• 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

Banjo64

cumsessed
Xh0wM81.jpg


8Va1Ebj.jpg


We should get educated to be able to understand what is happening.
These fanboys (paid shills?) are an embarrassment to the human race.
 

ToTTenTranz

Banned
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?

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.
 

IFireflyl

Gold 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.

Who cares what Sony's aim here is? Sony and Sony's desires is/are irrelevant to this acquisition.
 

onesvenus

Member
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.
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?
 
No. Destin and Jez are actually shills.
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?

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
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.
 
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.


Read the thread and find out. Again we can't help people who refuse to read
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
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


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.
 

Marvel14

Banned
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?
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:
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.
I didn't know working for IGN made you a shill. Just job like any other. Weird to hate like that but 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.
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.
 

onesvenus

Member
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.
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
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
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:

Griffon

Member
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.
 
Last edited:

Greggy

Member
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.
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
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.
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.
 
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
the first one which is about effective competition
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.


to explain MS incentives to keep prices down when they have a mini monopoly on a product
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?
 

Greggy

Member
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.
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.
 
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.

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:
I gave you two coherent arguments.
No, you really didn't.
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.
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
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.

How are you measuring Sony's "dominance"?
GoSmH1l.jpg
 

yurinka

Member
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.
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.

How are you measuring Sony's "dominance"?
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
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.

Your second point is a loaded
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.
 

splattered

Member
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.

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?
 

Griffon

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?
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
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).
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
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.
Once this goes through I guarantee you sony buys square enix and it'll go through no problem.
 
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.

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.
 
then what IS the point?

MS has already said COD isnt leaving playstation or steam and even bringing it to nintendo consoles.
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.
 

DavJay

Member
I give Lina Khan and the FTC credit for trying to challenge this vertical merger but their track record when going to court with this is horrendous. They are just wasting everybody’s money delaying the inevitable.
 

yurinka

Member
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)
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.

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.
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:
Top Bottom