• 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

Well first they said high performance console, so you already failed at the start.
There is no difference between consoles and pc in terms of gaming besides one being open platform and one being closed. Like saying Apple and Android are different markets because one is closed and one is open. I already address this in the first sentence. FTC is just splitting hairs to justify this lawsuit which is already failing. The FTC is trying make it seem like we either have playstation or xbox.
 
Last edited:
There is no difference between consoles and pc in terms of gaming

There is. It's called people who prefer to play on consoles versus people who prefer to play on PC

Like saying Apple and Android are different markets because one is closed and one is open.

They aren't different markets. They're a market within a market.
 
There is. It's called people who prefer to play on consoles versus people who prefer to play on PC



They aren't different markets. They're a market within a market.

Someone preferring something over another doesn't mean they don't belong in the same market. I mean what's next? Xbox and playstation are in a different market and not competing because people prefer xbox or playstation?
 
Someone preferring something over another doesn't mean they don't belong in the same market. I mean what's next? Xbox and playstation are in a different market and not competing because people prefer xbox or playstation?

No, it means there's preference which can create its own market.

When you have a group that prefers Android phones, that group has the option of going with Google, Samsung, OnePlus etc.

That's called a submarket.
 
Last edited:
No, it means there's preference which can create its own market.

When you have a group that prefers Android phones, that group has the option of going with Google, Samsung, OnePlus etc.

That's called a submarket.
Just like PC gaming so I don't know what you are getting at. Also, like I said before the Switch 2 will be powerful enough to run multiplatform games that we have been getting for the last 2 years. Seems unfair for FTC to compare Switch that came out in early 2017 to the PS5 and Xbox Series consoles that came out in late 2020.
 
Last edited:
That console gaming and PC gaming are two submarkets that exist within the video game market, something you've just tried to deny.
Okay, so Android and Apple are two different sub markets? Since one is open and one is closed. Like I said, PC gaming and console gaming are very identical except one is closed and one is open. They both use a similar architecture, hardware, and run the same games.
 
Okay, so Android and Apple are two different sub markets? Since one is open and one is closed. Like I said, PC gaming and console gaming are very identical except one is closed and one is open. They both use a similar architecture, hardware, and run the same games.

The fact that one is open and the other is closed isn't why they're submarkets. It's because they have distinct characteristics and distinct user bases.
 

gothmog

Gold Member
Someone preferring something over another doesn't mean they don't belong in the same market. I mean what's next? Xbox and playstation are in a different market and not competing because people prefer xbox or playstation?
Isn't that what Microsoft has been saying? They're not competing with Sony.
 
The fact that one is open and the other is closed isn't why they're submarkets. It's because they have distinct characteristics and distinct user bases.
Distinct characteristics and user bases? So are you saying playstation and xbox aren't in the same market too? They both offer something different and unique that attracts certain fan bases to their consoles.
 

CatLady

Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
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.
Come on, you already know the answer. They'd be orgasmic since they are constantly begging Sony buy all those publishers and more.
 
Last edited:

geary

Member
No, it means there's preference which can create its own market.

When you have a group that prefers Android phones, that group has the option of going with Google, Samsung, OnePlus etc.

That's called a submarket.
We have a group that prefers PC, that group has the option of going with Nvidia, AMD and Intel as main hardware driver. Should we also split PC in subgroups?
 
Last edited:

Thirty7ven

Sony make cringe trainers.
We have a group that prefers PC, that group has the option of going with Nvidia, AMD and Intel as main hardware driver. Should we also split PC in subgroups?

PC is already a subgroup of the videogame market. But Nvidia would be blocked from say buying AMD for example, because the gpu market is its own. MS would be blocked from buying Steam.

It’s really weird to me people are unwilling to broaden their view of the market and are willing for it to get worse just so they can save what, 100$ a year? It’s pathetic.
 
Last edited:

GHG

Member
You know that Banjo64 Banjo64 loves his Xbox Series S, right?

Do Better Season 4 GIF by Good Trouble
 
Oof. You're definitely disqualified then.
My ears work just fine. I heard the FTC arguments analyzed by a lawyer. He thought that the idea of a high performance XSS was nonsense too.

Distinct characteristics and user bases? So are you saying playstation and xbox aren't in the same market too? They both offer something different and unique that attracts certain fan bases to their consoles.
It's perfectly fine to think PC, console, and mobile are distinct markets. It is nonsense to think the Xbox and PlayStation are distinct from Switch. They are all consoles and tracked and sold the exact same way. The entire premise is absurd.

