Support NeoGAF

[thismeinteil]

It IS interesting to hear how arguments switched. One minute Xbox was laughed at for being in third place now people are arguing there are only two competitors and MS is approaching monopolistic territory right after the FTC's comments.

The FTC absolutely created a non-existent 'high performance' console market and claimed the Switch wasn't for 'serious gamers'. No one who knows anything about video games believes that and certainly wouldn't place the XSS in a high performance segment. It's the system people complained was holding back the generation now it's high performance because the FTC said so? The arguments are switching indeed.

Yea, they are in 3rd in the overall market. Why? Because of their own poor decisions and lack of consistent good games output, even though they have more studios than Sony. I really don't think you should reward a company who floundered and crashed their own momentum by allowing them to buy up the market.

And buying up the market is EXACTLY what this deal is about, especially since MS themselves said they weren't done gobbling up devs/pubslishers, and why regulators are currently opposing it. You guys want to focus constantly on what the market looked like last year or the past few years, while everyone else is looking at how this will affect the future.

As for the Series S, it may be more like a mid-range console, but there's no denying it's still a Series console, and much more capable than the Switch. Not sure if you have noticed this, it's also not a portable console. Sorry to break it to you (not really), but you can ignore the fact that ever since Nintendo bowed out of the premium console market after the GameCube, they haven't been in direct competition for the vast majority of gamers, but it won't change it from being true. Even MS has said as much behind closed doors.

 

[Banjo64]

It should be part of the scrutiny of the deal because it would not have happened if MS wasn't buying Activision. The current leadership was outwardly hostile to the whole idea. Just like subscriptions and Nintendo support. There are plenty of positives to this acquisition and all of them should be evaluated.

From a moral viewpoint? Maybe. But it’s not within any anti-trust agency’s remit to study the effects on employees. Just the market, competition and consumers.

 

[reksveks]

From a moral viewpoint? Maybe. But it’s not within any anti-trust agency’s remit to study the effects on employees. Just the market, competition and consumers.

Not sure that's the FTC position

FTC Chair Lina Khan, Responding to Sen. Warren’s Letter on Microsoft’s Proposed Acquisition of Activision Blizzard, “Redoubles” FTC’s Commitment to Scrutinize Mergers’ Impacts on Workers | U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts

The Official U.S. Senate website of Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts

www.warren.senate.gov

“I share your concern that monopsony power in labor markets may enable firms to harm workers in a host of ways, including through undermining their rights and dignity. Although antitrust law in recent decades generally has neglected monopsony concerns and harms to workers, I strongly believe that merger investigations must scrutinize the impact on labor markets. Given that Activision disclosed in a March 21, 2022 securities filing that the FTC is conducting a review of the proposed transaction, I am able to confirm that the FTC is investigating the proposed merger,” wrote Chair Khan in the letter.

In this specific case, it's a losing battle.

 

[Banjo64]

Not sure that's the FTC position

http://[URL][URL]https://www.warren...on-disclosure agreements violate the FTC Act.

[/URL][/URL]

In this specific case, it's a losing battle.

Fair play hadn’t read that and didn’t realise that was the FTC’s stance.

In my opinion, that should still be bottom of the list of priorities, however it’s cool that they are taking it in to account.

 

[thismeinteil]

Discussions with who? Random forum goers? They don't represent the vast majority of actual gamers. Nintendo has released documents that said the main people that buy a Switch are ages 25+ and up. Which is about the same as Xbox/PS. So you are objectively wrong. It's the same crowd. You're the one ignoring reality

Why would the Switch or Wii's success stop another console from doing well? More people play games every year. The market is growing. The audience is growing. And it will continue to grow. It's an industry where everyone can do well and succeed. Your mistake is you are of the mindset that in order for someone to succeed, someone else needs to fail. That doesn't exist in the gaming industry anymore and hasn't for a long time. It's not the 90s/00s anymore

In Japan, (the 2nd biggest console gaming market in the world), Switch is not a secondary console. It's the primary console. And PS or Xbox are the ones that are secondary. So you are objectively wrong, again.

