Support NeoGAF

[Mibu no ookami]

The judge is a total knob. She absolutely should have recused herself, but she also seems completely out of her depth and some of the absolutely staggering comments she has made really question her ability as a judge.

That being said, this could ultimately go either way, just not for the right reasons (i.e. the framework of law).

Not to be political here, but she is a Biden nominated judge ruling on a major case for a Biden appointed FTC a case with fairly large long term ramifications. Such ramifications potentially having considerable impact on her own career as a Judge. Confident that her future confirmation process or even consideration for higher appointments could be at risk if she is seen as having acted as an enabler for big tech to vertically integrate and monopolize.

Not to mention not recusing herself here when there is a clear conflict of interest is a staggering choice that puts her ethics in question at a time where judicial ethics are under more scrutiny.

That being said it is on the FTC for not requesting her recusal and it will be difficult for them to appeal on those grounds after she disclosed it to no objection by the FTC. That isn't to suggest that they couldn't appeal for other reasons though.

 

[zapper]

I can't find the post, but yesterday I seem to have read that the nintendo witness knew nothing of the deal, of the terms stipulated with microsoft to have cod on nintendo. did I read correctly? can anyone link it?

 

[Elios83]

The judge is a total knob. She absolutely should have recused herself, but she also seems completely out of her depth and some of the absolutely staggering comments she has made really question her ability as a judge.

That being said, this could ultimately go either way, just not for the right reasons (i.e. the framework of law).

Not to be political here, but she is a Biden nominated judge ruling on a major case for a Biden appointed FTC a case with fairly large long term ramifications. Such ramifications potentially having considerable impact on her own career as a Judge. Confident that her future confirmation process or even consideration for higher appointments could be at risk if she is seen as having acted as an enabler for big tech to vertically integrate and monopolize.

Not to mention not recusing herself here when there is a clear conflict of interest is a staggering choice that puts her ethics in question at a time where judicial ethics are under more scrutiny.

That being said it is on the FTC for not requesting her recusal and it will be difficult for them to appeal on those grounds after she disclosed it to no objection by the FTC. That isn't to suggest that they couldn't appeal for other reasons though.

It can go both ways.
It depends on the legal framework of what is needed to get a PI.

FTC has basically proved that the internal goal behind these acquisitions was to damage competitors, they proved that a previous acquisition was handled in an anticompetitive way. And it has become clear that Microsoft would get an unsurmountable lead in cloud and subscriptions with this acquisition.
It also has come out that the terms of the contracts they offered as remedies are all in their favour and both nVidia and Nintendo were not exactly happy, also it has come out that this acquisition is not strictly needed to achieve the positive effects of these contracts.

Where the FTC has failed is to provide a slam dunk proof that the benefits Microsoft would get by foreclosing COD to Playstation on *console* far surpass the financial losses they would incur. This is the reason CMA dropped the console SLC concern basically.

So it will be a difficult decision, just like the judge claimed yesterday by herself (giving her the benefit of the doubt she hasn't already decided).

 

[Heisenberg007]

You seem lost, Banjo. Join the Ambassador program and come into the light

 

[Mibu no ookami]

It can go both ways.
It depends on the legal framework of what is needed to get a PI.

FTC has basically proved that the internal goal behind these acquisitions was to damage competitors, they proved that a previous acquisition was handled in an anticompetitive way. And it has become clear that Microsoft would get an unsurmountable lead in cloud and subscriptions with this acquisition.
It also has come out that the terms of the contracts they offered as remedies are all in their favour and both nVidia and Nintendo were not exactly happy, also it has come out that this acquisition is not strictly needed to achieve the positive effects of these contracts.

Where the FTC has failed is to provide a slam dunk proof that the benefits Microsoft would get by foreclosing COD to Playstation on *console* far surpass the financial losses they would incur. This is the reason CMA dropped the console SLC concern basically.

So it will be a difficult decision, just like the judge claimed yesterday by herself (giving her the benefit of the doubt she hasn't already decided).

The FTC doesn't need to prove their case here, they need the judge to realize that this deal should be blocked until it can be processed in the FTC's trial system. So they shouldn't legally need a slam dunk for an injunction. And you can't prove whether or not Microsoft has the gumption to take a massive L on revenue so they can have gains later, but evidence DOES support they might be willing to do this and much of what regulators have to do is work on possibilities.

