-
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.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
ChorizoPicozo
Member
This acquisition is the biggest deal in gaming history.
feynoob
Member
Just your regular hour, nothing else.
gothmog
Gold Member
As long as we continue getting great BC support it will always be every generation is better than the last. The latest consoles make last gen's games better pretty much across the board.I hear that every generation
You used to play games based on what you had. Now you can basically say "what do I want to play?" and have most of the games at your fingertips for a low cost.
oldergamer
Member
That's pure nonsense! Of course they are an affected party.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Uhhh they are what is known as the "notifying parties" What they have to say is absolutely relevant in any discussion related to regulatory approval. Microsoft doesn't have sole say so because Microsoft does not yet own Activision Blizzard. So if Activision Blizzard wants to take a more combative approach with the FTC or any other regulatory body than what Microsoft has shown itself willing to thus far (I don't think I've exactly seen such evidence to be honest), Activision Blizzard has every right to do exactly that.
Activision Blizzard has as much say so in the process and as a market competitor as Microsoft does. They are almost certainly a party whose opinion and views relating to this transaction are certainly relevant to the market and the competitive landscape, which is why whenever merging parties submit their documentation, they don't just take documentation from Microsoft alone, but from Activision Blizzard King as well.
Last edited:
IFireflyl
Gold Member
Satya to phil, if the deal fails
Dude. Wrap this in a spoiler tag! I haven't played God of War: Ragnarok yet.
feynoob
Member
done.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
The way I've seen people talk about Nintendo online since the Wii, it's always been "they're in their own lane" and aren't competing with Sony & Nintendo i.e by providing a similar high-performance gaming platform. Which is technically true.
But it's also true that, especially given the drift of many 7th-gen gamers towards mobile, that Nintendo, Sony & Microsoft are competing for some crossover of the same gaming audience, even if Nintendo's competing for a smaller share of that crossover in demographics that Sony & Microsoft do.
Yeah all three have made acquisitions, but the reasoning behind them is what really matters. Sony acquired Psygnosis to get a head start as a platform holder, buff their flediging Sony Imagesoft game publishing label, and get good SDK tech. All of that was to get PS off its feet and once it did, they didn't make any further publisher acquisitions until decades later. Nintendo acquired Retro to fill in a void left after selling their shares in Rare (and then Microsoft acquiring Rare). Other than that, though, they've acquired very few if any developers, let alone publishers.
Microsoft's already gone through this acquisition game in the past, when they bought Rare, Bungie etc. But the reason they're trying to buy publishers now is 1: the false idea that GamePass needs "constant content" that somehow can't already be made with the 23 studios MS already own and 2: to address Microsoft's own decision failures with Xbox in terms of management over the past two decades.
Okay but here's the problem: the landscape would only be "shifting" because Microsoft purchased companies to do it. They did not actually earn it through the virtue of what product was provided to end customers to purchase, and in fact them buying publishes may not even bring the shift in the market you think because what that really does is just increase MS's gaming revenue.
It doesn't guarantee console sales increase, or that game sales increase, either. It doesn't guarantee a larger install base, even. Which I guess are things MS could use in their defense in debates with regulators, but I digress.
I doubt Embracer wants to sell any of those teams, considering they already have deals with companies like Amazon to publish the upcoming Tomb Raider game. Plus, MS don't really need those IPs; they're already using Indiana Jones, and have enough sci-fi WRPGs between Fallout, Starfield, and Outer Worlds. I strongly doubt the EU would allow MS to buy CDPR, considering CDPR are one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) games publisher in Europe. Simply divesting GOG would do nothing because MS would also have to sell off the IP rights CDPR acquired for GOG to help it remain relevant, and if you yourself are saying they are buying publishers to also acquire IP (which I would say borders patent trolling), then they won't do it.
Certain Affinity, though, I can see them acquiring. It makes sense from a history POV so I don't see why not. Avalanche could possibly be another, though since they make the Just Cause games if MS were to do that and heavily push that series, it probably opens up Sony to have a lot more leverage with Ubisoft over the Far Cry games going forward.
And what's so different between that and the current console model that already exists? Consoles need regular big releases too, else they can stagnate in sales. We've seen that happen in the past and we're already starting to see it with Xbox this generation.
