Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard hits a bump as FTC seeks to block it

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: massatt212i dont like it, they should allow Microsoft to acquire Activision, Sony is steady buying up single studios and everyone is worshipping it

I must have missed the existence of Sony churches. Really, I've never heard anyone say much good about Sony . . . does that actually happen?

Quoting: massatt212i dont like it, they should allow Microsoft to acquire Activision, Sony is steady buying up single studios and everyone is worshipping it, now Microsoft wants to compete its a problem, its so weird, i believe Blizzard will be in better hands with Microsoft compare to Activision.

Everyone saying microsoft if a Terrible company, just remember what Micheal Jackson said about sony, they both are bad.

This is not about which company is good or bad, this is about a merger having the potential to create a monopoly or a near monopoly in the market. So it also have zero to do with the amount of studios being bought (still MS have bought up more studios then Sony), instead it have to do with the huge size of Activision Blizzard, that is the single thing that activated FTC and why they are trying to block it. It's the size, nothing more.

No its not the size of Activision blizzard they are fighting about, its about the Call of duty Franchise, they dont care about the Blizzard games, its all about COD, cause if microsoft leaves says they dont want COD Sony wont have a problem with the acquirement.

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: massatt212i dont like it, they should allow Microsoft to acquire Activision, Sony is steady buying up single studios and everyone is worshipping it

I must have missed the existence of Sony churches. Really, I've never heard anyone say much good about Sony . . . does that actually happen?

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: junibegoodalthough the news seem promising, I don't think stopping Microsoft from buying Blizzard now will prevent someone else to buy it later,

This deal is for $69 billion. The largest acquisition there's ever been in the games industry was Take Two buying Zynga for $12.7 billion. No other games company could afford to buy ABK. Only a tech platforms company like Microsoft, Google or Apple.

And activision blizzard isnt even worth that much anymore, they are selling because World of Warcraft, and COD is slowly dying, and Activision knows this, thats why they waant the cash out now.

Quoting: massatt212

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: massatt212i dont like it, they should allow Microsoft to acquire Activision, Sony is steady buying up single studios and everyone is worshipping it

I must have missed the existence of Sony churches. Really, I've never heard anyone say much good about Sony . . . does that actually happen?

Quoting: massatt212i dont like it, they should allow Microsoft to acquire Activision, Sony is steady buying up single studios and everyone is worshipping it, now Microsoft wants to compete its a problem, its so weird, i believe Blizzard will be in better hands with Microsoft compare to Activision.

Everyone saying microsoft if a Terrible company, just remember what Micheal Jackson said about sony, they both are bad.

This is not about which company is good or bad, this is about a merger having the potential to create a monopoly or a near monopoly in the market. So it also have zero to do with the amount of studios being bought (still MS have bought up more studios then Sony), instead it have to do with the huge size of Activision Blizzard, that is the single thing that activated FTC and why they are trying to block it. It's the size, nothing more.

No its not the size of Activision blizzard they are fighting about, its about the Call of duty Franchise, they dont care about the Blizzard games, its all about COD, cause if microsoft leaves says they dont want COD Sony wont have a problem with the acquirement.

You are talking about why SONY is concerned about the merger, I was talking about the FTC. The size of the deal is what made the governmental regulators like The FTC to start their investigation and they did this long before SONY said anything.

SOMY might be completely fine with the deal if COD is left out of the deal, The FTC will not. Key to this all is point #96 in their suit:

Quote96. The Proposed Acquisition is reasonably likely to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in the Relevant Markets by creating a combined firm with the ability and increased incentive to withhold Activision’s valuable gaming content from, or degrade Activision’s content for, Microsoft’s rivals. The combined firm would have the ability to exclude Microsoft’s rivals from access to some or all of Activision’s content in the Relevant Markets. Microsoft would have the power to decide if, when, and to what extent Activision content will be available on competing products. The Proposed Acquisition is likely to increase entry barriers, thereby dampening beneficial rivalry and innovation. If permitted to make Activision a captive supplier, Microsoft would have a substantially increased incentive to engage in strategies to that would likely lead to reduced consumer choice, higher prices or lower quality products, and less innovation.

