Microsoft is buying Activision Blizzard for $68.7 billion [FTC sues to stop - CMA issues updated preliminary findings]

[majob]

16 hours ago, Z1MZUM said:

 

I'm not arguing, I like everyone here including you.

 

People may not to be able to play on Playstation but what do they miss out on in the current environment? Shitty games?. There's a loss no matter which way this goes. Imo the only way is improvements.

The "shitty games" argument is so tiresome. Your personal feelings on the quality of those franchises mean nothing when the reality is that many of their IP's are some of the most popular and profitable titles around. Microsoft locking them into their ecosystem is an unprecedented power move that basically ensures (or forces depending who you ask) that people will choose their platform overall in one way or another for these games. 

 

 

8 minutes ago, the1andonly654 said:

(so far) cheap game pass.

 

Do you know what happens typically when a company becomes the only major player in town? Or at the very least, the only player in town with something everyone wants? They raise their prices.

[the1andonly654]

1 minute ago, majob said:

 

 

 

Do you know what happens typically when a company becomes the only major player in town? Or at the very least, the only player in town with something everyone wants? They raise their prices.

Yes, but to some extent. I'm well aware, hence the "so far", that the prices would and most likely will rise, but I'm also pretty sure they won't suddenly make game pass cost twice or thrice as much, let's be real. As much as I like getting stuff as cheaply as possible, I don't mind paying a higher price when they introduce the Acti games to the GP. Still a lot cheaper than just buying them individually. 

And as much as I hate the console/companies wars, who did what, etc - a while back Sony raised plus prices without giving anything in return ?

[majob]

Just now, the1andonly654 said:

Yes, but to some extent. I'm well aware, hence the "so far", that the prices would and most likely will rise, but I'm also pretty sure they won't suddenly make game pass cost twice or thrice as much, let's be real. As much as I like getting stuff as cheaply as possible, I don't mind paying a higher price when they introduce the Acti games to the GP. Still a lot cheaper than just buying them individually. 

And as much as I hate the console/companies wars, who did what, etc - a while back Sony raised plus prices without giving anything in return

I don't think you understand how much Microsoft makes on Gamepass which is tantamount to nothing. Even if the acquisition fails they're going to raise prices because Gamepass doesn't operate on a positive cash flow basis. Subscription prices rise along with inflation typically and everyone has raised them these days like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, ect. So playing the "well Sony did X" card doesn't cut it for me. you're not making a point, you're showcasing what you don't know

[the1andonly654]

Just now, majob said:

I don't think you understand how much Microsoft makes on Gamepass which is tantamount to nothing. Even if the acquisition fails they're going to raise prices because Gamepass doesn't operate on a positive cash flow basis. Subscription prices rise along with inflation typically and everyone has raised them these days like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, ect. So playing the "well Sony did X" card doesn't cut it for me. you're not making a point, you're showcasing what you don't know

Again - I don't mind and already said I know GP pricing will increase. As you said, everything rises in prices and GP will too. It's not gonna suddenly become so expensive that people like me will call it quits and personally, looking at the bigger 2023 GP games, I think it's worth it, for the current price or a bit higher. You may not. 

 

It's not a matter of not understanding things, it's a matter of seeing the minimum of what I will be getting in the subscription and deciding whether I'm willing to pay the current or a higher price for it. If the acquisition goes through, it'll definitely be a major bonus but it's not like it's the game pass's to be or not to be for me. 

[The Alchemist]

27 minutes ago, the1andonly654 said:

Yes, but to some extent. I'm well aware, hence the "so far", that the prices would and most likely will rise, but I'm also pretty sure they won't suddenly make game pass cost twice or thrice as much, let's be real. 

 

You say this, but don't forget that Microsoft literally tried to double - not a minor increase of a few dollars - but literally DOUBLE the cost of Xbox Live subscriptions overnight not that long ago and without any warning before walking it back just a day or two later after some very justified outrage, all in the name of trying to force their customers into Game Pass. So let's be real, I do not put anything past the likes of Microsoft. If they have their way and become a monopoly within the gaming landscape, and let's not beat around the bush anymore, because that is absolutely their intention here, then they will do whatever they please, including and not limited to raising prices to whatever the hell they feel like. 