This judge who has a clear conflict of interest AND is in over her head on the subject isn't going to come out and say she's biased and already made up her mind. That would just give way to an appeal.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I can't find the post, but yesterday I seem to have read that the nintendo witness knew nothing of the deal, of the terms stipulated with microsoft to have cod on nintendo. did I read correctly? can anyone link it?

That is correct, but not as is. These are two separate things:

1. Nintendo isn't aware of all the details of their Microsoft deal, and they have reservations on the deal.
2. Although Microsoft promised and made the deal, it was revealed that they have not done any financial or strategic analysis about the benefits of deal. This goes against what they claimed previously, i.e., (1) Nintendo deal will bring COD to 150+ million players, (2) it is a pro-competitive deal, and (3) they choose platforms, and their exclusion, after detailed analysis.

 

[GHG]

You seem lost, Banjo. Join the Ambassador program and come into the light

I once was lost but now I am found. Was blind but now I see.

The lord has promised good to me. He will my shield and portion be.

 

[Schmick]

Hw

Her son fucking works for microsoft

Why is the American legal system such a circus of clowns. Isn't any potential conflict of interest the first thing considered.

That is genuinely the most corrupt thing I've read all week... and I'm South African, we basically run on corruption here

One of the first things that was said during the case hearing was the judge explaining that her son works at MS. So it was there, out in the open and the FTC did nothing.

 

[zapper]

The judge is a total knob. She absolutely should have recused herself, but she also seems completely out of her depth and some of the absolutely staggering comments she has made really question her ability as a judge.

That being said, this could ultimately go either way, just not for the right reasons (i.e. the framework of law).

Not to be political here, but she is a Biden nominated judge ruling on a major case for a Biden appointed FTC a case with fairly large long term ramifications. Such ramifications potentially having considerable impact on her own career as a Judge. Confident that her future confirmation process or even consideration for higher appointments could be at risk if she is seen as having acted as an enabler for big tech to vertically integrate and monopolize.

Not to mention not recusing herself here when there is a clear conflict of interest is a staggering choice that puts her ethics in question at a time where judicial ethics are under more scrutiny.

That being said it is on the FTC for not requesting her recusal and it will be difficult for them to appeal on those grounds after she disclosed it to no objection by the FTC. That isn't to suggest that they couldn't appeal for other reasons though.

in fact it would have been appropriate to stop her immediately, same mistake that the cma made with the cat, if you can have an advantage, whatever it is, you have to seize it without hesitation.

the ftc has not done a good job, it has done less than the minimum that anyone who has followed the whole process and the market in recent years could have done and this is embarrassing. however the judge's comments are more so, she proved to be biased (her fault) and that she understood very little of what he was talking about (FTC's fault). it is surreal that to the possibility of foreclosure mentioned by the ftc (with emails from microsoft in which they admit these intentions) she replied "sony does the same", to the possibility of a worsening of competition she replied "we are not here to protect sony ", as if permanently and definitively weakening a competitor doesn't lead to weakening the market (with other internal ms emails in which they openly declare to throw a competitor out of business and to prevent others from competing). at one point she also belittled cod, "all this for a shooter game"... incredible that they didn't answer her adequately, that fucking shooter game has been the best-selling game on the US market for at least 15 years, it has generated 1 billion in revenue in a week with its latest annual release, it's available on mobile and also has an f2p version, both are among the most played games on the planet for years, it generates (I don't remember perfectly) something like 4 billion annually as a brand. all this in the highest-paying entertainment industry that has been growing steadily for decades. but he's right, it's just a shooter game. It is also the only brand in the world that has allowed a company (Activision) to blackmail another to get more advantageous prices.

embarrassing, and it is very little of what could be said

 

[StueyDuck]

One of the first things that was said during the case hearing was the judge explaining that her son works at MS. So it was there, out in the open and the FTC did nothing.

Again South African, open corruption is nothing new to me. The fact it was said means fuck all. Just look at our government.

The second that knowledge became available she shouldn't of been there. There is absolutely a high chance MS sent some trucks of money to the right people to get exactly the judge they wanted on the stand.

This is a 70 billion dollar acquisition, I can't believe the American judicial system can be that stupid

 

[Bernardougf]

One of the first things that was said during the case hearing was the judge explaining that her son works at MS. So it was there, out in the open and the FTC did nothing.