Especially damning for MS is point #12 however as I understand it the EU commission have come out and clarified that they think that the FTC have gotten this wrong in that the EC allowed the deal without such a promise:

Quote12. Microsoft’s past conduct provides a preview of the combined firm’s likely plans if it consummates the Proposed Acquisition, despite any assurances the company may offer regarding its plans. In March 2021, Microsoft acquired ZeniMax Media Inc. (“ZeniMax”), the parent company of the well-known game developer and publisher Bethesda Softworks LLC (“Bethesda”). Microsoft assured the European Commission (“EC”) during its antitrust review of the ZeniMax purchase that Microsoft would not have the incentive to withhold ZeniMax titles from rival consoles. But, shortly after the EC cleared the transaction, Microsoft made public its decision to make several of the newly acquired ZeniMax titles, including Starfield, Redfall, and Elder Scrolls VI, Microsoft exclusives.

QuoteThis consolidation of power is never a good thing for consumers as a whole.

I would challenge this. Windows customers get access to a much larger library of games on Game Pass for the same value, which only has a positive impact on them. There's the worry that companies with so much power over an industry will use their position to enact anti-customer policies, but realistically, what will Microsoft do? Increase the price of Game Pass? The only reason it's so well-loved is its low price, so they can't increase it by that much, and even if they do, it has enough value that it would be warranted. They're a company, in the end, and their mission is to make a profit, so they do actually have to cater to their customers.

Actually, one could argue that Epic challenging Steam's stranglehold on its market has had a negative impact on most customers. They need to go to a separate store, install a separate launcher, and create a new account just to buy an exclusive game they want. Customers actually prefer monopolies because they are more convenient.

Certainly, there's the more practical concern that Microsoft will publish more exclusives, and they're in a great position to do so, but this makes little sense to do right now. Microsoft makes hardly any money out of Windows from the general audience because they usually get it for free; they make money out of Windows licenses through OEMs and more importantly, big businesses. No, money from general audiences comes from software and services. That's why they've made such a large investment in Game Pass, and why they don't care if Steam Deck users buy it as well. The more people that buy their service, the better. Making games exclusive to Windows makes no sense in the current climate, but making them exclusive to Xbox does.

Even then, it seems unlikely Microsoft would stop publishing to the PC market now, because there's a lot of money in it, so it would really mean starving out Sony's Playstation and Nintendo's Switch platforms. That's why they've shifted big name games like Halo to Steam in recent years. I'm not excited about another Amazon, of course. But I don't see Microsoft making any big moves on the PC market until years down the line.

Quoting: pleasereadthemanualBut I don't see Microsoft making any big moves on the PC market until years down the line.

I'm not sure I find "we wouldn't be the first victims" all that reassuring.

For anyone thinking MS aren't all that bad and have "turned over a new leaf" with all their "MS Loves Linux" BS, even now they are spreading lies about the competition under the guise of "guides".

For example: they are targeting Steam Deck users with "guides" stating:

QuoteSince modding games on the Stream Deck is not as safe as on the PC, you need to back up the game you want to mod before installing mods. Otherwise, there will be a risk that necessary game files will get corrupted, and you will not be able to play the game anymore.

(that "guide" is the top result on bing for "mod games steam deck" and hosted on msn.
url: https: //www.msn .com/en-us/news/technology/how-to-mod-games-on-steam-deck/ar-AAZzDCX
TL/DR: not worth reading - they just tell you to use the steam workshop or nexus)

Not only are they straight-up telling people that Linux is somehow more susceptible to file corruption than windows (blatantly false - their garbage ntfs doesn't even support per-file checksums, while the most common filesystems on linux do - not to mention snapshots on the likes of btrfs, zfs, etc), they intentionally avoid mentioning Valve's file-integrity-check or any possible resolution for that supposed threat.

I hope they are blocked from more acquisitions of popular game studios. The more games available on multiple platforms (as opposed to being made into xbox/gamepass exclusives), the better.


Last edited by lectrode on 13 December 2022 at 12:30 am UTC

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: pleasereadthemanualBut I don't see Microsoft making any big moves on the PC market until years down the line.

I'm not sure I find "we wouldn't be the first victims" all that reassuring.

Hey, someone had to argue for the other side. I tend to agree with this, but my argument is that monopolies are not bad for customers as a whole. Windows and Xbox users would welcome this change because it makes their lives more convenient, with more value for their money. In actual fact, it turns out that monopolies tend to have positive impacts on a business's customers. It's competitors and their customers (or in this case, free software users) that it tends to affect negatively.

Monopolies have produced some great things. Take AT&T and Bell Labs, perhaps the most prolific monopoly in history, which resulted in UNIX, something that continues to have a ricocheting effect on operating systems today. Even Microsoft started with a UNIX-based operating system. Bell Labs are responsible for a great many technological innovations, which challenges the common wisdom that monopolies encourage stagnation and discourage innovation. It turns out that AT&T had so much money that they just let their scientific employees do whatever they wanted, because that tended to result in interesting stuff being discovered, which tended to make them more money.

Of course, you could make the argument that thanks to the US Government's antitrust regulations, UNIX followed a path that it otherwise wouldn't have: selling source code licenses to universities, resulting in interesting stuff like Berkley's Software Distribution of UNIX. But ultimately, I don't think it would have made any difference to Linus Torvalds whether UNIX's source was available or not, because it was still extremely expensive, and it certainly didn't help BSD eat the world. Had UNIX been commercially exploited from the start, I think the only difference would be an increased urgency to develop a free software operating system (and a more standardized environment for AT&T customers).

Not all monopolies are good. I can think of a few off the top of my head that make my life worse. But some of them can have a lot of positive impact on customers.

Do I want Microsoft to have this much control over gaming? No, but I certainly wouldn't feel sorry for Microsoft's customers if it happened.

Edit: And if you're familiar with the fable of Microsoft v Netscape, there's a monopoly that ended well for customers everywhere. Thanks to Microsoft, they standardized the idea of browsers everywhere being free-of-charge, which forced Netscape to pivot into Mozilla, which resulted in a great free software browser (that was also free-of-charge) that subsequently took market share from Internet Explorer because it was a better browser that supported open standards (some of which it had invented itself, like JavaScript) better than the competition.

If Netscape won, what would the world look like? Microsoft would have had to charge for Internet Explorer instead of bundling it with Windows 95 and future editions. Netscape wouldn't have been forced to innovate. Mozilla Firefox wouldn't exist, nor would any of Mozilla's other great free software programs.


Last edited by pleasereadthemanual on 13 December 2022 at 12:59 am UTC

More authoritarian measures from The State to BLOCK private acquisition for Intellectual Property?

Yeah dude, THE SAME FTC that has kept frequencies under ban for decades only to AUCTION THEM OFF TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER for BILLIONS recently?

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/31/5g-spectrum-auction-bids-total-80point9-billion-winners-revealed-soon.html

https://www.networkworld.com/article/3600828/fccs-5g-frequency-auction-prompts-2-billion-in-bids-on-the-first-day.html

Oh I'm sorry did I break their White Knight Shield of Virtue circle-jerk party?

I'm all for "Fuck Microsoft" but this isn't a win for the little guy -- just another battle of the great houses.

Every regulatory body is captured, corrupted and simply function as tools to make sure the money keeps flowing to "the right places" -- modern mafia.

Activision Blizzard is a horrendous company with a long history of harassment and a CEO that did not take responsibility for any of it.

I am glad that Microsoft takes it over and I have faith in them addressing that problem properly.

Quoting: tfkOn YouTube 90 percent of the comments seem to be in vavour of the acquisition... weird but true.

YouTube is full of paid shills.