Support NeoGAF

[StreetsofBeige]

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.

That quote means nothing given the number of telcom mergers over the past decades. If those companies can be merged any companies in any situation can.

 

[reksveks]

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.

It still will be impacted, the impact amount and duration is unknown and is irrelevant to the point.

 

[gothmog]

That quote means nothing given the number of telcom mergers over the past decades. If those companies can be merged any companies in any situation can.

The FTC recently has a mandate to crack down on tech giants who have been abusing their power. The past obviously matters but the abuses of mergers in the past decade is exactly why the FTC was asked to be a better regulator.

 

[Heisenberg007]

That quote means nothing given the number of telcom mergers over the past decades. If those companies can be merged any companies in any situation can.

If previously the law wasn't enforced properly, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be enforced now or ever in the future.

 

[Cheezewizz]

The general consensus/impression is that the FTC will file an injunction in the federal court when the completion date draws near.

Concessions/impressions on what the FTC might do isn't the point here. It's about what they have done. At this point, nothing they have done prevents MS from closing the deal.

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.

Again, not the point. The point was that you said that the FTC was free to sue MS however they want, and I was pointing out that by them suing in their own administrative court, that court ultimately has little to no authority. After this summer, it will likely not even exist.

It's stretching to 2024, at least, anyway, unless Microsoft makes huge concessions and eliminates regulators' concerns. So lots of time for everything.

It might stretch to next fall, but there's nothing to suggest it'll take until "at least 2024". There's also nothing at this point that suggests that MS would need to make "huge concessions to eliminate regulator's concerns." The more info that becomes available, the more it appears that the CMA and EU regulators won't be asking for "huge concessions". And the FTC weren't interested in even considering concessions, choosing to just sue instead.

However if we're talking about what the consensus/impressions currently are. They are that the FTC's case against MS is incredibly weak and likely to ultimately fail. Everyone from people on forums, to knowledgeable attorneys, to former regulators themselves have said as much. I won't be so pretentious as to state matter of factly that this deal will close with little to no concessions, but that does indeed to be what most people who are familiar with the process tend to think at this point. So to so confidently suggest otherwise seems odd, as does your assertion that the FTC's actions to date actually have any authority.

 

[Cheezewizz]

Also, this quote by the FTC is excellent and should address some posters' concerns:

It's a general statement, regardless of who said it (Lina Kahn), it's wrong. The FTC is tasked with investigating whether a M/A is illegal, and if so... Either working with the parties involved in order to satisfy the legality of the deal, or to take it to court so that it can ultimately rule one way or the other. The FTC itself doesn't have the authority to decide or prevent anything... at all.

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.

Who are these few posters? I've seen a couple jokingly question why they don't look into Nintendo. Haven't seen anyone, much less "a few" argue that though.

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).

You shouldn't so matter of factly state what a regulator is or isn't concerned with unless you're a regulator. Especially with arguments such as this. A monopoly is a monopoly regardless of how it got there. Not saying that Sony is in this case, as it's obviously not, but to claim that a monopoly is perfectly fine so long as it got to the top in an arbitrarily acceptable manner is wrong. Also, if you want to be taken a bit more seriously, I'd suggest calling it 7th gen instead of the "PS3 gen" lol. And while the gen did basically end in a tie, why bother to post figures that are outdated and inaccurate?

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.

Again, what's with you naming gens after Playstation? That's how they're defined, and assuming it's not out of blind fanboyism, bizarre. The PS4 outsold the XB1 by 2 to 1 due in large part to Xbox's own screwups. Even if we exclude that entirely though, it was not "done all in-house. Games such as Bloodborne, SFV, and even exclusive COD content were all done via other developers and thus, not 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.

Microsoft is attempting to Acquire Activision. It's really that simple, and any claim or speculation beyond that is nothing more than an opinion.

 

[DarkMage619]

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.

Not quite. There is a pending Supreme Court case Axon. Vs FTC where companies are fighting for the right to take their cases directly to federal court to determine if their mergers are actually illegal. Since the administrative courts can be overruled by the politically appointed members who brought the charges, it is a poor place to determine if an acquisition is actually illegal.

The FTC has the burden to prove their charges are true so it is not a guarantee that an injunction will actually be granted in federal court before a deal closes. If the intent is to delay MS in hopes they walk away that again questions how seriously the FTC is about the claims they are making. It is not fair to waste time knowing that most of these deals are time-sensitive.

 

[Kagey K]

Not quite. There is a pending Supreme Court case Axon. Vs FTC where companies are fighting for the right to take their cases directly to federal court to determine if their mergers are actually illegal. Since the administrative courts can be overruled by the politically appointed members who brought the charges, it is a poor place to determine if an acquisition is actually illegal.

The FTC has the burden to prove their charges are true so it is not a guarantee that an injunction will actually be granted in federal court before a deal closes. If the intent is to delay MS in hopes they walk away that again questions how seriously the FTC is about the claims they are making. It is not fair to waste time knowing that most of these deals are time-sensitive.

Realistically if the FTC wants to play games; and try to scare companies off mergers by pursuing stuff like this (and it's recently worked) companies should also be able to bypass Kangaroo Court and get it into real court in a timely manner if they are serious about the acquisition.

There needs to be checks and balances on both sides, for a system to properly work.

 

[gothmog]

Not quite. There is a pending Supreme Court case Axon. Vs FTC where companies are fighting for the right to take their cases directly to federal court to determine if their mergers are actually illegal. Since the administrative courts can be overruled by the politically appointed members who brought the charges, it is a poor place to determine if an acquisition is actually illegal.

The FTC has the burden to prove their charges are true so it is not a guarantee that an injunction will actually be granted in federal court before a deal closes. If the intent is to delay MS in hopes they walk away that again questions how seriously the FTC is about the claims they are making. It is not fair to waste time knowing that most of these deals are time-sensitive.

That's not true. The FTC only has to prove that there's a strong probability or risk that the merger will lessen competition. There's a good reason Microsoft is acting so outraged and it's because they know this isn't going their way right now.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Concessions/impressions on what the FTC might do isn't the point here. It's about what they have done. At this point, nothing they have done prevents MS from closing the deal.

Again, not the point. The point was that you said that the FTC was free to sue MS however they want, and I was pointing out that by them suing in their own administrative court, that court ultimately has little to no authority. After this summer, it will likely not even exist.

It might stretch to next fall, but there's nothing to suggest it'll take until "at least 2024". There's also nothing at this point that suggests that MS would need to make "huge concessions to eliminate regulator's concerns." The more info that becomes available, the more it appears that the CMA and EU regulators won't be asking for "huge concessions". And the FTC weren't interested in even considering concessions, choosing to just sue instead.

However if we're talking about what the consensus/impressions currently are. They are that the FTC's case against MS is incredibly weak and likely to ultimately fail. Everyone from people on forums, to knowledgeable attorneys, to former regulators themselves have said as much. I won't be so pretentious as to state matter of factly that this deal will close with little to no concessions, but that does indeed to be what most people who are familiar with the process tend to think at this point. So to so confidently suggest otherwise seems odd, as does your assertion that the FTC's actions to date actually have any authority.

If FTC has such a weak case that'll be thrown out of the court, why has Microsoft been consistently making concessions then after every couple of weeks?

• Offered to abide by all marketing agreements.
• Offered to keep COD on PS for 3 years after the marketing agreements end.
• Offered to keep COD on PS for 10 years.
• Offered to allow COD on PS+?

 

[Heisenberg007]

Who are these few posters? I've seen a couple jokingly question why they don't look into Nintendo. Haven't seen anyone, much less "a few" argue that though.

I don't want to name names, but everyone knows that some Xbox fans argue that Sony is a monopoly that regulators should look into.

You shouldn't so matter of factly state what a regulator is or isn't concerned with unless you're a regulator. Especially with arguments such as this. A monopoly is a monopoly regardless of how it got there. Not saying that Sony is in this case, as it's obviously not, but to claim that a monopoly is perfectly fine so long as it got to the top in an arbitrarily acceptable manner is wrong.

I posted that quote exactly to clear this misunderstanding. FTCs aren't supposed to go after every market leader willy nilly. They are obligated to only block acquisitions and mergers that attempt to create a monopoly or lessen competition.

And I can state it as a matter of fact because it's literally written in their law.

Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers and acquisitions when the effect "may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly." -- Source.

Again, what's with you naming gens after Playstation? That's how they're defined, and assuming it's not out of blind fanboyism, bizarre.

Why is that so triggering? Not everybody can remember which the 7th or 8th generation was, hence the name of consoles to make it easier.

The PS4 outsold the XB1 by 2 to 1 due in large part to Xbox's own screwups. Even if we exclude that entirely though, it was not "done all in-house. Games such as Bloodborne, SFV, and even exclusive COD content were all done via other developers and thus, not in-house.

Games like SFV aren't Sony's games. It's not Sony's responsibility to ensure those games are released by their publishers on Xbox. Persona is a recent example.

Games like Bloodborne and Death Stranding are still first-party games. Microsoft also had Forza Horizon 4, Ori & the Blind Forest, Ori & Will of the Wisps, Sunset Overdrive, Crackdown 3, which they did by hiring external teams. Even now they have hired Crystal Dynamics and Eidos to work on Perfect Dark and Fable. That's not the argument.

The argument is that PlayStation overtook Xbox without buying multiplatform developers and IPs, while Xbox is trying to buy its way to the top. And that's why regulators won't look into PlayStation's current market share, but will look into Xbox's acquisition and can potentially block them.

 

[reksveks]

If FTC has such a weak case that'll be thrown out of the court, why has Microsoft been consistently making concessions then after every couple of weeks?

• Offered to abide by all marketing agreements.
• Offered to keep COD on PS for 3 years after the marketing agreements end.
• Offered to keep COD on PS for 10 years.
• Offered to allow COD on PS+?

Minor correction but more of a formatting thing, the last two were offered at the same time according to reports.

 

[Warablo]

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.

They'd have to block all acquisitions if this is your train of thought. They really just want to prevent a monopoly.

 

[Kagey K]

That's not true. The FTC only has to prove that there's a strong probability or risk that the merger will lessen competition. There's a good reason Microsoft is acting so outraged and it's because they know this isn't going their way right now.

I think you are going to be unpleasantly surprised.

None of thier positions can be substantiated in any meaningful way.

We have ppl here helping to prove it every day.

The second the CMA passes it, it's over. Everyone is looking at them for guidance.

 

[feynoob]

If FTC has such a weak case that'll be thrown out of the court, why has Microsoft been consistently making concessions then after every couple of weeks?

• Offered to abide by all marketing agreements.
• Offered to keep COD on PS for 3 years after the marketing agreements end.
• Offered to keep COD on PS for 10 years.
• Offered to allow COD on PS+?

Because MS knows FTC where going to block it.

Plus these aren't really a concession.

Also MS offered to keep COD on other platforms and PS day1 of the purchase.

 

[feynoob]

Minor correction but more of a formatting thing, the last two were offered at the same time according to reports.

Plus the offers were just an improvement of already existing offer. Nothing that is new or different.
The rest of activitision games are still in the dark.

 

[MasterCornholio]

What's the next step for this guy?

She's in danger.

 

[supernova8]

It still will be impacted, the impact amount and duration is unknown and is irrelevant to the point.

In that case, IMO their input should be limited solely to the negative impact on them if the deal does not go through (e.g. job losses, lack of funding etc. all of which I suspect are not issues for them at all). What they think may or may not happen to them (ie what happens with their IP) if the deal does go through is irrelevant for reasons I've already outlined.

 

[GHG]

I think you are going to be unpleasantly surprised.

None of thier positions can be substantiated in any meaningful way.

We have ppl here helping to prove it every day.

The second the CMA passes it, it's over. Everyone is looking at them for guidance.

The CMA went from "they don't know what they're doing" to now being the great hope.

We made it.

 

[feynoob]

The Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) announced today a new global M&A division for effective merger control of foreign deals to review local and international acquisitions involving foreign companies.

They said that the MS/ABK deal is one of those acquisitions, recently requiring in-depth economic analysis and legal review.

The agency's M&A division is formed by only 8 officials (the FTC had more than 10 people only for the MS/ABK case)

 

[DenchDeckard]

Anything fun happening?

 

[Heisenberg007]

Because MS knows FTC where going to block it.

Plus these aren't really a concession.

These literally are concessions, which keep increasing. They are conceding and constantly improving their offers so the acquisition doesn't get blocked.

Also MS offered to keep COD on other platforms and PS day1 of the purchase.

Those were all verbal claims. They submitted that to regulators in writing way after the first claim. The first submission/offer was for 3 years. Then it increased 10 years. Then it increased to also include PS+.

 

[oldergamer]

Yeah, we should probably both go to rehab clinics for text addiction for New Year's resolutions.



You just gave me an idea...

Wooow Its time for character limits. Can you reply with no less then 10 chars pls? Thanks

 

[drganon]

The CMA went from "they don't know what they're doing" to now being the great hope.

We made it.

All regulators are "incompetent " or are in Sony's pocket unless they just rubber stamp the deal apparently.

 

[ToTTenTranz]

All regulators are "incompetent " or are in Sony's pocket unless they just rubber stamp the deal apparently.

Meanwhile the governments from countries with sky high corruption scores have already approved the deal, which means they're super competent and not in a trillion dollar company's pocket at all.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

I don't want to name names, but everyone knows that some Xbox fans argue that Sony is a monopoly that regulators should look into.

Strange, I don’t remember anyone arguing that.

Also your argument regarding the PS4 generation and how it was “in house” is laughably off base. The developers Sony used to keep it “in house” were almost all studios Sony acquired in previous gens. Also they got a huge boost in market share from the previous gen because of Microsoft’s colossal mistakes and then used that market share to leverage all kinds of exclusive content deals, lots of which were some of the scummiest we have ever seen. Even outright buying complete exclusivity of games like SFV.

And they’ve continued to use that market share to an extreme advantage. Microsoft’s only pathways to respond are to sign up much smaller exclusive deals and expand their own studios. If they want massive exclusive deals the likes of which Sony gets, they’d have to outspend them by such a large amount of money that it makes the investment not worth it.

So should they be allowed to invest in studios that are looking to be acquired, and provide actual competition, or should they be forced to add content a la carte by overspending like crazy for big games and bleed money? Why is it wrong for MS to compete because maybe potentially theoretically it might could lead to maybe an advantage and reduce competition when right now Sony enjoys a huge competitive advantage? Obviously nothing close to a monopoly, but no one honestly believes buying ABK would give MS a monopoly.

Also your point about MS offering further concessions is irrelevant because MA hs said from day one that they want to keep CoD on all platforms like they do Minecraft. They could offer a 100 year deal and it wouldn’t be any different than their stance since day one.

 

[feynoob]

These literally are concessions, which keep increasing. They are conceding and constantly improving their offers so the acquisition doesn't get blocked.

These aren't concessions.

Those were all verbal claims. They submitted that to regulators in writing way after the first claim. The first submission/offer was for 3 years. Then it increased 10 years. Then it increased to also include PS+.

Which is the same thing.
Phil himself said COD would still be on PS.

 

[Heisenberg007]

These aren't concessions.

Then what would you call these? And why do these offers continue to increase?

Which is the same thing.
Phil himself said COD would still be on PS.

He did, but that was just PR talk. MS submitted that in a legally binding contract much, much later.

 

[reksveks]

Those were all verbal claims. They submitted that to regulators in writing way after the first claim. The first submission/offer was for 3 years. Then it increased 10 years. Then it increased to also include PS+.

Again the ps+ offer was at the same time as the 10 year deal.

 

[reksveks]

In that case, IMO their input should be limited solely to the negative impact on them if the deal does not go through (e.g. job losses, lack of funding etc. all of which I suspect are not issues for them at all). What they think may or may not happen to them (ie what happens with their IP) if the deal does go through is irrelevant for reasons I've already outlined.

They can also clear up assumptions that regulators have about their business like the likelihood of including games in a multi-game subscription service.

 

[feynoob]

Then what would you call these? And why do these offers continue to increase?

It's improvement of the same offer, which was announced day1 of this deal.

He did, but that was just PR talk. MS submitted that in a legally binding contract much, much later.

It wasn't a PR talk, as MS had contract negotiations with Sony, steam and Nintendo.

Even MS president was talking about bringing it to more platforms.

The real concession would be not making the rest of activitision games not exclusive. Allowing Activision games on Cloud and subscription services, not just COD.

These are the type of concession MS needs to offer.

 

[Godot25]

If FTC has such a weak case that'll be thrown out of the court, why has Microsoft been consistently making concessions then after every couple of weeks?

• Offered to abide by all marketing agreements.
• Offered to keep COD on PS for 3 years after the marketing agreements end.
• Offered to keep COD on PS for 10 years.
• Offered to allow COD on PS+?

Because Microsoft always abides by all marketing agreements. They did it even with small purchases like Double Fine. So Activision is nothing unusual.

About COD on Playstation. Can we stop with notion that Microsoft will take COD from Playstation? Because it is such a bullshit.
Only reason why Microsoft is throwing concessions is to dismantle Sony's complaints about the deal. They were not planning to withdraw COD from Playstation even without deal in place.

And for PSPlus. They can offer it with peace in their hearts because they know Sony won't be willing to pay market price for Call of Duty on PS Plus day one.

I believe that Microsoft did not think that Sony would have such a boner for blockage of this deal.

 

[adamsapple]

If FTC has such a weak case that'll be thrown out of the court, why has Microsoft been consistently making concessions then after every couple of weeks?

• Offered to abide by all marketing agreements.
• Offered to keep COD on PS for 3 years after the marketing agreements end.
• Offered to keep COD on PS for 10 years.
• Offered to allow COD on PS+?

All of those were offered irrespective and before FTC announced their lawsuit tho.

They had been talking about keeping CoD on PS platforms since February before CMA/FTC's arguments were a twinkles in fans eyes.]

If nothing else, MS are good about abiding with agreements. See: Deathloop and Ghostwire

 

[Thirty7ven]

I wonder how wishing for MS to buy AB isn’t ideological?

 

[Topher]

All of those were offered irrespective and before FTC announced their lawsuit tho.

They had been talking about keeping CoD on PS platforms since February before CMA/FTC's arguments were a twinkles in fans eyes.]

I don't think those offers were irrespective of anything. Seems to me they were laying the PR groundwork trying to head-off challenges and a legal fight over the acquisition.

If nothing else, MS are good about abiding with agreements. See: Deathloop and Ghostwire

That is true. Part of the reason I trust Phil Spencer will hold to his statements on Call of Duty and PlayStation.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Because Microsoft always abides by all marketing agreements. They did it even with small purchases like Double Fine. So Activision is nothing unusual.

About COD on Playstation. Can we stop with notion that Microsoft will take COD from Playstation? Because it is such a bullshit.
Only reason why Microsoft is throwing concessions is to dismantle Sony's complaints about the deal. They were not planning to withdraw COD from Playstation even without deal in place.

And for PSPlus. They can offer it with peace in their hearts because they know Sony won't be willing to pay market price for Call of Duty on PS Plus day one.

I believe that Microsoft did not think that Sony would have such a boner for blockage of this deal.

But until this acquisition is blocked they've already taken away a lot of the CoD BRAND power on PlayStation, so they are taking something away.

Even with PlayStation now with the marketing deal that Xbox had in the 360/(first year of Xbox1) they can't capitalise on it in the way Xbox could have back in the day. The shadow of acquisition means that any success CoD currently has on PlayStation now is all for nothing, as they can't build on it when it getting taken away as a first party publisher for Microsoft Games Studios.

/Edit: sorry have adjusted the statement as it should have read.

 

[feynoob]

But until this acquisition is blocked they've already taken away a lot of the CoD power on PlayStation, so they are taking something away.

Even with PlayStation now with the marketing deal that Xbox had in the 360/(first year of Xbox1) they can't capitalise on it in the way Xbox could have back in the day. The shadow of acquisition means that any success CoD currently has on PlayStation now is all for nothing, as they can't build on it when it getting taken away as a first party publisher for Microsoft Games Studios.

???

 

[adamsapple]

But until this acquisition is blocked they've already taken away a lot of the CoD power on PlayStation, so they are taking something away.

Even with PlayStation now with the marketing deal that Xbox had in the 360/(first year of Xbox1) they can't capitalise on it in the way Xbox could have back in the day. The shadow of acquisition means that any success CoD currently has on PlayStation now is all for nothing, as they can't build on it when it getting taken away as a first party publisher for Microsoft Games Studios.

CoD Power on PlayStation ?

The fuck

 

[DarkMage619]

That's not true. The FTC only has to prove that there's a strong probability or risk that the merger will lessen competition. There's a good reason Microsoft is acting so outraged and it's because they know this isn't going their way right now.

If it was so easy they would have filed the injunction. They know their case is specious. Based on past history the FTC has been using the administrative court to frustrate companies in hopes they will give up and drop their plans. That is not the way things should work. MS is outraged because they think they are being denied due process. You would feel the same if you were accused of a crime but had to defend yourself in a court where the prosecution could overturn the judge's ruling. Let's see what the Supreme Court thinks about the FTC's strategy.

 

[Topher]

But until this acquisition is blocked they've already taken away a lot of the CoD power on PlayStation, so they are taking something away.

Even with PlayStation now with the marketing deal that Xbox had in the 360/(first year of Xbox1) they can't capitalise on it in the way Xbox could have back in the day. The shadow of acquisition means that any success CoD currently has on PlayStation now is all for nothing, as they can't build on it when it getting taken away as a first party publisher for Microsoft Games Studios.

 

[feynoob]

CoD Power on PlayStation ?

The fuck

I am surprised too. Like wth is he saying?

 

[The_Mike]

???

Tl: dr:

"my plastic box of choice has paid too much for exclusive content and deals, just to make Microsoft take it away with one swoop if they buy Activision.

Which means Microsoft bad"

 

[NickFire]

If it was so easy they would have filed the injunction. They know their case is specious. Based on past history the FTC has been using the administrative court to frustrate companies in hopes they will give up and drop their plans. That is not the way things should work. MS is outraged because they think they are being denied due process. You would feel the same if you were accused of a crime but had to defend yourself in a court where the prosecution could overturn the judge's ruling. Let's see what the Supreme Court thinks about the FTC's strategy.

Everyone speculating over lack of an injunction is jumping the gun. To obtain one you need to show a likelihood of irreparable harm. Without a closing date set, and with other obstacles in the wild (EU, CMA, etc.), theres no need for an injunction to even be sought yet. There‘s no imminent danger of harm.

 

[gothmog]

CoD Power on PlayStation ?

The fuck

I told you, the AIs are taking over.

 

[feynoob]

Tl: dr:

"my plastic box of choice has paid too much for exclusive content and deals, just to make Microsoft take it away with one swoop if they buy Activision.

Which means Microsoft bad"

Also didn't PS+ had COD games on their service?
How is that even a bad deal?

 

[The_Mike]

Also didn't PS+ had COD games on their service?
How is that even a bad deal?

Because you will get prompted with "xbox games" when you start the game up.

That's outrageous

 

[feynoob]

Because you will get prompted with "xbox games" when you start the game up.

That's outrageous

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

But until this acquisition is blocked they've already taken away a lot of the CoD power on PlayStation, so they are taking something away.

Even with PlayStation now with the marketing deal that Xbox had in the 360/(first year of Xbox1) they can't capitalise on it in the way Xbox could have back in the day. The shadow of acquisition means that any success CoD currently has on PlayStation now is all for nothing, as they can't build on it when it getting taken away as a first party publisher for Microsoft Games Studios.

 

[jose4gg]

Why are we trying to play the dumb game, saying MS has no interest in taking advantage of COD IP being their own?

MS can literally create other games with the COD name like a "COD Tactic" and put them directly under their umbrella saying this is not an old game they are taking away from PlayStation and that will ideally hurt to some extent Playstation because not only the best place to play COD will be an XBOX but if you want to play everything related to COD you will need an Xbox.

This idea, that "we can trust MS" because they had never intended to remove COD from PS is just BS. If COD increases the sell of XSX and XSS to a point where MS can see itself as competitive as they were in the 360 eras, forget about "Sony is not our competition" they will make Sony their competition and Amazon, and Google. They have the money to allow themself to lose millions of dollars for a couple of years. AND they do have it, especially if they know many players will simple jump to buy an XBOX is COD does not exist on Playstation anymore.

 

[feynoob]

Why are we trying to play the dumb game, saying MS has no interest in taking advantage of COD IP being their own?

MS can literally create other games with the COD name like a "COD Tactic" and put them directly under their umbrella saying this is not an old game they are taking away from PlayStation and that will ideally hurt to some extent Playstation because not only the best place to play COD will be an XBOX but if you want to play everything related to COD you will need an Xbox.

This idea, that "we can trust MS" because they had never intended to remove COD from PS is just BS. If COD increases the sell of XSX and XSS to a point where MS can see itself as competitive as they were in the 360 eras, forget about "Sony is not our competition" they will make Sony their competition and Amazon, and Google. They have the money to allow themself to lose millions of dollars for a couple of years. AND they do have it, especially if they know many players will simple jump to buy an XBOX is COD does not exist on Playstation anymore.

Your idea works in a parallel universe, where MS has the power to change the trade Mark of COD.

That is not an easy task.

Anything that is related to COD is call of duty (warzone for example).

Changing the IP is harder thing to pull off.

The rest I can somewhat agree to it. But that depends on how smart is MS (they are ducking dumb)