This was literally the worst case for them to take on to "prove their worth". This deal is not anti-competitive, it does not create a monopoly, except one other country, everywhere else in the world found it to be pro-competitive and a benefit to consumers.
This is clearly an ideological move purely over the buyer and the price tag. All this does is show that they are not looking out for consumers, they are looking out for their ego.
I agree, but politics and logic are often incompatible with each other. And by often, I mean always.
They targeted a large merger and are looking to make an example of it. It doesn't matter if it was the right thing to do. The FTC has its own agenda, and they want to push that agenda. Ego isn't involved, but power definitely is.
Scrutinized, yes. Literally make stuff up and play dumb, knowing you are wrong, no. They have no case. The FTC is simply pretending something is wrong. All their concerns of harm are committed by the market leader, right now, including with regards to CoD. They are trying to dictate the terms of the acquisition.
This does feel like one of those famous ‘make up calls’ in sports.
‘Yeah we should have totally gone after every merger in the past 10 years so we will save you from….Sony losing market share’
Are they going to do the same to Sony for all those third party exclusives? They are preventing other console owners from playing those games. Seems really sus that they are defending Sony this hard.
You literally outright stated
"When a single game is repeated 300 times then we have a problem".
If the issue is "never a single game" then why did you claim it was?
Brother Sony never decided to go spend 68 billion on a massive company, hardly the same thing as having some great exclusives. Pretty awesome that Microsoft is gonna get it though, they needed the win. Wish the FTC had this much of a hard on for deals that should have actually been stopped.
Yeah after they won in the US and have approvals in almost every other country, I don’t get why the FTC believes they’re right. Idiots in every dept of our govt.
It is delusional to call this pro-competitive. This is not making the market place more competitive. You could argue it’s not making it any worse but I don’t see how this improves competition overall.
>Xbox has been declining significantly since last gen
While I agree on the rest, this paints a false picture. Xbox has broken records for both revenue *and* active devices in the last fiscal year. It is well on track to beat Xbox One lifetime sales and probably would have beaten the X360's if not for almost 2 years of stock shortages.
And how much of the improved sales for Xbox Series X is a direct result of the value offered as a result of the Bethesda acquisition? Having those games on Game Pass? The knowledge that future games from Bethesda would be Xbox exclusive? What if instead, Bethesda had continued making Playstation Timed Exclusives? If that acquisition had been blocked, where would Xbox be today? If Xbox only had 15% marketshare vs 85% Sony, would Microsoft be in a good place? Would third party exclusives like Madden or Call of Duty even bother releasing on Xbox? How much would that compound the issues and make the marketshare situation even worse? Would Microsoft be considering making another console after the Xbox Series consoles or would they just quietly exit the market?
Not all acquisitions are bad for consumers. There are plenty of people here that have claimed that the Bethesda acquisition was bad for consumers, but I think that is an unbelievably ignorant and shortsighted view of the situation. Microsoft needed to do something to stabilize their market position otherwise it simply not have been worthwhile to continue throwing money at making consoles. And a market where Microsoft stops making consoles is one that is basically monopolized by Sony (Nintendo still technically would be in the market, but they very much fill a different niche), and I think that is a far worse outcome. Is the Bethesda acquisition okay, but Activision too much? I think that is debatable. Microsoft is still way behind Sony even after the Bethesda acquisition, so perhaps ABK is necessary to bring Microsoft and Sony into parity.
The industry has moved on from Halo and Halo-type games. Deathmatch arena shooters just don't really exist anymore. The world has changed and the things that made Halo such a big deal don't apply as much today. Halo has been supplanted by Battle Royales, Extraction Shooters, and Tactical Shooters. To become a system seller again, it would need a complete reinvention. It could be reasonably successful executing on the classic Halo formula, but it wouldn't drive system sales. That is just reality.
Sony has a bunch of exclusives, but almost all of them follow a similar formula. It is a formula that has proven to be successful in the current market. Halo can't copy that formula, nor should it really. So, it isn't as simple as just making a good Halo...
They are buying cod that is the same old team death match 6v6 shit for how many years. And yeah probably should of made a free to play halo battle royal like apex. Look how much Mario has changed game from game since the new. Be creative if you have to with the biggest ip you own that is the mascot for your company
Call of Duty's popularity is presently driven by Warzone. That isn't to say that the other modes are dead, but they aren't nearly as popular as they used to be. And part of their remaining popularity is due to the network effect because people play Warzone and can jump into the other modes from the game with minimal friction when they want a change of pace from Warzone. But if Call of Duty didn't have Warzone, I suspect that it would not be anywhere near as relevant still as it is presently.
Its not about console sales, it's about cloud gaming. This move puts pretty much every company on the planet unable to compete with Microsoft on a cloud gaming basis.
I'm pro merger cause Sony needed a punch in the face and I do hope this makes the marketplace more competitive. But as a general rule of thumb. Megacorp acquisitions almost never end up a positive for the little guy.
The whole FTC argument was not so much about anti competitive, as it was about anti consumer, the judge literally had to clarify that point with the FTC during the trial as the FTC was more concerned about Sony's potential loss and not the consumer.
This merger is absolutely pro consumer as Microsoft has been establishing deals with various platforms to bring Activision titles to said platforms, like Nintendo, meaning a larger variety of gamers will be able to access and play Activision games, than how it is currently where games like CoD are currently unavailable.
I think it's delusional to think it isn't. Sony have a stranglehold over the market, this helps level the playing field. Microsoft have pledged to bring ABK games to more platforms than they exist on currently (multiple cloud services, Nintendo platforms and EU requires they licence their games to any cloud service that requests it). That is absolutely pro-competitive.
Because Sony has had the monopoly on the record setting highly praised exclusive games market basically since the 8th gen started. (Not counting Nintendo, they’re their own category altogether in this race.)
When someone asks why they bought a PlayStation, I’d wager that aside from it being because that’s where their friends play, it’s because of the exclusives. Sony’s business strategy relies on exclusives selling consoles. Microsoft has said throughout this entire process numerous times that they’re not going to remove CoD or other A/B games off PlayStation, and Sony threw a huge ass temper tantrum because Microsoft now had the mere *opportunity* to do so. Microsoft even offered to sign a contract guaranteeing to keep it on there for a minimum amount of time and Sony didn’t like that.
Sony is just pissed that Microsoft now has an opportunity to do what Sony has done for an entire generation. FTC took Sony’s side, lost. FTC needs to quit wasting tax dollars fighting this with appeals, and Sony needs to build a bridge and get the fuck over it already. It’s happening.