The FACT is that Nintendo is in the same market as PS/Xbox. They all just have different strategies for achieving success. Nintendo focuses on the portable console model. Xbox focuses on the subscription service model. PS focuses on the traditional premium model. And they are all successful because every year they record company-breaking revenue. That is what competition is

Lol, age groups? That's the best you got? Good grief. As if everybody over 25 has the same interests and concerns when it comes to gaming and consoles. Let me let you in on something, they don't. There are those called core gamers who are more interested in power when it comes to their consoles. They buy the PS's and Xbox's. Then there are those who don't care about graphics or prefer having a system on the go or play casually. They are not exactly going to be in a rush to buy $500 consoles.

And no, the market is not growing, except for maybe dollars amounts, but that's not hard when prices are going up. As for the amount of total gamers, it's actually been pretty stagnant when it comes to core gamers. Same goes for casuals/portable gamers. The PS1 helped bring gaming to the mainstream. The PS2 pushed it even more. But since then, the number of people interested in premium consoles has stayed roughly the same. ~175M, give or take a few. Which is why when you see PS go up, Xbox goes down, and vice versa. But, it nevers affects Nintendo, nor does Nintendo affect Sony/MS, because they are...say it with me...selling to a different gamer. Something Xbox gamers acknowledged before this deal made them screwy in the head. As if what they acknowledge or don't acknowledge on message boards will change the outcome.

Yes, in Japan, a more casual/portable market, Switch is dominating. Hmm, imagine that. It's almost like they have different interests when it comes to gaming. Really just proves my point.

 

[reksveks]

Fair play hadn’t read that and didn’t realise that was the FTC’s stance.

In my opinion, that should still be bottom of the list of priorities, however it’s cool that they are taking it in to account.

Yeah it does make sense in a way but definitely a new position from the FTC.

They probably dropped it cause it would have required a relevant market definition that's too big to defend and honestly game devs have a lot of opportunities.

I do think MS is just politicking and Zenimax/MS devs should make the most of it.

 

[DarkMage619]

From a moral viewpoint? Maybe. But it’s not within any anti-trust agency’s remit to study the effects on employees. Just the market, competition and consumers.

Adding options for consumers to access games via subscription and giving additional access to Nintendo customers is exactly what should be considered when evaluating this deal. Neither of these things would happen otherwise. The union stuff is something for the employees so it looks like the deal has something for everyone. This case is purely political for the FTC so that too is an area where the union aspect is important.

There are no anti-trust monopolistic concerns for a company firmly in third place and has been in 3rd place for 20 years. No one honestly believes MS has a monopoly in video games and this one deal won't prevent their competitors from continuing to be able to compete or hurting consumers. That is what matters most.

*snip*

MS said Amazon and Google are their main competitors yet you'll notice nothing was said about them at all. You'd have a much easier time arguing MS is a monopoly in gaming vs those guys. This is just another case of picking a choosing the argument that you want to make. In console gaming MS has TWO competitors not one.

As I've said numerous times product differentiation does not put your product in a whole new market. The Switch being portable is a feature like PlayStation having console VR. The XSS is going after the same budget minded, family friendly consumers as the Switch. The XSS is a budget device even more so than the Switch seeing how it's even cheaper. It is not a high performance device compared to the systems it is currently being lumped in with and people aren't buying it because they want high performance gaming.

The rest of your post is largely hyperbolic 'MS is buying the industry' silliness which no fair-minded person actually believes. No one can point to any actual anti-trust harm to the other console manufacturers or harm to the general consumer because of this deal. Sony and Nintendo will continue to be just fine as they have been since Xbox has been on the market these past 20 years.

 

[Banjo64]

Adding options for consumers to access games via subscription and giving additional access to Nintendo customers is exactly what should be considered when evaluating this deal. Neither of these things would happen otherwise. The union stuff is something for the employees so it looks like the deal has something for everyone. This case is purely political for the FTC so that too is an area where the union aspect is important.

