, how does it really change?

One person mentioned Honor, I don't see how smart acquisitions is not honorable, many large companies have been successful at this with no moral grey area. Sometimes it's a lot smarter to see how the market plays out. (sometimes not)

Those are worldwide officially revenue numbers, provided by Microsoft and Sony.

 

[Astray]

Even if the email is from 2019, there are multiple facts about it that we know will be pertinent:

A) It exists, Microsoft has not denied that the email exists, nor have they claimed it was out of context either (which tells you that the exchange likely impacts this case in some way), so it's likely very pertinent.

B) It's an email between current members of the Xbox leadership, so none "this is not the Ballmer days anymore" malarkey either.

C) Microsoft desperately wants to downplay it in every way, which will always be hilarious to me.

 

[demigod]

No, the email was 2019 before Activision deal.


It's a case of journalism jumping the gun faster and we eat that shit.

And here we are, they are attempting to buy Activision. Scumbags.

 

[feynoob]

And here we are, they are attempting to buy Activision. Scumbags.

Yeah, but that date changes everything as neither purchase was guaranteed at that time.

If it was 2021, then the intent would have been clear.

 

[bitbydeath]

No, the email was 2019 before Activision deal.


It's a case of journalism jumping the gun faster and we eat that shit.

The tweet wasn’t redacted though, the article still exists too.

 

[feynoob]

The tweet wasn’t redacted though, the article still exists too.

Because it was updated after that.
Plus this is a journalism. All they care is clicks and sensational headlines.

 

[Banjo64]

Sometimes some of y'all really come off like the charlie day conspiracy board meme IRL.

You trying to portray M$ as some bumbling clown company with no strategic planning in place is hilariously cute. Do you think you’re convincing anyone?

 

[Elios83]

Yeah, but that date changes everything as neither purchase was guaranteed at that time.

If it was 2021, then the intent would have been clear.

The intent is absolutely clear.
They planned on their strategy in 2019. They executed on it starting with Bethesda in 2020 and continuing with Activision.
The 2019 date just shows they have been executing on a strategy planned right before the beginning of the current gen.

 

[Banjo64]

It's not wrong tho. Sony is helping the plaintiff's with documentation for the lawsuit.

Sooo does Tom describe all of those US congressmen, the Tory MP Bim Afalomi, and all of the various news outlets and journalists covering this deal that are on Microsoft’s payroll (such as himself) as ‘Microsoft-backed’?

 

[feynoob]

The intent is absolutely clear.
They planned on their strategy in 2019. They executed on it starting with Bethesda in 2020 and continuing with Activision.

You can make your own theory, but that will depend on proving it and what is on the email.

 

[Slicker than your average]

Case by case basis

 

[SlicedBread3]

Ok so lets go with the notion that buying other developers is "anticompetitive" and making their games exclusive. Where was the FTC every time Sony gobbled up a fantastic smaller company?

The same place they where when Microsoft were buying fantastic smaller companies. They already own more studios than Sony, this isn't about Microsoft needing to play catch-up.

 

[bitbydeath]

Because it was updated after that.
Plus this is a journalism. All they care is clicks and sensational headlines.

Yes, but nothing was redacted and the update itself means nothing.

 

[Godot25]

FTC: We will use Brown Shoe Co. v. United States argument that literally says that you can't differentiate between "high end" and "low end" market inside of the shoe market
Also FTC: Nintendo Switch is not part of high-performance console market

Sometimes I have feeling that FTC is employing 10-years old "lawyers"

 

[Companion Cube]

Does anyone know where to find this thread but in podcast form? Two parties just talking about the acquisition and all things related?

 

[PaintTinJr]

Ok so lets go with the notion that buying other developers is "anticompetitive" and making their games exclusive. Where was the FTC every time Sony gobbled up a fantastic smaller company?

The two sentences have been written to look like they are mutually inclusive by you, so you'll need to provide real examples of games being taken away that were previously multiplatform and at Starfield or Elder scrolls AAA level and then got changed to PlayStation exclusive.

 

[Dick Jones]

FTC: We will use Brown Shoe Co. v. United States argument that literally says that you can't differentiate between "high end" and "low end" market inside of the shoe market
Also FTC: Nintendo Switch is not part of high-performance console market

Sometimes I have feeling that FTC is employing 10-years old "lawyers"

Microsoft lawyers mixed up Superman and Spider-Man. You don't even need to be a lawyer to spot the difference.

 

[Godot25]

Microsoft lawyers mixed up Superman and Spider-Man. You don't even need to be a lawyer to spot the difference.

Yeah. But it's a big difference to mix up superhero character that has no bearing on argument that you are trying to present and to fuck up market definition that you based your entire argument upon.

 

[Dick Jones]

Yeah. But it's a big difference to mix up superhero character that has no bearing on argument that you are trying to present and to fuck up market definition that you based your entire argument upon.

Big difference to mix up something everybody knows, even people with no knowledge.

Maybe the FTC view the Switch as a handheld like a noticeable minority.

 

[PaintTinJr]

FTC: We will use Brown Shoe Co. v. United States argument that literally says that you can't differentiate between "high end" and "low end" market inside of the shoe market
Also FTC: Nintendo Switch is not part of high-performance console market

Sometimes I have feeling that FTC is employing 10-years old "lawyers"

But that makes perfect sense because shoe production scales easily and is deterministic to produce x products in y time, as do many other things since the advent of the production line.

Scaling up software development has 70years worth of case studies showing it is neither a deterministic task, even at a low end, indie, and gets progressively harder and unpredictable and more risky for ROI as scope, employees and budgets get bigger.

 

[Godot25]

But that makes perfect sense because shoe production scales easily and is deterministic to produce x products in y time, as do many other things since the advent of the production line.

Scaling up software development has 70years worth of case studies showing it is neither a deterministic task, even at a low end, indie, and gets progressively harder and unpredictable and more risky for ROI as scope, employees and budgets get bigger.

So. if you are FTC and you are trying to fragment a gaming market market to inflate Microsoft's position in said market (high-performance console market) and their position in that market is main reason to block a merger, you are using court case that literally said that X company (Brown) and Y company (Kinney) are part of same market despite the fact that X company is making medium priced shoes and Y company is making low priced shoes?

Please, continue. I'm sure that argument would be successful in front of federal judge.

 

[feynoob]

Yes, but nothing was redacted and the update itself means nothing.

Is this what you take from the thread?
The update changes the entire point of that tweet.

 

[feynoob]

Does anyone know where to find this thread but in podcast form? Two parties just talking about the acquisition and all things related?

Don't. You will go insane.
This deal has been nothing but stupid drama and dumb arguments. Keep yourself sane.

 

[feynoob]

 

[demigod]

Yeah, but that date changes everything as neither purchase was guaranteed at that time.

If it was 2021, then the intent would have been clear.

Nothing changed except the date. The same folks running xbox are still there.

 

[demigod]

Gamespots fanboy reviewers? The fuck

 

[feynoob]

Nothing changed except the date. The same folks running xbox are still there.

The context matters.
In the US court, we don't go with guess or shit.
You kind have to prove it.

 

[Elios83]

The context matters.
In the US court, we don't go with guess or shit.
You kind have to prove it.

The mail is evidence of a planned business strategy put in place in 2019 to try to put a competitor out of business.
What we have seen since 2020 until now is the execution.

 

[bitbydeath]

Is this what you take from the thread?
The update changes the entire point of that tweet.

Not really, nobody has been fired yet.

 

[Banjo64]

Gamespots fanboy reviewers

In their actual submission and someone here just tried to portray the FTC legal team as 10 year olds