Support NeoGAF

[Topher]

So, a wet dream.

Fan fiction

 

[lefty1117]

So, a wet dream.

I have no skin in the game, don't own any stock ... I do have all the consoles ... just playing a scenario, let's see how it goes!

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I have no skin in the game, don't own any stock ... I do have all the consoles ... just playing a scenario, let's see how it goes!

So, do you have black friends too?

 

[lefty1117]

So, do you have black friends too?

huh?

https://www.windowscentral.com/gami...tivision-blizzard-approved-in-another-country

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

huh?

https://www.windowscentral.com/gami...tivision-blizzard-approved-in-another-country

So?

 

[Topher]

So?

Maybe his black friends are Chilean?

 

[MasterCornholio]

Well that was Inevitable. Vawn goin vawn.

Apples was destined for a ban slap lol

All three got hit with perm warnings. I wasn't expecting that to be honest. I guess the mods had enough.

 

[Kagey K]

Well that was Inevitable. Vawn goin vawn.

Is that who that is? That explains a lot.

 

[Ronin_7]

The only countries/Group of countries were approval actually matters is UK, EU & USA. Maybe China.

Those All will be blocking the deals with exception of China.

FTC is always in talks with EU & UK over big acquisitions.

Even if EU Approves, the CMA is likely blocking since they've opposed EU in other Big deals.

https://www.gibsondunn.com/cma-stop...al-abandoned-as-uk-blocks-after-eu-clearance/

 

[drganon]

Now that MS is exposing all of Sony's exclusive lock/block activity & hypocrisy, this should eventually lead to MS being allowed to close the deal. And then what for Sony? As industries mature they consolidate. Sony can't keep up with MS cash reserves. That's why I say they're going to have to find a bigger funder. If I was Sony I'd sell off the gaming assets while you can still get a lot of money for it before it starts to atrophy. Then you can maxmize profits in other areas of the business with licensing and partnerships without being held back by restricting yourself to one platform, not to mention the operating costs of it all (ie greater profit by shedding some costs) - for example try to unseat Samsung as MS preferred gaming TV partner; licensing movie assets like Spiderman to multiple platforms instead of restricting yourself to one. Maybe a better idea is to shed the gaming hardware and just become a software publisher licensing to PC, xbox and Nintendo, if they're really dead set on staying on gaming.

Anyway it will be interesting to see how the various countries respond now that MS is exposing the lock/block activity from Sony. Already we have Chile come out today and approve the deal saying they see no threat to competition. Indeed acquiring studios is typical in the industry. Checkmate in just a few more moves, imo

 

[freefornow]

sapple being gone is a good thing.

That's a bit harsh. Has an air of schadenfreude about it.

 

[MasterCornholio]

sapple being gone is a good thing.

In the end no one is immune from action here. Some learn that the hard way.

 

[DarkMage619]

The only countries/Group of countries were approval actually matters is UK, EU & USA. Maybe China.

Those All will be blocking the deals with exception of China.

FTC is always in talks with EU & UK over big acquisitions.

Even if EU Approves, the CMA is likely blocking since they've opposed EU in other Big deals.

https://www.gibsondunn.com/cma-stop...al-abandoned-as-uk-blocks-after-eu-clearance/

This example appears to be a horizontal merger and the most problematic when it comes to getting regulatory approval. This example had two competing companies merging so there would be one less competitor in the market performing that service. Activision isn't selling consoles or in competition with MS and will still be making games afterwards so the MS deal is more vertical. MS isn't buying Nintendo or Sony and is smaller than either in gaming so these situations aren't alike.

 

[Three]

This example appears to be a horizontal merger and the most problematic when it comes to getting regulatory approval. This example had two competing companies merging so there would be one less competitor in the market performing that service. Activision isn't selling consoles or in competition with MS and will still be making games afterwards so the MS deal is more vertical. MS isn't buying Nintendo or Sony and is smaller than either in gaming so these situations aren't alike.

This merger is both though.

 

[GHG]

Sony's best bet is to spin off the gaming division, sell it to Amazon or Apple or something of that size. it's clear they can't compete with MS resources, and Phil was right when he said Microsoft's true competitors are Google and Amazon. Real behemoths, not niche competitors like Sony that have to run to the courts because they're too small to compete. Sony Gaming division is really just a collection of studios, essentially a development holding company, that also happens to make ugly hardware with a bad UI.

adamsapple or CatLady

 

[Menzies]

This merger is both though.

Has any regulators issues statements pressed the claim that this is horizontal? I haven’t seen it. They must not think it’s a strong enough case to argue.

 

[The_Mike]

Anyways [IMG alt="Captain Toad"][URL][URL]https://www.neogaf.com/cdn-cgi/mirage/fa54adea9f796909dd072088a89e8df07e398c01af34bf4d44cebdefeef9ef2f/1280/data/avatars/s/807/807071.jpg?1667509074[/URL][/URL][/IMG] Captain Toad got hit as well.

I'm actually surprised that he has survived that long, being one of the hardcore warriors in here

adamsapple and CatLady ate the hammer today.
Folks be careful. No one is safe.

 

[reksveks]

Most of the concerns have been about issues that typically get associated with vertical mergers to my knowledge.

An analysis for a horizontal merger perspective is likely a failure. The number of gaming publishers are just too vast.

 

[Three]

Has any regulators issues statements pressed the claim that this is horizontal? I haven’t seen it. They must not think it’s a strong enough case to argue.

They have investigated them as publishers and as platform holders but they haven't pressed the issue as a publisher. Their main issue is lowered competition to platform holders.

 

[Three]

Most of the concerns have been about issues that typically get associated with vertical mergers to my knowledge.

An analysis for a horizontal merger perspective is likely a failure. The number of gaming publishers are just too vast.

The remedies in the example that the EC accepted but the CMA didn't was to remove/divest all overlapping businesses of the two companies. ie they removed all horizontal merger concerns in their remedies but the CMA were concerned with concentrated market power regardless. The merging companies main concerns were the vertical aspects they were trying to get through.

 

[reksveks]

The remedies in the example that the EC accepted but the CMA didn't was to remove/divest all overlapping businesses of the two companies. ie they removed all horizontal merger concerns in their remedies but the CMA were concerned with concentrated market power regardless. The merging companies main concerns were the vertical aspects they were trying to get through.

Was just referring to the MS ABK concerns and the concerns that regulators are raising.

I haven't looked into the acquisition of Cargotec/Konecranes and their power in the relevant markets.

Just looking at the CMA's summary findings

Horizontal unilateral effects in the supply of RTG
- The Parties have very high shares of supply on a European basis, with a significant increment. The Parties are by far the largest two suppliers in Europe, with a combined share of supply in excess of 70% over 2011 to 11 2020

Horizontal unilateral effects in the supply of ASC
- The Merged Entity would have a high combined share of supply (around [60-70]%) on a European basis over 2011-20, with a significant
increment

Horizontal unilateral effects in the supply of SC and ShC
(a) The Parties currently have close to [90–100]% combined share of supply of SC and ShC on any geographic basis. On this basis alone, there is a strong prima facie expectation that the Parties are close competitors in the supply of SC and ShC.2
(b) Our review of SC and ShC bidding opportunities in the UK shows that the Parties were the only competitors in all but one of these opportunities; in the opportunity with a third participant, [].

Seems like one where the concessions just doesn't make sense especially in some of the markets but i am obviously no expert in cargo equipment.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I'm actually surprised that he has survived that long, being one of the hardcore warriors in here

Well I'm not surprised seeing those three get hit with one. I do find it curious that they banned them at the same time though. Maybe the three were fighting and the mods had enough.

 

[3liteDragon]

Well I'm not surprised seeing those three get hit with one. I do find it curious that they banned them at the same time though. Maybe the three were fighting and the mods had enough.

That’s what I was wondering, cause there weren’t any post links beside their usernames either.

 

[feynoob]

So all the mistakes were fixed back in 2018?

From brand image to the console, yes.
After that TV e3, the brand needed time to recover from that disaster, and the weak console to disappear.

ummm ... but Microsoft hired Phil and pays him to take care of their business? He is the CEO of Microsoft Gaming.

He was ceo of XBOX. Not microft gaming.

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/84099/phil-spencer-becomes-microsofts-first-ceo-of-gaming/index.html

 

[feynoob]

Now that MS is exposing all of Sony's exclusive lock/block activity & hypocrisy, this should eventually lead to MS being allowed to close the deal. And then what for Sony? As industries mature they consolidate. Sony can't keep up with MS cash reserves. That's why I say they're going to have to find a bigger funder. If I was Sony I'd sell off the gaming assets while you can still get a lot of money for it before it starts to atrophy. Then you can maxmize profits in other areas of the business with licensing and partnerships without being held back by restricting yourself to one platform, not to mention the operating costs of it all (ie greater profit by shedding some costs) - for example try to unseat Samsung as MS preferred gaming TV partner; licensing movie assets like Spiderman to multiple platforms instead of restricting yourself to one. Maybe a better idea is to shed the gaming hardware and just become a software publisher licensing to PC, xbox and Nintendo, if they're really dead set on staying on gaming.

Anyway it will be interesting to see how the various countries respond now that MS is exposing the lock/block activity from Sony. Already we have Chile come out today and approve the deal saying they see no threat to competition. Indeed acquiring studios is typical in the industry. Checkmate in just a few more moves, imo

I took you as a troll, but not this dense.

 

[feynoob]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...vision-blizzard-ftc-acquisition-bid-antitrust

Microsoft and video game maker Activision Blizzard are pushing the Federal Trade Commission to approve their pending $69 billion deal and overcome the regulator’s antitrust concerns.

The FTC is skeptical about the world’s fourth-largest tech company’s effort to acquire Activision. Microsoft wants to buy the maker of the popular game Call of Duty to gain a footprint in mobile gaming. Gaming now surpasses the movie and music industries combined, with smartphones being the most popular place to game and earning $152.50 billion in 2022. Mobile gaming is the largest- and fastest-growing segment of the gaming market.

LINA KHAN'S FTC WAR ON GAMING

While Microsoft is in the top three (behind Sony’s PlayStation and Nintendo’s Switch) with its Xbox console, the company is looking to “reach the billions of players where they are and no matter what device they play on” with the largest gaming acquisition to date.

But the FTC moved to thwart the sale because, as stated in their complaint: “With control of Activision’s content, Microsoft would have the ability and increased incentive to withhold or degrade Activision’s content in ways that substantially lessen competition — including competition on product quality, price, and innovation. This loss of competition would likely result in significant harm to consumers in multiple markets at a pivotal time for the industry.”

Microsoft points to the opposite, citing its incentive to keep offering games like Call of Duty to Sony because two-thirds of the game’s players are on PlayStation and Microsoft wouldn’t want to lose the revenue from those players' in-game purchases. In-app purchases are now often the largest source of revenue for app developers or owners.

Microsoft’s market share would be somewhere between 10% and 15% if the deal closes, but it doesn’t reach the levels traditionally warranting antitrust scrutiny. Also, because Microsoft wouldn’t be purchasing a competitor, but rather integrating the firm into its supply chain, the merger is vertical and not horizontal. While horizontal mergers are regularly scrutinized by the FTC, vertical mergers have been recognized for decades as often economically beneficial to consumers.

More specifically, Microsoft offered to remedy FTC concerns and head off legal challenges by pledging to offer Call of Duty to Sony devices for 10 years, a lifetime in the fast-changing world of gaming. Sony called the offer “inadequate” and continues to lobby regulators around the globe to block the sale.

This FTC action seems to be less about the specific merits of the case and more about a larger reimagining of U.S. antitrust law from FTC Chairwoman Lina Khan.

Khan rose to legal stardom as a Yale Law School student by writing a scathing indictment of Amazon as anti-competitive and arguing for a fundamental rethinking of regulation due to new platform business models in Big Tech. Since being nominated by President Joe Biden, and confirmed by the Senate in 2021, Khan has attempted to institute these changes through rule-making at the agency and bringing unorthodox cases, breaking from the traditional consumer welfare standard.

The Microsoft case involves similar concerns of platform owners having too much power over those using the platform for distribution.

“The timing is interesting,” Ashley Baker of the Committee for Justice, a Washington-based nonprofit group focused on the judiciary, told the Washington Examiner. “If you look at the FTC’s action since Lina Khan took over, there’s lots of changing policy statements and attempts at rule-making, but they haven’t brought any good cases.”

In November, the FTC issued the agency’s new interpretation of its regulatory authority. It didn’t lay out the specifics for what the new criteria of the agency’s congressional statute of opposing “unfair methods of competition” are, but it leaned toward being expansive in its approach. This case could be an attempt to fill in the details of that policy.

The question now goes to the FTC’s in-house administrative court and is set to be tried there on Aug. 2, 2023. A decision from that court is expected in fall 2023 and can eventually be appealed in a U.S. circuit court. The entire process could take up to three years to complete.

Competition regulators in the United Kingdom and the European Union are also scrutinizing the deal.

 

[Three]

Well I'm not surprised seeing those three get hit with one. I do find it curious that they banned them at the same time though. Maybe the three were fighting and the mods had enough.

Yeah, a lot of them were going at it in the HOL thread.

 

[The_Mike]

Now that MS is exposing all of Sony's exclusive lock/block activity & hypocrisy, this should eventually lead to MS being allowed to close the deal.

Okay, I can agree on that.

And then what for Sony? As industries mature they consolidate. Sony can't keep up with MS cash reserves. That's why I say they're going to have to find a bigger funder. If I was Sony I'd sell off the gaming assets...

OK I stopped reading there.

Isn't the gaming department the only thing that keeps Sony afloat?

 

[reksveks]

Isn't the gaming department the only thing that keeps Sony afloat?

Less true now but it was the profit maker a while ago but now most of the divisions are okay in terms of profits.

 

[Ronin_7]

This example appears to be a horizontal merger and the most problematic when it comes to getting regulatory approval. This example had two competing companies merging so there would be one less competitor in the market performing that service. Activision isn't selling consoles or in competition with MS and will still be making games afterwards so the MS deal is more vertical. MS isn't buying Nintendo or Sony and is smaller than either in gaming so these situations aren't alike.

Vertical or Horizontal both are bad for Consumers in General. Heck in My county a handful of big retail chains dominate and small business have hard times catching up & most close.

They manipulate prices as they see fit, many people have here are going through very bad times, I've been donating money & food since Inflation began.

I'll give you an example, before the war a Kg of cow meat was 4.99€ in most places, now the price is up to 10.49€.

Since there's no rules & a handful of big corps dominate, they have the prices like this everywhere so many people can't barely afford food anymore.

Now of course gaming isn't a necessity but you see the point.

 

[feynoob]

I'll give you an example, before the war a Kg of cow meat was 4.99€ in most places, now the price is up to 10.49€.

That is stretch here.
A cow meat is a necessity, gaming isnt or entertainment isnt.

 

[Heisenberg007]

That is stretch here.
A cow meat is a necessity, gaming isnt or entertainment isnt.

Doesn't mean that laws don't apply here or the laws should go easy on entertainment companies.

The anti-competitive laws apply equally across the board. Because, at the end of the day, new entrants shouldn't face unnecessary barriers to entry because of monopolistic markets, regardless of the industry.

 

[Heisenberg007]

From brand image to the console, yes.
After that TV e3, the brand needed time to recover from that disaster, and the weak console to disappear.


He was ceo of XBOX. Not microft gaming.

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/84099/phil-spencer-becomes-microsofts-first-ceo-of-gaming/index.html

I didn't say he was CEO of Gaming. I said he is CEO of Gaming.

ummm ... but Microsoft hired Phil and pays him to take care of their business? He is the CEO of Microsoft Gaming.

 

[Topher]

OK I stopped reading there.

Isn't the gaming department the only thing that keeps Sony afloat?

No, Gaming brings in the most revenue, but only a third of total revenue.

 

[feynoob]

Doesn't mean that laws don't apply here or the laws should go easy on entertainment companies.

The anti-competitive laws apply equally across the board. Because, at the end of the day, new entrants shouldn't face unnecessary barriers to entry because of monopolistic markets, regardless of the industry.

The laws are different, depending on the accessibility.
For entertainment, I can create new content out of thin air, and use my resources. While I cant do that for necessity products. Netflix, Cloud gaming, VR, streaming are the result of contents that come out of thin air.

For this case, COD might be dominant, but that wont have a huge impact as other companies are capable of creating alteranative content. See Fortnite.

So for this case, anti-competitive laws would be different, as the barrier is open.

I didn't say he was CEO of Gaming. I said he is CEO of Gaming.

Its a new promotion for him.

 

[reksveks]

The laws are different, depending on the accessibility.
For entertainment, I can create new content out of thin air, and use my resources. While I cant do that for necessity products. Netflix, Cloud gaming, VR, streaming are the result of contents that come out of thin air.

For this case, COD might be dominant, but that wont have a huge impact as other companies are capable of creating alteranative content. See Fortnite.

So for this case, anti-competitive laws would be different, as the barrier is open.

Think you would be more correct in saying laws are applied differently because of all the reasons that you said. The laws themselves are the same across different industry but this detour is largely irrelevant.

The fact meat prices have increased could be related to a number of factors, like number of retailers, number of food producers, the fact that input costs have increased, removal of externalities that are depressing the price, or just companies trying to increase margins.

Also back to ronin_7 comment, horizontal and/or vertical mergers/acquisition aren't inherently bad, ones that lead to monopolies or significant lessening of competition is. They aren't also inherently good. It may just have been excluded from this comment. In my opinion, it was a 'weird' reply to dark mage highlighting the fact that horizontal ones are easier to analyse and generally more troublesome.

 

[Heisenberg007]

The laws are different, depending on the accessibility.
For entertainment, I can create new content out of thin air, and use my resources. While I cant do that for necessity products. Netflix, Cloud gaming, VR, streaming are the result of contents that come out of thin air.

For this case, COD might be dominant, but that wont have a huge impact as other companies are capable of creating alteranative content. See Fortnite.

So for this case, anti-competitive laws would be different, as the barrier is open.

No, that's your presumption that entertainment products are easier to create than, say, setting up a beef shop. And that may or may not be correct.

But, no, the laws are the same. For instance, the Clayton act applies to both entertainment and non-entertainment companies.

Feel free to share the different anti-competitive laws, which apply exclusively to the entertainment industry, here if you've them. Thanks in advance.

 

[feynoob]

Think you would be more correct in saying laws are applied differently because of all the reasons that you said. The laws themselves are the same across different industry but this detour is largely irrelevant.

The fact meat prices have increased could be related to a number of factors, like number of retailers, number of food producers, the fact that input costs have increased, removal of externalities that are depressing the price, or just companies trying to increase margins.

Should have said "applied differently ".
Since each field is different, it would have their own approach, even though it's the same laws.

No, that's your presumption that entertainment products are easier to create than, say, setting up a beef shop. And that may or may not be correct.

But, no, the laws are the same. For instance, the Clayton act applies to both entertainment and non-entertainment companies.

Feel free to share the different anti-competitive laws, which apply exclusively to the entertainment industry, here if you've them. Thanks in advance.

R reksveks explained it.
I got the wording wrong.

 

[feynoob]

Fan fiction

Fan fiction is better than that.

 

[HoofHearted]

SMH - Who'd have thought we'd be discussing meat prices in a gaming thread arguing over the merits of a single game's *supposed* importance and impact potentially leading to the demise of the entire industry if it's acquired?

I've gotta start compiling a cliff's notes version of this thread just for all the weird analogies...

 

[Heisenberg007]

Should have said "applied differently ".
Since each field is different, it would have their own approach, even though it's the same laws.


R reksveks explained it.
I got the wording wrong.

No problem mate.

But they don't necessarily apply differently. They could, but they are not necessarily supposed to. Because, regardless of industries, it's businesses all the same who employ the same type of people and contribute to the economy in roughly the same way.

At the end of the day, anti-competitiveness affects human beings, so the laws shouldn't necessarily be applied differently.

 

[wolffy71]

Buying exclusives doesn't get you permanent exclusive rights to the usage, control, and creative direction, as well as the workload of all the game studios. It doesn't get you all the technology and manpower and IP at their disposal. It also doesn't get you focused attention on your own APIs, brand, technology, or hardware. It also surely doesn't get you control of any and all agreements they can ever enter into going forward. Microsoft could get any among the various studios to help with development of new IPs, IPs it already owns, or to help with the development of other Xbox first party games under either Bethesda or Xbox Game Studios. The sky is the limit.

It also doesn't get you anywhere close to what ownership would get Microsoft for Game Pass and their cloud streaming service through Game Pass. There's a massive difference between ownership and no ownership. Let's also not forget the shit load of money that would be coming in from Activision Blizzard as well as King to help fund all of Microsoft's gaming operations. You can't get that from buying exclusives.

Plus imagine, all future COD yearly releases day one on Game Pass where they will remain forever. And don't forget all past releases as well as games in Activision Blizzard's past catalog within their technical and legal ability to get onto Game Pass.




Is it really the Kotick line? Or is it the Activision Blizzard line. All of Activision Blizzard wants the deal approved, not just her. She's doing her job. Did you expect her to do anything else?

You have proof she has threatened the staff? Or are you just going off of the fact that she is allowed to inform employees of potential reasons why they might not want to unionize? I'm pro-union, but I don't see where she has threatened anybody at Activision Blizzard. But let's go with that. Let's assume she has done exactly that. If she has and is somehow being allowed to do so, that's yet more reason for why the deal should go through so Microsoft can get in there and stop that kind of behavior dead in its tracks. These things only reinforce the good in the acquisition. As you said, MS has no issue with the unions and has agreed to remain neutral.

None of which they need. All they need us the game to not be on PS.

All those other things being out just make it easier and less expensive.

If the goal is simply to hurt Sony, exclusivity is enough.

 

[wolffy71]

It depends. Other divisions in MS could look to use that money for other things. If you are correct, I'd hope they also actually invest in their studios and promote the competent staff in the performing studios to positions of power overall, such as Playground and the Coalition. Buying and creating studios can be done by any simpleton with an unlimited warchest, the difficult job is the management of these studios.

The idea is they obviously want to invest in gaming. And want something that is a bit more splashy than solid hires at mojang.

 

[64bitmodels]

Anyways [IMG alt="Captain Toad"]https://www.neogaf.com/data/avatars/s/807/807071.jpg?1667509074[/IMG] Captain Toad got hit as well.

thank god, i actually fucking hate that dude. these days he's almost always a major warrior or a straight up asshole in every post.
there are few people on GAF that i can't tolerate and he's one of them

Well he's been equipped since 2017 and there isn't too much to show for it so :/

i mean... Xbox still exists and hasn't been canned by MS. that's something to show for
you might think i'm joking but honestly, mattrick was making bad decision after bad decision. as much as phil slacks on the games he's done a good job when it comes to hardware, services and advertising. I feel like the brand would go back into a downward spiral if some other guy took the helm.

 

[DeepEnigma]

SMH - Who'd have thought we'd be discussing meat prices in a gaming thread arguing over the merits of a single game's *supposed* importance and impact potentially leading to the demise of the entire industry if it's acquired?

I've gotta start compiling a cliff's notes version of this thread just for all the weird analogies...

A flesh is a flesh.

 

[Thirty7ven]

I have no skin in the game, don't own any stock ... I do have all the consoles ... just playing a scenario, let's see how it goes!

Sony has a lot of cash and a big userbase, not to mention big IP. PS5 will be the best selling console this generation.

They can go out there and consolidate themselves, and most likely get a hold of IP that will serve the more hardcore. If they go out there and buy Kadokawa and Capcom for example, it would hurt online fanboys a lot more than call of duty and Diablo.

It’s a shame if that’s what’s going to happen though.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

2014-2018 fixing the brand and making the right moves. Steering from Xbox one bad mistakes.

You mean like cancelling Scalebound, cancelling Phantom Dust remake, releasing Crackdown 3 the way they did, releasing Halo Infinite the way they did, letting FH5 rot over months with broken online the way they have, not having a single major exclusive for Xbox Series launch, sending Bleeding Edge out to die, barely having any marketing for Gears 5 Hivebusters, rushing into buying another major 3P publisher after just completing the acquisition of a large one the year prior?

Those right moves?

Post 2018 until now: studio acquisition and branching the brand. Expanding first party studios. Expanding gamepass, and getting Japanese devs to invest on the brand.

Yes, expanding 1P teams was a good thing, although some of that involved buying a large 3P publisher (though in Zenimax's case it's understandable because they were risking losing funding from their previous investor and were in a pretty bad financial state). Expanding GamePass...how? Where's the growth, it's stagnating on it's #1 platform, Xbox. They got Japanese devs into the platform by cutting checks for late releases of their games into GamePass, and in Sega's case, getting them on board as an Azure client.

That's more to do with the money MS can throw around rather than Japanese devs genuinely being more interested in providing for the Xbox platform of their own accord.

So far, he did his job. it's up to MS now to take care of their business.

Lol, yeah he can sit back now and get Businessman of the Year awards for deals that aren't even finalized!

Now that MS is exposing all of Sony's exclusive lock/block activity & hypocrisy, this should eventually lead to MS being allowed to close the deal. And then what for Sony? As industries mature they consolidate. Sony can't keep up with MS cash reserves. That's why I say they're going to have to find a bigger funder. If I was Sony I'd sell off the gaming assets while you can still get a lot of money for it before it starts to atrophy. Then you can maxmize profits in other areas of the business with licensing and partnerships without being held back by restricting yourself to one platform, not to mention the operating costs of it all (ie greater profit by shedding some costs) - for example try to unseat Samsung as MS preferred gaming TV partner; licensing movie assets like Spiderman to multiple platforms instead of restricting yourself to one. Maybe a better idea is to shed the gaming hardware and just become a software publisher licensing to PC, xbox and Nintendo, if they're really dead set on staying on gaming.

Anyway it will be interesting to see how the various countries respond now that MS is exposing the lock/block activity from Sony. Already we have Chile come out today and approve the deal saying they see no threat to competition. Indeed acquiring studios is typical in the industry. Checkmate in just a few more moves, imo

Cool story, Timdog

This example appears to be a horizontal merger and the most problematic when it comes to getting regulatory approval. This example had two competing companies merging so there would be one less competitor in the market performing that service. Activision isn't selling consoles or in competition with MS and will still be making games afterwards so the MS deal is more vertical. MS isn't buying Nintendo or Sony and is smaller than either in gaming so these situations aren't alike.

Couldn't this acquisition be argued as a horizontal merger as well? Microsoft are "technically" a 3P publisher, they have said so themselves, and put content out on other competing platforms like Minecraft and ESO. So in buying the largest 3P publisher in the market, a 3P publisher they have competed with in terms of certain IP at least from a historical POV (Halo vs COD, both being big FPS games at least a decade ago when Halo was actually relevant), that has a FPS IP in COD that could be argued as having "replaced" Halo among the mainstream and that MS want to acquire after having failed to make Halo truly relevant again, could that not be seen in a way as at least a soft horizontal merger?

Not a "hard" horizontal one of course, but I think if you can see it as a soft horizontal merger along those lines along the fact it's a hard vertical merger, that might be a point of concern and a factor into why this deal is getting a lot of scrutiny. Just my two cents.

i mean... Xbox still exists and hasn't been canned by MS. that's something to show for
you might think i'm joking but honestly, mattrick was making bad decision after bad decision. as much as phil slacks on the games he's done a good job when it comes to hardware, services and advertising. I feel like the brand would go back into a downward spiral if some other guy took the helm.

I get what you're saying, and I agree at least with the idea that Phil's helped get things going again with hardware and revitalizing the brand on the (promise of a) service, but couldn't they have been doing this while also doing what mattered most, i.e releasing big, high-quality games consistently? Sony were in a similar position with PS3 and had to revitalize the whole brand with new hardware SKU models, revamping the services, revamping the advertising etc. and they did ALL of that while also remembering to beef up their 1P and 3P exclusives simultaneously.

IMO that is much more impressive than what Phil Spencer has managed to do with Xbox since taking over from Mattrick (who I think gets a bad rap; he talked way too much but it's not like MS weren't heading in that direction eventually, he just spoke too soon. FWIW he did secure some solid exclusives for XBO in the first few years and also set up deals like Scalebound I'm assuming) and Myerson.

Sony accomplished actual change and saw actual results with PS3 in a span of four years; Xbox is five years in since the big flip in 2017 and there's not a whole lot to show for it, not for the XBO and not even for Xbox Series currently. How much longer are people outside the fanbase going to have to wait until they can finally say Xbox is (legitimately) back?

 

[64bitmodels]

Mattrick (who I think gets a bad rap; he talked way too much but it's not like MS weren't heading in that direction eventually, he just spoke too soon. FWIW he did secure some solid exclusives for XBO in the first few years and also set up deals like Scalebound I'm assuming)

Xbox is in the position it is now because of him specifically. all of the hard work that previous heads had put into Xbox was squandered because of his delusions of kinect and DRM specifically. i feel like the hate is justified. If he were never appointed we probably wouldn't have been having this conversation about Xbox now... neither would this deal even exist

 

[Topher]

Microsoft's proposed acquisition of Activison Blizzard is facing its biggest regulatory hurdle so far: a legal complaint issued by the US' Federal Trade Commission.

While the FTC does not have the authority to approve or disapprove any given merger, the legal proceedings kicked off by this complaint could ultimately lead to the deal being blocked by US courts.

The FTC has cited concerns over the potential for Microsoft to make the best-selling Call of Duty franchise exclusive to its own ecosystem – pointing to the company's decision to do the same with upcoming Bethesda titles such as Starfield – among other things. But the move is also part of a broader clampdown on massive tech mergers.

GamesIndustry.biz spoke to two legal experts, with Gamma Law managing partner David B. Hoppe observing that this complaint is in line with the FTC's "strategy of expanded antitrust enforcement."


David B. Hoppe, Gamma Law
"Part of this is to actively review so-called 'vertical' mergers, which involve companies that are not direct competitors, but are at different points in an industry stack," he explains. "Here, Activision could be viewed as a sort of 'supplier' to Microsoft, since it produces games that can be played on the Xbox. In the United States, vertical mergers have not had much attention in the past, since they were viewed in most cases as being favorable to consumers.

"The theory has been that integration of companies at different points in the value chain would lead to lower prices to consumers. However, it’s not clear that this has actually been the case. Plus, the current view among more liberal economists in the United States is that other factors should be considered beyond just whether a merger will result in higher costs. These other factors include the impact on innovation and labor markets, for example."

Richard Hoeg, managing partner of The Hoeg Law Firm, adds: "Candidly, I believe the primary motivation is the FTC’s increasing emphasis on aggressive enforcement of antitrust laws overall, and with respect to large technology companies in particular.

"Ostensibly, their biggest concerns are that Microsoft’s control of major AAA franchises – especially Call of Duty – would give them the ability and incentive to remove those franchises from rival platforms and allow them to unfairly monopolize hardware sales, subscription services, and cloud gaming."

Will the FTC win this legal battle?
Microsoft has been readying its defence somewhat publicly, with company president Brad Smith penning a piece for the Wall Street Journal about the vision behind the deal and Xbox boss Phil Spencer promising Call of Duty on Nintendo consoles and Steam for ten years if the deal is approved (although, as our own Chris Dring discussed, the latter is something of a sideshow).

"Many agencies are basically betting that a company will drop out based on the pressure they can exert with a complaint"

Richard Hoeg, The Hoeg Law Firm
While many are skeptical about Microsoft's arguments in favour of the merger being approved, Hoeg believes it will still be difficult for the FTC to prevail in court.

"On the console side, making the case that [Microsoft] would have inordinate market power requires the FTC to claim that Nintendo and the massive success of the Switch is not a part of the relevant market they are looking at – this is a hard sell," he says.

"In respect of both subscription and cloud gaming, the FTC has to make the case that those markets are separate from the overall market of game distribution, which is likewise quite difficult given that both represent only different business models for the sale and presentation of the same goods. The fact that cloud gaming is not sold by Microsoft separately also blurs the lines.

"Finally, the fact that all of these questions are being posed regarding a company that is at least second if not third on the console sales spectrum (in given jurisdictions), makes Microsoft’s arguments more powerful. The FTC has a very tough case."

Hoppe, however, has less faith in Microsoft arguments, and says Smith's WSJ article was surprisingly weak: "He’s talking about cross-platform capability as if it was some revolutionary thing that Microsoft was going to bring to the world if they could buy Activision. Many WSJ readers and members of Congress will find that interesting. But as people who play games or work in the industry know, cross-platform is already here and it’s not going away, and publishers don’t need the platforms for this."

That said, he adds that ultimately the arguments most likely to decide the case will be based on precedents in antitrust law – and in that regard, the law is "not on [the FTC's] side."

What happens next?
We're approaching the end of of a two-week window in which Microsoft has to answer the FTC's complaint before the formal process truly begins. A hearing before an administrative judge at the FTC has already been scheduled for August 2023 – instantly pushing the deal beyond the June 2023 completion date both Microsoft and Activision were hoping for. Before this hearing, there will be various meetings and discussions between the parties involved, any of which could lead to a settlement (especially if Microsoft ends up offering concessions that allay the FTC's concerns).

If the case reaches the August hearing, the judge's decision could still be appealed by the FTC, Microsoft and/or Activision, which would move it to the US Court of Appeals and potentially all the way up to the US Supreme Court. Again, Microsoft could reach a settlement with the FTC at any point during this time, although Hoppe says the latter's commissioners "have indicated that they are skeptical of the value of such settlements."

"I would be surprised if there is not serious consideration given to canceling the deal"

David B. Hoppe, Gamma Law
An additional complication, Hoeg observes, is the US Supreme Court is currently in the process of making a decision in the case of Axon Enterprise vs the FTC, which could challenge the ability of agencies like the FTC to handle adjudicative processes outside of the federal courts.

"If that goes as many expect it might, Microsoft may wind up with the ability to eject the process to federal court where they would expect to have a higher chance of success," he says.

All this is to say the dispute between the FTC and Microsoft/Activision is still in its very early stages, which makes it difficult to predict how it will turn out. Even so, both our legal experts believe Microsoft would defeat the FTC's complaint.

"To date it has been very difficult for the FTC to win these cases to stop vertical mergers," Hoppe explains. "The main reason is that courts have required the FTC to show harm to consumers. That may be mostly self-evident when the two companies are direct competitors, but it is very difficult in the case of a vertical merger.

"For example, whether or not Microsoft will provide Xbox users with exclusive release windows for Call of Duty will likely depend on a variety of factors that are unknown at this point. They may determine that it doesn’t make sense for different reasons, or market dynamics two or three years from now may be such that it doesn’t really matter anyway. So it’s hard to make the showing to a court that will convince them to intervene to stop a $69 billion transaction."

Hoeg adds: "If this went all the way to a court determination, I believe Microsoft would win. The trickier question is whether Microsoft will take this to the end of such a determination or bail out beforehand, particularly if the CMA [The Competition and Markets Authority, a UK regulator] and European Union move against it as well.

"These things take a lot of time, money, and resources, and many agencies are basically betting that a company will drop out based on the pressure they can exert with a complaint."


Richard Hoeg, The Hoeg Law Firm
He adds that the 'penalty fee' Microsoft would pay for abandoning its acquisition of Activision Blizzard is due to increase in the next few months. At present, the Xbox firm would need to pay $2 billion to stop the deal before January 18, 2023, with this rising to $3 billion by April 18.

And, as Hoeg mentioned, there's the added complication of other regulators scrutinising the deal. Both the CMA and the EU are in the midst of an in-depth investigation, with the former already voicing multiple concerns over the potential harm for competition if the merger proceeds. While no regulator is adherent to the actions of others in separate jurisdictions, Hoeg says that "whatever political concerns the CMA or the EC might face on bringing an action are substantially lessened by the fact that the FTC has already moved on this."

Hoppe, meanwhile, believes it is "inevitable" this action by the FTC – and any developments in this process going forward – will impact the outcome in other jurisdictions, such as the UK and EU.

Will Microsoft acquire Activision Blizzard?
As has been the case since the acquisition was first announced in January, the question remains whether it will ultimately go through and Activision Blizzard will become part of Microsoft.

Hoppe believes the FTC complaint has significantly increased the costs and uncertainty associated with the deal, adding: "I would be surprised if there is not serious consideration given to canceling the deal and paying the breakup fee, if it would apply. If they do go ahead and don’t reach some interim settlement with the FTC, I think they would prevail. It’s possible they would even win in August of next year before the FTC’s own judge, which is what happened recently in another vertical merger case."

Hoeg concludes: "I’d personally like to see Microsoft proceed through the process as I think a final determination would benefit industry participant’s understanding of what is and will be allowed, but it’s not my money or time on the line. It’s almost entirely 50/50 in my eyes, and entirely dependant on what appetite Microsoft has to go through this whole thing."

Can the FTC block Microsoft's ABK acquisition?

Microsoft's proposed acquisition of Activison Blizzard is facing its biggest regulatory hurdle so far: a legal complain…

www.gamesindustry.biz

 

[feynoob]

You mean like cancelling Scalebound, cancelling Phantom Dust remake, releasing Crackdown 3 the way they did, releasing Halo Infinite the way they did, letting FH5 rot over months with broken online the way they have, not having a single major exclusive for Xbox Series launch, sending Bleeding Edge out to die, barely having any marketing for Gears 5 Hivebusters, rushing into buying another major 3P publisher after just completing the acquisition of a large one the year prior?

Those right moves?

Game issues are just part of the industry, whether you like it or not.
Purchased studios don't fire games immediately, as those take time, especially after releasing their games during the acquisition.
Xseries not having games is the result of low studios before acquisition as they didn't have the manpower to release 1 game a year.
Only major fault is not utilizing 3rd party publishers during this time. They could have done ori type deals in that period. Phil didn't do it. That is his fault.

Expanding GamePass...how? Where's the growth, it's stagnating on it's #1 platform, Xbox.

By doing this

They got Japanese devs into the platform by cutting checks for late releases of their games into GamePass, and in Sega's case, getting them on board as an Azure client.

You have to realize that you don't simply get Japanese devs on board with 145k consoles sold on their country. That is not gonna happen realistically. Gamepass was their option, and allowed them to connect with Xbox users worldwide.

That's more to do with the money MS can throw around rather than Japanese devs genuinely being more interested in providing for the Xbox platform of their own accord.

Money which could have saved Xbox early.
The entire mess of Xbox one, is because MS wanted other stuff, and barely invested in their business.
They could have avoided all this mess, had they invested the current during early Xbox and x360 by building first party studios, and expanding their third party partnership like they did during x360.

Things don't happen as gamers think it will. Business like Xbox are big, and deal with tons of stuff. You have to account budget, market share and audience. These stuff are why Xbox was struggling badly during Xbox one. Something gamers don't really pay attention, when they criticize Phil spencer for lack of games.

Xbox lost Bethesda, CDprojekt red, Remedy and other big studios because of Xbox one issues. These were valuable partnership, which Xbox had during early Xbox and Xbox 360. That is how bad it was for the brand.
Companies like these want money and won't risk their business with a company that is failing internally.

Even with current xseries situation is much better than Xbox one. Since it's main issue is just game output and not internal issues like Xbox one.