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

[boaly2008]

On 6/15/2023 at 6:47 AM, Rozalia1 said:

What I'm wondering is... could Microsoft close the deal before June 18th to not pay the 3 billion and then on a successful FTC preliminary injunction then reverse it, citing it as a kiss of death? Does that get them out of the 3 billion? Surely Activision would have no choice but to put Microsoft in court if that were to happen, not to mention even if Microsoft were to get away with it they'll have scammed Activision out of 3 billion. Activision was already going to have beg forgiveness to Sony and Microsoft doing that would only make things worse. I suppose if they do indeed happen to have dirt on Kotick then that could always be used against Activision to make them forget about the 3 billion.

 

I think that closing the deal immediately puts them on the hook for the full $69bn, even if the FTC later gets an injunction (I am not sure what would happen if the FTC eventually got a full block on the deal, in this scenario). So they would avoid the $3bn but they would potentially have to pay $69bn for a company they cannot integrate and cannot harvest profits from.

 

In the highest of irony, Microsoft specifically negotiated for the deal to be structured this way to ward of the other four interested companies (as mentioned in ABKs initial filing to shareholders about the deal) during the negotiation phase. No one else was going to commit to guaranteed cash within 18 months.

 

 

[Rozalia1]

24 minutes ago, boaly2008 said:

I think that closing the deal immediately puts them on the hook for the full $69bn, even if the FTC later gets an injunction (I am not sure what would happen if the FTC eventually got a full block on the deal, in this scenario). So they would avoid the $3bn but they would potentially have to pay $69bn for a company they cannot integrate and cannot harvest profits from.

 

In the highest of irony, Microsoft specifically negotiated for the deal to be structured this way to ward of the other four interested companies (as mentioned in ABKs initial filing to shareholders about the deal) during the negotiation phase. No one else was going to commit to guaranteed cash within 18 months.

 

Right. Thinking on it the argument they're currently using with the American judge tends to be one you use after you've closed, not before... ummm. As I've said though, I simply cannot believe that even Microsoft will have reached the point that they will risk this big, for their gaming division at that.

 

True. They crafted the specifics so complaining about them is silly. To be fair there were a lot of delays from regulators that pushed things back to where the date became a problem, but at the same time Microsoft didn't exactly do things to get this done quickly.

---

https://twitter.com/tomwarren/status/1669697448892153862?s=20

 

The CMA made a decision on Amazon buying someone out, clearing it. There are two ways to look at this. The first is that clearly the CMA isn't on some anti-big tech crusade if they're clearing Amazon like this. Second, it ain't that the CMA is against big tech, it is that they're Sony fanboys/puppets and have it out for Microsoft specifically. In addition or alternatively the CMA is supremely incompetent and punishing people seemingly at random as they can't grasp when harm is occurring. One is reasonable while the other is very stupid. Guess which one is getting play.

 

https://twitter.com/SenKevinCramer/status/1668379674370625537?s=20

 

How predictable. Microsoft has another key moment and their senators start popping up. On the matter of "dominant Sony". Isn't it funny how the deal should go through because gaming is so fragmented that it doesn't matter if Xbox gets significantly bigger... and yet Sony is also overwhelmingly powerful and needs Xbox to get bigger for there to be any competition? If Xbox with Activision is no concern due to gaming being fragmented, then big bad Sony isn't either.

[Rozalia1]

A document has been released which is Microsoft's put forward case to the judge regarding the FTC's preliminary injunction. As usual with Microsoft it is several hundreds of pages long and has the usual tripe in it. There is one bit that stands out to me and will mislead some people, or at least they'll pretend to be mislead if team Microsoft. 

 

Quote

- Committed to bring Activision's games to Xbox Game Pass, a subscription gaming service offering numerous games for $9.99 per month, rather than up to $70 per game;

- Signed a binding contract to bring COD to Nintendo (which does not currently have it);

- Offered Valve, the popular digital PC game distributor, a ten-year deal for Activision content, which Valve declined REDACTED;

- Signed contracts to make Activision games available on leading services that "stream" popular games to devices of consumers' choosing;

- Obligated itself, as part of the global regulatory process, to grant streaming rights to current and future Activision games to other cloud gaming services, regardless of whether Xbox decides to stream those games on its own service; and

- Offered Sony a contract to guarantee access to Activision content on PlayStation for ten years, on equal footing with the Xbox console versions, REDACTED;

 

Notice how with Nintendo they use "CoD", yet with Sony they use "Activision content" like they do with Valve. CoD is Activision content so it ain't technically a lie, but when has Microsoft ever expanded on this 10 year deal to Sony going beyond CoD? If the deal truly was of that nature wouldn't PR obsessed Microsoft not mention it instead of saying it was for CoD? To act as if Microsoft just simply never mentioned it and this is new information is foolish. The reality is that Microsoft is even now doing these petty attacks towards Sony, trying to paint them as unreasonable for not accepting their deal which now is suddenly not simply a CoD deal, but an even better Activision content deal.

Edited June 17, 2023 by Rozalia1

[Z1MZUM]

- Signed a binding contract to bring COD to Nintendo (which does not currently have it);

 

lol, Really though I mean lol. 

 

Edit: Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha

Edited June 20, 2023 by Z1MZUM

[Big-Brady]

On 25/03/2023 at 7:35 AM, AJ_-_808 said:

 

Even if said games aren't your personal preference, there's no denying that Doom, Wolfenstein, Fallout, and Elder Scrolls are big names. Add Diablo & Call of Duty to that, and regardless of Sony's superior home grown exclusives, it's still going to take a mean hit.

 

What happens next if MS tries to buy up Take Two, for example, and take Red Dead & GTA as exclusives.

 

EA has been looking for a buyer ever since Activision got a crazy offer. Ubisoft is open to offers. WBGaming has been shopping around their studios for a couple years now.  MS can do a lot more damage with third party studios

 

Sony's rumored next acquisition is Square, which largely doesn't develop for Xbox anyway.

 

The thing is we still don't have a clear cut idea of what is happening with all those IPs the only one we have a semi firm answer on is Elder Scrolls which is said to be Exclusive which might change honestly post the release of the game when they see the hit to the numbers. All those IPs you mentioned were extremely loved on PlayStation and Microsoft in court have been fighting hard to say their solution is not to make everything exclusive, their future moves with all those IPs and more will make or break them, if they suddenly start making them all MS platforms and GP exclusive then the court systems are going to take them ALOT less seriously which would hurt them in the long run in terms of future acquisitions if they get challenged like ABK has been.

 

Honestly my mindset on these things is that all platforms should leave the 3rd party stuff alone and let them go multiplatform, they are turning the gaming community into an even more toxic cesspool than it was in the ps3/360 days and those were hella toxic. MS need to start living by their own words "Play what you want, how you want, where you want" if they gonna preach that then going to a hard exclusive solution is literally the polar opposite of it.

[AJ_-_808]

1 hour ago, Big-Brady said:

 

The thing is we still don't have a clear cut idea of what is happening with all those IPs the only one we have a semi firm answer on is Elder Scrolls which is said to be Exclusive which might change honestly post the release of the game when they see the hit to the numbers. All those IPs you mentioned were extremely loved on PlayStation and Microsoft in court have been fighting hard to say their solution is not to make everything exclusive, their future moves with all those IPs and more will make or break them, if they suddenly start making them all MS platforms and GP exclusive then the court systems are going to take them ALOT less seriously which would hurt them in the long run in terms of future acquisitions if they get challenged like ABK has been.

 

Redfall was multiplatform until MS canned ps5 development 

Starfield was multiplatform until MS canned ps5 development 

Elder Scrolls was multiplatform until MS changed it to future Xbox exclusive

 

 

Deathloop released on ps due to pre-existing contracts

Ghostwire released on ps due to pre-existing contracts

 

MS likes to tout that they "released those on PlayStation" when they likely had no choice

 

 

Fallout, Doom, Wolfenstein etc are more big names for MS to decorate gamepass with. They dont care about losing sales if there's a chance they can netflix the future market, even if they have to wait 10 years.

 

As far as regulators go, it'll be too little too late by the time of the next "it's on gamepass day 1"

 

 

A smallish studio being bought and made exclusive is one thing.  Xbox did that with Obsidian and Ninja Theory

 

A large publisher with multiple studios and name brand IPs should not be purchasable by either platform holder - if anything, it should be broken up (similar to Square selling off its western studios)

 

Edit -

Would be interesting if, for acquisitions, regulators force Xbox to reveal their numbers and only allow them to use Xbox money vs MS money.  Same for ps and sony.

If the gaming platform isn't profitable enough on its own to afford said purchase, then too bad

Edited June 20, 2023 by AJ_-_808

[Big-Brady]

2 minutes ago, AJ_-_808 said:

 

Redfall was multiplatform until MS canned ps5 development 

Starfield was multiplatform until MS canned ps5 development 

Elder Scrolls was multiplatform until MS changed it to future Xbox exclusive

 

 

Deathloop released on ps due to pre-existing contracts

Ghostwire released on ps due to pre-existing contracts

 

MS likes to tout that they "released those on PlayStation" when they likely had no choice

 

 

Fallout, Doom, Wolfenstein etc are more big names for MS to decorate gamepass with. They dont care about losing sales if there's a chance they can netflix the future market, even if they have to wait 10 years.

 

As far as regulators go, it'll be too little too late by the time of the next "it's on gamepass day 1"

 

 

A smallish studio being bought and made exclusive is one thing.  Xbox did that with Obsidian and Ninja Theory

 

A large publisher with multiple studios and name brand IPs should not be purchasable by either platform holder - if anything, it should be broken up (similar to Square selling off its western studios)

Oh don't get me wrong I completely agree with you in terms of what you are saying. I can only hope that maybe they will change their mind about their strategy. And it may be too late in terms of the ABK deal but it definitely could and would impact future purchases lets face it they wont be satisfied with just ABK

[AJ_-_808]

Just now, Big-Brady said:

Oh don't get me wrong I completely agree with you in terms of what you are saying. I can only hope that maybe they will change their mind about their strategy. And it may be too late in terms of the ABK deal but it definitely could and would impact future purchases lets face it they wont be satisfied with just ABK

No, they already said there's more planned beyond ABK.  This is basically the warning shot.  And it sucks more because it essentially forces Sony to buy up studios or risk losing access to IPs via MS buyouts.

[technole]

24 minutes ago, AJ_-_808 said:

No, they already said there's more planned beyond ABK.  This is basically the warning shot.  And it sucks more because it essentially forces Sony to buy up studios or risk losing access to IPs via MS buyouts.

 

Warning shots have been fired repeatedly by this administration's actions around big consolidation and anti-trust.

 

Federal judge recently sided with DOJ stopping American Airlines and jetBlue from operating a joint venture in the Northeastern US. Bad for customers even if it's just a hair short of a merger to get anti-trust immunity. They could just coordinate schedules together and dump competing flights to the hot spots like Boston and New York, raising prices instead of just competing like everyone else.

 

[Rozalia1]

4 hours ago, AJ_-_808 said:

Edit -

Would be interesting if, for acquisitions, regulators force Xbox to reveal their numbers and only allow them to use Xbox money vs MS money.  Same for ps and sony.

If the gaming platform isn't profitable enough on its own to afford said purchase, then too bad

 

After all the smearing Microsoft has done towards them it would oh so sweet for them to force Microsoft to reveal the numbers, showcasing they are using their massive wealth to take massive losses in search of a monopoly. Won't happen, but would be nice yes.

 

As for platform holders only using that platform's money, I'm all for it in principle, but very tricky to do due to possible new entrants. Are they restricted to X amount they can invest at the start? Or do they get unlimited investing for Y years? Either way has its issues. Beyond that such an order may as well have "we order the closing of Xbox" written in it because Xbox obviously cannot, and has never been able to (at best there may have been a year or two), survive on its own. Forget buyouts, they'd not be able to keep operating. At best they could survive a number of years off progressively selling off their studios, but you can only sell so much and all the while their income will keep dropping as people will have even less faith in the platform than they do now. If that is the situation then it would be a smarter move to just sell everything off straight away and at least get some money back.

 

PlayStation would be fine as what they get from the rest of Sony is more technology (sensor tech for VR2 for example) than money, so it'd likely hurt the rest of Sony more than PlayStation. Nintendo would just be laughing as such an order would do all of 0 to them.

 

3 hours ago, technole said:

Warning shots have been fired repeatedly by this administration's actions around big consolidation and anti-trust.

 

Federal judge recently sided with DOJ stopping American Airlines and jetBlue from operating a joint venture in the Northeastern US. Bad for customers even if it's just a hair short of a merger to get anti-trust immunity. They could just coordinate schedules together and dump competing flights to the hot spots like Boston and New York, raising prices instead of just competing like everyone else.

 

I have seen the argument that even if Microsoft gets this through, the extra attention will have spooked them to hold off their plans to continue their buyouts in gaming. It makes sense certainly, but when you look at how Microsoft has acted... I don't see it. Microsoft if anything to me will be emboldened if they get this through as they'll see this as having been the regulator's best shot at stopping them, and having failed it means that Microsoft can, as they believe they should, do as they want. The CMA can of course take Microsoft to task even on minor buyouts (lower limit is what? 70 million?), but if they fail here on Activision then they'll be toothless going forward. The narrative from Microsoft's agents is that even a 7 billion buyout from Bethesda wasn't even worth looking at. In fact, until Microsoft is dominating Sony, Microsoft should be allowed to buyout anyone and everyone outside Nintendo, Valve, and Epic. Just so they can "compete" of course, not to attempt to buy up a monopoly.

---

 

New Zeeland is now taking submissions in regards to this merger. They've also stated concerns in regards to cloud gaming in the country. Australia will likely be the same as apparently they tend to share NZ's concerns, but are less receptive to behavioural remedies.

 

As far as I know Microsoft has shown little care for what is going on in that part of the world so they likely won't bring the full pressure they do in the US and UK, which might cost them. One interesting detail is also that PlayStation streaming doesn't exist in that part of the world, but xCloud does, meaning Microsoft has an even bigger edge there. In fact their only competition is apparently Nvidia. That to me would go against the passing of this deal.

 

These countries are of course considered to be irrelevant by the narrative Microsoft has set down, but at this point I disagree. One or both countries going against Microsoft would destroy any attempt at a pathetic "comity" argument, and would certainly kill the deal. If they're going against the deal then they'll do so safe in the knowledge that they have the CMA in front of them. If the CMA up till then had been wavering, then they will no longer be once they have support from these countries. As is well known at this point, if the CMA wishes it can continuously block Microsoft no matter how many cases Microsoft might be able to win at the CAT. This is why Microsoft is desperately searching for some technicality that allows them to safely close the deal (not get fined 20 billion a year by the CMA) regardless of what the CMA has decided.

Edited June 20, 2023 by Rozalia1

[AJ_-_808]

1 hour ago, Rozalia1 said:

As for platform holders only using that platform's money, I'm all for it in principle, but very tricky to do due to possible new entrants. Are they restricted to X amount they can invest at the start? Or do they get unlimited investing for Y years? Either way has its issues. Beyond that such an order may as well have "we order the closing of Xbox" written in it because Xbox obviously cannot, and has never been able to (at best there may have been a year or two), survive on its own. Forget buyouts, they'd not be able to keep operating. At best they could survive a number of years off progressively selling off their studios, but you can only sell so much and all the while their income will keep dropping as people will have even less faith in the platform than they do now. If that is the situation then it would be a smarter move to just sell everything off straight away and at least get some money back.

 

PlayStation would be fine as what they get from the rest of Sony is more technology (sensor tech for VR2 for example) than money, so it'd likely hurt the rest of Sony more than PlayStation. Nintendo would just be laughing as such an order would do all of 0 to them.

 

For a new entrant, say tencent or embracer (because each have numerous IPs) create a console, I think it should be based on time.  Give them 1 console generation without heavy investment restrictions to have a fair chance to enter the market.  Maybe put restrictions on how much exhisting IP they can make exclusive or acquire until they get settled in?  Actual numbers is something the regulators would have to collectively determine.

 

Hell, I'd even still allow, for example Xbox 'borrows' 10 million from parent  MS but can't buy another studio until it's paid back (based on a minimal possible time via actual profit numbers. In this example, if xbox actual profit is 1million annual, then 10years). If a platform can't stand on its own, then it should die.

 

Just my opinion, but it'd prevent a rapid market takeover if they had to actually be responsible.

[Rozalia1]

3 hours ago, AJ_-_808 said:

For a new entrant, say tencent or embracer (because each have numerous IPs) create a console, I think it should be based on time.  Give them 1 console generation without heavy investment restrictions to have a fair chance to enter the market.  Maybe put restrictions on how much exhisting IP they can make exclusive or acquire until they get settled in?  Actual numbers is something the regulators would have to collectively determine.

 

Hell, I'd even still allow, for example Xbox 'borrows' 10 million from parent  MS but can't buy another studio until it's paid back (based on a minimal possible time via actual profit numbers. In this example, if xbox actual profit is 1million annual, then 10years). If a platform can't stand on its own, then it should die.

 

Just my opinion, but it'd prevent a rapid market takeover if they had to actually be responsible.

 

A console generation is a long time. A company being able to spend whatever while the competition are all limited can be quite a problem even if you try to put conditions on things. It would be something I could see the EU doing though to be fair, they love handing out fines while keeping the fined entity on top.

 

For such a thing they'd also have to be restricted in using the loaned money for expansions/creating of new studios. Otherwise Microsoft can still functionally spend an unlimited amount, they just wouldn't be able to buy a company outright and would have to instead resort to luring them away with big money. Another matter is... who can have faith in a platform that publicly only gets more and more into debt. If it is getting more and more into debt then that obviously means it is a losing platform and Microsoft at any moment could have enough and cut it.

 

I agree though that a platform that can't stand on its own should go, but as long as Microsoft still believes they can capture a monopoly they will fund the money pit that is Xbox forever. The saving grace that Xbox has currently is that they have failed to expand gamepass beyond Xbox in a meaningful way (I know they trumpet their increases on the PC front, their starting number was pitiful so a big increase is still a small amount), and such a failure means that killing Xbox and just being "play anywhere" likely means they kill gamepass alongside it. Ironically Xbox's own incompetence is what ultimately saves it from being cut. As Xbox's management is apparently immune from punishment no matter how much they fail, that'll likely keep being the case.

[Rozalia1]

The list of who is going to take part in the courtcase has dropped. Microsoft is essentially sending everybody, Spencer, his management team, and even his boss. Opposing them will be an independent guy, a guy from Google, and Jim Ryan. 

 

All of that is however small potatoes compared to: https://www.axios.com/2023/06/20/exhibit-k-microsoft-activision which the people in the "gamers lawsuit" managed to get out into the open.

 

That dumb incompetent Matt Booty straight up stated to Xbox's Chief Financial Officer that the goal of buying Activision was to help in driving PlayStation out of business. We're apparently only seeing this now because Microsoft has thus far worked hard to keep this sealed and away from the public. It is early so give them time, but from what I've seen thus far Microsoft's agents will likely downplay this as a "nothing burger" and 'of course Xbox executives want to run PlayStation out of business, so does PlayStation executives to Xbox'. The problem is you can PR how you like, when it comes to the regulators they take these sort of things seriously. The FTC and CMA have concerns that Microsoft will use its power, enhanced with buying out Activision, to destroy their competitors... and out of Microsoft's own chicken lips we have one of their big men saying that is fully what they intend to do.

 

Congratulations to Aaron Greenberg for no longer being the worst guy at Xbox I suppose. Man appears to do absolutely nothing outside meeting some youtubers now and then, but even such a lack of effort is better than what Booty does.

 

I'm making a thread for the above as I think it is serious enough to warrant it.

[MidnightDragon]

18 minutes ago, Rozalia1 said:

The list of who is going to take part in the courtcase has dropped. Microsoft is essentially sending everybody, Spencer, his management team, and even his boss. Opposing them will be an independent guy, a guy from Google, and Jim Ryan. 

 

All of that is however small potatoes compared to: https://www.axios.com/2023/06/20/exhibit-k-microsoft-activision which the people in the "gamers lawsuit" managed to get out into the open.

 

That dumb incompetent Matt Booty straight up stated to Xbox's Chief Financial Officer that the goal of buying Activision was to help in driving PlayStation out of business. We're apparently only seeing this now because Microsoft has thus far worked hard to keep this sealed and away from the public. It is early so give them time, but from what I've seen thus far Microsoft's agents will likely downplay this as a "nothing burger" and 'of course Xbox executives want to run PlayStation out of business, so does PlayStation executives to Xbox'. The problem is you can PR how you like, when it comes to the regulators they take these sort of things seriously. The FTC and CMA have concerns that Microsoft will use its power, enhanced with buying out Activision, to destroy their competitors... and out of Microsoft's own chicken lips we have one of their big men saying that is fully what they intend to do.

 

Congratulations to Aaron Greenberg for no longer being the worst guy at Xbox I suppose. Man appears to do absolutely nothing outside meeting some youtubers now and then, but even such a lack of effort is better than what Booty does.

 

I'm making a thread for the above as I think it is serious enough to warrant it.

 

 

They just said the quiet part out loud.

[Rozalia1]

1 minute ago, MidnightDragon said:

 

 

They just said the quiet part out loud.

 

Yup. Would PlayStation rather not have Xbox around? Sure. They don't however say it nor buy out companies with that as a goal. Microsoft meanwhile does and it isn't now just hearsay, but official.

[SelectiveGamer]

Can't wait to see how the god damn Xbox fanbase defends this ridiculous BS

 

Give me a break

[MidnightDragon]

If the group that is trying to get this e-mail made public succeeds, the amount of damage control MS will have to do will probably be insane. 

Edited June 20, 2023 by MidnightDragon

[Rozalia1]

5 minutes ago, SelectiveGamer said:

Can't wait to see how the god damn Xbox fanbase defends this ridiculous BS

 

Give me a break

 

The thing to remember with the Xbox fanbase, the real existing one (what is left of it), not the astroturfers, is that they're very extreme at this point. They absolutely loath Sony and have zero issue with Microsoft attempting to run Sony out of business. No one console wars harder. As such there is a good chance they won't even bother defending this and will instead celebrate. I remember when the Activision deal was first announced they were celebrating as it meant Microsoft was coming for Sony with all their firepower at last. The astroturfers will try to defend though of course. Just a company doing a 69 billion buy out (in addition to previous and planned future ones) in an attempt to destroy the competition so they can have a monopoly. Nothing to see here.

 

2 minutes ago, MidnightDragon said:

If the group that is trying to get this e-mail made public succeeds, the damage control MS will have to do will probably be insane. 

 

These sort of reveals have killed deals on a stronger footing dead in the past. If Microsoft wasn't finished before it should certainly be after this. They can astroturf the public all they like, but even if successful in that it won't matter to the regulators.

