FTC Seeks to Block Microsoft Corp’s Acquisition of Activision Blizzard

Banjo64

cumsessed

Hey it wasn't me talking about keeping CoD on 'my PlayStation'. If you are involved in regulatory work one should at least appear neutral. We'll see what the final conclusions are.
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
Banjo64 Banjo64 gives shit to all sides.

He is nothing like those clown shills in the media and on YT.


Frustrated World Cup GIF
CatLady CatLady knows I’m an Xboi, but things get heated in the Great War and occasionally insults get flung in all directions. She knows that in the end I’ll be stood side by side with her and The Dark One (and Riky Riky , God rest his beloved soul) as we oversee the destruction of the eduction camps set up by Ass of Can Whooping Ass of Can Whooping .
 
CatLady CatLady knows I’m an Xboi, but things get heated in the Great War and occasionally insults get flung in all directions. She knows that in the end I’ll be stood side by side with her and The Dark One (and Riky Riky , God rest his beloved soul) as we oversee the destruction of the eduction camps set up by Ass of Can Whooping Ass of Can Whooping .

Seeing you in pain will bring me no joy Banjo, but alas, we must move forward for the cause, and for the greater good.
 
Last edited:

RoadHazard

Gold Member
The games are still going to be on PS, Nintendo, Steam, and Xbox. No one is losing out on games that they are already getting. Sony is just upset that COD is going to be on game pass in a few years which will attract a lot of people to xbox and hurt Sony's revenue stream. Tough shit, government agencies aren't here to protect a company's revenue. They are here to protect the consumers.

Offering games to more platforms and for a cheaper price is not anti consumer at all.

Just like how Starfield is coming to PS5?
 

CatLady

Banned
CatLady CatLady knows I’m an Xboi, but things get heated in the Great War and occasionally insults get flung in all directions. She knows that in the end I’ll be stood side by side with her and The Dark One (and Riky Riky , God rest his beloved soul) as we oversee the destruction of the eduction camps set up by Ass of Can Whooping Ass of Can Whooping .

Thank GOD when it comes down to it you stand with all that is good and pure against the Stalin of consoles and traitor of the hats.
 

Clintizzle

Lord of Edge.
This is complete and utter bollocks.

The real value in the $70b MS wants to pay for ACTIBLZD is in the IP value of the gaming franchises and their brand value. If MS were to buy up all their studios without access to the IP, they'd be paying less than $1bn.

Building as many studios isn't nearly as expensive as $70bn. So you calling folks out for not understanding business while making such an eye-wateringly absurd claim is hilariously ironic.



The only major cost for studio generation and nurturing is in time and project investment.

MS attempted this multiple times over the past two gens, i.e. building out new studios, and for many reasons, those new studios ended up collapsing. There's just something wrong structurally with Xbox's studio management.

So in light of that, they went with the next best thing, which was buying existing studios. That's the major reason they're making acquisitions over building new studios. They recognize that they have a studio management structure that is toxic to fostering talent and building top-tier games. So instead they look to buy entire publishers, so as to retain those publishers' studio management structures, processes and culture.

It's easy to understand why they're doing this. Does it make it good for the industry, though? It certainly doesn't.
What the fuck are you talking about? Ofcourse I'm talking about the value of the branding and IP's as well.

No one and I mean literally no one has said MS is spending that much money for a bunch of developers. Get the fuck outta here with your dumbass takes...
 
What the fuck are you talking about? Ofcourse I'm talking about the value of the branding and IP's as well.

No one and I mean literally no one has said MS is spending that much money for a bunch of developers. Get the fuck outta here with your dumbass takes...

Then what you said makes even less sense. Why would it cost MS more than $70bn to create their own studios and IP?!?

Sorry but it's your take that's dumbass as hell.

If you're creating your own studios, then the IP and branding they create comes for free (or at least the low cost of developing the projects---which you'd pay for whether you create the studio or buy them)... because... you know... you're not buying it from anyone but creating it...

Nice try moving the goalposts to attempt to make your uninformed take appear as if it made any sense... it really didn't and your back-peddling made it look even worse.
 

