I have no doubts that MS had plans to buy Activision in 2019. The mail was sent, it was their strategy and the seed was planted. They were looking to stop the PS dominance and this was the idea/solution. They will say anything now to pass this deal and later change the rules.
It means as much as the whole "story" then.Yes, but nothing was redacted and the update itself means nothing.
Thing is, nobody cares about your doubts, the court will do. They will decide what matters and will hear all the arguments, not neogaf (thankfully).I have no doubts that MS had plans to buy Activision in 2019. The mail was sent, it was their strategy and the seed was planted. They were looking to stop the PS dominance and this was the idea/solution. They will say anything now to pass this deal and later change the rules.
Gamespot's what now?
![]()
So let me get this straightI have no doubts that MS had plans to buy Activision in 2019. The mail was sent, it was their strategy and the seed was planted. They were looking to stop the PS dominance and this was the idea/solution. They will say anything now to pass this deal and later change the rules.
Holy shit they are doing Twitter console wars in their corporate emails?Calling journalists fanboys, that's hilarious.
I'm guessing this is after Gears 5 got a 7 from GameSpot?
Yep. Idiots.Their vocal fanbase are a 1-1 reflection of them as an organisation.
That's all I'll say.
It’s with the regulators, how bout we let them decide?It means as much as the whole "story" then.
I mean. Regulators already decided in terms of Microsoft "destroying Sony" with this merger, right?It’s with the regulators, how bout we let them decide?
This is new evidence that everyone can use.I mean. Regulators already decided in terms of Microsoft "destroying Sony" with this merger, right?
- CMA dropped consoles SLC and their concern is only around cloud gaming
- EU said that Sony would be fine even with COD exclusive on Xbox
- China did not bothered at all
- Only FTC is still trying to claim harm in console space
So? Even regulators agrees that this merger will not drive Sony out of business. And yet. We have "concerns everywhere"
Well. If you want to believe that CMA and FTC did not have access to this email communication, then be my guest.This is new evidence that everyone can use.
Gamespots fanboy reviewers
In their actual submissionand someone here just tried to portray the FTC legal team as 10 year olds
![]()
Another game that Phil and his team thought would review 20 points higher huh?
It was never mentioned before and MS were just caught trying to hide it, so uh, yeah think I will believe that.Well. If you want to believe that CMA and FTC did not have access to this email communication, then be my guest.
Then, they have to provide the evidence for that.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.
They have, that’s what everyone has been talking about, and the evidence will likely be used by others as well.Then, they have to provide the evidence for that.
No court is going to accept that without evidence that backs it up.
"It was never mentioned" doesn't mean that regulators did not read it. Of course, it is possibility.It was never mentioned before and MS were just caught trying to hide it, so uh, yeah think I will believe that.
What they have is an email from 2019.They have, that’s what everyone has been talking about, and the evidence will likely be used by others as well.
Then, they have to provide the evidence for that.
No court is going to accept that without evidence that backs it up.
Again, that is not going to get you anywhere.The mail with an executive talking about such business strategy in place is the evidence.
I am glad we have due process here and not go things blindly.When they tell you that the email was sent in 2019 but don't realise that makes it worse.
![]()
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.
Again, that is not going to get you anywhere.
A: the email is from 2019.
B: you have to prove that the email is connected to these purchases.
You prove these and you got yourself a case.
Again, that is not going to get you anywhere.
A: the email is from 2019.
B: you have to prove that the email is connected to these purchases.
You prove these and you got yourself a case.
The same people are in charge which makes it still relevant.What they have is an email from 2019.
That is not going to get you that far in the court.
If it was 2021-2022, then yes. That would have meant something.
The same people are in charge which makes it still relevant.
Well...It’s with the regulators, how bout we let them decide?
But it's ok they're the good guys remember? Microsoft is there to purge this market from evil and bring video games to everyone.I like how it's gone from "They didn't really say that, no evidence, it's redacted, lalala"
![]()
To now being "it was 2019, it doesn't count".
If anything, the email being from 2019 only serves to build a pattern of behaviour considering what's happened since then.
And yes, it does count, there's a reason they asked for documents going that far back.
i know it is the last straw of hope but this email was already part of the "Gamer's" lawsuit (incredible name) and the judge already didn't think it is relevant so where does that hope come from it will become relevant now? Desperation?
Because that Axios guy found a nothing burger, made a story about it and the Sony fans blew it up out of proportion because they see it as a big hope to save gaming from evil M$?First start by asking yourself why the information has surfaced now and what the purpose of it surfacing now is. Who and what does it pertain to?
That information is publically available if you feel like doing some fact finding.
But that doesn't work though.The same people are in charge which makes it still relevant.
If they can connect the email to that purchase and prove it, then they have strong case.Microsoft to acquire ZeniMax Media and its game publisher Bethesda Softworks - Stories
Iconic games portfolio, publishing expertise, and world-class talent accelerates growth in Microsoft’s Gaming business REDMOND, Wash. September 21, 2020 – More than three billion people on the planet play games for fun, escape, and human connection. Unlike any other medium, games empower people...news.microsoft.com
Would be a good strong evidence, if the content of the email aligns with that.I don't think that FTC will build their case on a single mail.
Actually I think that FTC will basically try to leverage what happened with the CMA and the fact that even EU had concerns about the cloud market that required strict behavioural remedies to be addressed just in that particular market.
The rest is supporting evidence to paint the picture of a company that wants to destroy competitors and this mail is evidence of just that, has made an acquisition to foreclose contents to competitors (see Bethesda).
FTC needs to prove there are enough concerns to support a preliminary injunction. They need to prove that given that the acquisition has met incredible scrutiny around the world, it is currently blocked in the UK and there is evidence of anticompetitive behaviour, Microsoft can't be allowed to close the acquisition in the US before the full case on the merger is done.
It's like they think they are addressing goldfish with no memories.I like how it's gone from "They didn't really say that, no evidence, it's redacted, lalala"
![]()
To now being "it was 2019, it doesn't count".
If anything, the email being from 2019 only serves to build a pattern of behaviour considering what's happened since then.
And yes, it does count, there's a reason they asked for documents going that far back.
Because that Axios guy found a nothing burger, made a story about it and the Sony fans blew it up out of proportion because they see it as a big hope to save gaming from evil M$?
So you won't send devkits early if you are worried about "secrets being leaked"in my first post here I was wondering exactly how ps could send devkit to activision in case they ends up under ms, for me it's natural to be a problem. using mojang as an example of good behavior has nothing to do with it in my opinion.
And how did the judge (the same actually that will do FTC) consider these in the other lawsuit?The Axios guy didn't "find" a "nothing burger", new documents and evidence have surfaced as part of the "gamers lawsuit" appeals process.
And how did the judge (the same actually that will do FTC) consider these in the other lawsuit?
What they have is an email from 2019.
That is not going to get you that far in the court.
If it was 2021-2022, then yes. That would have meant something.
leaks are not the problem, the problem is that your main competitor knows the hardware you will sell on the market, an advantage that I don't remember in gaming.So you won't send devkits early if you are worried about "secrets being leaked"
Same is for Microsoft with Bungie games and MLB games since both those studios are owned by Sony.
Of course you are then risking that first games on that platform would be badly optimised, but you need to weigh in risk factor.