• 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.

Axios (Stephen Totilo) Lawyers: Email proves Microsoft’s ABK bid is designed to elimination (Update: MS claims it was a "thought experiment")

feynoob

Gold Member
Hey Microsoft, I got a secret for you.

The Activision/Blizzard deal wouldn't have put Sony's PlayStation gaming division out of business
It will, if they keep COD exclusive(MS will incur alot of losses in the process).

Sony Big IPs are on high budget, so they need as much money as they can.. COD brings alot of money to them. Without that budget, Sony will lose alot of income and will hurt their future output.
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
The “uncontroverted evidence that Microsoft had the intention to put its main competition, the Sony PlayStation, out of the market.” according to the "lawyers representing a group of gamers suing to block the deal"

1687292137074.png

Well I'm convinced.
 

NickFire

Member
And the others don’t?

What is going on 😆
There's a huge difference between competing in gaming, and using non-gaming revenue to avoid having to compete any longer in gaming.

Just like there's a huge difference between training for the Olympics in the gym, and training for the Olympics in the gym after shooting your body up with steroids. Both are intended to compete. But one is fair competition, and the other is not.
 

Bumblebeetuna

Gold Member
There's a huge difference between competing in gaming, and using non-gaming revenue to avoid having to compete any longer in gaming.

Just like there's a huge difference between training for the Olympics in the gym, and training for the Olympics in the gym after shooting your body up with steroids. Both are intended to compete. But one is fair competition, and the other is not.

You’re adding emotion and scope to the situation when it isn’t warranted.

The bottom line in both scenarios you mentioned is competing.
 

8BiTw0LF

Banned
Honestly, I'm sure if any company could get their way to eliminate the competition (or at least get them in a weak spot) and be on top I'm sure they would do it in a heartbeat. They were just willing to drop a ton of money to try and get leverage where they could, and I don't blame them.
That's what Microsoft always has done. Either stole their ideas from others, or outright bought the competition out.
Sure anyone would do it if they could, but there's only a handful of companies with that power - Microsoft being one of em.

That's why we need regulations so competition can flourish.
 

graywolf323

Member
"Xbox says Bethesda deal ‘was not done to take games away' from other platforms" 🤔

the usual suspects still defend that on here because it’s a “case-by-case basis” despite there having been zero cases since where they haven’t taken games away that were planned (such as canceling Redfall & Starfield for PS5)
 
🤔 Thought it was odd when Phil said people aren't going to throw away their playstation if starfield is 11/10 or something to that effect. I guess they'll tell on themselves eventually with all of the talking they've been doing 🤷. Fu$% this deal and everything it stands for now I really hope it fails
 

diffusionx

Gold Member
Aren't they the same thing? Sony is pleased you buy their system because certain games don't even come to others, hence not wanting you to buy elsewhere because you'll miss out. Same with Microsoft.

It is called competition after all, not sure why people expect companies to just let the others steamroll them down without trying something. Do we think mergers are just happy fun time coincidences of interests?
Except that Sony doesn't need the government's approval to make a deal with a third party company. Microsoft DOES need the government's approval to acquire this company. The approval is done on antitrust/anticompetitive grounds.

Written evidence proving that MS was using this acquisition to make the industry less competitive is basically a smoking gun.
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
You were when Lulu dropped hearsay.

Stephen Colbert No GIF by The Late Show With Stephen Colbert


I don't know what y'all are taking me for lol, this is my direct quote following that being shared, no edits.

oo, is there a source for that quote ? That's the kind of quote that salts the earth and kills any future deals between parties.
 
Last edited:

NickFire

Member
You’re adding emotion and scope to the situation when it isn’t warranted.

The bottom line in both scenarios you mentioned is competing.
Yeah, every scenario I listed is a form of competition. But human society draws a line between fair and unfair competition, and regulates unfair competition throughout the world (to varying degrees). And scope is absolutely a relevant factor when determining what is and is not unfair. Why are you arguing otherwise? Do you think gaming is still a niche market for some reason?
 

phant0m

Member
Isn't that the reason any business does anything? To get rid of their competition?
With the exception of non-profits, yes.

This probably will surprise half the people on gaming boards, but corporations exist for one reason and one reason only: make money for shareholders.

There are really only 3 ways to do this in our capitalist economy:
  • Increase profit by charging more
  • Increase profit by cutting costs
  • Increase profit by eliminating competitors and gaining more market share
 
Last edited:

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Stephen Colbert No GIF by The Late Show With Stephen Colbert


I don't know what y'all are taking me for lol, this is my direct quote following that being shared, no edits.
And these types of emails kill deals and potentially lead to antitrust ramifications.

Keep up the same energy instead of instant defensive outright dismissal. Why don't you question why MS wants this sequestered or removed completely?

Bitch, please.
 

Bumblebeetuna

Gold Member
Yeah, every scenario I listed is a form of competition. But human society draws a line between fair and unfair competition, and regulates unfair competition throughout the world (to varying degrees). And scope is absolutely a relevant factor when determining what is and is not unfair. Why are you arguing otherwise? Do you think gaming is still a niche market for some reason?

All I am saying is the goal for all of these companies is to dominate their competition. You can bicker about the validity of moves they make or social impact etc etc, I don’t care.
 

TxKnight7

Member
This has always been how microsoft operates since the beginning.

They prefer to focus on eliminating the competetion rather than making a better product.
Is this Real ?

Chris Deering
We targeted Microsoft from day one -- we were ruthless," he says. "I'm not of this mentality anymore, but at the time it was life or death as far as I was concerned. We had this expression in our business meetings: 'Kill them right at the start and take no prisoners
Chris Deering, who was Sony Computer Entertainment (SCE) Europe's boss at the time.

We were asking what we could do to make it difficult for Sega or Nintendo to come back," he explains. "We didn't start with a big portfolio of game development studios like Sega and Nintendo had. We were really friendly with third-parties right from day one".
 

graywolf323

Member
Is this Real ?

Chris Deering
We targeted Microsoft from day one -- we were ruthless," he says. "I'm not of this mentality anymore, but at the time it was life or death as far as I was concerned. We had this expression in our business meetings: 'Kill them right at the start and take no prisoners
Chris Deering, who was Sony Computer Entertainment (SCE) Europe's boss at the time.

We were asking what we could do to make it difficult for Sega or Nintendo to come back," he explains. "We didn't start with a big portfolio of game development studios like Sega and Nintendo had. We were really friendly with third-parties right from day one".
DeepEnigma DeepEnigma narrative #3 has popped up
 

NickFire

Member
All I am saying is the goal for all of these companies is to dominate their competition. You can bicker about the validity of moves they make or social impact etc etc, I don’t care.
I'm gonna call bullshit on this response bro. You literally said I was adding emotion where it was not warranted, and now don't care enough to discuss the substance of my emotional :messenger_tears_of_joy: post.

Actually, I'm not calling bullshit. I'm declaring shenanigans in the first degree.
 
Last edited:

Sleepwalker

Member
With the exception of non-profits, yes.

This probably will surprise half the people on gaming boards, but corporations exist for one reason and one reason only: make money for shareholders.

There are really only 3 ways to do this in our capitalist economy:
  • Increase profit by charging more
  • Increase profit by cutting costs
  • Increase profit by eliminating competitors and gaining more market share

This makes a lot of sense, thanks.

Microsoft execs don't have the 4th bulletpoint in their documents:

  • increase profit by retaining your existing customers and attracting new ones by offering value, service, and satisfaction.


This whole situation can be fixed right away once we get the updated guidelines to Booty and Phil.
 
Top Bottom