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

zzill3

Banned
Question: Since you support corporate consolidation, do you also want/support Sony's hypothetical acquisition of Capcom, WB, and CDPR?

Correction: I support corporate consolidation that doesn’t have negative effects on consumers or the industry.
Even without those hypothetical acquisitions Sony have the most expensive consoles already, even before they recently increased prices, do not offer their games day one on their subscription service, and take at least 6 months to port them to PC.
In comparison, Microsoft are well away from the top of the market, so this acquisition is about having a stronger competitor to first place, rather than a stronger first place at the expense of second and third. That is increased competition in the market.
MS have cheaper consoles, offer their games day one on their subscription service and PC.

Xbox consoles / gamepass is the cheapest, best value way to play games this generation, and we should allow that service to improve. The same can not be said for Playstation.

Google has also opposed the acquisition. Sony isn't the only one. Activision shareholders just want the extra $20 per share. That's why they are supporting it, why else lol.

Ok, Sony and Google then.
There’s a reason why only Sony and Google oppose the deal, and everyone else either doesn’t care or wants it to go through.
Why do you think the union body representing industry workers wants it to go ahead?
Why do you think no other companies have made a fuss?
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Microsoft protest Nvidia's acquisition of Arm Ltd., the FTC steps in.
Sony protest Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Inc., the FTC steps in.

It's the same thing.

FTC was blocking the ARM deal regardless of whether or not anyone came forward. There are only two prominent CPU architectures in the performance CPU segment (X86/ARM) and ARM uses a licensing arrangement that is widely utilized in general communications and defense.

This would be a similar situation if MS was trying to buy Sony or Nintendo, not so much ABK.
 
Correction: I support corporate consolidation that doesn’t have negative effects on consumers or the industry.
Even without those hypothetical acquisitions Sony have the most expensive consoles already, even before they recently increased prices, do not offer their games day one on their subscription service, and take at least 6 months to port them to PC.
In comparison, Microsoft are well away from the top of the market, so this acquisition is about having a stronger competitor to first place, rather than a stronger first place at the expense of second and third. That is increased competition in the market.
MS have cheaper consoles, offer their games day one on their subscription service and PC.

Xbox consoles / gamepass is the cheapest, best value way to play games this generation, and we should allow that service to improve. The same can not be said for Playstation.
Okay, so you only support acquisitions by Microsoft, but not Sony. Got it.
 

Gavon West

Member
People are not thinking it is a monopoly. It has the potential to become one. They are likely just trying to identify if a move like this could change the dynamic so drastically, allowing MS to monopolize the market. The person you've quoted said MS has the "influence" and "capital" to actually create a monopoly, not that it is one, or will become one.
Is it possible to become a monopoly? I guess it is. But with how dynamic the gaming industry is, who can say what will happen.

Some people are actually staying that it is a monopoly if they merge with ABK.

At the end of the day, Sony not investing in cloud or subscription services is their own fault. They leaned too heavily on traditional hardware sales, 3rd person narrative games and CoD.

They actually had a subscription BEFORE Microsoft did . They just didn't invest or take it seriously until Gamepass That's not on Microsoft. Microsoft isnt responsible to keep the status quo. They have every right to compete and change it. Purchasing ABK isn't going to suddenly change the gaming landscape. And Sony can actually invest in creating a CoD "killer". They have very creative teams. And, they can bolster their own subscription service by adding day one, first party games. Or simply becoming creative and add other perks and advantages to their service. ABK doesn't limit Sony in doing any of this. Nor any other big player or smaller players in the game industry.

If Microsoft were all ready market leader, I'd be inclined to agree that maybe the merger shouldn't happen. But they are 3rd....actually fourth if you want to include Nintendo.
 
Is it possible to become a monopoly? I guess it is. But with how dynamic the gaming industry is, who can say what will happen.

Some people are actually staying that it is a monopoly if they merge with ABK.