 

As for PS Plus, Sony raised prices by $10/€10 I think going back a few years ago, if that's what you're talking about? But the essential tier in the relaunched PS Plus costs the same as the old PS Plus prior to the relaunch, no increase and you still get everything that you got before. 

[the1andonly654]

2 minutes ago, The Alchemist said:

 

You say this, but don't forget that Microsoft literally tried to double - not a minor increase of a few dollars - but literally DOUBLE the cost of Xbox Live subscriptions overnight not that long ago and without any warning before walking it back just a day or two later after some very justified outrage, all in the name of trying to force their customers into Game Pass. So let's be real, I do not put anything past the likes of Microsoft. If they have their way and become a monopoly within the gaming landscape, and let's not beat around the bush anymore, because that is absolutely their intention here, then they will do whatever they please, including and not limited to raising prices to whatever the hell they feel like. 

 

As for PS Plus, Sony raised prices by $10/€10 I think going back a few years ago, if that's what you're talking about? But the essential tier in the relaunched PS Plus costs the same as the old PS Plus prior to the relaunch, no increase and you still get everything that you got before. 

Did not know about MS trying to double Live prices actually. Call me naive (and I probably am) but I always look at these types of price hikes or radical decisions as something people will just say no to and the company will back down, to some degree at least - which has hapenned quite a few times, with the Live thing you're talking about or the PS3 store closure a while back. 

 

With the Plus price increase I meant the $10 increase before the tiered system was introduced, yeah. 

 

As a side note, In the hindsight, I should've been more clear that I don't mind GP price increase in general, not exclusively "after Acti acquisition" - if it goes through, then it's even more justified to me. 

[AJ_-_808]

1 hour ago, the1andonly654 said:

Did not know about MS trying to double Live prices actually. Call me naive (and I probably am) but I always look at these types of price hikes or radical decisions as something people will just say no to and the company will back down, to some degree at least - which has hapenned quite a few times, with the Live thing you're talking about or the PS3 store closure a while back. 

Yes, but that's because there's healthy competition right now. If xbox or Sony didn't reverse those decisions, they risk losing consumers to their competitor.  If MS gains a monopoly and cripples the competition, they can do whatever they want with little fear of losing subs

[Rozalia1]

The doubling of gold came off as greedy to most people, but to me it was desperation. Xbox has failed to meets its subscription targets two years running and it is to the point that they've even admitted that they've hit a wall and desperately need people beyond Xbox users to get Gamepass. Fortunately for Spencer, his boss is very easily fooled by the argument that this problem can be brute forced if only Microsoft spent even more money.

 

https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/microsoft-prepares-to-go-to-battle-with-ftc-over-activision-deal-11671284840921.html

 

Quote

Microsoft Corp. has signaled it plans to challenge the Federal Trade Commission’s lawsuit to block its $75 billion deal for Activision Blizzard Inc., and is expected to argue that it is an underdog in videogame developing.

 

Xbox has been around 21 years. Xbox has been able to operate no matter the losses. It has expanded its number of studios to where it has more than the competition now, let alone if they succeed here. Its also not been a case of not being able to establish a brand as the Xbox 360 carved it out for them after Sony's PS3 misstep (whatever you think of the PS3, it hurt them). 

When you take the above into account the reality of Xbox's argument is they should be allowed to have Activision because they're grossly incompetent. To me that in itself is an argument against them having it.

 

Quote

The personal-computing company has been publicizing its position for months, saying the acquisition wouldn’t threaten competition in the industry because Microsoft trails rivals in videogame consoles and has a limited presence in mobile-game development. The company has also said it expects the industry to get more competitive in the future with the rise of cloud gaming.

 

Ah yes, the very Cloud Gaming that regulators want to block the deal partially on as they don't want Microsoft choking the life out of competition in that area as soon as you can.