Just as absurd as thinking that Game pass is a distinct market from retail. The way to pay for something doesn't change the market you are in. It's like arguing paying with case is distinct from using a credit card. All sorts of nonsense from this lawsuit.
 
My ears work just fine. I heard the FTC arguments analyzed by a lawyer. He thought that the idea of a high performance XSS was nonsense too.

You read with your ears?

A lawyer is an expert (in theory) on law, not whether a device is high performance or not :messenger_tears_of_joy:. I can't believe you need a lawyer to help form your opinion on something like that
 
Last edited:

GHG

Member
My ears work just fine. I heard the FTC arguments analyzed by a lawyer. He thought that the idea of a high performance XSS was nonsense too.

Oh so now you want to play down the Series S' capability?

Let me remind you of what you were saying about the Series S just a couple of months ago:

The XSS has a near locked 60fps and appears to have better performance than the more powerful XSX for its resolution. Looks like the XSS is quite well engineered. It is a purely imagined narrative that the XSS would only have a resolution difference to the XSX. Keeping that in mind can you point to any substantive content differences between the games on both consoles?

This is quite the turn of events.

Man's spinning around more than Kylie Minogue.
 
You read with your ears?

A lawyer is an expert (in theory) on law, not whether a device is high performance or not :messenger_tears_of_joy:. I can't believe you need a lawyer to help form your opinion on something like that
Reading isn't required when the analysis is in a video. It has nothing to do with theory. The law is exact. The arguments made don't align with the law as it is written. The FTC recently gave themselves additional powers some of which are being tested right now in the Supreme Court. There is an excellent chance MS will be able to take their challenge directly to a federal court. We'll see how well they hold up then.
 

DavJay

Member
From what I am gathering, this is going to court and MS likely going to win because the FTC is focusing on CoD which MS already agree to sign a contract for Sony for 10 years support which Sony claims Playstation will die without CoD.

Is this correct? This shit is going to drag on for years.
 
Reading isn't required when the analysis is in a video. It has nothing to do with theory. The law is exact. The arguments made don't align with the law as it is written. The FTC recently gave themselves additional powers some of which are being tested right now in the Supreme Court. There is an excellent chance MS will be able to take their challenge directly to a federal court. We'll see how well they hold up then.

A lawyer is in theory an expert on law, not that the law is "theory" :messenger_tears_of_joy:

My god you really are terrible at reading
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
Reading isn't required when the analysis is in a video. It has nothing to do with theory. The law is exact. The arguments made don't align with the law as it is written. The FTC recently gave themselves additional powers some of which are being tested right now in the Supreme Court. There is an excellent chance MS will be able to take their challenge directly to a federal court. We'll see how well they hold up then.
If you can’t even analyse something to form your own opinion, then why should anyone take in to account what you’ve got to say? I don’t mean to sound rude.
 

James Sawyer Ford

Gold Member
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.

It depends on what you mean by "better off".

What Microsoft is doing right now, by offering Call of Duty games on all platforms without any advantages, is effectively just buying Activision for their cash flows with no competitive advantage by the acquisition itself. So either Microsoft just REALLY loves the cash flow that Activision generates, or they have ulterior motives for the long-term to be able to gatekeep Activision titles on GamePass. I think the latter is true, but some people are significantly underplaying the importance of this type of move in the future, and is why the FTC has decided to file suit.

I think the Xbox platform as a whole would be BETTER OFF investing organically into their first party studios with a far lesser sum than $69B and making compelling experiences that aren't otherwise already on the market, even if they made those exclusive due to being Microsoft Game Studios titles. Gamers get more games. Xbox gets more mindshare at Game Awards and the general zeitgeist which they are sorely missing now.
 
If you can’t even analyse something to form your own opinion, then why should anyone take in to account what you’ve got to say? I don’t mean to sound rude.
What are you talking about? Hoeg spoke about the acquisition laws and monopolies. I listened to the FTC arguments presented about MS lying, about how the console market doesn't contain Nintendo, and how Game pass is a separate market from retail and determined as a sound and fair minded person that the arguments are completely bunk.

I have a feeling that if it wasn't Sony who could potentially be impacted by this acquisition you would not be accepting these arguments whole cloth. At least my opinions are based on past precedents. How do you explain your position?
 

Clintizzle

Lord of Edge.
It depends on what you mean by "better off".