IFireflyl

Member
Yeah, I think the DoJ should look at opening anticompetitive monopoly suits against both Sony and Nintendo.

The High-Performance video game console market now is a duopoly since the FTC decided to break up the video game console market and kicked Nintendo out due to inadequate pixels and FPS. Sony has over 60% of the High-Performance video game console market now.

Nintendo is just a straight up monopoly with 100% of the Not-High-Performance video game console market. Microsoft and Xbox are the only ones in either of the newly created markets that aren't trending towards a monopoly.

I wouldn't be opposed to regulation for video games that says a console maker/storefront can't pay for third-party exclusivity agreements other than by funding the game itself. For example: Street Fighter 5 could still be a PlayStation exclusive because the actual development of the game partially depended on Sony's funding, but Final Fantasy VII Remake could not be console exclusive as Sony did not fund all or part of the development of the game. This wouldn't force developers to release the game on a platform they didn't wish to release it on, so in the above scenario Square Enix could still make Final Fantasy VII Remake a PlayStation exclusive if they chose to, but that type of exclusivity wouldn't be due to Sony paying to keep the game off of other platforms.

It's late, and I'm sure there are ways this type of legislation could be bad, but I can't think of how right now. If this is too idiotic just hit the ignore button and move on, lol.
 

CatLady

Banned
I wouldn't be opposed to regulation for video games that says a console maker/storefront can't pay for third-party exclusivity agreements other than by funding the game itself. For example: Street Fighter 5 could still be a PlayStation exclusive because the actual development of the game partially depended on Sony's funding, but Final Fantasy VII Remake could not be console exclusive as Sony did not fund all or part of the development of the game. This wouldn't force developers to release the game on a platform they didn't wish to release it on, so in the above scenario Square Enix could still make Final Fantasy VII Remake a PlayStation exclusive if they chose to, but that type of exclusivity wouldn't be due to Sony paying to keep the game off of other platforms.

It's late, and I'm sure there are ways this type of legislation could be bad, but I can't think of how right now. If this is too idiotic just hit the ignore button and move on, lol.

I don't think I'd be opposed to that either. The way you've stated it console makers wouldn't be paying to block content from everyone else, they would be contracting an outside developer to make a game for them, like Xbox with Sunset overdrive or PS with Bluepoint for Demon Souls remake.

Like you I'm probably missing how this would be a bad thing because I'm tired and falling asleep at the keyboard, but on the surface at least it seems much better than just moneyhatting and blocking everything.
 
Xbox increasing their first-party size from 5 to 18 made sense and was a genuine attempt to make themselves more competitive. Nobody complained about it.

Now, Xbox thinks that their 23 studios can't compete with PlayStation's 19 studios and they want to acquire 9 more ABK studios to compete against PlayStation? That's disingenuous. If Zenimax/Bethesda studios weren't going to make them competitive, why did they buy them in the first place?

They want 32 Xbox studios to go against 19 PS studios and call that a level-playing field?

This is exactly why FTC is looking into this acquisition and why this attempt should be blocked.
 
Last edited:
Xbox increasing their first-party size from 5 to 18 made sense and was a genuine attempt to make themselves more competitive. Nobody complained about it.

Now, Xbox thinks that their 23 studios can't compete with PlayStation's 19 studios and they want to acquire 9 more ABK studios to compete against PlayStation? That's disingenuous. If Zenimax/Bethesda studios weren't going to make them competitive, why did they buy them in the first place?

They want 32 Xbox studios to go against 19 PS studios and call that a level-playing field?

This is exactly why FTC is looking into this acquisition and why this attempt should be blocked.
MS is the only one doing day and date games on their subscription service. It's not surprising that a service like that will require constant content. Also there is nothing stated in business that all companies need to be equal to each other. As long as laws aren't broken some companies will have advantages over the other. Sony has an entire country that will never support Xbox. That isn't fair either but there is no use in complaining about it. It is what it is.
 

Marvel14

Member
No. When someone is discussing the options consumers may or may not have as a result of the deal. You can't simply charge in, go on a rant about competition, and then continue to claim "it's all about competition". That would be like me asking you if you thought the quality of CoD would remain after an acquisition. Only for some other jump in posting about "it's about the competition." Your original reply wasn't on point.

Everything else you wrote in this paragraph is nullified by the fact that MS did no such thing. MS promised to make the franchise available on more platforms than it is currently, as well as on those platforms where it currently exists. THAT INCLUDES IT'S MAIN COMPETITOR.

.....[ more spiel that shows a serious lack of understanding].

 
Last edited:

Gavon West

Member
Actually the Switch is decimating both the PS5 and Xbox Series consoles. Plus the Xbox Series consoles actually seem to be doing a lot better than previous generations. Hard to tell if it's because people gave up trying to get a PS5 and went for a Series S or if people genuinely like the Game Pass model.

They are arguably the only company in gaming financially capable of creating a monopoly through sheer buying power.
You realize Tencent and Sony could both be accused of trying to create a monopoly as their both in much better positions, revenue wise, to be considered "monopolies" by your definition. ABK still leaves Microsoft in 3rd place by revenue.

Why do people keep thinking this is a monopoly? Fuck what Microsoft COULD do. It isn't happening.
 

Gavon West

Member
Xbox increasing their first-party size from 5 to 18 made sense and was a genuine attempt to make themselves more competitive. Nobody complained about it.

Now, Xbox thinks that their 23 studios can't compete with PlayStation's 19 studios and they want to acquire 9 more ABK studios to compete against PlayStation? That's disingenuous. If Zenimax/Bethesda studios weren't going to make them competitive, why did they buy them in the first place?

They want 32 Xbox studios to go against 19 PS studios and call that a level-playing field?

This is exactly why FTC is looking into this acquisition and why this attempt should be blocked.
No. No it's not.
 
Who cares how many studios they have? Sony just ran the TGA awards with less studios. They need studios to feed GP.

ABK is for mobile - King.
Nope, it isn't only for mobile. In Microsoft's own words, it will "increase competition in traditional console gaming market."



So why do they need 32 studios to "increase competition" against PlayStation's 19 studios? Having 70% more studios and IPs does not create a level-playing field. This is as anti-competitive as it gets.
 

zzill3

Banned
Nope, it isn't only for mobile. In Microsoft's own words, it will "increase competition in traditional console gaming market."



So why do they need 32 studios to "increase competition" against PlayStation's 19 studios? Having 70% more studios and IPs does not create a level-playing field. This is as anti-competitive as it gets.

Microsoft shouldn’t be limited to doing only what Sony can also do.
Sony’s actions should not be the measure of whether a course of action is anti competitive.
 
Microsoft shouldn’t be limited to doing only what Sony can also do.
Sony’s actions should not be the measure of whether a course of action is anti competitive.
I was about to say the same thing, but just decided against it at first. If Sony had 18 at first and MS had 5, why did no one complain then? Everyone just bitched at MS. So what if MS is ahead of Sony on studios? Bitch at Sony to go get more. It's inconceivable to people that MS may have more studios. So what?
 

Ronin_7

Member
I was about to say the same thing, but just decided against it at first. If Sony had 18 at first and MS had 5, why did no one complain then? Everyone just bitched at MS. So what if MS is ahead of Sony on studios? Bitch at Sony to go get more. It's inconceivable to people that MS may have more studios. So what?
Then start building or buying smaller Medium DEV.
 

Marvel14

Member
Nope, it isn't only for mobile. In Microsoft's own words, it will "increase competition in traditional console gaming market."



So why do they need 32 studios to "increase competition" against PlayStation's 19 studios? Having 70% more studios and IPs does not create a level-playing field. This is as anti-competitive as it gets.
Based on this graphic Microsoft are making a play for a network monopoly. While folk argue about which software they control and exclude, which submarket is dominated by whom etc, the real game is for Gamepass to be the dominant architecture for the future of gaming that all gaming brands (whether hardware or software makers) have to use just as Google has done with search or Amazon has done with online retail or Facebook has done with social media. The objective is to get as many active users on it as possible until it makes no sense for PS+ and NSO to exist in parallel and mobile players prefer it as well (playing from your hardware at home on the go?)

That's what this acquisition is really about: positioning and power to engender a Gamepass dominated videogame market.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom