Submitted by marketrent t3_zrkbfi in technology
Comments
mf-TOM-HANK t1_j13otwc wrote
Which may be exactly why they stop the merger. If they act stunned by Microsoft's supposed brazen disregard for antitrust and halt this particular merger then they can pat themselves on the back and pass through another ghoulish Sprint-TMobile type of merger that actually has major real life consequences.
BourbonCoug t1_j140znp wrote
>That actually has major real-life consequences.
Just playing devil's advocate here, but if you don't view this as having real-life consequences then why waste taxpayer dollars trying to stop this under the guise of antitrust?
mf-TOM-HANK t1_j143k75 wrote
It's a little bit of a dog and pony show to show us plebes that antitrust is still taken seriously in DC. If we were actually serious about antitrust we'd see the relevant federal agencies go after meat processing, media conglomerates, and ISPs for starters.
Thebadmamajama t1_j14eo9u wrote
I sense it's easier to block a future acquisition than to sue to break up an existing company.
Otherwise the cases in those other industries seem to be far clearer.
platonicjesus t1_j1519cc wrote
They let the Warner Discovery merger go through pretty recently.
antunezn0n0 t1_j15a15q wrote
i feel that wasn't as egregipux as this is the tenth time Warner is sold
theregalbeagle t1_j16cem0 wrote
They let Disney/Fox through.
antunezn0n0 t1_j16gj5t wrote
they probably shouldn't have
Fubarp t1_j14nt5i wrote
Honestly I'm not sure if sueing to break up is hard because the US Government has done it numerous times without failure.
Milksteak_To_Go t1_j16byz3 wrote
What was the last breakup, Ma Bell in 1982? 40 years ago is not exactly recent history.
I know DOJ tried to break up Microsoft in 2000 over the IE/Netscape stuff but that got appealed and overturned.
DrakeAU t1_j15vkqo wrote
Supermarkets too.
ThatGuyMiles t1_j14i177 wrote
That’s the point, it’s a “show” they can’t or won’t stop other actual consequential mergers due to lobbyist/etcetera. This scenario makes it seem like they have “teeth” and are actually “sticking it to big tech” when it reality they are not and are completely toothless. It’s a gaming company and MICROSOFT. it’s the perfect Unicorn that no one important enough cares about so they get to look “tough” on “big tech”….
BatForge_Alex t1_j14hey5 wrote
> why waste taxpayer dollars trying to stop this under the guise of antitrust?
Regardless of which "side" you're on, I believe it's important for investigations like this to get the real face of the corporations out for the public to see. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo have a history of doing some shady, anti-competitive shit.
If we don't at least investigate these sorts of deals, the public only hears what the companies want them to hear. These companies didn't become massive by "playing fair" and they're very good at laundering bad reputations
My opinion: Microsoft deserves the level of scrutiny being laid against them. They have a history of using M&A as a cudgel to force industries to kiss the ring and crush competition
tipbruley t1_j167gaa wrote
The real reason they are going after this is because Microsoft won’t fight back/bride too hard against it because it’s not really that great of a deal for Microsoft and won’t actually allow them to use monopolistic practices.
SlowMotionPanic t1_j174a1q wrote
Stop and listen to yourself a moment. Why would Microsoft waste all that time, money, and effort? Microsoft will have to pay Activision a $3 billion break up fee if they can’t get the deal closed for any reason.
The truth is that Microsoft is very obviously waging a lobbying battle behind closed doors while also waging a public relations battle. And look at how many good little fans come out of the woodwork to lap up their bullshit just because they hope Activision—one of the largest publishers in the world—will have their games “for free” on Gamepass.
Microsoft is trying to appease watchdogs by making very public gestures to support competitors for at least 10 years. But that doesn’t mean much because Microsoft is becoming a gaming as a service company. Sony can’t compete there yet and seem so very dedicated to platform lock-in since they are too dysfunctional to compete. Nintendo occupies its niche and not much else, let alone offer a real competitive service to anything MS is trying to do. I mean—have you tried Nintendo’s online services? Whole division should be turned inside out for the gross incompetence.
Microsoft is going for lock-in. That is why they have slyly allowed Xbox live gold conversions to get 3 years of Gamepass for basically nothing. It is why you can get a console with Gamepass and pay a single monthly fee in a lease to own scheme. They are abusing their position and locking people in. Azure alone makes more profit than Xbox entirely generates as revenue.
And people think the gravy train will never end 🙄
MFitz24 t1_j16egb3 wrote
That was a different administration.
mf-TOM-HANK t1_j16f9wo wrote
I'm absolutely not a "both sides are the same" guy but antitrust has not been a big priority for any of the presidents for probably as long as I've been alive. I'm not plugged into the antitrust law sphere at all but it feels like Microsoft back in the early 2000s was the last high profile antitrust case. Maybe there have been big ones that I'm not aware of but the trend has been for decades that big companies get bigger and gobble up smaller companies with little to no resistance.
MFitz24 t1_j16fpg0 wrote
Youre not wrong about the multidecade trend but the biden administration has been extremely aggressive on antitrust.
https://gamerant.com/nvidia-arm-merger-acquisition-news/
https://news.yahoo.com/why-did-government-block-big-095213687.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ftc-asks-kroger-for-more-information-on-albertsons-deal-11670334358
mf-TOM-HANK t1_j16grpp wrote
To Biden's credit, I'm extremely impressed with Lina Khan and I guess we will see what comes from the next 2+ years if she remains at the helm of FTC for the remainder of the term and beyond.
[deleted] t1_j16n3lt wrote
[removed]
AutoModerator t1_j16n3nm wrote
Thank you for your submission, but due to the high volume of spam coming from Medium.com and similar self-publishing sites, /r/Technology has opted to filter all of those posts pending mod approval. You may [message the moderators](/message/compose?to=/r/technology&subject=Request for post review) to request a review/approval provided you are not the author or are not associated at all with the submission. Thank you for understanding.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Macktion t1_j16q086 wrote
Came here to bring this up, but I'm glad you got here first and brought receipts.
Paradox68 t1_j142vdr wrote
2023 seeming to be the Year of Acquisition for MS
Lootcifer- t1_j1437tn wrote
They’re on their P. Diddy phase
SPARTANsui t1_j1424wx wrote
I don't care either way what happens with this deal, but man, 343i is not a great company either. They own the poster child for the Xbox and are messing up so badly with their latest release. I really don't have faith in any gaming company. Microsoft is one of the wealthiest companies in the world, they have a game studio focusing all their energy into a single game. They still screwed it up.
Respawn gave me hope several years ago. But then things change and the same people that built what was a great company are no longer involved and it goes to shit. See, Titanfall.
truthfulie t1_j14vnng wrote
Turn 10 and Playground Forza franchise. Bethesda, specifically Starfield and The Coalition still have me some hope for MS studios titles. Not so much on their other studios.
SPARTANsui t1_j14x9f3 wrote
Turn 10 always seem to be solid with their releases. I wish I enjoyed racing games more! Forza was my favorite.
ajs423 t1_j149b30 wrote
It's more the human rights violations for me, which while Microsoft is far from innocent, they're not as bad as AB has been these last 5-10 years.
maybe_a_frog t1_j14aim5 wrote
Since Titanfall 2 released Respawn has released 2 games. Apex Legends was wildly successful for years after it released. Fallen Order is considered one of the greatest Star Wars games every released, and are about to release the highly anticipated sequel. In what way has Respawn “gone to shit”?
SPARTANsui t1_j14gamp wrote
They've given false hope to the Titanfall community about supporting the game as it has been faced with problems. The issues that started last year haven't been officially addressed and they have gotten worse.
https://www.dexerto.com/apex-legends/respawn-denies-abandoned-titanfall-apex-legends-focus-1611019/
https://www.ign.com/articles/respawn-titanfall-3-comments-future-sequel
https://www.thegamer.com/respawn-single-player-apex-legends-game-titanfall/
Lootcifer- t1_j14364p wrote
Apparently Titanfall 2 is by far one of the greatest MP games out there right now and it’s still being played by a lot of people. From what I’m told they almost 100% fixed everything wrong with the first one but I haven’t played it to say it’s true.
MS does have the Coalition which make Gears of War games and they seem not as incompetent as 343. The problem with 343 is that the people that made Halo just left and what’s left are people that know jack shit about Halo.
I’m personally not invested in any of this shit anymore since AAA games have been absolute trash for about a decade now.
SPARTANsui t1_j147l4x wrote
IMO Titanfall 2 is the best FPS. I have 600 hours of gameplay, however it's completely broken right now. It has been since October.
Prior to that it was being targeted for over a year and Respawn hardly did anything to actually correct the issue. I remember for the longest time you couldn't see the current player count. Then it came back one day and it was actually playable for several months. Then October (maybe September?) rolled around and most servers were unplayable. You'd get into a game, the latency would spike up to 1,000+ms and you'd be disconnected. Right now there's two servers you can play on and they're across the world.
I did forget about the Coalition, it will be interesting to see their new IP they're working on and what they have in mind for a GoW sequel.
For 343i it's not only that but it's the fact they don't really have "employees" working on the game, but contractors. From my understanding turnover is high and the people that actually built the game weren't even around any longer to see the release of the game. The game engine also sounds like it's difficult to work with which compounds the issue of not having the people that built the game around any longer.
I've been let down by most AAA studios, so I agree with that.
Thatguyxlii t1_j15hbz4 wrote
I think MS owning Activision would be an improvement.
lord_pizzabird t1_j14ml5c wrote
Gamepass subs should theoretically nullify the need for loot crates and micro transactions.
Idk if they'll actually do that ($$$), but they should make the promise as an easy win to show regulators.
CuppaTeaThreesome t1_j15lhmp wrote
One of the worst gaming companies and that's saying something. Like saying it lots but also really really loud. Louder than an American in a European cafe? No louder, but that's still kinda loud, you make a good point.
S3HN5UCHT t1_j14j1d0 wrote
Ea is worse
Lootcifer- t1_j15pv0y wrote
Lol arguable
MFitz24 t1_j16eltm wrote
This is a ridiculous take. Microsoft has the resources to compete, competition makes better games.
Lootcifer- t1_j16gfc8 wrote
Ridiculous would be to spend millions trying to compete when you can buy the competition and spend less and it would take a ridiculously short time compared to just trying to compete with established franchises. It’s basic business even a child can see that. That’s been MS’ way of operating for decades and there’s a reason why it has worked.
MFitz24 t1_j16mkdz wrote
Never said it was better for Microsoft to compete. I said it makes better games. Like how COD was started as a franchise because medal of honor was garbage.
Zealousideal-Type-99 t1_j1ebnj6 wrote
The company makes 8.8b in revenue. People play the games. Every time I see you clowns post that I laugh. You can say you don't like a company but they are ultra successful.
Lootcifer- t1_j1eih5j wrote
Lmao you’re too dense to see beyond the basic levels
2MegaWhats t1_j17geze wrote
I don't know why some people are still pretending like monopolies have ever worked to the benefit of consumers. Microsoft is a significant market player as the manufacturer of one of three video game consoles still being made and the owner of the predominant Operating System that is used by most consumers on their computers. Microsoft needs to be broken up not given even more shit to hold over consumers. Almost all tech companies need to be broken up at this point.
garlicroastedpotato t1_j15qoxe wrote
It's also not really all that monopolistic. The creation of the Xbox was monopolistic. Microsoft lost money for like 5-6 years on their gaming division to try and get a cut into the market. But that also shows how difficult and monopolistic gaming is. A person can't just start up a new gaming platform, it has to be a giant multinational corporation. We shouldn't be talking about just splitting up Microsoft, it should be every single publisher.... but then if we did that Chinese based Tencent and Japanese based Sony would just stay giant and have a monopoly.
HinduHamma t1_j144wc1 wrote
Imagine thinking msft would actually fix anything about atvi.
All they care about is one thing and one thing only : squeezing more money out of gamers so they can report colorful profit numbers to shareholders.
HaikusfromBuddha t1_j14bir4 wrote
I mean they already acknowledged and met with union committes that they themselves have spoken to the FTC offering their support because of how this will help Activision employees
If that alone isn’t good change Idk what is.
Lootcifer- t1_j14icl7 wrote
You’re missing the bigger picture lol
starmartyr t1_j16x8cb wrote
Isn't that every company in the gaming industry? They are making video games because they know we want to buy them. It would be one thing if they were buying up pharmaceutical companies to gouge prices on life-saving medicine. Nobody needs video games to survive. If you don't want to give these companies your money you don't have to.
Words_Are_Hrad t1_j184hwo wrote
>Isn't that every company in the gaming industry
Yes, yes it is...
g_chap t1_j17yu9y wrote
Microsoft as a whole have made big strides to being more consumer friendly with their openness to Linux and open-source. Game Pass is also quite possibly the best value in gaming right now.
Don't get me wrong, I'm under no illusion that money isn't a factor in every decision they make but they're a business trying to make/maintain a profit. I certainly trust them more than Acti-Blizz.
goldencrisp t1_j13tfpt wrote
So earlier this week it was the government wanting to step in and stop the acquisition according to the headlines. Now it’s “gamers” are suing to stop the deal? I call bullshit. Almost every “gamer” knows this would be an improvement for Activision.
absalom86 t1_j13ysdi wrote
It's Playstation that has the exclusives and tries to bully other companies out of the market, not Microsoft.
And as you said ActiBlizz has total disaster owners right now and desperately need new ones, Microsoft would improve their products and by doing that be beneficial to consumers.
Bulletpointe t1_j14y5on wrote
Microsoft is also way nicer to employees. I worked at Blizzard, where there was a 10%, maybe 15% promotion budget - you'd have to work a role about 7-10 years to get promoted from associate to mid-level. Someone moved over from Microsoft and they told us that Microsoft has a 30% promotion budget - you can get promoted every 3-4 years, like clockwork. It's shit like that which would significantly improve the financial well-being of employees. I want this merger to go through so my friends still working there can stop being in such financial despair because they refuse to leave due to mental health problems/anxiety.
brokentribal t1_j17zmcy wrote
Dont kid yourself, all platforms have exclusives.
Spocks_Goatee t1_j15qn4y wrote
Tell me Microsofts track record of acquiring studios?
PRSHZ t1_j13wr8p wrote
It really would, what I don’t understand is… since when the hell do gamers care about who acquires what? All we do is play the games. I can’t think of a single person I know that would go “oh man ms is gonna buy Activision?, I’m gonna boycott COD”
No.. we just play the game, finish it, now on to the next one.
OldMcTaylor t1_j13yc6f wrote
We're supposed to finish games?
PRSHZ t1_j13zdyd wrote
Purely by choice 🤭
RnDanger t1_j145dhe wrote
Maybe these gamers don't play Xbox
angrymoleratsbaggle t1_j14mf9y wrote
I wonder if Sony is bankrolling it, because it sounds like the bullshit they've been spewing to stop the buyout.
wrath_of_grunge t1_j152u1l wrote
i wouldn't doubt it.
this smells like astroturfing.
ElGuaco t1_j155ph0 wrote
Nearly all of the plaintiffs are described in the filing as being persons who play games exclusively on the Playstation 5 who play Call of Duty and other Activision games. These people were absolutely recruited by the Alioto Law firm and Joseph Saveri Law firm which specialize in Anti-trust litigation. I would not be shocked at all that they are self-funding this case in order to rake in millions of dollars in fees in a settlement, and they'll give their "plaintiffs" a token amount for being the so-called victims. Maybe Sony is involved, but probably only in as much as providing the list of PS players who Sony keeps about their own customers. Either way, Sony is getting what they want out of this situation.
[deleted] t1_j15qb5u wrote
[deleted]
drakesylvan t1_j14fguo wrote
I just don't give a shit about this. As if they want to buy the 12th best game developer in the world. I don't see why this is a big issue.
paxfuturus t1_j16lj42 wrote
I'm glad tech monopolies are getting shaken up generally. I'm just very pissed that Apple is getting a free pass so far when they're the most anticompetitive corporation on the planet.
lordredapple t1_j17aax6 wrote
Genuine question but what has apple monopolized? People keep saying their ecosystem is monopolized but as far as I'm concerned they should have the right to dictate which apps are available in their app store. Are you talking about this from a hardware perspective?
paxfuturus t1_j17oz6z wrote
TL;DR Apple abuses it's market dominance, harming consumers, suppressing innovative competition, etc
I'm sure you're familiar with some examples like iMessage login, exorbitant app store profiteering, intercompany hiring arrangements with other FAANG company so that people can't quit, etc.*
One important thing to note is there are several forms of monopolization, a single player monopoly, duopoly, oligopoly, etc. Certain industries are constrained by extrinsic limitations like aviation and infrastructure where there's not a lot of room for competitors. That's where increased regulation becomes more essential. But that is not the case with consumer electronics. It's the behavior that's a problem, when a company gets to the point where it controls market, suppressing innovation and abusing market forces that are supposed to keep corporations in check, that's when it's a problem. Apple is in that place and of course a handful of other technology companies.
Monopolies are bad because they have the ability to raise prices and reduce output, leading to a lack of competition and potentially harmful effects on consumers. Additionally, monopolies can often abuse their market power to stifle innovation and harm smaller competitors, leading to a less dynamic and efficient market overall.
Don't let Apple make you think that it is creating amazing new technology that is pushing consumer electronics forward. That is literally nothing but marketing. Like when Steve Jobs try to pretend he invented the capacitive touch screen and had "trademarked the hell out of it". There's almost no chance that we wouldn't be further along if it wasn't for Apple and it's monopolistic behavior. Apple has shut down so many innovative new companies, bought them out, or leveraged market dominance to suppress threats.
Monopolies are bad.
As far as Apple is concerned, there are many more but here are five:
-
Exclusive dealing: Apple has been accused of requiring app developers to only distribute their apps through the App Store, effectively preventing them from using competing app marketplaces. This can limit competition and reduce consumer choice.
-
Self-preferencing: Apple has also been accused of promoting its own apps and services over those of its competitors on its platforms. For example, Apple's App Store has been criticized for featuring its own apps more prominently than competing apps, and for making it more difficult for users to find and access alternative apps.
-
Leveraging market power: Apple's dominance in certain markets, such as the smartphone and tablet markets, has allowed it to use its market power to negotiate favorable terms with app developers and other partners. This can make it difficult for competitors to enter or succeed in these markets.
-
Acquiring potential competitors: Apple has a history of acquiring smaller companies that could potentially pose a threat to its business. This can reduce competition in a market and limit innovation.
-
Restricting access to APIs: Apple has been accused of restricting access to its APIs (application programming interfaces) to certain developers, while allowing others to access them more easily. This can make it difficult for developers of competing products to build compatible products, which can limit competition in the market.
lordredapple t1_j17tsb1 wrote
Hmm okay I see where everything is coming from then. The app store specifically though I don't. People don't have to buy an iphone to use any of the apps that aren't by apple they are available on Android. Why shouldn't apple be able to promote it's own products within it's own store? Why should they be forced to allow other app stores? I feel like this is forcing Walmart to allow a mini target to exist in a store. Also thank you for taking the time to explain everything I appreciate it a ton!
Sything t1_j17xr1e wrote
This is a gross simplification but here goes nothing;
Let’s say Pepsi buys every shop in your local area and now they’re all Pepsi stores, by your logic it’s fine if they only sell their own product, so then you’ve only Pepsi available, but in turn they also increase their prices to maximise profits after achieving this monopoly and claim to be consumer friendly while stripping consumers of choice. Apple follows a similar model but they keep a can or two of Coca Cola “on display” priced well over their own and hidden in the store behind crates of Pepsi so they can claim they’re consumer friendly.
By keeping such tight control over their App Store and not allowing consumers to use the products they’ve paid for as they please (by allowing them to modify or use whatever they’d like on it), they’re effectively “buying up all the stores” while also taking larger cuts than any other App Store on phones.
It’s not so much forcing a Walmart to allow a mini-target, it’s more-so Walmart buying everything then leaving you with no choice as there are no competitors anymore since they effectively removed them by leaving consumers with no choice but their own “store”. It’s also unfair on the developers of the apps who will usually sell their product for the same price on either store while their profits are less on iPhones for the same product thanks to apples tight control.
In my opinion, it really is just about choice, would you rather more choice/options and the ability to do what you want with the products you pay for or would you prefer a company limiting your choices for the purpose of maximising their profits.
Anyways hope ya get my point stranger, all the best!
lordredapple t1_j17y2rq wrote
Okay yeah this actually makes a ton of sense to me and I'm starting to see your point. I've always heard about apps doing shit because of apple taking a fat cut and was wondering when that would be regulated. I feel like this opens a minor possiblity for malware if apple isn't allowed to check apps on other stores, and I would say letting them check the apps on a new app store would be pointless cause then they'd say all the apps are unsafe so you should use their own. Would it not be more effective to just regulate what cut they can take from developers? Also some rules to allow consumers to make more modifications to those apps and all? Thank you by the way for explaining all that and for your time!
Sything t1_j18bpua wrote
No problem 😊 thanks for taking the time to read.
I’d agree with some form of regulation and would love to see it done on many things, but it’s very hard to do with regards to pricing services (value is subjective to most people) and with most major businesses it’s all about maximising profits so they’d look for loopholes or simply increase the price of everything so their profits remains the same and/or increase.
Sadly though Apple in particular has veered far from what most would like to see. A whole “right to repair” movement essentially sparked thanks to apples anti-consumer practices where they essentially forced customers to get repairs done in their own stores, preventing customers from finding cheaper repair alternatives. In the US they also had government help in preventing alternative/independent repair shops from using refurbished/repaired parts (these were authentic MacBook and phone parts that were fixed but blocked from delivery).
I’d have to give it to Apple that it does test the majority of software for malware but they still miss some too and there’s lots of games that would be considered malware in my opinion (damages phones or collects data across multiple apps/spyware), they only have guarantees against ‘known’ malware, so anything new that’s purpose built can bypass their detection. But generally speaking App stores on either platform don’t intentionally push malware onto consumers and do similar testing to search for known malware, it’s just easier to bypass and do on android since it’s a lot more open.
I may sound like I’m shitting on Apple but iPhones, iPads and MacBooks are good quality products albeit overpriced they tend to work great imo and everything within the Apple brand does work very well together, usually an instant plug and play.
lordredapple t1_j18dehz wrote
And thank you for taking the time to type it :) Yeah I suppose apple will do what it can to resist and it's really all dependant on the law in the EU to fix that. US law for sure won't do anything about it considering what we've seen happen with other bigger companies. I completely even forgot about the right o repair movement tbh. I'm surprised Tesla hasn't been hit by that considering that they disable people's cars for taking it to unauthorized mechanics. I feel like that's total BS. One thing I am worried is that all the apps being restricted by apple from acting like hardcore tracked (Facebook, Twitter, google, etx) will make their own app store and remove themselves from the apple one to track you as much as they want with no regulations
Aromatic_Assist_3825 t1_j14yjhb wrote
I fail to see how Microsoft buying Acti/Bliz is a monopoly when other companies own so many other studios. So they make Call of Duty, are you telling me that other companies are not able to make their own FPS ?
How is Sony making Final Fantasy an exclusive not viewed as a bad thing at all?
Sounds like a lot of console war bullshit to me.
antunezn0n0 t1_j15ac1d wrote
because Activision is the third biggest publisher not just studio
pvtshoebox t1_j15tptm wrote
According to Wikipedia, they are 6th.
The list goes Sony, TenCent Games, Nintendo, Microsoft, NetEase, then Activision Blizzard.
Sony had more revenue as a video game publisher than Microsoft and Activision Blizzard combined.
Is Sony a monopoly?
If not, how could Microsoft + Activision Blizzard be one?
Lemonio t1_j15zl8z wrote
Does America have power over Sony if it isn’t American?
pvtshoebox t1_j160kn5 wrote
Irrelevant. Microsoft is not a monopoly, before or after the merger. Sony has five times as many exclusive titles on it’s newest platform as Microsoft. How is Microsoft at risk of becoming a monopoly?
Beef_Exotic t1_j16otei wrote
Yes they do. Just like the EU, UK, etc is also reviewing the MS/ATVI merger.
Spocks_Goatee t1_j15qg19 wrote
They're essentially trying to muscle Activisions IP's away from other platforms. Microsoft already snatched all future Bethesda games away...plus they'll own Candy Crush too.
Aromatic_Assist_3825 t1_j15smq6 wrote
They make them available on all platforms except PlayStation basically. You can play Microsoft games on your phone even.
lordredapple t1_j17ah3e wrote
They literally said that CoD and other Activision games will remain on the current platforms. Aside from that who cares, playstation does this all the time why is it an issue now? If we could get them both to stop exclusives I'd be over the moon with joy but only attacking one and not the other is dumb when Sony is the worst culprit
Words_Are_Hrad t1_j1852o7 wrote
Pretty sure Nintendo is the worse culprit in platform exclusives.
lordredapple t1_j185l7e wrote
True on that actually, but Sony comes second
marketrent OP t1_j13mpde wrote
Excerpt:
>Microsoft faces legal action from 10 gamers to block its merger with Call of Duty maker Activision Blizzard.
>The lawsuit filed in a US federal court says the $69bn (£56bn) deal by the Xbox console maker to purchase its rival will "create a monopoly in the video game industry".
>The proposed acquisition would give Microsoft "far-outsized market power in the video game industry," according to the complaint "with the ability to foreclose rivals, limit output, reduce consumer choice, raise prices, and further inhibit competition."
>The complaint comes two weeks after US regulators filed a case with an administrative judge to block the deal.
>The takeover, which was announced in January, also faces legal action in the European Union and the UK.
>Microsoft has not responded to the BBC for comment.
Monica Miller in Singapore, 21 December 2022.
LiterallyZeroSkill t1_j13wesd wrote
How the hell is that a monopoly? What market power. Microsoft is third in market share, behind Sony and Nintendo. Even if this acquisition makes Xbox skyrocket in sales, doesn't mean it's a monopoly.
Do Nintendo & Sony no longer exist as hardware competitors? Do Nintendo, Sony, Rockstar, Ubisoft, Square, Capcom etc no longer exist as game developers?
How the hell is this even close to a monopoly? Everyone who wants to buy a videogame has to purchase an Xbox now? What?
ZRSigs t1_j14xi3m wrote
And if you look at Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo, Sony and Nintendo are the WORST offenders of producing console exclusives for their platform. Its such a shit argument from Sony that they are worried that games wont be available on all platforms for everyone to join. Microsoft has been doing WORK trying to bring cross platform to as many games as possible while Nintendo and Sony seem hell bent on keeping us in the console wars.
I think if this merger is blocked because Sony is worried they might lose access to Call of Duty, Sony should have to make all of their games available on all consoles. I mean thats the point they are arguing right? Games should be available to everyone so lets make them available to everyone.
nyaaaa t1_j144fq0 wrote
Why would we need an agency and lengthy process, if all we had to do is stop the two last companies in a sector to merge.
antunezn0n0 t1_j15al5u wrote
Activision blizzards is the third biggest game publisher that's pretty much making exclusive a third of the whole market. just buying the competition right after buying another huge publisher in Bethesda's parent company
Words_Are_Hrad t1_j185uqx wrote
>Activision blizzards is the third biggest game publisher that's pretty much making exclusive a third of the whole market
Hahahahahahahaha!! You can't do basic math you genius!! If the third largest publisher was a third of the market that means the next two are each more than a third and together would represent MORE than the WHOLE market!! Great fucking argument mate!!! Especially when it's not even third and Sony has more game revenue than MS and ActiBlizzard combined... I'm sure you are very concerned about Sony's market share though!
Ok_Championship_2180 t1_j16q3v5 wrote
If Microsoft buys activision, they will buy take two next, then Ubisoft and EA. I don’t know how people are so blind to them trying to just buy out the whole gaming industry.
LiterallyZeroSkill t1_j16qan1 wrote
THEN THEY WOLL BIY SONY AND NINTNEDO AND APPLE AND GOOGLW
WAKE UP SHEEPLE WE HAVE TO STOP THEM!!
Words_Are_Hrad t1_j185zp3 wrote
Gotta love seeing text book slippery slope fallacies in the wild!!
i_am_covered t1_j13z9db wrote
It does not have to be a pure monopoly. It’s simply an unreasonable market advantage. Call of Duty alone is normally the top two selling games each year. That’s a huge amount of power. It also paves the way for huge acquisitions by Sony and Microsoft. Three manufacturers absolutely dominate console game sales and Activision is the largest of them. If this domino falls, it’s a race to the bottom so far as other acquisitions are concerned.
LiterallyZeroSkill t1_j141326 wrote
>It does not have to be a pure monopoly.
Then it's not a monopoly. A monopoly is the absence of competition. Gaming is extremely competitive with many players in the industry both from hardware (Nintendo, Sony, Valve, Meta, NVIDIA, AMD, Apple, Google etc) and software (the millions of game developers who aren't owned by Microsoft).
Even if Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard goes through, gaming is still extremely competitive with many players in the industry. So it's not at all remotely close to a monopoly.
>Call of Duty alone is normally the top two selling games each year. That’s a huge amount of power.
Just because a franchise might be popular and might be exclusive to a console doesn't mean a monopoly. Are there games available on non-Microsoft products? Yes. Are there other shooters available on other platforms? Yes.
Mario Kart, Animal Crossing, Mario, Smash Bros, Pokemon and Zelda games are huge sellers and are only available on the Nintendo consoles. Better contact the FTC!
antunezn0n0 t1_j15avhi wrote
there's a difference between developing your own projects and just outright buying established publishers. the Bethesda adquisición was already huge. Activision isn't just a studio is the third largest videogame publisher
i_am_covered t1_j1468l9 wrote
You asked how it was close to a monopoly. I thought it was fairly clear but, evidently not! Happy to have been of assistance.
BrokeBoiForLife t1_j14okxc wrote
Yea you’re right. They would have no competition if you simply ignore their competition. Great take
i_am_covered t1_j14pv29 wrote
Antitrust legislation is rarely leveled against companies for having zero competition. It’s used to prevent companies from securing a market advantage that would be unfriendly towards customers. I know this can be a nuanced issue but I’m really shocked that so many people just can’t grasp how Microsoft’s acquisition of the largest company in gaming should be reason for concern.
[deleted] t1_j14qjtc wrote
[removed]
AudioOff t1_j14dc7b wrote
This is an absurd take.
i_am_covered t1_j14oinh wrote
Really? I must say I am surprised to hear that people are not concerned about the consolidation of power at the top of the gaming industry. Thankfully, it looks like the FTC is. So that’s nice!
AudioOff t1_j14pmji wrote
Life is full of surprises.
BattleBull t1_j14a5ro wrote
So it will be thrown in the trash as the consumer likely wont have standing.
[deleted] t1_j15a6z3 wrote
[removed]
submittedanonymously t1_j13q2nh wrote
Not sure why you were downvoted for supplying info from the article.
AudioOff t1_j14d4qj wrote
10 of the dumbest, shittiest gamers banned together to maximize the level of dumb shittiness they can achieve. What miserable chuds.
ElGuaco t1_j155za4 wrote
I guarantee that they were recruited by the law firms who represent them and were given a cash payout for using their names. The law firms stand to make millions if they win a settlement for their "clients".
[deleted] t1_j144mvc wrote
[removed]
Frankiesales_ t1_j15uhf1 wrote
going to sue to stop the sue because sony fanboys are too funny when they are mad
lilrabbitfoofoo t1_j16gun0 wrote
I don't see how these Playstation Karens have any standing here or could even have suffered any damages yet.
Bait for clicks...nothing more.
Lokitusaborg t1_j16by1u wrote
(Sony) gamers (lawyers/pr)
what_comes_after_q t1_j149m0j wrote
This feels like such a petty thing to stop. Like most consumer goods, all chain restaurants, and our food suppliers are all owned by a handful of corporations. But when Microsoft wants to put world of Warcraft and call of duty on gamepass? That’s going too far.
XenithShade t1_j15k1rd wrote
i dont think gamers are suing. just 'regulators' who refuse to look at TicketMaster because of their bribes.
WuriderX t1_j16f9vu wrote
Microsoft-Activision deal: Sony Fanboys sue to stop merger-----I fixed it!!
d3visi t1_j17bfib wrote
Sponsored by Sony
MysteriousDrStranger t1_j1885tq wrote
Wish I could do anything to MAKE the merger happen. The state of Acti/Blizz is terrible right now and we need new leadership etc. Dragonflight feels like a Beta with all the bugs and server issues...
mtsai t1_j14od5c wrote
Why as a gamer do i care. Activision has gone to shit already pre merger. lol.
[deleted] t1_j14zidi wrote
[deleted]
this_barb t1_j152ch1 wrote
Oh no, I have ATVI calls that depend on this!
Cucumber_Basil t1_j15gnh6 wrote
Activision blizzard sucks. Microsoft acquiring them would be fantastic.
zombietampons t1_j15l7fo wrote
lol, that's pretty much all there is to say about this. Don't like it? Don't play their games. It's fairly simple. Seems like this will be a great time for indie game devs to build, shine, and provide even better games. The majority of games that these "gamers" drools over are re-skins.
harangatangs t1_j15poe8 wrote
I don't care, can we somehow just get Blizz split off as independent or consumed by some other studio house that doesn't suck shit? I would just like those IPs to not be a garbage fire anymore. Feel free to toss the last 10-20 years of storyline they wrote too, nothing of value in there.
MIKE_THE_KILLER t1_j160gun wrote
Activision is the worse publisher to date. I don't mind MS buying them because hopefully they can fix their shitty customer support on their broken ass games like MW2.
Ok_Championship_2180 t1_j16qtcr wrote
They won’t do anything for the game. It’ll be the same except you can only play it on Xbox.
dmdewd t1_j1677mv wrote
Maybe someone can do something about the Discovery - WB merger that hurts consumers, actors, and studios with literal no gain for anyone but this new fucking things shareholders. I give not a shit about MS buy Activision because they don't have a history of wiping game or stories off the face of the planet. If anything, their push for backwards compatibility has been a great thing for gamers. Hardware is a different story... Sorry Nokia, you didn't deserve that.
gazooontite t1_j16c57x wrote
Sony Sony Sony
R_Meyer1 t1_j16ii8n wrote
This article is complete bullshit. Game prices have already gone up. This is just more bullshit being pushed by crybaby Sony.
RageMojo t1_j16xt4j wrote
Not to mention it is well past time for people to wake up to the console scam and knock this shit off, so games can be good again. Why the fuck are people still spending nearly the cost of a suped up gaming PC on fucking consoles. Then paying for the privilege to access online and play MP.
Remarkable_Minute_10 t1_j16n9yh wrote
This fracking overrated piece of garbage FPS game gets so much hype is unreal. A crap game from a crap company people still mad about it. You only got 10 years left to play that ridiciolous turd called CoD on your platform? Guess what morons? They doing you a favour!!
in4mer t1_j16pjwb wrote
> Microsoft buys Minecraft
Tries to log in to play one night: They massacred my boy..
DoodMonkey t1_j172ej4 wrote
Does not need to happen
SectorEducational460 t1_j1755s5 wrote
Don't count me in on this. This is one of the few times I have no issue with monopoly because Microsoft can only improve Activision. I should also add this isn't a monopoly. It's an oligopoly. I suspect Sony is involved with this, as this seems like they shit they have been doing especially with Microsoft mergers recently.
_PaulM t1_j17d8c6 wrote
Microsoft did wonders by purchasing Bethesda, but Activision is a trash-panda company.
I'm getting really heavy Rare Games feelings with this purchase (high cost, low return). B-A is on the tail-end of the popularity of a lot of its IP's.
jcode7090 t1_j19s5yk wrote
Okay but what if I want the merge to happen? Game Pass is already amazing, and adding activision games on top of that would just be insane.
Slippinjimmyforever t1_j155sfr wrote
Lol. Salty bitches.
JustTooChewy t1_j15rgdm wrote
Gaystation gaymers at their finest
downonthesecond t1_j160uis wrote
They upset Gamers, it's not going to end well.
wedloxk t1_j165e08 wrote
Plot twist: the 10 gamers are paid by MS because they want out of this deal 😜
ImUrFrand t1_j16ita8 wrote
you mean degenerate people, let poor Bobby Kotick retire!
​
^(/s)
englishcrumpit t1_j14okwr wrote
Gotta love capitalism. Consolidating power, stifling innovation, forcing consumers into their products and serving crap at a premium.
MrStayPuft245 t1_j155cbr wrote
Every article about this is starting to feel like propaganda
phantompower_48v t1_j14b8dh wrote
These huge mergers are always anti-competitive never good for consumers. This should absolutely get blocked. You know what would be good for consumers? If microsoft took that $69 billion and built a new game development studio. Force more competition in the market and create new content.
dudeN7 t1_j14ggto wrote
How could MS owing Activision make anything worse? Seriously, ABK is the worst, greediest and most anti-consumer games publisher on our planet right now. It can't get worse. CoD will remain multiplat and there's a chance that the other games remain multiplat as well.
There have been so many mergers and buyouts recently that actually impacted many areas of the world's economics and they passes without any issues. MS buying a game publisher is irrelevant in comparison.
Also, they're still far from a monopoly afterwards.
Ok_Championship_2180 t1_j16qmxi wrote
They will take cod off PlayStation as soon as they can, just like they did with Bethesda games after they said they wouldn’t.
phantompower_48v t1_j14tzqh wrote
How has any mega merger in any industry made things better for consumers? If this goes through MS will clean house at Activision-blizzard while leaning into the most profitable aspects of the acquisition, which is pay-to-play/micro transaction heavy games. They’ll just continue to milk as much as they can from the acquired IP, instead of creating something new It’s delusional to think this would be good for the industry and for consumers.
DrB00 t1_j14fcaf wrote
Force Sony to stop making every game exclusive to Playstation
antunezn0n0 t1_j15b0e6 wrote
Sony isn't just buying publishers they have develop their own studios
pvtshoebox t1_j15vh2o wrote
When Sony is currently making more revenue as a video game publisher than Microsoft and Activision Blizzard combined - how would Microsoft + Activision Blizzard be considered a monopoly?
antunezn0n0 t1_j15xkiu wrote
do you have any proof of this
pvtshoebox t1_j15xvxx wrote
Just Wikipedia. I guess you can check their sources.
theboyonthetrain t1_j14m9cc wrote
This is dumb because nobody says it about Nintendo. Microsoft is huge and they can't manage to produce consistent AAA games that generate the successes they want. I'd say Microsoft should just make better games especially with how big they already are. I mean Microsoft as a whole is massive. So in theory, there is a good argument Microsoft getting the acquisition anticompetitive imo. But I wouldn't 100% disagree or agree, I just think MS isn't doing well at gaming and that really has less to do with PlayStation and Sony 🤷
Lootcifer- t1_j13o1jv wrote
While I’m no fan of monopolies and all that shit. Bro, they’re buying the shittiest gaming fucking company on earth (in a lot of ways worse than EA) and if they can do something about it to fix the company then I’m ok with it cause they won’t fix themselves.