It definitely benefits Xbox Game Pass customers and Nintendo will benefit for at least 10 years. Sony and other potential entrants in to the space, there’s nothing for them.

There are no anti-trust monopolistic concerns for a company firmly in third place and has been in 3rd place for 20 years.

Well there is and the EU and UK have published huge reports detailing what they are. I probably shouldn’t comment further on the American process.

 

[reksveks]

We are back to "cars are cars" now?

80% of anti-trust is market definitions apparently ... but yes, i would like the thread to move on

 

[feynoob]

80% of anti-trust is market definitions apparently ... but yes, i would like the thread to move on

Me vs them mentality makes it hard for this thread to move on.
I suspect that this narrative would continue on forever until we reach a conclusion for this deal.

 

[Banjo64]

If Nintendo games and hardware are in the same shops or the same online sections as Sony and Microsoft's offerings are then they are in the same market. The specs of the hardware mean fuck all.

In the spirit of the car;

Nissan sell the GT-R in the same showrooms as the Nissan Micra.

 

[Banjo64]

No wonder you’re trying to shut down all discussion on this topic. Even when presented with facts lol

‘Don’t question me or I’ll cry’

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

‘Don’t question me or I’ll cry’

As expected, the dribbling halfwits come out to spam laugh emojis and post pointless shit like this. You’re welcome to question whatever you want but to label Nintendo buying sales reports to understand their place in the market as ‘my opinion’ is ridiculous. But you weren’t here for a real discussion anyway, we’re you?

 

[Banjo64]

As expected, the dribbling halfwits come out to spam laugh emojis and post pointless shit like this. You’re welcome to question whatever you want but to label Nintendo buying sales reports to understand their place in the market as ‘my opinion’ is ridiculous. But you weren’t here for a real discussion anyway, we’re you?

They commissioned a sales report to understand their place in the market? Oh my fucking god someone call Jason Schreier. Thanks for sharing this information

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

They commissioned a sales report to understand their place in the market? Oh my fucking god someone call Jason Schreier. Thanks for sharing this information

‘Commissioned a report’ almost sounded like you knew what you were talking about mate.

They get weekly reports, or used to anyway. Think they moved to live reports after I left.

 

[Banjo64]

‘Commissioned a report’ almost sounded like you knew what you were talking about mate.

I just quoted you. I’ll use dumb dumb words from now on, maybe there’s some projection going on with the dribbling halfwit comment.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

I just quoted you. I’ll use dumb dumb words from now on, maybe there’s some projection going on with the dribbling halfwit comment.

You said ‘Commissioned a sales report’ that’s not what I said because it’s not what happened / happens. Again, happy to have a proper discussion but if you’re going to come out swinging at least try to have some idea what you’re talking about.

 

[Banjo64]

You said ‘Commissioned a sales report’ that’s not what I said because it’s not what happened / happens. Again, happy to have a proper discussion but if you’re going to come out swinging at least try to have some idea what you’re talking about.

Do you even know what the word commission means?

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

As expected, the dribbling halfwits come out to spam laugh emojis and post pointless shit like this. You’re welcome to question whatever you want but to label Nintendo buying sales reports to understand their place in the market as ‘my opinion’ is ridiculous. But you weren’t here for a real discussion anyway, we’re you?

This is what usually happens when armchair experts are confronted by someone like you with actual insight.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Do you even know what the word commission means?

As a matter of fact I do, which is why I said that’s not what they did. They paid for regular reporting, which is a completely different thing than commissioning a one off report, which you wouldn’t do with a market report anyway.

Just stick to your emojis.

 

[Three]

Not sure that's the FTC position

http://[URL][URL][URL][URL][URL]htt...on-disclosure agreements violate the FTC Act.

[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]



In this specific case, it's a losing battle.

This is referring to monopsony. Concerns of a merged entity controlling most of the labour in a market and therefore that entity being able to control the workforce. This isn't referring to a company's willingness to allow them to form a union. Lina has come out and mentioned they don't look at bargaining and forming "nice" monopolies.

 

[reksveks]

This is referring to monopsony. Concerns of a merged entity controlling most of the labour in a market and therefore that entity being able to control the workforce. This isn't referring to a company's willingness to allow them to form a union. Lina has come out and mentioned they don't look at bargaining and forming "nice" monopolies.

I know they aren't talking about unions specifically but I was responding to the following:

From a moral viewpoint? Maybe. But it’s not within any anti-trust agency’s remit to study the effects on employees. Just the market, competition and consumers.

And I replied basically saying that they are looking at the effects on employees when it comes to mergers/other anti-trust issues. I didn't say the union commitment had or should have any impact on the deal/ftc's procedures.

Don't worry I also have read her comments about companies offering ESG commitments and that it doesn't matter.

 

[Three]

I know they aren't talking about unions specifically but I was responding to the following:



And I replied basically saying that they are looking at the effects on employees when it comes to mergers/other anti-trust issues. I didn't say the union commitment had or should have any impact on the deal/ftc's procedures.

Don't worry I also have read her comments about companies offering ESG commitments and that it doesn't matter.

Ah ok. That conversation chain started with this:

Unions are great. Absolutely has no bearing on the scrutiny of this deal though.

It should be part of the scrutiny of the deal because it would not have happened if MS wasn't buying Activision.

So I thought you were saying that had a bearing on the investigation.

 

[reksveks]

So I thought you were saying that had a bearing on the investigation.

Nah, my position is the following.

I do think MS is just politicking and Zenimax/MS devs should make the most of it.

'Sometimes' politics does impact regulators but it shouldn't and in this case it won't.

 

[The_Mike]

Could we please stop the stupid insults, or at least do it in PMs?

No one is interested in watching a kindergarten fight

 

[PaintTinJr]

There’s nothing to interpret. They spent millions upon millions of dollars to understand how they were performing against their competitors, Sony and MS. Unless you think they did it for fun, I can’t help you.

You could be correct, but a company sailing in clear blue waters still needs all the info about red choppy waters that the pirates they are trying to avoid compete in. otherwise they might accidentally stray into those red waters and damage their strategy.

Think about the Wii (the console of the time when you observed their desire for full market data) when people go back to use it in a retro sense, is it competing (for people's time on new systems) with first party games that were unique from 3rd party experiences or with old superior versions of 3rd party games that are still made for current, systems?

For me, the Retro Nintendo gaming competes for my time against Nintendo's current day games as better blue water experiences or 3rd party games that aren't financially viable to make anymore, not directly against new 3rd party games that have gone stale competing in red waters.

 

[Banjo64]

As a matter of fact I do, which is why I said that’s not what they did. They paid for regular reporting, which is a completely different thing than commissioning a one off report, which you wouldn’t do with a market report anyway.

Just stick to your emojis.

commissioning is not a term exclusively used for one off purchases

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

You could be correct, but a company sailing in clear blue waters still needs all the info about red choppy waters that the pirates they are trying to avoid compete in. otherwise they might accidentally stray into those red waters and damage their strategy.

Think about the Wii (the console of the time when you observed their desire for full market data) when people go back to use it in a retro sense, is it competing (for people's time on new systems) with first party games that were unique from 3rd party experiences or with old superior versions of 3rd party games that are still made for current, systems?

For me, the Retro Nintendo gaming competes for my time against Nintendo's current day games as better blue water experiences or 3rd party games that aren't financially viable to make anymore, not directly against new 3rd party games that have gone stale competing in red waters.