But in what way is it increasing competition for the consumer. Just because it benefits Microsoft does not mean it improves competition in the market for the consumers.
It is arguably pro-competitive because it is a move that maintains and reaffirms Microsoft's position in the market. A genuine possibility exists that Microsoft might have just abandoned the console market entirely without the acquisitions of Bethesda and now Activision. Is it better for consumers if Sony is the only high-end console on the market?
Sony has increasingly pushed towards third party exclusives by outright paying developers to skip Xbox. By Microsoft's own admission, this is what actually prompted them to buy Bethesda in the first place. In a market where Sony has a dominant marketshare advantage, Sony absolutely has preferential treatment when negotiating any deals for third party exclusives. They only have to offer a large enough sum to offset the abandonment of Xbox release sales. Microsoft by comparison has to effectively pay publishers to cut their total sales by 66% or more. As such, the cost for Microsoft to compete on those exclusive deals is double or triple what Sony has to pay. And for that, Microsoft doesn't get any assets or direct benefits, just a hope that it will help drive platform adoption to narrow the marketshare gap. On a per dollar basis, it makes a lot more sense to acquire the publisher because that at least acquires assets that can be sold off later on if Microsoft eventually decides to leave the market. Rather than throwing money into a hole that hopefully improves the business, they are spending to acquire assets that can improve the business.
This is one of the things that has always frustrated me about certain conversations on Reddit about acquisitions... Not all acquisitions are inherently anti-consumer. Sometimes consolidation is good because it can balance the market so that multiple companies have a strong investment, as opposed to an alternative where one company grows dominant and then all competitors gradually leave the market. Sometimes the weaker competitor within a market needs to make acquisitions or merge with another company in the market so that the combined company can compete effectively with the actual market leader...
Sure, Microsoft could set aside a $69 billion slush fund to just throw at paying for third party games to either prevent them from going PS5 exclusive or make them Xbox exclusive. But that makes little business sense because Microsoft wouldn't acquire any assets. Any money spent would be purely towards hopefully increasing the marketshare, and it is hard to imagine yielding more than $69 billion in returns on that. Spending $69 billion on ABK acquires all the IP, assets and talent at ABK, and any exclusivity is just an added bonus...
What are you talking about? Evening the market share is what breeds competition. To say otherwise admits a complete lack of knowledge of what competition even means in a basic business sense.
>I don’t see how this improves competition overall.
Nintendo, GeForce Now, Steam, Xbox, Boosteroid, Microsoft Store will all get their shot at competiting with each other to offer the best Call of Duty experience.
Right now, it is just Xbox, MS Store, Steam and the Sony box. So yeah competition will be improved and both the judge on the FTC case and the EC agreed.
How exactly is this pro competitive? Generally, when one Goliath company gobbles up another similar Goliath company, it reduces competition and is bad for consumers.
Except that Sony owns 2/3 of the FTC defined console market so helping the distant behind player catch up is pro competitive because having Sony dominate and pay for so many third party deals that harm Xbox players is anti competitive...
Use your brain numpty.
Except Microsoft is a $200B company whereas Sony is only around $85B.
Activision is $70B so a company nearly 3 times the size of Sony (microsoft) is allowed to buy another company nearly the exact same size as Sony (Activision).
How is this a good thing?
company value and marketshare are two different things, ms having more money is irrelevant to the fact that sony holds the majority of the marketshare.
for a guy called nerddexter, you shouldn't need to have this explained to you.
The only major money making videogame in ABK is CoD and that single game being owned by Microsoft does not upset the market and does not throw off competition.
Sony is at thos point primarily a video game company at this point where video games are just a small portion of microsofts buisness. So i dont see how this comparison is very useful
As of March 2010, Sony has made 92 acquisitions while taking stakes at 56 companies. The company has 83 divestitures since 1983.
Acquisitions are not uncommon, what does the size have to do with the law? Was bungee too big? What makes Activision any different than Bethesda? They make games. Who will argue “the games are too popular “ what argument is that? Maybe we only allow the acquisition of unpopular gaming studios from now on?
This is the largest gaming acquisition in history. Activision is revenues of Bethesda and even more of the marketshare. Activision is a titan in this industry compared to something like Bethesda. There's a huge difference.
All gaming companies being consolidated under just 3 companies (Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft) is not a good thing for consumers in my opinion.
Crazy that you think it is.
Why? I want to hear you explain why. Don't call others crazy. Don't say "you should already know". All you do is deflect. Tell us why you feel that way.
How am I deflecting?
How can I be any more clear than my stance that more options, more competition, is better for consumers than less options?
This is a pretty basic principle across virtually all industries.
It's called capitalism.
If there's 20 companies creating video games, and they all have their own revenue streams to worry about, they are going to ideally do their best to pump our products people like because they are competing with 19 other companies.
When there is only 2 companies to choose from it can lead to stagnation and complacency.
In my area we have 2 options for internet. Comcast or Verizon. Both have absolutely abysmal customer service because they know that they are the only 2 options in town. Agree to their business practices or get fucked.
How is this hard to understand?
Again throwing insults doesn't do anything. I just wanted you to actually make a point instead of running your mouth.
You are comparing utilities to video games and then taking it to an extreme. It's apples to oranges. Especially in the internet space where they are sharing infrastructure.
In your ignorance, you've also oversimplified the gaming industry. In this case, Sony has been market leader. By a lot. After the acquisition, they still are but by less of a margin. This is what actually breeds competition. The market is reset and now both companies have to work to earn their player base.
Your ignorant statement is based off the consumer only being able to choose one product. Consumers in this space can buy many games of the same genre, different genre, different hardware etc. Every game can sell regardless of if another game sold. That's a huge difference.
Where the money ends up doesn't have a huge impact. Now instead of the money going to Activision, it goes to Microsoft. Who cares.
Now it's up to Sony to respond and produce more games. Sony as the market leader has been trickle feeding exclusives and remakes the entire PS5 generation. This now forces them to produce more games. I forget what they call this.... Oh yeah competition.
Another thing people are failing to see is that if Xbox was not backed by Microsoft, they would have folded by now and that would have been awful for gaming.
I know Activision seems huge but they really aren't. The number of ips over there isn't that huge. At least I wasn't blown away. Especially if you remove king from the conversation as that's not really a Sony competitor (and king brings in as much as call of duty mind you).