Normally in my shit crountry (not US) the judge has to say if does/dosent have a conflict of interest ... if he/she dosent declare it then the trial will go on anyway and the lawyers can appeal to the higher stance to have the conflict recognized ... at least here the lawyers cant make the judge recognize the conflict

But I have never seen a judge here dont declare the conflict in such obvious case and remove hinself/herself from the trial... it is just absurd.. a son ? Working for the company been sued ? Wtf

And this goes both ways... MS can say that the judge having an obvious conflict would not want that to show and therefore was more inclined to side with the other part ...

Its just fucked up and thats why this kind of obvious conflicts are a No Go right from the start

 

[Darsxx82]

My summary and thoughts after closing arguments:

1- I still don't understand the reason why MS didn't close the arguments too. Decided not to? Or is the procedure simply a 3-person debate and the defender only limits himself to answering the judge and pointing out or answering the accuser? If it's the former, I guess the MS lawyers were happy and didn't want to risk spoiling what they already saw as a favorable situation...

2- The possibility that the judge admits a PI is certainly not going to be supported by a possible console harm. FTC wasted too much time (I'd say 90% of these 5 days) trying to prove this when its chances were nil.

3- Only in the cloudgaming part was there a somewhat more balanced debate. And yet the FTC did not know how to create any weighty argument that demonstrated imminent damage to the consumer or to competitiveness. With the background seen, they should have focused on working more on arguments about the cloudgaming where their main asset was.

4- From what I have seen, my thought is that if the judge admits an IP, of course it will not be because of the work of the FTC lawyers but because of her own conclusions based on the reports, evidence and reasoning regarding cloudgaming.

5- We have to remember one important thing. This is not a final decision, it is not a trial. This is a PI. Proving imminent harm to the consumer was mandatory and by the FTC lawyers it has not been achieved. The judge also has to put on the table the possible irreparable damage of the defenders (MS-ABK) while there is a deadline for the end of the agreement.
I think that may have a weight in her decision as well.
The pressure on her can also influence her decision. The letter from Canada in favor of his FTC colleagues and even the letter accusing her of a possible conflict of interest for his son being an MS employee, casting doubt on his impartiality. She is a person after all.

6- If it were for sensations, my bet would be that the judge will rule in favor of MS. But, as I have said other times, anything that happens in this process will no longer surprise me because the script twists, unexpected events and twists have been constant.

I am clear in one thing, that the verdict in favor of the FTC will mean the end of everything. It does not give the impression that MS and Activision have a plan to extend the agreement if they do not reach a favorable verdict here.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

My summary and thoughts after closing arguments:

1- I still don't understand the reason why MS didn't close the arguments too. Decided not to? Or is the procedure simply a 3-person debate and the defender only limits himself to answering the judge and pointing out or answering the accuser? If it's the former, I guess the MS lawyers were happy and didn't want to risk spoiling what they already saw as a favorable situation...

2- The possibility that the judge admits a PI is certainly not going to be supported by a possible console harm. FTC wasted too much time (I'd say 90% of these 5 days) trying to prove this when its chances were nil.

3- Only in the cloudgaming part was there a somewhat more balanced debate. And yet the FTC did not know how to create any weighty argument that demonstrated imminent damage to the consumer or to competitiveness. With the background seen, they should have focused on working more on arguments about the cloudgaming where their main asset was.

4- From what I have seen, my thought is that if the judge admits an IP, of course it will not be because of the work of the FTC lawyers but because of her own conclusions based on the reports, evidence and reasoning regarding cloudgaming.

5- We have to remember one important thing. This is not a final decision, it is not a trial. This is a PI. Proving imminent harm to the consumer was mandatory and by the FTC lawyers it has not been achieved. The judge also has to put on the table the possible irreparable damage of the defenders (MS-ABK) while there is a deadline for the end of the agreement.
I think that may have a weight in her decision as well.
The pressure on her can also influence her decision. The letter from Canada in favor of his FTC colleagues and even the letter accusing her of a possible conflict of interest for his son being an MS employee, casting doubt on his impartiality. She is a person after all.

6- If it were for sensations, my bet would be that the judge will rule in favor of MS. But, as I have said other times, anything that happens in this process will no longer surprise me because the script twists, unexpected events and twists have been constant.

I am clear in one thing, that the verdict in favor of the FTC will mean the end of everything. It does not give the impression that MS and Activision have a plan to extend the agreement if they do not reach a favorable verdict here.