At the end of the day, Sony not investing in cloud or subscription services is their own fault. They leaned too heavily on traditional hardware sales, 3rd person narrative games and CoD.

They actually had a subscription BEFORE Microsoft did . They just didn't invest or take it seriously until Gamepass That's not on Microsoft. Microsoft isnt responsible to keep the status quo. They have every right to compete and change it. Purchasing ABK isn't going to suddenly change the gaming landscape. And Sony can actually invest in creating a CoD "killer". They have very creative teams. And, they can bolster their own subscription service by adding day one, first party games. Or simply becoming creative and add other perks and advantages to their service. ABK doesn't limit Sony in doing any of this. Nor any other big player or smaller players in the game industry.

If Microsoft were all ready market leader, I'd be inclined to agree that maybe the merger shouldn't happen. But they are 3rd....actually fourth if you want to include Nintendo.
According to FTC:

Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful for a company to "monopolize, or attempt to monopolize," trade or commerce ... For the courts, a key factor in determining what is unreasonable is whether the practice has a legitimate business justification.
This falls under the category of "attempt to monopolize," especially in the cloud gaming sector. Hence, all the resistance by regulatory bodies.

And as I pointed out earlier, "we have 23 studios, 4 more than our competitors, but we want 32 studios against 19 so we can compete better with first-party exclusive games" is not a legitimate business justification.
 

Gavon West

Member
According to FTC:


This falls under the category of "attempt to monopolize," especially in the cloud gaming sector. Hence, all the resistance by regulatory bodies.

And as I pointed out earlier, "we have 23 studios, 4 more than our competitors, but we want 32 studios against 19 so we can compete better with first-party exclusive games" is not a legitimate business justification.
You keep bringing this back to having 32 studios to compete with Sony. That isn't why they want this deal. Look at all the concessions they've offered thusfar. Microsoft gives fuck all about keeping CoD exclusive. What they want is a stake in mobile gaming with King and to bolster Gamepass. That's it. That is a legitimate business justification.
 

Gavon West

Member
Actually Sony barely bought shit until Microsoft purchase of Bethesda lol

And Microsoft is already in deep shit to try to make any More Big acquisitions. Maybe in a other areas but I'm not sure anymore.
Sony has made quite a few acquisitions just in the last two years. What the hell are you even talking about?

That's not to mention the deals they've made to actually keep games off Gamepass and Xbox and exclusive 3rd party games. They've been doing it for decades now.

Like, wut??
 

Marvel14

Member
Microsoft are well away from the top of the market, so this acquisition is about having a stronger competitor to first place, rather than a stronger first place at the expense of second and third. That is increased competition in the market.
MS have cheaper consoles, offer their games day one on their subscription service and PC.
Xbox consoles / gamepass is the cheapest, best value way to play games this generation, and we should allow that service to improve.

You get the jpeg of shame too.[hint: the company offering the cheapest products is usually the one with most market power. They only offer the cheapest due to competitive pressure so you can thank Sony for that (I'll wait for you to finish vomiting). Also LOVE ❤your "MS are well away"point....so away that they are able to capture a firm of similar size in terms of annual revenue, to one of their main hardware competitors]

 
Last edited:

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
i just want to say no court/regulator is going to argue that a company is a monopoly or trying to become a monopoly based on something like studio count, its a dumb metric imo.
It won't be studio count, no. It will be the ripple effect of securing storied IPs that are decades old and gobbling up all the top publishers, however. Especially when controlling the largest sub service and falling back on your parent's cloud infrastructure when it comes to competition.
 
Last edited:

reksveks

Member
It won't be studio count, no. It will be the ripple effect of securing storied IPs that are decades old and gobbling up all the top publishers, however. Especially when controlling the largest sub service and falling back on your parent's cloud infrastructure when it comes to competition.
just talking about the incorrect 'metric' used for analysis also storied and possibly dominant ip's is too fuzzy so regulators probably wont touch that and courts would definitely ignore it. It's ultimately going to come down to revenue and engagement time.

i have argued that the best case to block this deal is around cloud streaming and players in that space and not COD on PS or PS+.
 

zzill3

Banned
Okay, so you only support acquisitions by Microsoft, but not Sony. Got it.

I support acquisitions that do not harm the industry or consumers. I gave my reasons why Microsoft acquiring companies would be good and why Sony acquiring them would not be. I thought I made that quite clear in the rest of my response that you conveniently ignored.

If the positions of those companies were reversed I would support Sony acquiring companies but not Microsoft.
 

Thirty7ven

Sony make cringe trainers.
I support acquisitions that do not harm the industry or consumers. I gave my reasons why Microsoft acquiring companies would be good and why Sony acquiring them would not be. I thought I made that quite clear in the rest of my response that you conveniently ignored.

If the positions of those companies were reversed I would support Sony acquiring companies but not Microsoft.

The problem is that your reasons amount to a pack of nonsense.
 
Correction: I support corporate consolidation that doesn’t have negative effects on consumers or the industry.
Even without those hypothetical acquisitions Sony have the most expensive consoles already, even before they recently increased prices, do not offer their games day one on their subscription service, and take at least 6 months to port them to PC.
In comparison, Microsoft are well away from the top of the market, so this acquisition is about having a stronger competitor to first place, rather than a stronger first place at the expense of second and third. That is increased competition in the market.
MS have cheaper consoles, offer their games day one on their subscription service and PC.

Xbox consoles / gamepass is the cheapest, best value way to play games this generation, and we should allow that service to improve. The same can not be said for Playstation.



Ok, Sony and Google then.
There’s a reason why only Sony and Google oppose the deal, and everyone else either doesn’t care or wants it to go through.
Why do you think the union body representing industry workers wants it to go ahead?
Why do you think no other companies have made a fuss?
That's a long-winded way of saying, "I'm for it when Xbox does it, but against it when PlayStation does it, but I'm totally not a warrior or anything."
 
just talking about the incorrect 'metric' used for analysis also storied and possibly dominant ip's is too fuzzy so regulators probably wont touch that and courts would definitely ignore it. It's ultimately going to come down to revenue and engagement time.

i have argued that the best case to block this deal is around cloud streaming and players in that space and not COD on PS or PS+.
I have yet to see a coherent argument around why cloud streaming is a reason to stop this deal. XCloud doesn't even function alone, it requires Game pass Ultimate to even access. It is simply just an added feature to MS' subscription service and low and behold Sony has streaming as an added feature to their sub service too. Not seeing the problem unique to what MS is doing.
 

NickFire

Member
I honestly don't think this makes any sense. If you look at the lead Netflix had with like 220 million subscribers, all you see is more streaming services starting up. PS and Nintendo can also have streaming services if they want.
Missing the two giant elephants in the room. Netflix does not require expensive and high priced hardware to run movies. And neither Nintendo or Sony can afford to give up sales and survive off of commercial enterprise software. So once MS gets its way, there will be no competitors left. Google already tried and tapped out. I suppose we could hope Amazon or Apple would be willing to develop and sell high end hardware while paying for it from non-direct sources, but I'd rather not bank on that.
 

reksveks

Member
I have yet to see a coherent argument around why cloud streaming is a reason to stop this deal. XCloud doesn't even function alone, it requires Game pass Ultimate to even access. It is simply just an added feature to MS' subscription service and low and behold Sony has streaming as an added feature to their sub service too. Not seeing the problem unique to what MS is doing.
I am not arguing cloud streaming or subscription services is a separate market, personally don't believe that it is. EU didn't during the Bethesda deal but that could change, I am not sure it would.

If you could make that argument successfully then you have a lot easier argument about the fact that xbox making this deal will kill that market given the size disparity between the market players and the reliance on other MS products.

I think it's a better strategy than focusing on cod for ps.
 
Ohhhhh right. This is where I tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about.

You are free to believe what you want ✌️

So a new studio making a new IP.... you think that there is some sort of multi-billion dollar cost they have to pay to the gods of creativity to generate their own ideas? Like, WTF!?

It's you who is clueless here. You know you're wrong but you're refusing to recognize your mistake and are instead choosing to double-down on your misinformed take for the sake of what? Hurt pride? Gimme a break.

It's not a good look, fam.
 
I am not arguing cloud streaming or subscription services is a separate market, personally don't believe that it is. EU didn't during the Bethesda deal but that could change, I am not sure it would.

If you could make that argument successfully then you have a lot easier argument about the fact that xbox making this deal will kill that market given the size disparity between the market players and the reliance on other MS products.

I think it's a better strategy than focusing on cod for ps.
I just wonder when providing value became anticompetitive. The cloud market is nascent and to try and stifle it at this point is pretty misguided. This is particularly funny because Sony led the console streaming strategy with their purchase of Gaikai yet its MS that is being potentially blocked.

Any size disparity in customers is due to the market preference. The same reason why Sony and Nintendo are bigger players in console gaming. More importantly I still haven't seen how customers are actually harmed either which should be regulators concern. The conclusions from the CMA and EC will be fascinating.
 

IDKFA

Gold Member
Fuck it. Easy way to fix this.

Let's just treat this like the monopoly board game.

Microsoft can get this deal, but also buy up Take Two, Ubisoft and SEGA.

Sony get EA, Capcom, Square, CDPR, WB.

Nintendo can get THQ Nordic.

There. Everyone is happy.
 

proandrad

Member
Fuck it. Easy way to fix this.

Let's just treat this like the monopoly board game.

Microsoft can get this deal, but also buy up Take Two, Ubisoft and SEGA.

Sony get EA, Capcom, Square, CDPR, WB.

Nintendo can get THQ Nordic.

There. Everyone is happy.
EA doesn’t even want EA.
 

zzill3

Banned
The problem is that your reasons amount to a pack of nonsense.

And yet every one of them is true 🤔

That's a long-winded way of saying, "I'm for it when Xbox does it, but against it when PlayStation does it, but I'm totally not a warrior or anything."

I said later on that if the positions were reversed I’d support Sony over MS.
My issue is with the market practices of the company, not the name of them. When it’s cheaper to play those games on Playstation, and they’re day one on PC and the consoles subscription service, I’ll switch to Sony.
 
Correction: I support corporate consolidation that doesn’t have negative effects on consumers or the industry.
Even without those hypothetical acquisitions Sony have the most expensive consoles already, even before they recently increased prices, do not offer their games day one on their subscription service, and take at least 6 months to port them to PC.
In comparison, Microsoft are well away from the top of the market, so this acquisition is about having a stronger competitor to first place, rather than a stronger first place at the expense of second and third. That is increased competition in the market.
MS have cheaper consoles, offer their games day one on their subscription service and PC.

Xbox consoles / gamepass is the cheapest, best value way to play games this generation, and we should allow that service to improve. The same can not be said for Playstation.



Ok, Sony and Google then.
There’s a reason why only Sony and Google oppose the deal, and everyone else either doesn’t care or wants it to go through.
Why do you think the union body representing industry workers wants it to go ahead?
Why do you think no other companies have made a fuss?

It is going to have negative effects on the industry, you just can't see them yet. Short term gain (free games on Gamepass herpy derp) for long term loss (netflixing the industry). There's a reason why Microsoft is 2nd place and far away from the golden era of Xbox 360. It was their own anti consumer policies that left bad tastes in everyone's mouth - remember Xbox One announcement? It says A LOT that the Xbox Series S can be had for $200-250 this black friday yet people would still rather buy the almost $600 bundled PS5. Also says a lot that even the "best value to play games this generation" doesn't seem to sway the consumer at all. This is Microsoft's own doing. Also how can you even trust the heads of Xbox are competent? The Series X, with all its bells and whistles, performs worse for multiplatform games compared to PS5 (contrast to Xbox 360). Have you seen what happened to 343/Halo under Microsoft leadership? Such a big brand is irrelevant at this point.

Phil Spencer is just running to his dad Satya Nadella for a big check to fix his mess...
 
According to FTC:


This falls under the category of "attempt to monopolize," especially in the cloud gaming sector. Hence, all the resistance by regulatory bodies.

And as I pointed out earlier, "we have 23 studios, 4 more than our competitors, but we want 32 studios against 19 so we can compete better with first-party exclusive games" is not a legitimate business justification.
I think part of the problem is with exactly how people define "attempting to monopolize".

While some might see acquiring ABK as doing so. Others might not see it as trying to monopolize the market. If MS were to try and acquire Sony or Nintendo, then yeah that would definitely be a case of them attempting to be a monopoly. But ABK? I just don't see it.

Your suggestion that 23 studios is fine, but that 32 is monopoly territory only further explains why some see this situation as placating to Sony. Why should the number of 1st party studios MS is able to own be dictated by what Sony decides it should be? There was a point last gen when Sony owned far more studios than MS. Is there a certain amount of 3rd party exclusive deals that constitutes a monopoly?
 
Xbox consoles / gamepass is the cheapest, best value way to play games this generation, and we should allow that service to improve. The same can not be said for Playstation.

Very eloquently put, I know others feel different but that's my take too mate.

Google/Alphabet having opposition to any acquisition or competition is fucking hilarious :messenger_tears_of_joy:
Google complaining about competition, they really are MS pre-2000 old school playbook junkies.

 
Last edited:

zzill3

Banned
It is going to have negative effects on the industry, you just can't see them yet. Short term gain (free games on Gamepass herpy derp) for long term loss (netflixing the industry).

Netflix isn’t bad though. It became and remains popular because it provides a service that people want.

There's a reason why Microsoft is 2nd place and far away from the golden era of Xbox 360. It was their own anti consumer policies that left bad tastes in everyone's mouth - remember Xbox One announcement? It says A LOT that the Xbox Series S can be had for $200-250 this black friday yet people would still rather buy the almost $600 bundled PS5. Also says a lot that even the "best value to play games this generation" doesn't seem to sway the consumer at all. This is Microsoft's own doing. Also how can you even trust the heads of Xbox are competent? The Series X, with all its bells and whistles, performs worse for multiplatform games compared to PS5 (contrast to Xbox 360). Have you seen what happened to 343/Halo under Microsoft leadership? Such a big brand is irrelevant at this point.

Phil Spencer is just running to his dad Satya Nadella for a big check to fix his mess...

True as all that is, none of it is a reason to stop Microsoft acquiring ABK.
 
It is going to have negative effects on the industry, you just can't see them yet. Short term gain (free games on Gamepass herpy derp) for long term loss (netflixing the industry). There's a reason why Microsoft is 2nd place and far away from the golden era of Xbox 360. It was their own anti consumer policies that left bad tastes in everyone's mouth - remember Xbox One announcement? It says A LOT that the Xbox Series S can be had for $200-250 this black friday yet people would still rather buy the almost $600 bundled PS5. Also says a lot that even the "best value to play games this generation" doesn't seem to sway the consumer at all. This is Microsoft's own doing. Also how can you even trust the heads of Xbox are competent? The Series X, with all its bells and whistles, performs worse for multiplatform games compared to PS5 (contrast to Xbox 360). Have you seen what happened to 343/Halo under Microsoft leadership? Such a big brand is irrelevant at this point.

Phil Spencer is just running to his dad Satya Nadella for a big check to fix his mess...
People in that sales thread certainly didn't claim MS was in 2nd place. When did they overtake Nintendo in console sales?
 

zzill3

Banned
IMO Netflix is more about quantity than Quality.

That’s gaming as a whole really isn’t it? Have a look at the numbers of games with reviews averaging <80% and there’s an awful lot more of them than those averaging 80 or more.