That said, we don't see the excuse that Sony, Nintendo or even Microsoft need to buy up tons of developers & publishers to "feed the beast" that is a games console with regular new content, why is that? Is it because the direct sales model has proven itself time and again whereas the subscription model still struggles to prove it can provide even a fraction of that type of revenue & profit for 3P devs & pubs?
If so, and the answer for MS is to just buy up those companies, then how is that proving the subscription model actually works? If anything, it would prove the opposite. The service existing on its own should be attractive enough to make 3P devs & pubs want to bring their content to it Day 1, but it clearly isn't. They either need financial incentives or wait until some months or years later to bring those games to services.
I wouldn't toot that horn just yet. Going off some recent discussions on sales numbers (including figures from Microsoft themselves), I wouldn't be surprised if actual sold-through sales for Xbox Series by the end of the year is under 16 million. Which would be tracking ahead of the 360, but...actually tracking behind the XBO (18 million "activated" by January 2016, 26 months after its launch).
That might be a reason we haven't gotten any PR from Microsoft about Series outpacing 360 & XBO for the second half of the year. Even if they stopped winning NPDs, I would think they would want to signal they're still tracking ahead of XBO just as a sign of confidence to the market and shareholders, but they haven't done that. Instead they've given out relative sales figures (in statements intended for regulators) that when combined with other credible sources and realistic sales trends/rates, probably put Xbox 2 or so million behind XBO at this point. (> 16 million vs 18 million).
Just my opinion, but I'm pretty confident about that estimate.
So why can't they do this by the service just providing value naturally and 3P devs/pubs staying independent while choosing to bring their games to the service Day 1 of their own volition?
Which of these two answers sounds more believable: that Sony are somehow preventing ALL 3P companies from putting ALL of their big games (even games Sony have no co-funding, co-marketing or co-development partnerships with) Day 1, or...the majority of 3P companies simply not seeing the value of doing Day 1 in GP worth it when they get a lot more through direct sales of their games?
The only Japanese publisher they have any realistic chance of picking up is Sega, and even that will come with some contention because Sega & Nintendo have a pretty strong relationship plus the Sonic games sell the most on Nintendo systems these days by a big margin. So some of the resistance people think Sony are being petty for with the ABK deal, they would see a fair bit of that from Nintendo if MS were to try acquiring say Sega.
A 10-year deal for Sonic on Nintendo platforms means nothing if Nintendo thinks those same Sonic games going Day 1 in GamePass would hurt their revenue off global sales of the games on their platform. And that's even aside the fact Xbox is insignificant in Japan compared to Nintendo or Sony (this also exposes the hypocrisy in some of the fandom arguments because they either have to admit MS are insignificant in Japan (and accept all of what that comes with) and have no means to grow there, or are growing in Japan and want to expand massively (which would put them in direct contention with not just Sony but Nintendo as well in that same market)).
Where was this care of commitment from Microsoft when it came to Halo? To Rare? To Lionhead? To Bizarre Creations? To Crackdown?
The reason Minecraft is well off is because Mojang pretty much do their own thing 100%. MS is just there to get the money. ABK, according to MS, would act as a branch of Microsoft Gaming, reporting under Phil Spencer. Mojang is not arranged the same way within the Xbox division.
It's not about Microsoft's market share in those specific segments so much as Microsoft as a total entity within the tech market and how that can be leveraged in ways other companies cannot realistically compete with. We are already seeing that with the ABK acquisition: it is being entirely funded by money MS generated through non-gaming markets, because Xbox as a division has never generated $69 billion worth of net profit, is not valued near that amount, and could not generate that much in net profit even in 10 years of record net profit.
Microsoft having little presence in mobile gaming, or "last place" in console gaming doesn't mean much considering the reasons MS have found themselves in these positions up to this point, are because of bad business decisions and bad brand management. Acquiring companies in and of itself won't address those problems. Also if something like COD isn't needed to compete at a high level...why are MS looking to acquire it? And why do people say they would be unwilling to divest it into its own company, if that would help ensure they could actually get everything besides it (and still retain partial ownership of COD through said new company)?
You can't say something like COD or the various IP ABK have are "not needed" on one hand, then ignore the reason MS are trying to acquire them in the first place on the other.