 

Quote

Legal experts say Microsoft will likely build its case around those talking points as well as the fact that it is pursuing what is called a vertical merger, meaning it is buying a company in its supply chain as opposed to a direct competitor.

 

Just completely uncaring about regulator concerns. Regulators have been concerned with Microsoft having a leading premium subscription service, massive Cloud capabilities, and ultimately a piece of that equation, a smaller one but one that becomes very important if it hits enough of a mass is the studios, the supply. As I said previously, per Microsoft's arguments they could buy up all the top western publishers and it'd still be all good which would give them a massive amount of supply. Xbox mismanagement would have to work very hard to stop them pumping games out.

[AJ_-_808]

1 hour ago, Rozalia1 said:

 

Just completely uncaring about regulator concerns. Regulators have been concerned with Microsoft having a leading premium subscription service, massive Cloud capabilities, and ultimately a piece of that equation, a smaller one but one that becomes very important if it hits enough of a mass is the studios, the supply. As I said previously, per Microsoft's arguments they could buy up all the top western publishers and it'd still be all good which would give them a massive amount of supply. Xbox mismanagement would have to work very hard to stop them pumping games out.

That vertical merger claim reeks of desperation.

 

Sony's acquisitions (with the exception of Bungie, which came after MS buying Bethesda) were vertical mergers.  Acti-Blizz are in both supply chains.  Do they honestly think that'll work?

[CelestialRequiem]

On 12/13/2022 at 2:05 PM, DaivRules said:

 

When it companies the size of these, it SHOULD take a long while to do some careful scrutiny of the deal. Including the history of the companies involved and how they've acted historically in their respective markets, balancing the promises made with how such a merger would be a measurable net positive for consumers, and actual repercussions for failing to deliver promised measurements.

Rarely do mergers at such massive scale do anything except consolidate power and increase market domination. I would prefer it if regulating bodies took longer and considered more input during their evaluations and wouldn't mind hearing about more mega-mergers being denied.

 

 

It's interesting that of all of Sony's sort of tactics in contesting this deal (as they should) they didn't even mention Bungie. 

 

I say that because they stated it's been an outward plan to not lock Destiny stuff away from Xbox, and, the comical history of this company being owned by MS prior. Instead, they're leveraging very unusual aspects. 

[DaivRules]

48 minutes ago, CelestialRequiem said:

It's interesting that of all of Sony's sort of tactics in contesting this deal (as they should) they didn't even mention Bungie. 

 

I say that because they stated it's been an outward plan to not lock Destiny stuff away from Xbox, and, the comical history of this company being owned by MS prior. Instead, they're leveraging very unusual aspects. 

The scope of the FTC review is much more limited then most commenters seem to realize or mention and it’s demonstrative by the lack of mentioning the Bungie acquisition. 
 

The FTC is concerned with whether this acquisition will show a tangible net benefit for consumers in the long run and Microsoft has a long history of what has been done to establish, and how it has acted with, market dominance. Microsoft’s legal representation wants to market the story that plays up the press (and clearly a lot of uninformed people as shown in this thread) but it appears as if it’s having no effect on this current FTC board, which looks promising. Microsoft brining up Sony and Bungie would tip off demonstrating how Sony hasn’t had a history of market dominance abuse in the terms the FTC is evaluating.

 

Sony representation, rightly, is focused establishing the only argument they need to: Activison represents a significant portion of the gaming market and if Microsoft acts how they have acted in the past, consumers will ultimately in the long run suffer with Microsoft in a dominant market position. 
 

What’s amusing is Microsoft’s spaghetti-against-the-wall everything-is-fair-defense tactic contrasted with Sonys focused response to the FTC inquiry.  Sometimes having too many responses dilutes the strength of the retort and gives credibility to arguments which had none to begin with. 
 

I’m looking forward to the FTCs eventual write-up and hope it delves into everything that was evaluated and what was dismissed outright.

 

Neither MS nor Activision are in any dire financial positions that they won’t survive if they don’t merge, and their financial losses while this plays out will be pretty minimal since they’ll be on future projected losses, so I wouldn’t mind this dragging out even long to see what does come of it. Although short of MS buying influence, I don’t see any new strategy being implemented. 
 

 

[CrimsonVoidGX]

3 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

The scope of the FTC review is much more limited then most commenters seem to realize or mention and it’s demonstrative by the lack of mentioning the Bungie acquisition. 
 

The FTC is concerned with whether this acquisition will show a tangible net benefit for consumers in the long run and Microsoft has a long history of what has been done to establish, and how it has acted with, market dominance. Microsoft’s legal representation wants to market the story that plays up the press (and clearly a lot of uninformed people as shown in this thread) but it appears as if it’s having no effect on this current FTC board, which looks promising. Microsoft brining up Sony and Bungie would tip off demonstrating how Sony hasn’t had a history of market dominance abuse in the terms the FTC is evaluating.

 

Sony representation, rightly, is focused establishing the only argument they need to: Activison represents a significant portion of the gaming market and if Microsoft acts how they have acted in the past, consumers will ultimately in the long run suffer with Microsoft in a dominant market position. 
 

What’s amusing is Microsoft’s spaghetti-against-the-wall everything-is-fair-defense tactic contrasted with Sonys focused response to the FTC inquiry.  Sometimes having too many responses dilutes the strength of the retort and gives credibility to arguments which had none to begin with. 
 

I’m looking forward to the FTCs eventual write-up and hope it delves into everything that was evaluated and what was dismissed outright.

 

Neither MS nor Activision are in any dire financial positions that they won’t survive if they don’t merge, and their financial losses while this plays out will be pretty minimal since they’ll be on future projected losses, so I wouldn’t mind this dragging out even long to see what does come of it. Although short of MS buying influence, I don’t see any new strategy being implemented. 
 

 

I can see Phil Spencer caving in and announcing future versions of the upcoming Bethesda titles like Starfield for PS5 to try to undermine the points the FTC made. But outside this scenario I dont see any possible strategy.

[CelestialRequiem]

29 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

The scope of the FTC review is much more limited then most commenters seem to realize or mention and it’s demonstrative by the lack of mentioning the Bungie acquisition. 

 

I normally would agree with that, but the FTC brought up to MS saying "You lied to the EU's version of economic regulators about Starfield, why wouldn't you lie about this?"

 

I actually think some of Sony's arguments (while understandable) are too weak for our current FTC's comprehension. They definitely should be more technical about this. 

[UNLEADED_BRONZE]

11 hours ago, CelestialRequiem said:

 

I normally would agree with that, but the FTC brought up to MS saying "You lied to the EU's version of economic regulators about Starfield, why wouldn't you lie about this?"

 

I actually think some of Sony's arguments (while understandable) are too weak for our current FTC's comprehension. They definitely should be more technical about this. 

Saudi Arabia Gov has accepted the MSFT/ACTI-BIZ Agreement/acquiring/deal/agreement 

 

Thats the 1st/First/Ist area that has accepted the deal

 

Will it backfire/flop?

 

Update:SCEE/Sony insuring 

ACT/BLIZ titles/games multiplatform

 

Lastly MSFT/Microsoft very GULLIBLE for instance acouple years ago MSFT hands was open crossplay SCEE/Sony Refused/dennied

 

Getting on like children

(THEY BOTH ARE)

 

Edited December 18, 2022 by UNLEADED_BRONZE

[Rozalia1]

22 hours ago, AJ_-_808 said:

That vertical merger claim reeks of desperation.

 

Sony's acquisitions (with the exception of Bungie, which came after MS buying Bethesda) were vertical mergers.  Acti-Blizz are in both supply chains.  Do they honestly think that'll work?

 

How regulation has worked till now the idea has been that if a vertical merger then that is that, you have to okay it because the burden on you to prove harm is so large. In the way that FTC's chair wants regulation to go, and it looks like the CMA shares similar ideas, is to change that as big companies like Microsoft have abused the current way of things repeatedly to quickly become dominant in emerging markets and snuff out the competition early. There is a bigger picture to all of this, which Microsoft knows well considering how they used to arrogantly say that their position in the console market was irrelevant as they'll soon dominate in the market of the future which Sony/Nintendo aren't even competition. Naturally now that they're in trouble all very suddenly subscription services are likely to fail while Cloud gaming which Microsoft has also pushed heavily is a joke as barely anyone uses it.

 

19 hours ago, CrimsonVoidGX said:

I can see Phil Spencer caving in and announcing future versions of the upcoming Bethesda titles like Starfield for PS5 to try to undermine the points the FTC made. But outside this scenario I dont see any possible strategy.

 

Nice observation. Might well be a bridge too far in terms of pride and honestly I don't see how it wouldn't damage their "we're the little guy here" arguments. If they're the little guy being oppressed by the evil empire then why would they offer such a thing? Surely they need those games to be outside PlayStation to have any hope of fighting back against dictator Jimbo. They also likely know that Sony would not sign any such deal (which the regulator might well not care about) anyway. Sony would simply remark that current games aren't good enough and it has to be all of the future games too. If Microsoft offers that too then Sony will then reply that the games can't go on Gamepass either and there is no way Microsoft can accept that.

 

8 hours ago, UNLEADED_BRONZE said:

Saudi Arabia Gov has accepted the MSFT/ACTI-BIZ Agreement/acquiring/deal/agreement 

 

Thats the 1st/First/Ist area that has accepted the deal

 

Will it backfire/flop?

 

Update:SCEE/Sony insuring 

ACT/BLIZ titles/games multiplatform

 

Lastly MSFT/Microsoft very GULLIBLE for instance acouple years ago MSFT hands was open crossplay SCEE/Sony Refused/dennied

 

Getting on like children

(THEY BOTH ARE)

 

 

That was ages back mate. A number of governments have okayed. One you mentioned, Serbia, Brazil, forget if there is any others. Brazil's CADE is brought up the most by Microsoft supporters as how the other regulators should be acting. CADE of course being known for being corrupt and in Microsoft's (and many others) pockets, but they leave that part out.

 

I don't recall the full details but wasn't it Epic that got Sony to open up crossplay? Microsoft had nothing to do with it though it wouldn't surprise me if they credit themselves for that one even though Microsoft has the worse crossplay which you think they'd fix if they cared so much about it. Also as you just threw that one out of nowhere. How about Microsoft regarding gold for free to play games while Sony didn't and then only changed that to try as an effort to apologise and distract from them doubling gold's price out of nowhere? Goes both ways.

 

Sony it could be said has perhaps made out CoD to be more important then it is, but that is ultimately a minor charge. CoD is big time and important of that there is no doubt, just how much is the question. That is nowhere near comparable to Xbox's efforts which has seen them constantly trashing their own business and saying that they are the little guy fighting big bad Sony, who a year or so ago according to them was so beneath them that they weren't even competition.

[Z1MZUM]

On 12/17/2022 at 9:58 AM, majob said:

The "shitty games" argument is so tiresome. Your personal feelings on the quality of those franchises mean nothing when the reality is that many of their IP's are some of the most popular and profitable titles around. Microsoft locking them into their ecosystem is an unprecedented power move that basically ensures (or forces depending who you ask) that people will choose their platform overall in one way or another for these games. 

 

 

Do you know what happens typically when a company becomes the only major player in town? Or at the very least, the only player in town with something everyone wants? They raise their prices.

 

It's fact, not an argument. I don't think you've been following Activision in a meaningful way.

[Rozalia1]

Microsoft response to FTC: https://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/editorialfiles/2022/12/22/20221222_9412_Resp_Microsofts_Answer_PUBLIC.pdf

Activision (Microsoft) response to FTC: https://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/editorialfiles/2022/12/23/20221222_9412_Resp_Activisions_Answer_PUBLIC.pdf

 

Far too much to go into here but some moments form the above. Sony according to this is "deep pocketed" and as such shouldn't be protected from Microsoft buying up large publishers. As ever, poor little Microsoft getting bullied by mean big boy Sony. China/Tencent (foreigners) have been allowed to buy up a lot of stuff in America and thus Microsoft should also be allowed to buy up a lot of stuff. There is also an implication that as Tencent is helped/protected by the Chinese government, that the American government should thus also help/protect Microsoft... except the Chinese government has been hurting gaming companies recently so this is out of date and all those fancy lawyers they have know it. The FTC they attest has broken the fifth amendment on equal protection grounds by singling out Microsoft I suppose... except Meta got into it with the FTC already so clearly Microsoft isn't getting singled out. Big tech you could say has been but its a big joke for big tech to be crying that they're getting singled out when they make massive purchases no one else can.

 

I wonder what will be next out of Microsoft. There is sort of an air of the FTC being unamerican in all of this so I suppose saying that straight up would make sense. Some manner of variation on "I thought we lived in a capitalist country, not a communist one". Surely the final card in the deck has to be "If we don't get this then we'll have no choice but to kill Xbox and give up the market to the Japanese (foreigners)".

[majob]

Seeking refuge in the 5th is a farce. Microsoft is not being deprived of anything if the FTC blocks this merger. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of Property only applies when it affects just you, not others

Edited December 28, 2022 by majob

[Rozalia1]

The whole air of their responses in these documents is dangerous.

 

https://www.economicliberties.us/press-release/microsofts-brad-smith-is-no-different-than-any-other-monopolist/

 

The above link is short and to the point in knocking Microsoft for how they've been acting on their responses. Even note how ridiculous their nice guy act is in front of the cameras considering the venom they're putting out in documents.

 

More and more I'm thinking that Microsoft has decided to simply bank on the Republicans gutting the FTC (and other agencies) so they can do whatever they want. At the start of all of this there was a lot of talk that due to how Microsoft has acted since they had all those major problems of this nature back in the day that they wouldn't risk their good boy reputation which meant less trouble for them and more trouble for other big tech competitors... and we've not seen that. Microsoft seems more than willing to ruin that built up reputation and if you consider why, no longer needing it might well be the answer.

[majob]

It should be noted that the FTC can't block the deal per se but if they successfully sue  Microsoft it basically guarantees federal court will block the merger

[MrShovelware]

I wouldn't be surprised if someone from here is part of the class action lawsuit being filed against Microsoft by Sony fanboys. ??

[SnowxSakura]

9 minutes ago, MrShovelware said:

I wouldn't be surprised if someone from here is part of the class action lawsuit being filed against Microsoft by Sony fanboys. ??

I wouldn't blame them if they were. Microsoft would never keep their word about staying multiplatform with activision/blizzard titles

[DaivRules]

26 minutes ago, MrShovelware said:

I wouldn't be surprised if someone from here is part of the class action lawsuit being filed against Microsoft by Sony fanboys. ??

 

I'm curious about what specific class action lawsuit you're referring to, as Microsoft tends to have several going on at any given time. It would be interesting to see the reason given by the lawyers representing the cases, and the judge that combined them into a class action, give the reason as "they're Sony fanboys."

 

Have a link?

 

[SnowxSakura]

43 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

 

I'm curious about what specific class action lawsuit you're referring to, as Microsoft tends to have several going on at any given time. It would be interesting to see the reason given by the lawyers representing the cases, and the judge that combined them into a class action, give the reason as "they're Sony fanboys."

 

Have a link?

 

There is no class action lawsuit, just a group of 10 people suing them for antitrust violations

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/video-gamers-sue-to-stop-microsofts-activision-blizzard-buy/2022/12/21/4161e188-8150-11ed-8738-ed7217de2775_story.html

[Rozalia1]

1 hour ago, MrShovelware said:

I wouldn't be surprised if someone from here is part of the class action lawsuit being filed against Microsoft by Sony fanboys. 

 

They're looking good if that case, which from what I recall even asks to let Microsoft off from paying the deal failing fee, is as bad as they get. The stuff the Microsoft supporter camp has been getting up to, first toward the CMA and now especially towards the FTC's minority ethnic female head, is quite something.