Fair point, but they paid for regular reports for many years, specifically to understand their market share, some of their sales team may have even had KPIs tied to market share performance for memory. This wasn’t a ‘let’s keep an eye on what’s happening outside’ this was definitely a ‘how are we performing compared to our competitors’ scenario.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

commissioning is not a term exclusively used for one off purchases

You used it to specify the production of a singular report. You don’t ‘commission’ a market report each week.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Fair point, but they paid for regular reports for many years, specifically to understand their market share, some of their sales team may have even had KPIs tied to market share performance for memory. This wasn’t a ‘let’s keep an eye on what’s happening outside’ this was definitely a ‘how are we performing compared to our competitors’ scenario.

Surely that would be prudent to be able to react to market changes in the situation that they needed to pivot - being able to see a trend at the earliest point - and be needed so they could answer shareholder questions to justify their current and future strategy. Then being able disarm powerful shareholders looking at PlayStation and Xbox globally, and demanding Nintendo ditch the blue water strategy, as it would give them the data to say: "this is the small amount we are losing from old ways, and this is the new big chunk in our new strategy we are gaining".

 

[Banjo64]

You used it to specify the production of a singular report. You don’t ‘commission’ a market report each week.

You can commission a single piece of work, known as a spot purchase, or recurrent work.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Surely that would be prudent to be able to react to market changes in the situation that they needed to pivot - being able to see a trend at the earliest point - and be needed so they could answer shareholder questions to justify their current and future strategy. Then being able disarm powerful shareholders looking at PlayStation and Xbox globally, and demanding Nintendo ditch the blue water strategy, as it would give them the data to say: "this is the small amount we are losing from old ways, and this is the new big chunk in our new strategy we are gaining".

Agreed. My experience was from the years leading up to and after the launch of the Wii. During which they were always concerned with their market share in the reports. Especially after the Wii launched because they dominated, why would you want to exclude yourself from a market you’re winning?

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

You can commission a single piece of work, known as a spot purchase, or recurrent work.

Sure, why not. It’s not the vernacular we used at the time. It sounds like ‘I commissioned a Big Mac’. The market reports are made with or without their authority, so it just seems an odd term to use in this case.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

a commission is a commission

 

[Pelta88]

When people don't know what they're talking about and run into T Three is one of the highlights of this thread.

Also to the people celebrating Microsoft's push for unions within gaming, as a reason as to why this deal should go through. While sidestepping the fact that in their 26 year gaming history they've never cared about, let alone promoted unions within our hobby... My question is this...

Are you being serious and do you realize how hollow that argument is?

 

[Thirty7ven]

Fair point, but they paid for regular reports for many years, specifically to understand their market share, some of their sales team may have even had KPIs tied to market share performance for memory. This wasn’t a ‘let’s keep an eye on what’s happening outside’ this was definitely a ‘how are we performing compared to our competitors’ scenario.

Seems to me like it’s more about keeping up with the overall market, trends, audiences. Bet these days they also look at how mobile is doing.

In the movie industry and music industry you also get industry reports, but it doesn’t mean puss in boots is competing with Banshees of inisherin.

Of course you can always get it dumbed down to the point where “it’s competing for time” becomes somehow a relevant argument.

 

[dwish]

Adding options for consumers to access games via subscription and giving additional access to Nintendo customers is exactly what should be considered when evaluating this deal. Neither of these things would happen otherwise.

You speak as if you can see countless futures. Do you really believe this cannot happen without our Savior Microsoft?

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Seems to me like it’s more about keeping up with the overall market, trends, audiences. Bet these days they also look at how mobile is doing.

In the movie industry and music industry you also get industry reports, but it doesn’t mean puss in boots is competing with Banshees of inisherin.

Of course you can always get it dumbed down to the point where “it’s competing for time” becomes somehow a relevant argument.

May seem that way, but simply put there were 3 console manufacturers in direct competition with each other in the Interactive Games market and they used these reports to judge their sell-through performance against one another.

There was never any suggestion otherwise.

 

[gothmog]

Me vs them mentality makes it hard for this thread to move on.
I suspect that this narrative would continue on forever until we reach a conclusion for this deal.

Many of the regulars to this thread are for or against the deal itself and not outward haters of Microsoft/GamePass. We may troll each other from time to time but we at least make an effort to try and argue in good faith.