While not a final trial, this will largely decide the fate of the M&A.

 

[Banjo64]

Normally in my shit crountry (not US) the judge has to say if does/dosent have a conflict of interest ... if he/she dosent declare it then the trial will go on anyway and the lawyers can appeal to the higher stance to have the conflict recognized ... at least here the lawyers cant make the judge recognize the conflict

But I have never seen a judge here dont declare the conflict in such obvious case and remove hinself/herself from the trial... it is just absurd.. a son ? Working for the company been sued ? Wtf

And this goes both ways... MS can say that the judge having an obvious conflict would not want that to show and therefore was more inclined to side with the other part ...

Its just fucked up and thats why this kind of obvious conflicts are a No Go right from the start

Microsoft is a pretty large company and we don’t know what department he works in. If he does admin for $25k a year do we really think MS will expect him to lean on his mother and bend her ear on things he’s not even versed on?

 

[Astray]

Microsoft is a pretty large company and we don’t know what department he works in. If he does admin for $25k a year do we really think MS will expect him to lean on his mother and bend her ear on things he’s not even versed on?

And if she rules against them and they fire him or demote him then he has grounds for the easiest workplace lawsuit ever.

I think the Judge's son is a nothing burger.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

The Judge's desire for Bond is a bigger issue than her son

 

[Bernardougf]

Microsoft is a pretty large company and we don’t know what department he works in. If he does admin for $25k a year do we really think MS will expect him to lean on his mother and bend her ear on things he’s not even versed on?

Thats not how conflicts works ... in conflict of interest the slightest of reasons can be applied as long as the relationship between the judge and the person is close (nothing closer than a son!) .... there is not need for direct involvement or influence for the conflict to exist .. the simple "if I rule this way maybe he will be promoted, or this way and maybe he will be fired" ... and of course the direct reasons are the obvious (promotion, bribery)

 

[Mr.ODST]

Ignore

 

[Elios83]

The FTC doesn't need to prove their case here, they need the judge to realize that this deal should be blocked until it can be processed in the FTC's trial system. So they shouldn't legally need a slam dunk for an injunction. And you can't prove whether or not Microsoft has the gumption to take a massive L on revenue so they can have gains later, but evidence DOES support they might be willing to do this and much of what regulators have to do is work on possibilities.

This judge who has a clear conflict of interest AND is in over her head on the subject isn't going to come out and say she's biased and already made up her mind. That would just give way to an appeal.

It's about what the laws say.
Does the FTC only need to prove that internally they wanted to damage competitors with these acquisitions, that the fact the previous acquisition was handled in an anticompetitive way raises enough doubts about future behaviour and that the probability of them getting an unsurmontable lead in cloud and subscriptions is so high that this acquisition can't be allowed to be closed before a full trial?
In this case FTC has reached their goal.

But it's probably more nuanced than that. The judge will also have to consider that the console market foreclosure theory has not been proved so the need for a PI to protect that specific market from immediate harm is not there. Still all the other (many) points about cloud/subscription/past behaviour are not invalidated at all.

Imo it can go both ways, it depends on what the laws say is needed to grant a PI.
In any case an appeal on the merits of the decision is definetly possibile and from both sides, it is not needed to claim the judge has a conflict of interest (which she has in a mild way).

 

[Banjo64]

Thats not how conflicts works ... in conflict of interest the slightest of reasons can be applied as long as the relationship between the judge and the person is close (nothing closer than a son!) .... there is not need for direct involvement or influence for the conflict to exist .. the simple "if I rule this way maybe he will be promoted, or this way and maybe he will be fired" ... and of course the direct reasons are the obvious (promotion, bribery)

Ok well, I suppose that’s a difference of opinion and not a matter of law.

How slight does the reason have to be? The judge uses Windows and Microsoft Office, is that enough?

 

[Darsxx82]

While not a final trial, this will largely decide the fate of the M&A.

But it will never be final, especially for the FTC who in August could have their chance at trial while the defenders don't or will be seriously damaged. Presumably all this will be in the balance of the Judge when deciding.

Hence the vital importance of proving imminent irreparable harm to the consumer by the FTC lawyers. And personally, I think they've done a lousy job in that regard. Among other things because they have focused 90% on proving a lost cause such as a possible console harm when their research and work should have focused on cloudgaming.

 

[demigod]

I c someone had a meltdown, such bias!