Those wouldn't be native versions though, just streamed versions. And let's be real: how many people even want to play COD via streaming? Why would they? How many people are playing Fortnite via xCloud (it's not many)? If COD on Linux, MacOS etc. were acceptable through cloud streaming, why did MS offer a 10-year deal to Nintendo for (I'm assuming) native builds of new CODs on Nintendo systems?
Aren't Nintendo's systems even weaker than a lot of PCs running Linux and MacOS? I'd think cloud streaming would be more feasible on a Nintendo system than those platforms. And why would Microsoft make native versions of COD for Switch, yet not do so for competing PC OSes?
The question is what would happen to those after they expire if MS own ABK by then.
Nah. ABK should sell to Newgrounds then; they'd be able to provide COD for free! Since everything else on Newgrounds is free, after all. You don't even need to pay a subscription fee, so it's actually legit free!!
Okay but how many players has that actually generated? Like you said, GP is already on a lot of devices via cloud streaming yet...growth has stagnated? This soon, already? They're on more devices than ever but at most have only gained 4 million subs over the year? And there's word they've actually gained less!
Theoretically it may benefit customers but in reality it seems like most customers don't care for it. In the event getting ABK games in Day 1 wouldn't drive actual sub counts magnitudes higher, it could be argued that the theoretical benefit of having GP on so many devices is just that: theoretical. And therefore, a waste in resources and company ownership.
Bro they're already increasing the cost of their games to $70 next year, if GamePass led to more game sales, why would they need to increase the games to $70 when they could just sell more at $60 instead? At least Sony have never made an argument that PS+ or PS Now increased game sales; for them moving to $70 was partly to account for inflation and rising production costs, and partly to generate more revenue.
Which is a very corporate thing to do, but at least it's upfront. MS have a new ad-based GP model coming next year; if they want to push revenue from game sales more, and they've already raised prices to $70, then they will likely increase the cost of the GP service overall, next.
But ABK already started bringing the games back to Steam while not being owned by MS.
I meant outside of examples like Obsidian.
Bleeding Edge died in less than a year. Psychonauts 2 was mostly finished before MS acquired Double Fine, but they did help fund for some additional content (which DF could have technically gotten through another round of crowdfunding but, anyway). We've seen nothing from inXile's game despite getting a CG trailer over 2 years ago. Turn 10 only recently got that freedom after 15 years of sticking to the same Forza formula.
Rare need all the time in the world & a miracle to save Everwild from development hell. Playground wee only able to work on a different MS IP after being acquired, and may be a bit over their head with Fable. Project Mara is seemingly still a tech demo and Hellblade II is taking longer to come out than sequels of AAA games with prior entries released AFTER the first Hellblade.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
The whole saga with Perfect Dark is a miasma of development mistakes mostly stemming from lack of team cohesion, focus, and timeliness. It's also a particular stain considering The Initiative were MS's first 1P team built from the ground-up since 343i.
Maybe not the best example.
Again, it comes down to the fact that for Microsoft to have these equivalents, they are displaying to the world they lacked the leadership and talent to create it (given how long they have been a platform holder). Instead they had to buy other companies who have already put in the hard work, and just profit off of that hard work.
Buying things that can essentially run & manage themselves, doesn't prove anything to the degree of Microsoft addressing core issues with upper management and decisions within the Xbox division. Which continues to feed into the issue many have with them making these types of gaming acquisitions in the first place.
If these aspects are so important for Microsoft in the deal, why aren't their legal team arguing these points as primary reasons for pursuing the acquisition? Either they aren't that important in the grand scheme of things, or MS's representatives are too dumb to focus on these particular aspects of the purchase. They may draw as many eyeballs or attention/headlines as hinging the discussion around COD or King, but wouldn't it fit better with their company theme of "empowering creators" through the backend of things, something they've been pushing as a company since 2014?
Ironically I think we're making better argument for them than their own legal team
Then the problem for Microsoft becomes the perception in them suddenly needing all of these publishers for things a company with better management in the gaming field would have gradually been implementing at a more measured pace since before even becoming a platform holder. That's part of where the whole "organic" talk even comes from: there being enough passage of time to where things feel like a natural evolution, something Sony & Nintendo have been able to benefit from, rather than a mad dash to buy your way to solutions for decades of mistakes the way it feels with Microsoft.
So the actual rationale in MS's decisions may make sense from one POV, but the reaction they're getting from a lot of people in the market is both natural and expected because of how sudden these actions are, especially in relation to one another. The things you've just mentioned as benefits with Sony for example, was the Zenimax purchase from Microsoft finalized literally last year not for a lot of the same things? iD's Origin cloud tech, the various other tech (iD engine, etc.), Zenimax's OWN mobile studio in Roundhouse...that you're saying Microsoft are buying ABK for now?
Sounds to me most of this resouces/tech/support issue was already supposed to have been solved with Zenimax's acquisition, so Microsoft should technically have enough to compete with by now on that front for console, mobile and recognizable IP (DOOM, Quake, Wolfenstein, Fallout, Elder Scrolls etc.). That actually makes the claims the ABK acquisition are for "competition" a lot more questionable the more I think about it :/.
Yes. Funding of MS money earned from divisions other than Xbox. The same non-Xbox money that's being leveraged to make the acquisition in the first place. Thought it was worth repeating.
Affordable for whom, Microsoft? I thought Microsoft had infinite money, why do they suddenly need to worry about saving $5 million or so on a project with CD through Embracer? You mean to tell me MS have enough to sink in $69 billion for ABK, but won't have enough to spare an extra $5 million working with Crystal Dynamics through a 3P group unless MS acquired Crystal Dynamics from said 3P company?
See this is where all the often-hypocritical narratives from some folks constantly looking to back up support for any MS Xbox-related action start to make the meta narrative look silly.
We're still waiting to see this manifest in a new gaming product on store shelves, however. Otherwise, this is still just theory tests turned into experiments in gaming labs.
I see your point WRT Sony and acquiring support studios in Nixxes, but that's just it: Nixxes was SOLELY a support studio. They owned no IP, developed nor published any games. Plus, Microsoft were already handling builds of their games to PC internally well before Sony purchased Nixxes; their development of GDK further helps with that process internally. If Microsoft felt they needed an internal support studio, why didn't they feel this need back in 2015? Why didn't they acquire Nixxes at that time? Why do they only identify that need in 2022 and why do they need the single largest 3P publisher in order to satisfy the need?
That's actually all really good to hear but again it's creating a contradiction. Reading that it sounds to me MS already have that cross-pollination of studio resources & talent set up pretty well, right? Looks like they have all that going for them already just off the Zenimax acquisition. Oh and don't forget, they have a mobile-centric developer through that in Roundhouse.
So...why do they suddenly need ABK again for resources & a mobile footprint that they already otherwise technically have?
...
HoofHearted
Member
The whole saga with Perfect Dark is a miasma of development mistakes mostly stemming from lack of team cohesion, focus, and timeliness. It's also a particular stain considering The Initiative were MS's first 1P team built from the ground-up since 343i.
Maybe not the best example.
Again, it comes down to the fact that for Microsoft to have these equivalents, they are displaying to the world they lacked the leadership and talent to create it (given how long they have been a platform holder). Instead they had to buy other companies who have already put in the hard work, and just profit off of that hard work.
Buying things that can essentially run & manage themselves, doesn't prove anything to the degree of Microsoft addressing core issues with upper management and decisions within the Xbox division. Which continues to feed into the issue many have with them making these types of gaming acquisitions in the first place.
If these aspects are so important for Microsoft in the deal, why aren't their legal team arguing these points as primary reasons for pursuing the acquisition? Either they aren't that important in the grand scheme of things, or MS's representatives are too dumb to focus on these particular aspects of the purchase. They may draw as many eyeballs or attention/headlines as hinging the discussion around COD or King, but wouldn't it fit better with their company theme of "empowering creators" through the backend of things, something they've been pushing as a company since 2014?
Ironically I think we're making better argument for them than their own legal team
Then the problem for Microsoft becomes the perception in them suddenly needing all of these publishers for things a company with better management in the gaming field would have gradually been implementing at a more measured pace since before even becoming a platform holder. That's part of where the whole "organic" talk even comes from: there being enough passage of time to where things feel like a natural evolution, something Sony & Nintendo have been able to benefit from, rather than a mad dash to buy your way to solutions for decades of mistakes the way it feels with Microsoft.
So the actual rationale in MS's decisions may make sense from one POV, but the reaction they're getting from a lot of people in the market is both natural and expected because of how sudden these actions are, especially in relation to one another. The things you've just mentioned as benefits with Sony for example, was the Zenimax purchase from Microsoft finalized literally last year not for a lot of the same things? iD's Origin cloud tech, the various other tech (iD engine, etc.), Zenimax's OWN mobile studio in Roundhouse...that you're saying Microsoft are buying ABK for now?
Sounds to me most of this resouces/tech/support issue was already supposed to have been solved with Zenimax's acquisition, so Microsoft should technically have enough to compete with by now on that front for console, mobile and recognizable IP (DOOM, Quake, Wolfenstein, Fallout, Elder Scrolls etc.). That actually makes the claims the ABK acquisition are for "competition" a lot more questionable the more I think about it :/.
Yes. Funding of MS money earned from divisions other than Xbox. The same non-Xbox money that's being leveraged to make the acquisition in the first place. Thought it was worth repeating.
Affordable for whom, Microsoft? I thought Microsoft had infinite money, why do they suddenly need to worry about saving $5 million or so on a project with CD through Embracer? You mean to tell me MS have enough to sink in $69 billion for ABK, but won't have enough to spare an extra $5 million working with Crystal Dynamics through a 3P group unless MS acquired Crystal Dynamics from said 3P company?
See this is where all the often-hypocritical narratives from some folks constantly looking to back up support for any MS Xbox-related action start to make the meta narrative look silly.
We're still waiting to see this manifest in a new gaming product on store shelves, however. Otherwise, this is still just theory tests turned into experiments in gaming labs.
I see your point WRT Sony and acquiring support studios in Nixxes, but that's just it: Nixxes was SOLELY a support studio. They owned no IP, developed nor published any games. Plus, Microsoft were already handling builds of their games to PC internally well before Sony purchased Nixxes; their development of GDK further helps with that process internally. If Microsoft felt they needed an internal support studio, why didn't they feel this need back in 2015? Why didn't they acquire Nixxes at that time? Why do they only identify that need in 2022 and why do they need the single largest 3P publisher in order to satisfy the need?
That's actually all really good to hear but again it's creating a contradiction. Reading that it sounds to me MS already have that cross-pollination of studio resources & talent set up pretty well, right? Looks like they have all that going for them already just off the Zenimax acquisition. Oh and don't forget, they have a mobile-centric developer through that in Roundhouse.
So...why do they suddenly need ABK again for resources & a mobile footprint that they already otherwise technically have?
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
That was my Christmas present, just for you lads 
feynoob
Member
That was my Christmas present, just for you lads
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Legend says
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
's posts are the second thing you can see from the moon, after the great wall of China.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
's posts are the second thing you can see from the moon, after the great wall of China.
GHG
Member
That was my Christmas present, just for you lads
I just see your avatars when you post most of the time, nothing else.
just kidding, depends on what mood I'm in 
SenjutsuSage
Banned
If these aspects are so important for Microsoft in the deal, why aren't their legal team arguing these points as primary reasons for pursuing the acquisition? Either they aren't that important in the grand scheme of things, or MS's representatives are too dumb to focus on these particular aspects of the purchase. They may draw as many eyeballs or attention/headlines as hinging the discussion around COD or King, but wouldn't it fit better with their company theme of "empowering creators" through the backend of things, something they've been pushing as a company since 2014?
Ironically I think we're making better argument for them than their own legal team
Can't respond to all of it yet, but the backend game development part is of no interest to the regulators, which is why it makes no sense for Microsoft to make the argument. Regulators only care about how it impacts overall competition, consumers, and the markets in question, not how much it can improve Microsoft's personal game operation.
Secondly, we have both gone too far. These posts are getting too long hahahaha. It's been a while since I literally laughed out loud at so many people's responses, and I acknowledge my role in its creation lol.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Yeah, we should probably both go to rehab clinics for text addiction for New Year's resolutions.
You just gave me an idea...
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
at this point you two should just get a room and fuck each other.
Topher
Gold Member
GHG
Member
bender
What time is it?
Don't post GIFs of my wife, please.
3liteDragon
Member
All this text on a no-news day...
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
All this text on a no-news day...
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Me, I just plain love to type lol. It's literally why I have one of those cool Razer mechanicals that provides that cool sound reinforcement. Although my new keyboard is much quieter than my previous Razer.
feynoob
Member
You are giving me Déjà vu
Please reboot your system, Thnx.