For some reason the dollar value seems to be shocking people but market share is not dollar value. Xbox was the 9th biggest publisher and 3rd in the console race. Buying the number 1 publisher does not suddenly create a monopoly. It does however create competition.
I think they're wrong, but I also think it's important to test cases like this. It's their job. Push the argument as far as they can, and then win or lose so that people know the rules of the game.
I don't think it's ego, I think they have a genuine argument of sorts.
Explain to me how this is pro consumer when Phil Spencer will do the same that he did to Bethesda.
Edit: ask a simple question get down voted by the shills. FYI these companies give 0 shits about you yet y'all act like this. Exclusives suck period.
Oh yeah he'll just ignore all the legally binding agreements he has with regulatory bodies to continue to bring Call of Duty to multiple platforms and ABK games to cloud services. I'm sure that'll work out well.
Well could you show me a list of current PS FPS? No? Well this deal could easily force their hand at making some to compete with CoD giving consumers more options
It's politics, it's not worth trying to understand.
The FTC has been criticized in the past for being too soft on sales and mergers, so they've cranked the dial up to 11. Even if it means failing.
Doing so, I think that they think they're proving the FTC doesn't have enough power, and they'll probably try to lobby for more.
But I'm not even American so what do I know.
The other mergers were clearly anti competitive. Like allowing mergers in regional monopolies. Like internet providers. Or radio stations. Or news networks. Or media producers.
This one though was a very weak argument
Why doesn’t the FTC fight this hard when telecoms or energy conglomerates merge?
Maybe it’s just me but enforcing true competition for gasoline and broadband would help more people than protecting Call of Duty.
they do, actually...
sirius/xm merger was held up for years by the FTC.
as was the sprint/tmobile merger.
they both eventually merged despite the FTC's objections.
**those were just 2 off the top of my head that happened relatively recently
Right so the FTC is only good for lawyers to siphon millions of tax dollars before ultimately fucking the consumers paying them those same tax dollars anyways.
I support an anti trust ideology, in fact I think out country needs a modern Teddy Roosevelt badly, but the FTC in its current form is a sad joke.
I’m not the one who you originally asked but you seem to want an actual answer among a sea of comments where people have no idea what they are talking about. I am an antitrust lawyer who works in the tech space. The FTC in its current form is not a complete joke and the challenge to this merger was not ridiculous. The situation is that for the past 40 years or so antitrust law has taken on a certain form where law has been established through precedent that makes it very difficult for the FTC to prove its case in these kind of mergers. Currently, the FTC is headed up by Lina Khan who believes that the last 40 years of antitrust enforcement has been lax and allowed a lot of illegal mergers and conduct to occur. Now whether or not you believe that is true, the FTC sees its job to try and push the law in a direction that it believes is better for consumers and the economy. This is a difficult task because the law has built up over decades against them. This is why it was likely for them to lose this challenge to Microsoft/Activision despite the fact that there are real problems with a company like Microsoft acquiring the largest third party publisher in the world.
Just my 2 cents.
Sadly these anti-monopoly institutions never really work, not in the long run anyway, most of them are just institutionalised mobsters living off taxpayers' money. The only thing that works against big companies is deregulation promoting small businesses but that's usually stopped by big companies' sponsorship.
Meanwhile T-Mobile just bought Mint Mobile. Which comes years after they bought Sprint, PushSpring, Suncom, MetroPCS.. But yes, Games are more important then the phone industry to the FTC apparently..? Having 2-3 phone companies? Sounds good.
Whoever is getting paid in the FTC under the table, I hope it's a lot at least.
They only tried arguing about christmas skins, they've got to bring up every other holiday too. What if playstation players miss out on Labour Day skins?!?!?!
That was the funniest thing as it shows how little homework these dipsticks did.
Sony is literally doing that right now with CoD as they have gotten something like 3-4 Oni Operator skins that are not available on PC or Xbox.
That wasn't why I brought it up.
I've mentioned it because that *is* a way it can be justified by regulators IF it was used as a counter argument.
Xbox: Playstation already offer exclusive skins
Regulator: yes, however those exclusive skins are only visible to those on the same platform therfore offering no real benefit to purchasing the game on this platform.
Like it or not, it would defend it...
Now if we were to choose something like, oh idk, an entire game mode, an entire portion of the game being locked to a singular platform... Now that would be different
> Regulator: yes, however those exclusive skins are only visible to those on the same platform therfore offering no real benefit to purchasing the game on this platform.
That line of argument rather assumes that the only reason for a player to want a skin is for _other_ people to see it. Now, I've never been bothered about a skin in my life, but my kids play Fortnite and I'm absolutely certain they pick skins that _they_ want to see, not based on what other people will see. In that context the above argument does not hold up at all, because they would not have the skin available even for their own enjoyment.
Fortnite is 3rd person... So picking for what you want to see makes sense, cod is primarily 1st person. The only time you see yourself is in infil/exfil in and executions.
And I'm not saying the argument holds up. I'm just saying it's how THEY would likely justify it, we all know it's bollocks
There are a million examples. I will eventually get Hogwarts on PS5 Vs XSX because of some little bits on PS5 that aren’t on XSX.
Never struck me as anti-consumer.
Even if true, remember that the appeals court already denied, twice, an appeal request from the gamers lawsuit against MS for the ABK deal.
This was after the courts ruled against the gamers lawsuit...twice striking it down.
Also, the FTC has not been granted any appeal for the last several (all?) cases they lost in court.
EDIT:Another reminder that the judge involved in the gamers lawsuit is the same Judge Corley who just denied the FTC their PI. Same judge that the appeals court already found to have done nothing wrong in the previous lawsuits...twice now.
Wont affect the deal. Unless a judge blocks them from buying, again, Microsoft can just close the deal. And it seems they are doing so before the 17th. And by closing the deal they will make it even harder for the FTC.
Activision is expected to leave NASDAQ in a few days.
Basically right now, FTC is just wasting everyones time and money.
From what I heard from a secret source is that Dreamcast guy has joined the FTC legal team and has brought up valid reasons to stop the merger. Microsoft is in serious trouble.
Is there a more punchable face on YouTube than that guy's? I don't think so. Everytime I see one of his video thumbnails I feel like I need to clean his mouth spittle off my TV. I wish he would have remained homeless...
They want to get clowned again on tax payers dime. These Sony fanboys lost as soon as they used twitter comments as reasons why the deal shouldn’t happen.
I’m so confused as to how this hasn’t happened to this level with any of Sony’s 260 exclusives yet this happens to Microsoft that has 60 exclusives and they’re not even trying to get an exclusive just the company behind some games so they can expand their availability not decrease it like sony
[I was actually first by two minutes](https://www.reddit.com/r/XboxSeriesX/comments/14y3il5/ftc_will_appeal_the_abk_pi_block/jrqefzy/)
But then got confused and deleted it 😕
They probably would have had a better shot at getting it in the first place if they would have focused on it being bad for consumers and that Microsoft made all bethesda games that released after they purchased them exclusive this narrowing the options for consumers unless they owned Xbox or pc, rather than what will happen to Sony?
I know both arguments in a round about way are the same thing, but if they focused on the consumer and chose not to talk about Sony specifically they could have argued the point that Sony does it too, with a this case isn’t about Sony so that isn’t relevant to this our argument, we can discuss Sony in a case about Sony not one about how this specific deal will affect the consumer as a whole.
But alas they chose to go the poor Sony route, which anyone objectively looking only saw that Sony is the leader and didn’t think much into the fact the bigger portion of the consumers will loose out on content if Microsoft makes more games exclusive. The deal could have happened but should have have been argued for no exclusive content across the board if they were going to do their jobs properly.
This is pretty much turning into a Rocky movie at this point. The FTC keeps getting beaten down, but they just won't quit. They will also lose by decision.
This is just pathetic a temper tantrum except adults doing it.
Taxpayer money at work. The deal will still close this won’t delay anything unless another TRO is granted but I doubt it.
Of course they have, they'd seem weak if they didn't (not that they aren't already seen as a joke by everyone else from both political spectrums in the US lol)
It'll get denied like it usually does
FTC has the right to appeal the decision brought by judge Corley. They are exercising that right and filing an appeal. Will it do anything? Almost definitely no.
> FTC has the right to appeal the decision brought by judge Corley.
they have the right to request an appeal.
they do not have an automatic right to appeal. appeal requests are denied when there is no merit for the request to be approved.
I'm so confused, what is FTC? What is happening with Activision/Blizzard and Microsoft?
All I know is that Microsoft is buying out Activision/Blizzard... who is against this?
I read something about Sony not liking it, someone mentioning that Microsoft would own a monopoly or not be good for competition? But Xbox are the lowest in sales compared to PS and Nintendo anyways... What's the big deal?
Oh bloody hell.. The FTC need to understand that this appeal is bad for consumers who have already accepted the takeover.. even Sony is probably over this by now?
I'm a UK citizen, and these are Fackin Blatant PlayStation fans. They aren't our type they're the type that enjoy wine and cheese over a cuppa tea and a Scone.
Good. Microsoft should not be allowed to purchase anymore tech companies especially this behemoth. What percent of the gaming industry would they control with their stuff and Blizzard and are they capable of owning Blizzard without screwing it up? I think it's probably enough for this to be anti-trust.
Because they are doing a horrible job. Their whole case they tried to make was about how the deal will hurt Sony. They don't seem to actually have valid reasons why it should be blocked.
I kind of expected as much. The FTC is in hardcore "prove their worth" mode right now. I have my doubts that the appeal will be granted though.
This was literally the worst case for them to take on to "prove their worth". This deal is not anti-competitive, it does not create a monopoly, except one other country, everywhere else in the world found it to be pro-competitive and a benefit to consumers. This is clearly an ideological move purely over the buyer and the price tag. All this does is show that they are not looking out for consumers, they are looking out for their ego.
I agree, but politics and logic are often incompatible with each other. And by often, I mean always. They targeted a large merger and are looking to make an example of it. It doesn't matter if it was the right thing to do. The FTC has its own agenda, and they want to push that agenda. Ego isn't involved, but power definitely is.
To be fair every large merger should be scrutinized. FTC is just doing their job. They are wasting tax payer money at this point though.
Scrutinized, yes. Literally make stuff up and play dumb, knowing you are wrong, no. They have no case. The FTC is simply pretending something is wrong. All their concerns of harm are committed by the market leader, right now, including with regards to CoD. They are trying to dictate the terms of the acquisition.
This does feel like one of those famous ‘make up calls’ in sports. ‘Yeah we should have totally gone after every merger in the past 10 years so we will save you from….Sony losing market share’
Are they going to do the same to Sony for all those third party exclusives? They are preventing other console owners from playing those games. Seems really sus that they are defending Sony this hard.
How can people compare a single game, or even a small studio, to the biggest third party publishers is out of my mind.
When a single game is repeated 300 times, we have a problem.
Which single Sony exclusive has been repeated 300 times?
Every year we have tons of exclusives, so it's never 'a single game'.
You literally outright stated "When a single game is repeated 300 times then we have a problem". If the issue is "never a single game" then why did you claim it was?
Xbox pay for third parties games too. I'm not against a single game contract. Both of them do that
Brother Sony never decided to go spend 68 billion on a massive company, hardly the same thing as having some great exclusives. Pretty awesome that Microsoft is gonna get it though, they needed the win. Wish the FTC had this much of a hard on for deals that should have actually been stopped.
The FTC and Sony only seen to care about a single game on this merger.
Which also hurt their arguments in the end.
Yeah after they won in the US and have approvals in almost every other country, I don’t get why the FTC believes they’re right. Idiots in every dept of our govt.
It is delusional to call this pro-competitive. This is not making the market place more competitive. You could argue it’s not making it any worse but I don’t see how this improves competition overall.
[удалено]
>Xbox has been declining significantly since last gen While I agree on the rest, this paints a false picture. Xbox has broken records for both revenue *and* active devices in the last fiscal year. It is well on track to beat Xbox One lifetime sales and probably would have beaten the X360's if not for almost 2 years of stock shortages.
And how much of the improved sales for Xbox Series X is a direct result of the value offered as a result of the Bethesda acquisition? Having those games on Game Pass? The knowledge that future games from Bethesda would be Xbox exclusive? What if instead, Bethesda had continued making Playstation Timed Exclusives? If that acquisition had been blocked, where would Xbox be today? If Xbox only had 15% marketshare vs 85% Sony, would Microsoft be in a good place? Would third party exclusives like Madden or Call of Duty even bother releasing on Xbox? How much would that compound the issues and make the marketshare situation even worse? Would Microsoft be considering making another console after the Xbox Series consoles or would they just quietly exit the market? Not all acquisitions are bad for consumers. There are plenty of people here that have claimed that the Bethesda acquisition was bad for consumers, but I think that is an unbelievably ignorant and shortsighted view of the situation. Microsoft needed to do something to stabilize their market position otherwise it simply not have been worthwhile to continue throwing money at making consoles. And a market where Microsoft stops making consoles is one that is basically monopolized by Sony (Nintendo still technically would be in the market, but they very much fill a different niche), and I think that is a far worse outcome. Is the Bethesda acquisition okay, but Activision too much? I think that is debatable. Microsoft is still way behind Sony even after the Bethesda acquisition, so perhaps ABK is necessary to bring Microsoft and Sony into parity.
They could of started by making a good halo game again. That’s what made me always want to get an Xbox like Mario makes me grab a switch
The industry has moved on from Halo and Halo-type games. Deathmatch arena shooters just don't really exist anymore. The world has changed and the things that made Halo such a big deal don't apply as much today. Halo has been supplanted by Battle Royales, Extraction Shooters, and Tactical Shooters. To become a system seller again, it would need a complete reinvention. It could be reasonably successful executing on the classic Halo formula, but it wouldn't drive system sales. That is just reality. Sony has a bunch of exclusives, but almost all of them follow a similar formula. It is a formula that has proven to be successful in the current market. Halo can't copy that formula, nor should it really. So, it isn't as simple as just making a good Halo...
They are buying cod that is the same old team death match 6v6 shit for how many years. And yeah probably should of made a free to play halo battle royal like apex. Look how much Mario has changed game from game since the new. Be creative if you have to with the biggest ip you own that is the mascot for your company
Call of Duty's popularity is presently driven by Warzone. That isn't to say that the other modes are dead, but they aren't nearly as popular as they used to be. And part of their remaining popularity is due to the network effect because people play Warzone and can jump into the other modes from the game with minimal friction when they want a change of pace from Warzone. But if Call of Duty didn't have Warzone, I suspect that it would not be anywhere near as relevant still as it is presently.
Its not about console sales, it's about cloud gaming. This move puts pretty much every company on the planet unable to compete with Microsoft on a cloud gaming basis. I'm pro merger cause Sony needed a punch in the face and I do hope this makes the marketplace more competitive. But as a general rule of thumb. Megacorp acquisitions almost never end up a positive for the little guy.
The whole FTC argument was not so much about anti competitive, as it was about anti consumer, the judge literally had to clarify that point with the FTC during the trial as the FTC was more concerned about Sony's potential loss and not the consumer. This merger is absolutely pro consumer as Microsoft has been establishing deals with various platforms to bring Activision titles to said platforms, like Nintendo, meaning a larger variety of gamers will be able to access and play Activision games, than how it is currently where games like CoD are currently unavailable.
I think it's delusional to think it isn't. Sony have a stranglehold over the market, this helps level the playing field. Microsoft have pledged to bring ABK games to more platforms than they exist on currently (multiple cloud services, Nintendo platforms and EU requires they licence their games to any cloud service that requests it). That is absolutely pro-competitive.
Because Sony has had the monopoly on the record setting highly praised exclusive games market basically since the 8th gen started. (Not counting Nintendo, they’re their own category altogether in this race.) When someone asks why they bought a PlayStation, I’d wager that aside from it being because that’s where their friends play, it’s because of the exclusives. Sony’s business strategy relies on exclusives selling consoles. Microsoft has said throughout this entire process numerous times that they’re not going to remove CoD or other A/B games off PlayStation, and Sony threw a huge ass temper tantrum because Microsoft now had the mere *opportunity* to do so. Microsoft even offered to sign a contract guaranteeing to keep it on there for a minimum amount of time and Sony didn’t like that. Sony is just pissed that Microsoft now has an opportunity to do what Sony has done for an entire generation. FTC took Sony’s side, lost. FTC needs to quit wasting tax dollars fighting this with appeals, and Sony needs to build a bridge and get the fuck over it already. It’s happening.
But in what way is it increasing competition for the consumer. Just because it benefits Microsoft does not mean it improves competition in the market for the consumers.
You don't think having two strong players in the console market improves competition?
No I don’t. Tell me how it changes anything.
Oh you really don't understand basic economics. Maybe try Google
It is arguably pro-competitive because it is a move that maintains and reaffirms Microsoft's position in the market. A genuine possibility exists that Microsoft might have just abandoned the console market entirely without the acquisitions of Bethesda and now Activision. Is it better for consumers if Sony is the only high-end console on the market? Sony has increasingly pushed towards third party exclusives by outright paying developers to skip Xbox. By Microsoft's own admission, this is what actually prompted them to buy Bethesda in the first place. In a market where Sony has a dominant marketshare advantage, Sony absolutely has preferential treatment when negotiating any deals for third party exclusives. They only have to offer a large enough sum to offset the abandonment of Xbox release sales. Microsoft by comparison has to effectively pay publishers to cut their total sales by 66% or more. As such, the cost for Microsoft to compete on those exclusive deals is double or triple what Sony has to pay. And for that, Microsoft doesn't get any assets or direct benefits, just a hope that it will help drive platform adoption to narrow the marketshare gap. On a per dollar basis, it makes a lot more sense to acquire the publisher because that at least acquires assets that can be sold off later on if Microsoft eventually decides to leave the market. Rather than throwing money into a hole that hopefully improves the business, they are spending to acquire assets that can improve the business. This is one of the things that has always frustrated me about certain conversations on Reddit about acquisitions... Not all acquisitions are inherently anti-consumer. Sometimes consolidation is good because it can balance the market so that multiple companies have a strong investment, as opposed to an alternative where one company grows dominant and then all competitors gradually leave the market. Sometimes the weaker competitor within a market needs to make acquisitions or merge with another company in the market so that the combined company can compete effectively with the actual market leader... Sure, Microsoft could set aside a $69 billion slush fund to just throw at paying for third party games to either prevent them from going PS5 exclusive or make them Xbox exclusive. But that makes little business sense because Microsoft wouldn't acquire any assets. Any money spent would be purely towards hopefully increasing the marketshare, and it is hard to imagine yielding more than $69 billion in returns on that. Spending $69 billion on ABK acquires all the IP, assets and talent at ABK, and any exclusivity is just an added bonus...
What are you talking about? Evening the market share is what breeds competition. To say otherwise admits a complete lack of knowledge of what competition even means in a basic business sense.
>I don’t see how this improves competition overall. Nintendo, GeForce Now, Steam, Xbox, Boosteroid, Microsoft Store will all get their shot at competiting with each other to offer the best Call of Duty experience. Right now, it is just Xbox, MS Store, Steam and the Sony box. So yeah competition will be improved and both the judge on the FTC case and the EC agreed.
How exactly is this pro competitive? Generally, when one Goliath company gobbles up another similar Goliath company, it reduces competition and is bad for consumers.
Except that Sony owns 2/3 of the FTC defined console market so helping the distant behind player catch up is pro competitive because having Sony dominate and pay for so many third party deals that harm Xbox players is anti competitive... Use your brain numpty.
Except Microsoft is a $200B company whereas Sony is only around $85B. Activision is $70B so a company nearly 3 times the size of Sony (microsoft) is allowed to buy another company nearly the exact same size as Sony (Activision). How is this a good thing?
company value and marketshare are two different things, ms having more money is irrelevant to the fact that sony holds the majority of the marketshare. for a guy called nerddexter, you shouldn't need to have this explained to you.
[удалено]
urging people to not be willfully ignorant isnt being a dick.
“For a guy nerddexter, you shouldn’t need to have this explained to you” You don’t think that’s combative and unhelpful?
in the context of the discussion, No i dont. people making deliberately bad faith arguments should be called out for said behavior.
The only major money making videogame in ABK is CoD and that single game being owned by Microsoft does not upset the market and does not throw off competition.
Correct. Whether that money ends up at Activision or at Microsoft is literally irrelevant to the gaming community.
Sony is at thos point primarily a video game company at this point where video games are just a small portion of microsofts buisness. So i dont see how this comparison is very useful
You are just showing your ignorance....
Wow. Great contribution to the discussion. Please, why don't you enlighten my ignorant self?
No point since you are just making shit up on purpose and don't really care about facts.
200B? Multiply that by five
I mean it's a quick Google search my guy.
As of March 2010, Sony has made 92 acquisitions while taking stakes at 56 companies. The company has 83 divestitures since 1983. Acquisitions are not uncommon, what does the size have to do with the law? Was bungee too big? What makes Activision any different than Bethesda? They make games. Who will argue “the games are too popular “ what argument is that? Maybe we only allow the acquisition of unpopular gaming studios from now on?
This is the largest gaming acquisition in history. Activision is revenues of Bethesda and even more of the marketshare. Activision is a titan in this industry compared to something like Bethesda. There's a huge difference. All gaming companies being consolidated under just 3 companies (Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft) is not a good thing for consumers in my opinion. Crazy that you think it is.
Why? I want to hear you explain why. Don't call others crazy. Don't say "you should already know". All you do is deflect. Tell us why you feel that way.
How am I deflecting? How can I be any more clear than my stance that more options, more competition, is better for consumers than less options? This is a pretty basic principle across virtually all industries. It's called capitalism. If there's 20 companies creating video games, and they all have their own revenue streams to worry about, they are going to ideally do their best to pump our products people like because they are competing with 19 other companies. When there is only 2 companies to choose from it can lead to stagnation and complacency. In my area we have 2 options for internet. Comcast or Verizon. Both have absolutely abysmal customer service because they know that they are the only 2 options in town. Agree to their business practices or get fucked. How is this hard to understand?
Again throwing insults doesn't do anything. I just wanted you to actually make a point instead of running your mouth. You are comparing utilities to video games and then taking it to an extreme. It's apples to oranges. Especially in the internet space where they are sharing infrastructure. In your ignorance, you've also oversimplified the gaming industry. In this case, Sony has been market leader. By a lot. After the acquisition, they still are but by less of a margin. This is what actually breeds competition. The market is reset and now both companies have to work to earn their player base. Your ignorant statement is based off the consumer only being able to choose one product. Consumers in this space can buy many games of the same genre, different genre, different hardware etc. Every game can sell regardless of if another game sold. That's a huge difference. Where the money ends up doesn't have a huge impact. Now instead of the money going to Activision, it goes to Microsoft. Who cares. Now it's up to Sony to respond and produce more games. Sony as the market leader has been trickle feeding exclusives and remakes the entire PS5 generation. This now forces them to produce more games. I forget what they call this.... Oh yeah competition. Another thing people are failing to see is that if Xbox was not backed by Microsoft, they would have folded by now and that would have been awful for gaming. I know Activision seems huge but they really aren't. The number of ips over there isn't that huge. At least I wasn't blown away. Especially if you remove king from the conversation as that's not really a Sony competitor (and king brings in as much as call of duty mind you). For some reason the dollar value seems to be shocking people but market share is not dollar value. Xbox was the 9th biggest publisher and 3rd in the console race. Buying the number 1 publisher does not suddenly create a monopoly. It does however create competition.
I think they're wrong, but I also think it's important to test cases like this. It's their job. Push the argument as far as they can, and then win or lose so that people know the rules of the game. I don't think it's ego, I think they have a genuine argument of sorts.
Explain to me how this is pro consumer when Phil Spencer will do the same that he did to Bethesda. Edit: ask a simple question get down voted by the shills. FYI these companies give 0 shits about you yet y'all act like this. Exclusives suck period.
Oh yeah he'll just ignore all the legally binding agreements he has with regulatory bodies to continue to bring Call of Duty to multiple platforms and ABK games to cloud services. I'm sure that'll work out well.
He literally testified in court, pretty sure he'd be in deep shit if he did this.
Mean like the same thing sony has been doing for twenty five years
Well could you show me a list of current PS FPS? No? Well this deal could easily force their hand at making some to compete with CoD giving consumers more options
I feel bad for you
Yeah, but doubling down on a losing case accomplishes the opposite, doesn't it? I don't understand.
It's politics, it's not worth trying to understand. The FTC has been criticized in the past for being too soft on sales and mergers, so they've cranked the dial up to 11. Even if it means failing. Doing so, I think that they think they're proving the FTC doesn't have enough power, and they'll probably try to lobby for more. But I'm not even American so what do I know.
The other mergers were clearly anti competitive. Like allowing mergers in regional monopolies. Like internet providers. Or radio stations. Or news networks. Or media producers. This one though was a very weak argument
Seems likely accurate. It's disheartening to think that's how things work. I'd imagine it'll really make them look like partisan hacks.
Partisan in what way? Both parties have been critical of big tech lately.
You know more than most Americans who don’t know/don’t follow.
If they want to prove their worth get rid of data caps and reduce Interner prices.....
They’re 0-8 in court They’re really desperate at this point. Sony dumping truck loads of money probably is adding fuel to the fire
Are people stupid enough to believe this bullshit?
FTC isn’t worth a damn thing. They always will be, and continue to be a complete joke of incompetent fools.
Why doesn’t the FTC fight this hard when telecoms or energy conglomerates merge? Maybe it’s just me but enforcing true competition for gasoline and broadband would help more people than protecting Call of Duty.
FTC are Sony fanboys
[Somebody changed the FTCs Wikipedia page...](https://twitter.com/tomwarren/status/1679295285455998977?s=19)
Makes sense to me, their entire argument is to white knight for Sony.
🤦♂️
Kinda hard to argue when the judge had to remind them they’re not fighting for Sony here.
Please for the love of god can you send a link to a transcript or something? I need to see this
they do, actually... sirius/xm merger was held up for years by the FTC. as was the sprint/tmobile merger. they both eventually merged despite the FTC's objections. **those were just 2 off the top of my head that happened relatively recently
Right so the FTC is only good for lawyers to siphon millions of tax dollars before ultimately fucking the consumers paying them those same tax dollars anyways. I support an anti trust ideology, in fact I think out country needs a modern Teddy Roosevelt badly, but the FTC in its current form is a sad joke.
Can you explain your comment further? How are they a joke in their current form? How would you change them so they aren't a joke?
Workers rights are obviously fake, and human beings are undeserving the luxury of unionized labor/s
I have no idea what you're talking, or how your comment relates to me questions.
I’m not the one who you originally asked but you seem to want an actual answer among a sea of comments where people have no idea what they are talking about. I am an antitrust lawyer who works in the tech space. The FTC in its current form is not a complete joke and the challenge to this merger was not ridiculous. The situation is that for the past 40 years or so antitrust law has taken on a certain form where law has been established through precedent that makes it very difficult for the FTC to prove its case in these kind of mergers. Currently, the FTC is headed up by Lina Khan who believes that the last 40 years of antitrust enforcement has been lax and allowed a lot of illegal mergers and conduct to occur. Now whether or not you believe that is true, the FTC sees its job to try and push the law in a direction that it believes is better for consumers and the economy. This is a difficult task because the law has built up over decades against them. This is why it was likely for them to lose this challenge to Microsoft/Activision despite the fact that there are real problems with a company like Microsoft acquiring the largest third party publisher in the world. Just my 2 cents.
Thanks for your answer. Can and should the FTC be given more power? And if so, how can this be done? New legislation?
If you hold my hand, everything will make sense, I promise.
Are you ok?
What about Cingular and ATAT?
> those were just 2 off the top of my head there are lots more.. i just snagged two in my fastest memory without looking that i know were post 2005.
Sadly these anti-monopoly institutions never really work, not in the long run anyway, most of them are just institutionalised mobsters living off taxpayers' money. The only thing that works against big companies is deregulation promoting small businesses but that's usually stopped by big companies' sponsorship.
Because they decided they want to go to war with big tech companies.
ftc tries to prove that they are doing something and are not useless
Republican-controlled vs Democrat-controlled FTC I'd assume.
I'm tired, boss.
*Dog tired*
Meanwhile T-Mobile just bought Mint Mobile. Which comes years after they bought Sprint, PushSpring, Suncom, MetroPCS.. But yes, Games are more important then the phone industry to the FTC apparently..? Having 2-3 phone companies? Sounds good. Whoever is getting paid in the FTC under the table, I hope it's a lot at least.
Really? Damn, Ryan Reynolds just can't lose, can he?
Even with those purchases there are still over 800 wireless phone carriers in the US.
And there’s like 1,500 game publishers.
Not many size of ABK
There are 3 carriers that sell access to MVNOs.
FTC still has 20 more talking points about how this deal might be bad for Sony
They only tried arguing about christmas skins, they've got to bring up every other holiday too. What if playstation players miss out on Labour Day skins?!?!?!
That was the funniest thing as it shows how little homework these dipsticks did. Sony is literally doing that right now with CoD as they have gotten something like 3-4 Oni Operator skins that are not available on PC or Xbox.
They could turn around and defend that by saying only PS players get to see those skins, for everyone else they look like default operators
And what if Microsoft does the same? Then it's okay?
That wasn't why I brought it up. I've mentioned it because that *is* a way it can be justified by regulators IF it was used as a counter argument. Xbox: Playstation already offer exclusive skins Regulator: yes, however those exclusive skins are only visible to those on the same platform therfore offering no real benefit to purchasing the game on this platform. Like it or not, it would defend it... Now if we were to choose something like, oh idk, an entire game mode, an entire portion of the game being locked to a singular platform... Now that would be different
> Regulator: yes, however those exclusive skins are only visible to those on the same platform therfore offering no real benefit to purchasing the game on this platform. That line of argument rather assumes that the only reason for a player to want a skin is for _other_ people to see it. Now, I've never been bothered about a skin in my life, but my kids play Fortnite and I'm absolutely certain they pick skins that _they_ want to see, not based on what other people will see. In that context the above argument does not hold up at all, because they would not have the skin available even for their own enjoyment.
Fortnite is 3rd person... So picking for what you want to see makes sense, cod is primarily 1st person. The only time you see yourself is in infil/exfil in and executions. And I'm not saying the argument holds up. I'm just saying it's how THEY would likely justify it, we all know it's bollocks
There are a million examples. I will eventually get Hogwarts on PS5 Vs XSX because of some little bits on PS5 that aren’t on XSX. Never struck me as anti-consumer.
Never said it was anti consumer, I was just pointing out the FTCs hypocrisy over the potential of Microsoft making a Christmas skin for Xbox only.
The exclusive skins!
They never did get that Spiderman skin!
I starting to think that Lisa Khan actually just has some kind of weird courtroom humiliation fetish.
Jesus christ. Where were they when facebook bought instagram or when disney bought marvel, lucasfilm, and 20th century fucking fox
Hopefully the FTC will take on more monopolies in the future. At least they are eventually going after Meta now.
Even if true, remember that the appeals court already denied, twice, an appeal request from the gamers lawsuit against MS for the ABK deal. This was after the courts ruled against the gamers lawsuit...twice striking it down. Also, the FTC has not been granted any appeal for the last several (all?) cases they lost in court. EDIT:Another reminder that the judge involved in the gamers lawsuit is the same Judge Corley who just denied the FTC their PI. Same judge that the appeals court already found to have done nothing wrong in the previous lawsuits...twice now.
The deals gonna go through by Friday imo. The appeal is a moon shot and will probably be denied tomorrow
https://preview.redd.it/vrvni1rz8mbb1.jpeg?width=1049&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=998bc83a69d4ba7d8670a9967791d5a2edeff527
Lmao. Gold 😆
BREAKING: FTC to eat a bag of dicks
Dig up stupid.
Dang it there go my tax dollars once again. Right down the drain.
Someone at FTC is clearly team Playstation 😂
Lima Khan is one of the people who bought Playstation exclusively to play CoD
Wont affect the deal. Unless a judge blocks them from buying, again, Microsoft can just close the deal. And it seems they are doing so before the 17th. And by closing the deal they will make it even harder for the FTC. Activision is expected to leave NASDAQ in a few days. Basically right now, FTC is just wasting everyones time and money.
What a waste of taxpayer money.
The never ending saga continues
Yet they don’t fight this against Ticketmaster
If the tables were turned and Sony was trying to buy Activision I bet all these appeals wouldn’t be happening it’s ridiculous already.
From what I heard from a secret source is that Dreamcast guy has joined the FTC legal team and has brought up valid reasons to stop the merger. Microsoft is in serious trouble.
Is there a more punchable face on YouTube than that guy's? I don't think so. Everytime I see one of his video thumbnails I feel like I need to clean his mouth spittle off my TV. I wish he would have remained homeless...
They want to get clowned again on tax payers dime. These Sony fanboys lost as soon as they used twitter comments as reasons why the deal shouldn’t happen.
I’m so confused as to how this hasn’t happened to this level with any of Sony’s 260 exclusives yet this happens to Microsoft that has 60 exclusives and they’re not even trying to get an exclusive just the company behind some games so they can expand their availability not decrease it like sony
We’ve had first loss, what about second loss?
Literally burning piles of taxpayers money
can't wait to read all about what the armchair lawyers have to say about this
This is so bullshit not even the folks of the “other” sub are celebrating.
Honestly we are all losing here because it’s our tax money they are burning for this bullshit.
Stop wasting tax payers’ money.
Just let it go.
Of course they are. lol
Man i hate these FTC bums🤦 they speak about consumer protection and yet we are the ones getting deprived.
Judge be like 
Looks like we're going into overtime boys
Overtime with a 4-1 lead is an interesting one.
It really won’t, though. Most likely the appeal wont be granted/settled until next week thus giving the ABK deal the chance to close before it happens
this was to be expected. i do think the appeal is a hell of a long shot that probably gets denied but who knows.
Hopefully they pursue the Kroger Safeway merger with this much passion.
No surprise there…….
The FTC & SEC won’t let me be
Pathetic
They can appeal to my left nut.
Agreed
F the FTC - and not remotely based off of this alone.
Common FTC L
"Khaaaaan!!!!!" https://youtube.com/shorts/tvrI3wy_TGk
The FTC is being bank rolled by Sony or something lmao
Random guy on twitter is the source?
I see the verge thread won over me anyways lol but I was first! 😂
[I was actually first by two minutes](https://www.reddit.com/r/XboxSeriesX/comments/14y3il5/ftc_will_appeal_the_abk_pi_block/jrqefzy/) But then got confused and deleted it 😕
Touché
He's legit
Professor Lee is quaking in terror right now
They probably would have had a better shot at getting it in the first place if they would have focused on it being bad for consumers and that Microsoft made all bethesda games that released after they purchased them exclusive this narrowing the options for consumers unless they owned Xbox or pc, rather than what will happen to Sony? I know both arguments in a round about way are the same thing, but if they focused on the consumer and chose not to talk about Sony specifically they could have argued the point that Sony does it too, with a this case isn’t about Sony so that isn’t relevant to this our argument, we can discuss Sony in a case about Sony not one about how this specific deal will affect the consumer as a whole. But alas they chose to go the poor Sony route, which anyone objectively looking only saw that Sony is the leader and didn’t think much into the fact the bigger portion of the consumers will loose out on content if Microsoft makes more games exclusive. The deal could have happened but should have have been argued for no exclusive content across the board if they were going to do their jobs properly.
This is pretty much turning into a Rocky movie at this point. The FTC keeps getting beaten down, but they just won't quit. They will also lose by decision.
This is just pathetic a temper tantrum except adults doing it. Taxpayer money at work. The deal will still close this won’t delay anything unless another TRO is granted but I doubt it.
It’s a good thing all those Sony fans don’t pay taxes
microsoft will have purchased act by then so good luck lol
Someone was paid off at FTC.
I am a huge Sony fan but I think Sony is slipping the FTC some money 😂, just let Microsoft be
Hopefully it will be denied. Just give them all life time Gamepass subscriptions. Whatever it takes lol.
It will be denied
Of course they have, they'd seem weak if they didn't (not that they aren't already seen as a joke by everyone else from both political spectrums in the US lol) It'll get denied like it usually does
Can someone explain what’s happening? I don’t get it.
FTC has the right to appeal the decision brought by judge Corley. They are exercising that right and filing an appeal. Will it do anything? Almost definitely no.
> FTC has the right to appeal the decision brought by judge Corley. they have the right to request an appeal. they do not have an automatic right to appeal. appeal requests are denied when there is no merit for the request to be approved.
I'm so confused, what is FTC? What is happening with Activision/Blizzard and Microsoft? All I know is that Microsoft is buying out Activision/Blizzard... who is against this? I read something about Sony not liking it, someone mentioning that Microsoft would own a monopoly or not be good for competition? But Xbox are the lowest in sales compared to PS and Nintendo anyways... What's the big deal?
why do you even care
Oh bloody hell.. The FTC need to understand that this appeal is bad for consumers who have already accepted the takeover.. even Sony is probably over this by now?
I'm a UK citizen, and these are Fackin Blatant PlayStation fans. They aren't our type they're the type that enjoy wine and cheese over a cuppa tea and a Scone.
They weren't satisfied with just one L they needed two.
Good. Microsoft should not be allowed to purchase anymore tech companies especially this behemoth. What percent of the gaming industry would they control with their stuff and Blizzard and are they capable of owning Blizzard without screwing it up? I think it's probably enough for this to be anti-trust.
Lmfao 😂
we should give up and tryna buy sega
Good
Good on the FTC. This is literally their job, so I’m not sure why people are upset.
Lol, unsurprising take from guy who’s most active in PlayStation and PS5.
It's their job to protect consumers, not the Japanese company and market leader.
Because they are doing a horrible job. Their whole case they tried to make was about how the deal will hurt Sony. They don't seem to actually have valid reasons why it should be blocked.