 

[Fabieter]

I feel like alot of people will be emotionally drained when this is over no matter how the deal is going.

 

[Kusarigama]

What happened yesterday? The judge didn't pass judgement or MS won or FTC won?

 

[StueyDuck]

Has the term "nothingburger" become just another console warrior term.

Every time I see it used by gamers its generally to let your favorite company get away with misdemeanors or to stop criticism

 

[Fabieter]

What happened yesterday? The judge didn't pass judgement or MS won or FTC won?

The decision will be made next week.

 

[Elios83]

What happened yesterday? The judge didn't pass judgement or MS won or FTC won?

The hearings ended.
Judgement was never supposed to be delivered yesterday.

About the timing she just stated it won't take her 2 or 3 months.

 

[Elios83]

The decision will be made next week.

Nothing the judge has stated supports that with certainty:

 

[TrebleShot]

SO the decision is just on the FTC lawsuit?
CMA still blocked this.

 

[Fabieter]

Nothing the judge has stated supports that with certainty:

Oh you are right. Still think the decision will come rather sooner than late with the expiring date coming up in twoweeks

 

[Astray]

What happened yesterday? The judge didn't pass judgement or MS won or FTC won?

Hearings finished now the judge will file the order under seal (meaning we won't be hearing about it live, we will see an announcement from either FTC or MS, whoever wins).

Both sides will get to redact her order when it finally comes out as well.

Has the term "nothingburger" become just another console warrior term.

Every time I see it used by gamers its generally to let your favorite company get away with misdemeanors or to stop criticism

I have zero love for Microsoft, but the Judge's son thing kinda reminded me of when people claimed one of the CMA people represented Sony so he was prejudiced.

 

[Fabieter]

Hearings finished now the judge will file the order under seal (meaning we won't be hearing about it live, we will see an announcement from either FTC or MS, whoever wins).

Both sides will get to redact her order when it finally comes out as well.


I have zero love for Microsoft, but the Judge's son thing kinda reminded me of when people claimed one of the CMA people represented Sony so he was prejudiced.

I dont understand how that's even possible with her son. We have a thing in europe called conflict of interest and it would be impossible to be a part of the whole hearing. Isnt it the same in the states?

And if it wasn't known before the hearing the decision would be instantly invalid.

 

[X-Wing]

I dont understand how that's even possible with her son. We have a thing in europe called conflict of interest and it would be impossible to be a part of the whole hearing. Isnt it the same in the states?

And if it wasn't known before the hearing the decision would be instantly invalid.

I mean, you saw senators that received Microsoft money sending letters claiming Sony was anti-competitive and you are surprised with this?

 

[Astray]

I dont understand how that's even possible with her son. We have a thing in europe called conflict of interest and it would be impossible to be a part of the whole hearing. Isnt it the same in the states?

The best practice would have been for the judge to recuse herself on her own.

But the idea that she will definitely rule in Microsoft's favor because of her son is not correct either. She asked MS some seriously hard questions too, especially on Cloud market stuff.

 

[StueyDuck]

Hearings finished now the judge will file the order under seal (meaning we won't be hearing about it live, we will see an announcement from either FTC or MS, whoever wins).

Both sides will get to redact her order when it finally comes out as well.


I have zero love for Microsoft, but the Judge's son thing kinda reminded me of when people claimed one of the CMA people represented Sony so he was prejudiced.

I mean it's literally her family, I don't know what could count as more of a conflict of interest than a direct birthed family member being involved. even if it's just tangential, the fact is it could potentially have influence

 

[Fabieter]

The best practice would have been for the judge to recuse herself on her own.

But the idea that she will definitely rule in Microsoft's favor because of her son is not correct either. She asked MS some seriously hard questions too, especially on Cloud market stuff.

Ofc not but it always will give bad taste in the mouth either way. You can argue she will rule against ms to not get it trouble too. Either way yea she should have stepped back.

 

[DarkBatman]

The best practice would have been for the judge to recuse herself on her own.

But the idea that she will definitely rule in Microsoft's favor because of her son is not correct either. She asked MS some seriously hard questions too, especially on Cloud market stuff.

I'm afraid the only problem is at least a bit of doubt should she decide in favor of Microsoft.
And I don't want to blame her for doing it because of her son... but how is one supposed to know that exactly?

Now, one could say that the FTC could have appealed directly. However, I also think that that would have been a gigantic risk. If they had failed, they would have made a bad impression on the judge.

One thing I'm sure of is that if the judge had had a son at Sony (say, in the movie or TV division), MS warriors would have freaked out and flooded Twitter with accusations and "get her out of court" petitions.

 

[Three]

FTC Lawyers would (should) know the law around this. They did not raise any objection after she "disclosed" the relationship between her son/microsoft to both sides.
Like most things "legalese" it would come down to how FTC lawyers determined "impartiality might reasonably be questioned". I'm sure if there was a chance to get judge to recuse, they would have taken it?

The watchdogs argument seems to be that the judge should have done this as part of her own code of conduct because them pointing out she may not be impartial and she decides not to recuse would have been bad for them.

 

[Bernardougf]

Ok well, I suppose that’s a difference of opinion and not a matter of law.

How slight does the reason have to be? The judge uses Windows and Microsoft Office, is that enough?

So you take from the bolded part is that I said that "the slightest of reasons can be considered conflict of interest" ? ... maybe you should read again and reform your question .. cant answer a question based on something I didnt meant in the first place

 

[Pollux]

This trial really brings to light the issues in Corporate America. The judge flat out asked Bobby Kotick why he would agree to the acquisition if it would lead to value destruction for the industry and activision in particular.

Why? "Because Shareholders". It's better to pay off a select group of individuals than to concern yourself with the long-term health of the business. It is absolutely rancid and toxic to the core. This kind of nonsense is ruining businesses and industries and I really wish there were some laws in place that required executives to only get paid with stock that matures over a VERY long period so they are actually beholden and aligned with the long term health of the business.

Getting the shareholders a short term bailout while the underlying business and rank and file employees suffer over their careers is everything that's wrong with our system these days.

That is literally, the entire fucking point of a corporation. There's an argument to be made that a CEO might be breaching his fiduciary duty to the shareholders by chasing short term profits at the expense of the long term sustainibility of the corporation - tortoise/hare argument - but, at the end of the day, the CEO is always going to care about the shareholders more than anyone else. And that's OK.

 

[zapper]

vague, I thought next week she would decide but she doesn't seem so sure? surely the verdict will be before the deadline

 

[Pelta88]

Just checking in to see if any shill has said "Microsoft should just close over Canada." yet?

 

[splattered]

I love the obsession with the word shill now haha

 

[mrmustard]

I love the obsession with the word shill now haha

It's GAFs new favorite and has taken over persecution complex.

 

[gothmog]

SO the decision is just on the FTC lawsuit?
CMA still blocked this.

What court did you think this was going in front of?

 

[splattered]

It's GAFs new favorite and has taken over persecution complex.

Yep pretty much

 

[Moridianae]

Call of Duty is one of the biggest names in gaming, so many years running.


They *will* take it exclusive, the same way they did Bethesda. The ol' "I am altering the deal" Vader switcheroo.

I hate it, but the dirty laundry aired out in this trial from Microsoft's corner shows what they plan to do for all those IPs.

The evidence is in what they did with Bethesda and the various other things shown in court.

People say it's scaremongering when I say it'll start an acquisition war, but I strongly believe it will.

 

[Silent Viper]

I have a question- How the fuck FTC are able to access private emails of Sony and MS? Government hacking emails or something or MS or Sony are using Gmails like a moron rather than there own services for emails?

Its crazy these bitches can access emails like they nothing. Im concerned about my emails and privacy now lol

 

[Silent Viper]

Call of Duty is one of the biggest names in gaming, so many years running.


They *will* take it exclusive, the same way they did Bethesda. The ol' "I am altering the deal" Vader switcheroo.

I hate it, but the dirty laundry aired out in this trial from Microsoft's corner shows what they plan to do for all those IPs.

The evidence is in what they did with Bethesda and the various other things shown in court.

People say it's scaremongering when I say it'll start an acquisition war, but I strongly believe it will.

They cant for 10 years as agreement legally binding which forces MS to bring CoD to platforms they signed deal with.


Incase of Bethesda there was no written agreement or long term deal to bring new games to other platform or any game for that matter.

Huge difference between both.

 

[X-Wing]

I have a question- How the fuck FTC are able to access private emails of Sony and MS? Government hacking emails or something or MS or Sony are using Gmails like a moron rather than there own services for emails?

It’s crazy these bitches can access emails like they nothing. Im concerned about my emails and privacy now lol

Euh… these are requested and provided as evidence.