That’s not just something that happened after game pass got invented, it’s always been the case. Those games now being available on game pass doesn’t change anything.

Despite that, great games will not stop being made, just like great movies and tv shows haven’t stopped being made.
 

Marvel14

Member
😂Nice.

Just remember how this discussion played out. That way the next time you try and pretend you know what you're talking about, someone else won't have to make you look like such an idiot.

Or... You can keep that pic handy and pull it out whenever you're feeling stupid if it makes you feel better.
I'm an economist with a postgraduate degree you silly little thing..stop embarassing yourself. You can write all you want with all the confidence you want but you don't know what you're talking about. Anyone with a background in economics can see that from our exchanges. I couldn't be bothered to respond again when it was so clear that you're talking out of your ass.

You'll notice i responded properly to other people on your side of the argument who actually had substance to contribute.


When you start throwing personal insults it's a sure sign you've lost the argument. It's all you've got left.
 
Last edited:

OsirisBlack

Member
I honestly don't think this makes any sense. If you look at the lead Netflix had with like 220 million subscribers, all you see is more streaming services starting up. PS and Nintendo can also have streaming services if they want.

In fact MS starting GP is pushing the others to adapt and giving PS gamers better deals on PS Extra. That's the "increasing competition" part. Sony was on record saying it was impossible. Then due to increased competition, changed their mind within a year and restructured PS+. Consumers on PS were the winners. PS was on record saying backwards compatibility is worthless, and a year later you have PS Premium.
Comparing this situation to Netflix is silly, Netflix bought up timed rights to other studios' content. Not the entire studios themselves. You would be thinking along the lines of if Netflix had bought major studios (think MGM, Warner Bros they could afford both) to prevent other streaming services from getting their films. Yes, Netflix has the capital to do so they just aren't as arrogant as Microsoft. Honestly, I'm glad you brought that up it's something that I hadn't considered. If MS is allowed to do this, seeing as video games are considered a submarket of the Media and Entertainment market, this could potentially set up some nasty consolidation in the future.
 

Gavon West

Member
Comparing this situation to Netflix is silly, Netflix bought up timed rights to other studios' content. Not the entire studios themselves. You would be thinking along the lines of if Netflix had bought major studios (think MGM, Warner Bros they could afford both) to prevent other streaming services from getting their films. Yes, Netflix has the capital to do so they just aren't as arrogant as Microsoft. Honestly, I'm glad you brought that up it's something that I hadn't considered. If MS is allowed to do this, seeing as video games are considered a submarket of the Media and Entertainment market, this could potentially set up some nasty consolidation in the future.
So because there is no real argument to be made currently about the merger (other than, "Sony can't. So, Microsoft can't either) we'll just leap on the hypothetical bandwagon and DREAM UP reasons why this merger shouldn't go through.

This is GaF. So, that tracks I guess ...
 
Last edited:
So because there is no real argument to be made currently about the merger (other than, "Sony can't. So, Microsoft can't either) we'll just leap on the hypothetical bandwagon and DREAM UP reasons why this merger shouldn't go through.

This is GaF. So, that tracks I guess ...
Pretty much every argument against the deal is a hypothetical, fantasy land argument from Nintendo not being a competitor, to Game pass being in a separate market from retail, to the XSS being a high performance console. People don't like the idea of MS doing anything more than what they did last generation. I just hope the deal gets put in front of a judge and let the deal get matched to actual law to see if any rules are actually broken. If MS is breaking the law drop the hammer if not let them make the purchase.
 

OsirisBlack

Member
So because there is no real argument to be made currently about the merger (other than, "Sony can't. So, Microsoft can't either) we'll just leap on the hypothetical bandwagon and DREAM UP reasons why this merger shouldn't go through.

This is GaF. So, that tracks I guess ...

Again this has absolutely nothing to do with Sony who I didn't even name in my example. Sheesh forget about either console for a minute and think critically. Do me a favor and look up the word precedent.

Before this single acquisition, this example doesn't exist outside of Disney. Who should have been stopped right before or after the ESPN or Lucasfilm buyout depending on how you want to look at it. I do not care how hard you try to argue for it this is not good for business or competition. And we aren't talking about Microsoft or Sony we are talking about business.

If you think it's hypothetical that after this PRECEDENT is set other companies will not follow suit then you know absolutely nothing about how actual business works.
 
I think part of the problem is with exactly how people define "attempting to monopolize".

While some might see acquiring ABK as doing so. Others might not see it as trying to monopolize the market. If MS were to try and acquire Sony or Nintendo, then yeah that would definitely be a case of them attempting to be a monopoly. But ABK? I just don't see it.

Your suggestion that 23 studios is fine, but that 32 is monopoly territory only further explains why some see this situation as placating to Sony. Why should the number of 1st party studios MS is able to own be dictated by what Sony decides it should be? There was a point last gen when Sony owned far more studios than MS. Is there a certain amount of 3rd party exclusive deals that constitutes a monopoly?
1. I didn't say that 32 studios will constitute a monopoly. MS's argument is that they need to acquire ABK to increase competition against PlayStation and Nintendo. My question is why do they need to have 32 studios to compete against PS when they already have 4 more studios than them?

2. Sony had more studios at one point, true, but (1) those were not acquired in this fashion so that was never an attempt to monopolize that regulatory bodies would look into, and (2) the disparity in number of studios was also such because Xbox had closed a few of their own studios.
 

graywolf323

Member
1. I didn't say that 32 studios will constitute a monopoly. MS's argument is that they need to acquire ABK to increase competition against PlayStation and Nintendo. My question is why do they need to have 32 studios to compete against PS when they already have 4 more studios than them?

2. Sony had more studios at one point, true, but (1) those were not acquired in this fashion so that was never an attempt to monopolize that regulatory bodies would look into, and (2) the disparity in number of studios was also such because Xbox had closed a few of their own studios.
that’s what I don’t understand about the whole “Xbox only had 5 first-party studios” claim from some on here, they were down to 5 because they closed several studios not because they’ve never had more than 5 until 2018, that’s why you didn’t hear complaints when they went on their initial buying streak of developers to staff up finally

it’s astounding to me the cognitive dissonance that must be required to claim that buying publishers is good while Sony inking third-party timed exclusives is bad
 

Swift_Star

Banned
Correction: I support corporate consolidation that doesn’t have negative effects on consumers or the industry.
Even without those hypothetical acquisitions Sony have the most expensive consoles already, even before they recently increased prices, do not offer their games day one on their subscription service, and take at least 6 months to port them to PC.
In comparison, Microsoft are well away from the top of the market, so this acquisition is about having a stronger competitor to first place, rather than a stronger first place at the expense of second and third. That is increased competition in the market.
MS have cheaper consoles, offer their games day one on their subscription service and PC.

Xbox consoles / gamepass is the cheapest, best value way to play games this generation, and we should allow that service to improve. The same can not be said for Playstation.



Ok, Sony and Google then.
There’s a reason why only Sony and Google oppose the deal, and everyone else either doesn’t care or wants it to go through.
Why do you think the union body representing industry workers wants it to go ahead?
Why do you think no other companies have made a fuss?
This reply:
spin turn GIF by New York City Ballet
 

Swift_Star

Banned
So because there is no real argument to be made currently about the merger (other than, "Sony can't. So, Microsoft can't either) we'll just leap on the hypothetical bandwagon and DREAM UP reasons why this merger shouldn't go through.

This is GaF. So, that tracks I guess ...
There are a lot of real arguments to be made against the merger. That's why people are making them. You're just disingenuous which is not surprising.
 
You mean like how Sony has gotten more exclusives and releases out of zenimax since Microsoft has purchased them than Microsoft?
Zenimax where fullfilling contracts for those games that they had with Sony before MS where trying to buy them. You dont have to be Einstein to figger this out for your self.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom