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

[kidson2004]

It was announced that the CMA has blocked the merger for the next 10 years:

 

Safe to say that this is a gigantic L, and that Microso$t needs to keep it moving at this point. 

[majob]

22 hours ago, mcnichoj said:

 

No offense taken but research harder next time. MS and SE were working on a port deal for years, BEFORE MS rescinded their policy of requiring xbox live for F2P games. This was why SE support largely started to taper off before MS started whining about it to look like a victim

https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/xbox-says-it-hasnt-given-up-on-final-fantasy-14-despite-a-three-year-silence/

 

Edited April 30, 2023 by majob

[majob]

1 hour ago, kidson2004 said:

 

Oof. CMA brunt them on their token 10 year deal BS

[AJ_-_808]

1 hour ago, kidson2004 said:

It was announced that the CMA has blocked the merger for the next 10 years:

 

Safe to say that this is a gigantic L, and that Microso$t needs to keep it moving at this point. 

 

MS was offered a 10yr deal of their own

That is f'n hilarious

Edited May 1, 2023 by AJ_-_808

[TheRetroManiac]

2 hours ago, kidson2004 said:

It was announced that the CMA has blocked the merger for the next 10 years:

 

Safe to say that this is a gigantic L, and that Microso$t needs to keep it moving at this point. 

Now this gave me a laugh, I bet Brad Smith and more than likely Lulu Cheng Meservey will have lots to say about this. This whole 10 year deal scenario that Microsoft has thrown around is now coming back to bite them in the ass, lol.

[Zephrese]

On 4/26/2023 at 8:40 PM, Zephrese said:

I don't think that I've ever laughed this hard in my life, get fucked. lmao

 

I stand corrected. ?

Edited May 1, 2023 by Zephrese

[mcnichoj]

5 hours ago, majob said:

No offense taken but research harder next time. MS and SE were working on a port deal for years, BEFORE MS rescinded their policy of requiring xbox live for F2P games. This was why SE support largely started to taper off before MS started whining about it to look like a victim

https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/xbox-says-it-hasnt-given-up-on-final-fantasy-14-despite-a-three-year-silence/

The article mentions nothing about requiring two subscriptions?

[Rozalia1]

Microsoft getting a 10 year deal of their own is a legendary moment. Note also that this prohibition isn't just for buying Activision outright, it also means that Microsoft can't purchase their assets piecemeal or even buy shares in Activision.

 

This should be no issue for Microsoft. After all they told Sony that 10 years is enough time to create a CoD competitor.

 

In other news.

 

1: Microsoft is back to doing business in Russia apparently, days after their failure on this deal. Why does this matter? Because one of the Cloud providers they signed one of their infamous 10 year deals was based in Romania up until the moment Microsoft approached them whereupon suddenly they were Ukrainian. Brad Smith then announced the deal and basically said "look we're helping Ukraine". So yeah, that is an element that makes them continuing business in Russia extra disgusting as they tried to use the current war to score PR points.

 

2: The month has just changed but the bad events for Microsoft are continuing with the Redfall launch. A funny detail is Redfall for whatever reason (the most promoted character being a black woman?) has up to now been promoted as "better than Forspoken" by Microsoft supporters, which if you liked the game or not is ultimately a low bar due to how savaged it got in reviews, but it appears like it might not be able to vault that low bar. Lets not forget that Redfall was delayed a whole year and still came out in this state which isn't the 1st game for Microsoft to have that happen to. Either delaying games a year does nothing to help them or... if not delayed they would be super broken.

 

Not a surprise of course as even many Microsoft supporters know that Redfall is unimportant and that Starfield is the great hope for Microsoft... but that was also delayed a year... if that is a mess also then I don't see how even the most dedicated Microsoft supporter (unless a literal Xbox) could defend them further.

[MidnightDragon]

17 hours ago, kidson2004 said:

It was announced that the CMA has blocked the merger for the next 10 years:

 

Safe to say that this is a gigantic L, and that Microso$t needs to keep it moving at this point. 