What Microsoft is doing right now, by offering Call of Duty games on all platforms without any advantages, is effectively just buying Activision for their cash flows with no competitive advantage by the acquisition itself. So either Microsoft just REALLY loves the cash flow that Activision generates, or they have ulterior motives for the long-term to be able to gatekeep Activision titles on GamePass. I think the latter is true, but some people are significantly underplaying the importance of this type of move in the future, and is why the FTC has decided to file suit.

I think the Xbox platform as a whole would be BETTER OFF investing organically into their first party studios with a far lesser sum than $69B and making compelling experiences that aren't otherwise already on the market, even if they made those exclusive due to being Microsoft Game Studios titles. Gamers get more games. Xbox gets more mindshare at Game Awards and the general zeitgeist which they are sorely missing now.
All the moves Xbox are making is centered around GamePass, so you may be right that this is a short-term play of CoD will be on GamePass and a long-term play of GamePass will be the only way of playing CoD (on any device).

As for your comments about organically growing their internal studious - I think they are already doing that. Most of their studios are chugging along and are putting out some decent content. The ugly duckling if you like is 343i. The studio had some aspirations that just didn't land well and lost focus along the way. I have no idea how they will fix 343i and the Halo franchise.

In a funny way, I blame Insomniac for all the high expectations that we have from other studios in the industry. Not only is their output of the highest quality they seem to release them very quickly. With most other AAA studios, it either aa really good game that takes may years to make or a rushed product that wasn't cooking for long.
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
What are you talking about? Hoeg spoke about the acquisition laws and monopolies. I listened to the FTC arguments presented about MS lying, about how the console market doesn't contain Nintendo, and how Game pass is a separate market from retail and determined as a sound and fair minded person that the arguments are completely bunk.

I have a feeling that if it wasn't Sony who could potentially be impacted by this acquisition you would not be accepting these arguments whole cloth. At least my opinions are based on past precedents. How do you explain your position?
Easily. I’ve read and interpreted the source material.
 

Ronin_7

Member
Article on Bloomberg suggesting Microsoft is refusing to answer questions about ATVI deal.
Lmao MS never thought to be in such deep shit in the US since the 90s, a Company like MS sued by the FTC / GOVERNMENT is an embarrassment.

In EU is already normal MS to be in deep shit, they are being sued by Sales Force Over Slack vs Teams & by Amazon because some Cloud shit.

Well done Satya, Google & Apple must be laughing their asses off.
 

James Sawyer Ford

Gold Member
As for your comments about organically growing their internal studious - I think they are already doing that. Most of their studios are chugging along and are putting out some decent content. The ugly duckling if you like is 343i. The studio had some aspirations that just didn't land well and lost focus along the way. I have no idea how they will fix 343i and the Halo franchise.

In a funny way, I blame Insomniac for all the high expectations that we have from other studios in the industry. Not only is their output of the highest quality they seem to release them very quickly. With most other AAA studios, it either aa really good game that takes may years to make or a rushed product that wasn't cooking for long.

Their other studios are struggling, including the ones they acquired. Maybe they are just a little behind schedule, but they need to have games like they used to in the 360 era that were an event. Like, at the very least 1-2 per year that are massive tentpole AAAA games.

I just don't see that from them, so they need to do more with their studios.
 

elliot5

Member
Article on Bloomberg suggesting Microsoft is refusing to answer questions about ATVI deal.

You make it sound so nefarious. They said "no comment" with regards to the timing of the deal compared to the previously communicated 6/30/2023 date. With the FTC scheduling an August court date, that obviously impacts things. They're not going to comment on the timeline for now until things develop more or renegotiate with Activision and it makes sense.
 

CatLady

Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X

You make it sound so nefarious. They said "no comment" with regards to the timing of the deal compared to the previously communicated 6/30/2023 date. With the FTC scheduling an August court date, that obviously impacts things. They're not going to comment on the timeline for now until things develop more or renegotiate with Activision and it makes sense.

Talk about a bad faith deceptive post, what a weasel. 😏
 
Lmao MS never thought to be in such deep shit in the US since the 90s, a Company like MS sued by the FTC / GOVERNMENT is an embarrassment.

In EU is already normal MS to be in deep shit, they are being sued by Sales Force Over Slack vs Teams & by Amazon because some Cloud shit.

Well done Satya, Google & Apple must be laughing their asses off.
How are google and apple laughing? Mac marketshare is down the toilet and google left the non mobile gaming space. MS is expanding while Apple and Google are staying stagnant.
 
Top Bottom