I wish some people remembered that sometimes. We're just having a discussion here and none of us are winning any prizes if this deal passes or fails.

 

[DarkMage619]

It definitely benefits Xbox Game Pass customers and Nintendo will benefit for at least 10 years. Sony and other potential entrants in to the space, there’s nothing for them.

Untrue. Sony is getting the same access as Nintendo. The fundamental point is that this deal does not stop Sony or Nintendo from competing in the industry they have been in longer. It is not MS responsibility to ensure new entrants into the space are successful. No one assisted MS into console gaming, they had to pay their own way just like anyone else. I don't recall Sony or Nintendo offering their titles to the Xbox. Success is not guaranteed to any company. Look at Google. It is not MS' fault they failed.

Well there is and the EU and UK have published huge reports detailing what they are. I probably shouldn’t comment further on the American process.

They have provided 'potential' issues with the transactions in their phase one reviews. Based on what we've seen they don't know any more about the games industry than the FTC. The CMA has already received tons of feedback confirming what we already knew. This deal is not going to prevent the market leaders from continuing to be able to compete or hurting consumers generally.

You speak as if you can see countless futures. Do you really believe this cannot happen without our Savior Microsoft?

Provide us evidence that Activision was planning on putting their games on a subscription service day one or planning on porting their titles to Nintendo platforms. I know you aren't talking about the union stuff because Activision wasn't exactly the best at employee relations.

 

[feynoob]

I wish some people remembered that sometimes. We're just having a discussion here and none of us are winning any prizes if this deal passes or fails.

That is the stage I am in right now. All that past heated I did never mattered at all and was a waste of my time., so I am chill these days. I am enjoying the carefree life I am in right now.
Maybe because I am focusing more on other entertainment and less on this forum.

 

[Banjo64]

Untrue. Sony is getting the same access as Nintendo.

Well no. If Activision stay independent PS gets CoD indefinitely. If MS buy Activision it’s a matter of time until they no longer have access to CoD. They aren’t gaining anything from this deal, they are losing out. Not to mention no more CoD on PS Plus and the lack of ability to bid for promotional rights.

It is not MS responsibility to ensure new entrants into the space are successful.

Spot on, it’s the regulators responsibility to ensure new entrants can realistically enter the market.

I don't recall Sony or Nintendo offering their titles to the Xbox. Success is not guaranteed to any company. Look at Google. It is not MS' fault they failed.

CoD isn’t Microsoft’s title.

 

[Three]

I wish some people remembered that sometimes. We're just having a discussion here and none of us are winning any prizes if this deal passes or fails.

In all seriousness I think some people here actually bought Activision stock. Senjitsusage has $40,000 on it or something like that. There are people with a vested interest mixed amongst the petty console warring.

 

[Banjo64]

In all seriousness I think some people here actually bought Activision stock. Senjitsusage has $40,000 on it or something like that. There are people with a vested interest mixed amongst the petty console warring.

Even without any financial impact, some people will definitely be crowing like they themselves have just purchased ABK if this goes through. Maybe some for the other way around, but I’ve not seen anything that compares to the passionate corporation love from some.

 

[feynoob]

$40,000

That money can help me right now, yet some people are throwing it at the stock market.
Life is not fair.

 

[Deleted member 471617]

Adding options for consumers to access games via subscription and giving additional access to Nintendo customers is exactly what should be considered when evaluating this deal. Neither of these things would happen otherwise. The union stuff is something for the employees so it looks like the deal has something for everyone. This case is purely political for the FTC so that too is an area where the union aspect is important.

There are no anti-trust monopolistic concerns for a company firmly in third place and has been in 3rd place for 20 years. No one honestly believes MS has a monopoly in video games and this one deal won't prevent their competitors from continuing to be able to compete or hurting consumers. That is what matters most.

Technically, you could argue that Microsoft has been in 4th place for 21 years if you wanted to include PC. Sony would also have COD if they would accept the 10 year contract but they're going all out to try and get the deal blocked. In the end, I believe the acquisition will go through in UK and EU with no restrictions because they'll eventually come to the conclusion that losing COD regardless of how big it is on PlayStation isn't going to collapse or bankrupt Sony. So many people especially PlayStation fans don't truly realize how powerful the brand name actually is. PlayStation has dominated for 27+ years. During the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 generation, Sony still ended up ahead of Microsoft despite trailing by 10m consoles and being on the market for one year less than Xbox 360.

Once they approve the acquisition, the FTC will either bow down because they have no case whatsoever and if they don't Microsoft will simply close the acquisition since they wouldn't need FTC's approval since they don't actually approve or block acquisitions. Or Microsoft will show force by filing a federal lawsuit against the FTC which in all honesty, is exactly what I would do in this scenario.

MS said Amazon and Google are their main competitors yet you'll notice nothing was said about them at all. You'd have a much easier time arguing MS is a monopoly in gaming vs those guys. This is just another case of picking a choosing the argument that you want to make. In console gaming MS has TWO competitors not one.

As I've said numerous times product differentiation does not put your product in a whole new market. The Switch being portable is a feature like PlayStation having console VR. The XSS is going after the same budget minded, family friendly consumers as the Switch. The XSS is a budget device even more so than the Switch seeing how it's even cheaper. It is not a high performance device compared to the systems it is currently being lumped in with and people aren't buying it because they want high performance gaming.

The rest of your post is largely hyperbolic 'MS is buying the industry' silliness which no fair-minded person actually believes. No one can point to any actual anti-trust harm to the other console manufacturers or harm to the general consumer because of this deal. Sony and Nintendo will continue to be just fine as they have been since Xbox has been on the market these past 20 years.

Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are literally all in the same industry and market. It's funny how people don't want to include Nintendo despite the fact that if it literally wasn't for Nintendo, PlayStation nor Xbox would even exist. Microsoft isn't going to buy the industry. That's hilarious. Both ABK and Bethesda were for sale and I always think to myself, what was Microsoft supposed to do? Pass on them? LMAO. If they did that, Nadella would have been forced out for not doing his job. Not only that buy just because Microsoft may want to buy and acquire publishers doesn't mean that those publishers are also willing to sell to them.

 

[feynoob]

Spoiler: Your boy was in heaven today, and got a nice gift.

 

[Topher]

Spoiler: Your boy was in heaven today, and got a nice gift.

Nice!

 

[dwish]

Provide us evidence that Activision was planning on putting their games on a subscription service day one or planning on porting their titles to Nintendo platforms. I know you aren't talking about the union stuff because Activision wasn't exactly the best at employee rrelations.

You're the one claiming something here not me. Why don't you bring evidence that supports your argument that either of the things you claim (yes unions too) will NEVER happen unless Microsoft buy ABK? You can't, because its a crazy claim to make.

All these things can happen without consolidating the biggest third party publisher in gaming into one of the already biggest companies on the planet.

 

[DarkMage619]

You're the one claiming something here not me. Why don't you bring evidence that supports your argument that either of the things you claim (yes unions too) will NEVER happen unless Microsoft buy ABK? You can't, because its a crazy claim to make.

From Activision's response to the FTC:

Adding Activision's content to multi game subscription and cloud gaming, where it would not have been available otherwise, is plainly output enhancing and gives garners more options on how and where to engage with Activision content.

Are you claiming to know more about their operations than they do?

With regard to unions Activision was always hostile to the idea.

Now it's your turn. Prove Activision games were coming to subscription services and they were supportive of unions BEFORE this acquisition. I am thinking your comments about crazy claims was coming from you.

All these things can happen without consolidating the biggest third party publisher in gaming into one of the already biggest companies on the planet.

You provided no proof these things would have just magically happened. So I'll simply say that no they would not have happened. MS had to make these changes. Like it or not there is nothing illegal with this merger and the industry will be just fine after the companies merge. The size of said companies is irrelevant.