No wonder they flipped shit so bad.

[mcnichoj]

15 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

Not a surprise of course as even many Microsoft supporters know that Redfall is unimportant and that Starfield is the great hope for Microsoft... but that was also delayed a year... if that is a mess also then I don't see how even the most dedicated Microsoft supporter (unless a literal Xbox) could defend them further.

It's Bethesda, so I'd be surprised if consoles didn't explode just pre-loading the game.

Maybe that's what is going to happen and it's apart of the plan to push xCloud.

[Eirulan]

My apologies if the following has already been discussed somewhere here in the thread, if it has, I've read over it.
My understanding is that the chances of a successful appeal by Microsoft are very slim (with the three justification options irrationality, illegality, formal errors). But after that, even if this appeal was rejected, if I understood correctly, there would still be the possibility of making further concessions to the UK antitrust watchdogs, such as leaving all Activision Blizzard products out of Gamepass in the UK?

[Rozalia1]

News

 

1: Nintendo's boss man in America reportedly avoided the FTC's papers 7 times before they finally nailed him which means he will have to go to court and answer questions. Nintendo has tried to stay out of all of this so I'm sure they are not happy that Microsoft has got them pulled in by sending them a 10 year deal. Nintendo has actually sent a copy of the deal to the FTC already, likely hoping that would be the end of it, but as Microsoft made comments such as the deal meaning they'd put a native version of CoD on the Switch, the FTC needs to further question them on issues such as that. That particular issue is interesting because Nintendo either gives up specs of whatever the Switch successor and tries to defend Microsoft, or they say that Microsoft is obviously wrong/lying and they're not going to do a native version for X, Y, Z. Considering how much they've tried to avoid this, I doubt Nintendo is happy with Microsoft pulling them into this.

 

2: There was a pretty damning piece that came out in The Times in the UK for Microsoft, but also talked on the EU. Its paywalled so little point linking it but the most interesting part to me was it mentioning the new EU process they've put together under its current head which... wow. Microsoft supporters I often saw state that the EU was the wisest because they had brought in and were listening to experts and industry specialists and all that talk, the FTC/CMA apparently just winging it and not listening to anyone. 

 

Quote

By contrast, Brussels merger rules are still dictated by a conservative framework that prioritises the here and now impact on consumers, rather than foreseeing the threat of future monopolies.
 

A recent study found that the Brussels competition unit relies on a small band of external economic consultancies who lobby on behalf of their corporate clients on merger and competition decisions. The European Commission is also poised to appoint a former Obama-era enforcer who had side jobs consulting Amazon and Apple as its chief competition economist. Both US giants have been the subject of antitrust and state-aid tax investigations in recent years.

One EU official says the CMA's disruptive decisions are causing "fear and resentment" in Brussels.

 

This is clearly corrupt to the core, even more than in America because there the FTC at least can reach the correct decision before the corrupt pro-business judges overrule them. Thankfully for everyone Brexit occurred which has allowed the CMA to block this (and deals past and future). The EU is now in a tough spot because as corrupt as they are in wanting to pass the deal, them doing so wouldn't change a thing due to how unassailable the CMA is unlike the FTC. Passing the deal makes them look corrupt and further justifies Brexit as it means the British people have gotten away from the EU's corruption. However it ain't all rainbows if they block the deal because it will likely be framed as the EU kneeling to the CMA which they will absolutely hate.

 

3: https://gizmodo.com/microsoft-windows-google-chrome-feature-broken-edge-1850392901

 

Its on a separate tech issue but a showing of how Microsoft operates and how they can't be trusted. When Google became an opponent to Microsoft on this deal they cited an issue which Microsoft inflicted upon them which showed that Microsoft couldn't be trusted as they'd do things like that to move people to their services. Microsoft in response quickly fixed the issue and stated that it was just an error and not done on purpose.

 

Now that the deal appears dead Microsoft no longer has to pretend to be nice so they're back to breaking things for Google.

 

34 minutes ago, Eirulan said:

My apologies if the following has already been discussed somewhere here in the thread, if it has, I've read over it.
My understanding is that the chances of a successful appeal by Microsoft are very slim (with the three justification options irrationality, illegality, formal errors). But after that, even if this appeal was rejected, if I understood correctly, there would still be the possibility of making further concessions to the UK antitrust watchdogs, such as leaving all Activision Blizzard products out of Gamepass in the UK?

 

As far as I know no. Microsoft's time to bargain with remedies is over. The CMA told them that they would only pass it with divestments and Microsoft told them that they weren't going to do that, likely with the idea that the CMA wouldn't dare block the deal entirely so they'd have no choice but go with whatever Microsoft offered. The CMA wasn't intimidated and blocked it. Microsoft doesn't get to now say hold on we'll play ball now. The time has passed.

 

These so called experts and analysts saying otherwise have America on the brain when they speak so they think that the courts in the UK can be won in and then they'll force the CMA to play ball with Microsoft. It is also why they've been totally wrong on this the whole way through. The CMA has blocked the deal in essence based off speculation of the future, something which in America is unacceptable as regulators have to be idiots and only deal in the present and not what a company could then do in the future with whatever assets they've acquired, hence why the current FTC has been hated on so much because they're also thinking of the future. The FTC unlike the CMA however can be easily overruled by a corrupt pro-business judge.

 

Now for anyone who thinks that it would be wrong for Microsoft to be blocked on this deal via speculation on the future... why is Microsoft buying Activision to begin with? On the speculation that with Activision in hand it will allow them to establish total dominance in the market of the future which they have believed for over a decade. What sense does it make to allow companies to make purchases based off speculation but not allow regulators to block those purchases based off the same speculation? Zero. 

[cy1999aek_maik]

Damn, so the CMA is the first and last line of defense.

 

[SelectiveGamer]

Here's YongYea's official video on the CMA decision/block for those that care:

 

 

From what I gather from this... (could just be me I guess or IMO) but he seems to suggest that the arguments Sony and the CMA for wanting the block are 'shaky at best'

 

Not saying I agree. Or disagree for that matter. I don't know what to really say about this anymore honestly. I've been bashed on multiple different Discord servers for my stance on this in the past. Mostly because I feel like (and still do really) that Sony are being 'whiny babies' about it and their actions seem to point to and suggest this.

 

I also don't want to come across as claiming or accusing YongYea of being a Microsoft shill. Because I'm not. He seems to mostly be 'neutral' on this. But again this is just my perspective.

 

I guess I wait to see what @Rozalia1 has to say about this now...

[cy1999aek_maik]

1 hour ago, SelectiveGamer said:

Here's YongYea's official video on the CMA decision/block for those that care:

 

 

From what I gather from this... (could just be me I guess or IMO) but he seems to suggest that the arguments Sony and the CMA for wanting the block are 'shaky at best'

 

Not saying I agree. Or disagree for that matter. I don't know what to really say about this anymore honestly. I've been bashed on multiple different Discord servers for my stance on this in the past. Mostly because I feel like (and still do really) that Sony are being 'whiny babies' about it and their actions seem to point to and suggest this.

 

I also don't want to come across as claiming or accusing YongYea of being a Microsoft shill. Because I'm not. He seems to mostly be 'neutral' on this. But again this is just my perspective.

 

I guess I wait to see what @Rozalia1 has to say about this now...

Live footage of Rozalia1 writing their response

[Zephrese]

As much as I like Yong, some of his takes are "shaky at best". This might very well be one of 'em, I'm afraid.

[Rozalia1]

17 hours ago, SelectiveGamer said:

Here's YongYea's official video on the CMA decision/block for those that care:

 

From what I gather from this... (could just be me I guess or IMO) but he seems to suggest that the arguments Sony and the CMA for wanting the block are 'shaky at best'

 

Not saying I agree. Or disagree for that matter. I don't know what to really say about this anymore honestly. I've been bashed on multiple different Discord servers for my stance on this in the past. Mostly because I feel like (and still do really) that Sony are being 'whiny babies' about it and their actions seem to point to and suggest this.

 

I also don't want to come across as claiming or accusing YongYea of being a Microsoft shill. Because I'm not. He seems to mostly be 'neutral' on this. But again this is just my perspective.

 

I guess I wait to see what @Rozalia1 has to say about this now...

 

I don't know the guy but that video was very poor to me. Pretty much every source he uses has an obvious heavy pro-Microsoft slant and he takes a shot at Jim Ryan for "crying" about how damaging this deal would be for Sony, yet not a word about Microsoft doing way beyond that. Even if he isn't a shill and is truly trying to be a "neutral", him going just by heavy pro-Microsoft sources turns him functionally into one. Of course he'd have the view he has on the matter, he apparently listens only to people of that view. As for neutrals... be careful. Microsoft as a company historically and to this day makes heavy use of astroturfing and it goes beyond the really obvious shills as it also has some more undercover ones who'll claim to be neutral/independent. Not saying that guy is such a person, just letting you know that is what we have to deal with when it comes to Microsoft.

 

As for what you want to know, the sizable answer is below.

 

If we go by the current accepted antitrust framework (wasn't always) then Sony/CMA/FTC's views aren't "shaky at best", they're straight up wrong. Microsoft in arguing the case has said something along the lines of the deal only putting them at 11% market share in all of gaming, thus there is zero threat out of them owning Activision. As such in the current framework Microsoft could not only buy Activision, they could buy EA, Ubisoft, Take Two, you can keep going as that wouldn't technically put them in a monopoly position in the moment so no foul. Regulators can of course fight back by defining markets so that instead of the decision being based off the total gaming market it is based off the console gaming market, and as we've seen they can go even further and define it off a "high performance console market" which removes Nintendo's market share thereby making it harder on Microsoft to buy their way to the top. However, in America Microsoft can get such attempts by the FTC overruled easily enough. The EU in the past would be an issue but the current administration appears corrupt to the core. As such the CMA is the only defence as @cy1999aek_maik said because of the fact that they're a nonpartisan independent body who can't simply be overruled in their decision (they can be asked to fix things in their decision, but they can always just give the same result if they wish) by a judge or government if big business generates enough pressure. Many Americans see that as an oddity and corrupt, but how it works in America is the actual oddity not how it works in Britain.

 

With all that said. The FTC and CMA aren't working off that currently accepted antitrust framework, but a new framework (actually an old framework, but what is old is new again) that believes that the future needs to be heavily taken into account when it comes to these deals. Microsoft buying Activision and a multitude of other big companies might not in the moment give them a monopoly in gaming, but backed by their absolutely massive funding they'd certainly be able to use them to foreclose their competition, namely Sony. Imagine for a moment that regulation doesn't stop Microsoft's big buy outs and so the next generation is Microsoft having 100+ 1st party studios (with big IPs such as CoD, Assassin's Creed, so forth) and then on top of that paying many remaining third parties exclusivity contracts for their games (even if just for a year). That would be massive amount of firepower to face down for Sony and if Microsoft then gains a monopoly, oh shucks, who could have foreseen that Microsoft owning all those companies would lead to all of that. Oh well, what is done is done because while regulators can technically at that point go back and try to remove those companies from Microsoft, that is very difficult to do and generally simply doesn't happen. It also wouldn't at that point save Sony.

 

Microsoft and its supporters argue that change should not occur and things are good as they are, which works against the FTC. To change the framework they need to get congress to make the change, a congress which as is so often said is in the pocket of big business, with Microsoft being easily the biggest big tech lobbyist (stronger than the rest combined, though hopefully their conduct with this deal will help destroy that). The current FTC is an aberration protected by President Biden. Whatever Democrat follows Biden is unlikely to back the current FTC. Republicans would also tear the current FTC down outside a scenario where Trump distrusting the establishment Republicans puts a Trump loyalist in charge who wishes to cut big tech down to size for hating on Trump (not impossible, but not something to count on). The CMA on the other hand is very protected so if they start making decisions off this new framework then that is that.

 

As for why the FTC/CMA want to change the framework of antitrust it would be because of companies like Microsoft, Meta, Google, you get the picture growing absolutely massive and dominant off their purchases which out of context might seem minor, but in the full context allows them to go on to dominate current and future markets. Microsoft among that pack is easily the biggest offender for the sheer quantity of buyouts and money spent, but also because Microsoft by itself is known for putting out soulless third rate products that they fix not by improving themselves but by going out and buying out the competition and their success with it. Well that and dirty tactics such as bundling their product with another that has a monopoly. Suffice to say, a future where Microsoft has to innovate themselves and put out first rate products is not one they want.

 

In conclusion. Anyone who says that CMA/FTC are wrong aren't incorrect, in fact technically they're more correct than those who oppose the deal. However, unless you're just totally pro-big business to the max and believe they should just dominate the world (which most for this deal would deny as they know it is a bad look), then it is clear that the current way things are done is wrong and that the CMA/FTC are correct to want to have it changed, and in that changed framework Microsoft should certainly be denied this purchase.

[cy1999aek_maik]

I found my favourite take on the ABK deal so far (here). 

 

Seriously though, I realised this is taking way more energy than it should for me for something that I neither enjoy nor is productive. In the meantime, my controller has been left cold and neglected. I am uninstalling twitter and resigning from giving any more shits about this

[Rozalia1]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/microsoft-hires-brussels-beating-lawyer-153403977.html?.tsrc=fin-srch

 

Microsoft is putting to work (they say they hired him for this, but they already had him hired for a while) a top lawyer who has apparently overcome the EU in the past (EU is going to be trying again though) on working their appeal against the CMA. They didn't get someone who has beaten the CMA because... no one has. Apparently they're not even going to wait for the EU result and the appeal will be made in the coming days. Some are remarking that doing this must show that Microsoft is heavily confident that the EU will side with them and as such they need not bother waiting... just like how they were so sure that the CMA was going to clear so they were straight up running ads like the deal had gone through on the London subway like clowns.

 

https://nypost.com/2023/05/04/activision-ceo-bobby-kotick-rips-regulators-greatest-threat-to-innovation/

 

Call of Duty, famously innovative. Kotick back to his "regulators are letting China win" race baiting. Wonder if Microsoft will do it themselves again soon.

 

19 hours ago, cy1999aek_maik said:

I found my favourite take on the ABK deal so far (here). 

 

Seriously though, I realised this is taking way more energy than it should for me for something that I neither enjoy nor is productive. In the meantime, my controller has been left cold and neglected. I am uninstalling twitter and resigning from giving any more shits about this

 

I understand the feeling. I like to look at it as a moment in history type of deal. Considering the state of their business and now even their boss Spencer (man was broken in that interview) this failure here could well be leading to the end of Xbox. Even if doesn't, it should protect the videogame market from rapid and mass consolidation at least, which is a loss for big tech.

[mcnichoj]

Someone actually posted something on 4chan that I actually thought was worthwhile to share anywhere for once. It was in response to someone saying that CMA rulings have only ever been overturned about 3% of the time of their initial rulings.

 

This is the CMA's biggest test since they were given expanded powers post Brexit by the government in appeals with CAT. Especially with how they ruled on a nascent market that may not exist in 10 years time and the way they decided it (by using Xbox Gamepass subscribers in the UK as proof of a 60% share) just got undone by Amazon announcing Luna is now available to all 18 million Amazon Prime subscribers in the UK during the week which has completely upended the UK market overnight. If the EU approves with concessions as well, the UK will look incredibly foolish that they let their regulator block business in the UK over such a minuscule market that is rife with literal overnight disruption never mind it being exceptionally fragile.

 

Then a couple replies happened and I assume it was the same person that posted this.

 

Multiple companies like Nvidia had even told the CMA that companies could change the cloud market share overnight, the cloud gaming market was so volatile. Using the definition of Game Pass subscribers to mean MS has a monopoly in cloud streaming is shockingly short sighted by the CMA (Especially as the CMA didn't separate them out further because you only get access to Xbox cloud in the Ultimate tier subscription. MS lawyers will have fun with that one) because you end up with the situation where Amazon announces Luna and by definition of subscribers and cloud access, immediately becomes the lead market share in the cloud gaming market overnight. While the turnover rate is low in the CAT, I don't think the appeals will be very happy with how the CMA came to their conclusion if it's based on not just flawed logic, it's logic that other cloud gaming companies warned them on.

[Rozalia1]

22 minutes ago, mcnichoj said:

Someone actually posted something on 4chan that I actually thought was worthwhile to share anywhere for once. It was in response to someone saying that CMA rulings have only ever been overturned about 3% of the time of their initial rulings.

 

This is the CMA's biggest test since they were given expanded powers post Brexit by the government in appeals with CAT. Especially with how they ruled on a nascent market that may not exist in 10 years time and the way they decided it (by using Xbox Gamepass subscribers in the UK as proof of a 60% share) just got undone by Amazon announcing Luna is now available to all 18 million Amazon Prime subscribers in the UK during the week which has completely upended the UK market overnight. If the EU approves with concessions as well, the UK will look incredibly foolish that they let their regulator block business in the UK over such a minuscule market that is rife with literal overnight disruption never mind it being exceptionally fragile.

 

Then a couple replies happened and I assume it was the same person that posted this.

 

Multiple companies like Nvidia had even told the CMA that companies could change the cloud market share overnight, the cloud gaming market was so volatile. Using the definition of Game Pass subscribers to mean MS has a monopoly in cloud streaming is shockingly short sighted by the CMA (Especially as the CMA didn't separate them out further because you only get access to Xbox cloud in the Ultimate tier subscription. MS lawyers will have fun with that one) because you end up with the situation where Amazon announces Luna and by definition of subscribers and cloud access, immediately becomes the lead market share in the cloud gaming market overnight. While the turnover rate is low in the CAT, I don't think the appeals will be very happy with how the CMA came to their conclusion if it's based on not just flawed logic, it's logic that other cloud gaming companies warned them on.

 

I've seen that getting spread around and maybe should have brought it up, so thank you for doing so.

 

To begin with it's nonsense. What they're referring to is that Fortnite, and lets remember an important fact here, a free game, has now been made available on Luna, and Prime subscribers now get to use Luna to play Fortnite for free too. Prime users don't get to play whatever else is on Luna which is very important. Microsoft can and likely will try to argue that such a thing means that all Prime subscribers should now count, but it simply will not cut the mustard. Anyone with a free Microsoft account can access Xcloud to play Fortnite on a web browser for free also, so if regulators had to throw in prime then they'd just throw those Microsoft accounts in too and it'd just become worse for Microsoft. This also talks as if the sole issue is that Microsoft has 51+% of the market when it ain't. Its part of the issue but the main issue is that Microsoft owns every part of the "stack" that would go into what would make a cloud service. Every other company, be it Sony or Amazon, do not have each element necessary and so need to partner with others (which brings extra costs Microsoft don't have to worry about).

 

To also address something else that is getting thrown around in conjunction with the above. How many people on Gamepass actually use Cloud gaming? Surely a small fraction so you can't count them all. Out of Microsoft's own chicken lips they've had over 20+ million players play on the Cloud (80% of their gamepass numbers). Did Xbox cook the books on that figure (including players doing cloud save uploads for example) to make themselves look better at the time? Of course, that is what Xbox does in everything and in whatever even that ain't enough they'll just hide the numbers. Now their lying has come back to hurt them as we've seen happen many times over the course of this case and it is what they deserve.

 

As for Nvidia, Boosteroid, or whoever else is talking up for Microsoft. Perhaps in the past they might have helped the case but the current regulators at the FTC and CMA are wise to the fact that people who have something to gain are going to talk up in defence of a company who has promised them lots of stuff. The CMA report even says that not only were Microsoft's 10 year deals meagre, but they cannot be trusted to have been done in good faith as Microsoft only started doing them when the deal was put in trouble. Remember that at the start Microsoft came out and said they had no reason to give anything to anybody. Then when Sony told them to not put words in their mouth when Spencer was saying that his meeting with Sony went great, when it didn't, they started offering Sony progressively longer bad deals as they saw Sony as the only possible issue. When Cloud kept coming up as a big concern for regulators it was only then that they went around offering to all manner of Cloud services, who are absolutely no threat to Microsoft, bad deals (unlike Sony they are happy to be paid in exposure as to why they'd accept). Note that we didn't hear a peep about any such deals towards Amazon and their Luna service. Why? Because Microsoft knows that they might be a possible threat as they have Amazon Web services.

 

The argument that someone can quickly make the market shift so Microsoft is absolved of everything is also a bad argument to begin with. If someone else can make it shift that rapidly then Microsoft itself can also, and Microsoft unlike those other parties has the full stack of what goes into a cloud service (plus the you know, virtually unlimited funds) and so always have an advantage as a result. However, if somehow Microsoft can manage to get this done and the CMA gets told to do it again... they can then just cite the stack issue alone and kill it on just that. The CMA has said that even slight strengthening of Microsoft in the area of Cloud gaming has the potential of making them unassailable, and buying Activision is heavily increasing content. If Microsoft then appeals while for example shutting down Xcloud to try and eliminate the issue, the CMA like with the Cloud deals can note Microsoft's timing of such actions suspicious and continue to block it on cloud concerns regardless.

[mcnichoj]

Famous retard Michael Pachter chimed in. I didn't watch it but here it is in case anyone wants to.

 

[Alos88]

Pachter: My magic ball says the CMA will fold.
MS: You fool, you've doomed us all!

[mcnichoj]

16 hours ago, Alos88 said:

Pachter: My magic ball says the CMA will fold.
MS: You fool, you've doomed us all!

He is the guy that accurately predicts Madden will sell millions of copies every time. Clearly a man full of wisdom and keen insight.

[Rozalia1]

Pachter I've heard said used to be respectable back in the day, but today is functionally a conman. He likely has a big interest in Activision being sold and with a role advising investors he will keep telling everyone that everything is fine until the very day that Microsoft finally desists.

 

There is also this: 

 

https://www.vgchartz.com/article/445582/michael-pachter-microsofts-bethesda-acquisition-will-shift-a-few-million-from-playstation-to-xbox/

https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2022/02/sony-vastly-overpaid-in-desperation-for-bungie-says-outspoken-analyst-michael-pachter

 

Sony bought Bungie for the expertise of their workers so they can link them up with other studios and advise/assist so it'll be hard to see the worth regarding the deal unless companies come out and state that Bungie were invaluable or something. Bethesda meanwhile thus far has been a complete waste as the reason Bethesda sold was because their business and work were in the toilet and Microsoft with their great idea of being "hands off" has meant that it has only continued.

 

Beyond that though... I notice he seems positive when it comes to Xbox but negative towards PlayStation... ummm... it's sad but with how deceptive Microsoft is my first thought is they're likely paying him as a "consultant" for him to talk them up and spread FUD about PlayStation.

Edited May 8, 2023 by Rozalia1