Topher
Gold Member
I imagine Khan would say Corden is blinded by his devotion to all things Microsoft and ignorance of the law.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
HoofHearted
Member
3liteDragon
Member
They're getting more & more desperate.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
And yet it is working as people are posting it here thus increasing his visibility. It nearly always works like this for these social media chasers - they start out with some slightly out there viewpoint and then they have to double down to keep all the new followers who only showed up for the crazy.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Much easier to call him names over questioning the validity of Lina Khan's claims that the acquisition is illegal. If it is illegal she should have taken it to federal court and got an injunction. Instead she's tried to tie in up in administrative court, a court her board can simply overrule if they lose. I suppose acting like Jez is the problem is easier I suppose.Jezzz going full R rated.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
He even wrote an article about the rumor Jim Ryan's internal e-mail. He is not reporting or doing journalism he has become and active player in this circus.
Is not like Hoeg is writting letters to the CMA or tweeting to Sony or Jim Ryan.
gothmog
Gold Member
What an embarrassment. Imagine being a trillion dollar corporation and having this clown represent you. I'd C&D his ass.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Me: "Type a response to Senjuts..."
ChatGPT: "The GAF guy?! I know who he is. I got it, fam."
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
FTC has a higher win ratio in the administrative court. That's why they took the case there.
It's their jurisdiction, and they can do sue MS however they want.
Cheezewizz
Banned
True.
But to be fair, their administrative court doesn't really have any authority either. Microsoft could close the deal on Activision at any point before, during, or after the administration court trial.
So while they can indeed sue MS however they want. Doing so the way they have means MS can do whatever they want.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
The FTC can 'win' in administrative court because they can overrule the verdict. If it is about protection of US consumers go to federal court and permanently shut it down with the power of judiciary. The administrative court makes this purely political. I'm sure it was just coincidental that they chose a process whose outcome they can directly control.
This is an important point as well. Nothing the FTC has done will actually prevent MS from concluding their nefarious activities. We are talking about illegal MS activities, administrative court will not protect US consumers.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
The general consensus/impression is that the FTC will file an injunction in the federal court when the completion date draws near.
MS can't close the deal before that anyway, because the regulators across the world (including the FTC) have to approve it first. So it really is up to the FTC. They know when they'll approve it (or not), and when exactly they can file in the Federal court.
It's stretching to 2024, at least, anyway, unless Microsoft makes huge concessions and eliminates regulators' concerns. So lots of time for everything.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Also, this quote by the FTC is excellent and should address some posters' concerns:
A few posters here argue why doesn't the FTC look into Sony's level of market share and why the FTC is protecting Sony. This quote answers those questions.
The FTC is not concerned if a company, through in-house pedigree, talent, and efforts, reaches the top. Why would anyone stop that rise? By the end of the PS3 generation, the console market share was equal: 84 million (Xbox 360) vs. 87 million (PS3).
By the end of the PS4 generation, Sony was outselling Xbox One by a ratio of more than 2.10. PlayStation bought no multiplatform publishers or IPs during that period. It was all done in-house.
Microsoft is trying to lessen competition and reach the top through mergers and acquisitions. And that -- as highlighted by the quote -- must be stopped according to the law.
A few posters here argue why doesn't the FTC look into Sony's level of market share and why the FTC is protecting Sony. This quote answers those questions.
The FTC is not concerned if a company, through in-house pedigree, talent, and efforts, reaches the top. Why would anyone stop that rise? By the end of the PS3 generation, the console market share was equal: 84 million (Xbox 360) vs. 87 million (PS3).
By the end of the PS4 generation, Sony was outselling Xbox One by a ratio of more than 2.10. PlayStation bought no multiplatform publishers or IPs during that period. It was all done in-house.
Microsoft is trying to lessen competition and reach the top through mergers and acquisitions. And that -- as highlighted by the quote -- must be stopped according to the law.
Last edited:
supernova8
Banned
ActiBliz's share price may be impacted (temporarily) but assuming they haven't made any business decisions that are dependent on the deal going through (which they shouldn't, right?) they shouldn't be significantly affected. Like I alluded to, it doesn't look like ActiBliz in any kind of financial trouble whatsoever. It's not like they need this deal to bail them out.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked