That would be true if they acknowledged all competitors but they didn't. They made some BS definition that nobody has ever heard of prior to all of this to exclude Nintendo and Valve from the conversation just to protect one competitor. Sony.And you can protect consumers only by ensuring the survival of competitors in the industry.
Simple common sense. Which means it will be ignored or spun into a pretzel.And you can protect consumers only by ensuring the survival of competitors in the industry.
WTF? No, the Gary Shapiro and CTA in the damned tweet. Honk honk.
Well, they aren't completely wrong. Only Xbox and Sony are direct competitors, especially in this case because COD isn't even available on Nintendo. So FTC can't "protect Nintendo" and ensure that COD stays on Nintendo because ... it's not even on Nintendo.
That documents mentions 3rd party games which both systems share.
They're all competitors. They're all platform holders that fight for consumer's money and time that want to play video games. The only main difference is the strategies used to achieve that
The circle is complete again.We got the thread back to market definitions, cause for celebrations
COD survived an incident which caused Activision to sell itself.
Your point was pretty explicit that Minecraft Dungeons and Legends wouldn’t exist without Microsoft - you don’t have any way of knowing that and logic dictates that you are wrong.
Why say it to me in a conversation with me then? Stick your random thoughts in the drawer next time. If I say something directly to someone it’s usually aimed at that person.If the shoe fits wear it. I never claimedBanjo64 said anything. I was making a broader point about what many here have claimed.
A good BF2042 and a bad MW2 could have done it, but the stars didnt align.
BF2042 went up against Vanguard and still failed. Vanguard wasn't even that good and it still outsold everything.
I'd like to see Mojang make those games without MS' support. There is no evidence of any spinoff titles in development prior to the acquisition. MS expanded the IP to more platforms and logic dictates that MS was the reason these new spinoff games exist especially seeing how many of their other studios expanded post acquisition. You act like these games were complete and MS purchased Mojang after they shipped.
I am not making a new post to add an additional thought. There was a clear break between paragraphs. You don't need to respond to anything I write in the first place. Feel free to ignore what doesn't relate to you. I don't respond to everything you type either.
You always sucked
MS might not be concerned about losing 3 or 2.5 B's instead of 2 B's, simply because they are that big. But dude, you really think they are encouraged by the possibility of these decisions being delayed long enough to make them increase their risk before knowing how many legal fights they face? Just no. Just no.
Entirely possible. Also possible would be general good will (ie: don't make more enemies than necessary with feds). Another possibility would be to streamline litigation, by maybe reducing the amount of issues that cause remands (where an appeal's court rules on one issue and sends case back to trial court for new decision in line with decision on just one issue, which then gets appealed, rinse and repeat).
If they never cared about the cost to terminate, then why does the cost increase over time instead of starting and stopping with the cost on July 18, 2023???????????????????????????????????
The ever increasing cost of termination fees is to show Activision the seriousness of MS' offer to purchase. The longer the process drags on the more risk Activision is under if it ultimately fails. They have to give Activision coverage for that possibility. All sides want the deal to successfully conclude in a merger.
You loved me long time in the Politics board when we had it, and I you.You always sucked
Yes, 100%.
You are only stunned because you don't read and think before responding. Just read your own post, #17417, which has a direct quote from me that you responded to. My quote literally includes "(absent a settlement and/or an extension beyond all regulatory and court challenges)." Literally acknowledged what you say stunned you because I did not consider it in your mind, even though you literally responded to it after I raised it.You realize you're wasting your time trying to hammer away on this one point, right? What date did Microsoft mention in front of a judge? Did they mention the January date or a February date? Or did they mention the July date? They mentioned the absolute deadline of their merger agreement. When Microsoft said they expect the deal to close within their Fiscal Year 2023, do you know when that ends? End of June this year. Everything up to that point is still within their window.
And I'm stunned you remotely think that Activision and Microsoft aren't more than willing to extend any deadline if it came to it... just like other companies have sometimes had to do. I believe Disney extended their Fox deal also. Anyway, moving on.
Lol as if further proof was needed that these companies will say everything and its opposite to try to reach their goals
In any case I see this thread is just running in circles and it's kinda pointless, the only new development is that CMA has delayed their decision even further and if remedies are being asked we might find out in late January/early February.
FTC seems to be playing a chess game to take time, forcing MS to either settle or give up and hoping that others like the CMA can do the actual job and they can take part of the merit indirectly.
But yet the FTC went into bullshit about how this would give MS an advantage with their streaming service, which the whole idea of is that you don't need a console to play it.
is on the roll.