[The Alchemist]

A corporation world-renowned for their monopolistic practices and history of wiping out other companies in pursuit of total market domination is now on record saying that the goal of buying ABK is to wipe out the competition. I don't believe it!

 

[AJ_-_808]

2 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

 

A console generation is a long time. A company being able to spend whatever while the competition are all limited can be quite a problem even if you try to put conditions on things. It would be something I could see the EU doing though to be fair, they love handing out fines while keeping the fined entity on top.

 

If such an idea would become a reality, I'm sure there'd be a lot of fine tuning to make the competition fair.  It's likely not a perfect solution, but it's better than using unlimited funds from a parent company.

[Rozalia1]

https://twitter.com/charlieINTEL/status/1671258906516144128?s=20

 

A tweet thread that lays out some of what the FTC is doing to Microsoft's case. 10 year deals were deemed a joke by the CMA and the FTC shares that view, noting that they're largely with foreign companies that don't operate in America, and have loopholes in them anyway.

 

The absolute best part is them saying that if Microsoft's claim that they'll operate Activision as a "truly independent" company is the case, then they should have no issue having Activision being independent and not under them. Reminds me of the CMA essentially telling Microsoft they could have just King, as they were saying was what they wanted, and forcing Microsoft to expose themselves as liars by not going for it.

 

On a fun note: https://twitter.com/stephentotilo/status/1671247628544122882?s=20

 

Quote

Unprompted, Microsoft PR sends this: "Unlike Sony, our most senior executives will testify in person to answer any questions about our business strategy. This deal means more choice for gamers, a fact that only becomes clearer the more you look at the case." (Jim's via video!)

 

Just embarrassing.

Edited June 20, 2023 by Rozalia1

[MidnightDragon]

Apparently MS was concerned about angering gamers by making Starfield and Redfall XBox exclusive, yet they did anyway. The FTC is using it in their case against MS.

 

https://www.ign.com/articles/ftc-xbox-making-starfield-and-redfall-exclusive-powerful-evidence-against-activision-blizzard-merger

[Rozalia1]

Microsoft's case against the FTC is coming out and they're running the story through their shills. One of which is Tom Warren who is all too happy that Microsoft is citing his articles on crossplay in 2017. Remember also, that email that 2019 that came out was before the deal is irrelevant. This thing from 2017 is very relevant however.

 

https://twitter.com/oldmategamer/status/1671492415210029056?s=20

 

When someone remarks that Sony can counter any such talk by mentioning that it was Xbox who was heavily against crossplay to begin with:

 

https://twitter.com/tomwarren/status/1671498427211849728?s=20

 

Ah right, it was a different era and doesn't count.

 

I'm highlighting this character because he ain't as obvious as many of the others, but he has his moments where he gets blatant. It also matters for the next part:

 

https://twitter.com/tomwarren/status/1671449522881409025?s=20

 

Quote

Xbox leadership discussing "pettiness from Sony and Gamespots fanboy reviewers"

 

Typical Microsoft. As I've said and showed another case of here. Microsoft enjoys a very supportive media which it has cultivated with gifts, exclusive coverage, if not outright having them on the payroll. Sony is the one that has fanboy reviewers however. Pure projection. The same for the pettiness as I've shown in the last couple of posts and we've seen throughout from Microsoft. They often take petty meaningless shots at Sony that make their fanboys and agents happy, but does nothing for them where it matters. Yet they accuse Sony of being petty?

 

Anyway, hopefully the preliminary injunction defeats Microsoft, and if Microsoft was truthful with their statement previously then we should be at an end with all this. Trusting Microsoft's word is of course foolish, but something that implies they were telling the truth is how hard they're going in on this. They're sending absolutely everybody and going way beyond what they're supposed to do on this. The preliminary injunction is not where you do a deciding court case, but Microsoft is clearly treating it as if it was.

 

14 hours ago, MidnightDragon said:

Apparently MS was concerned about angering gamers by making Starfield and Redfall XBox exclusive, yet they did anyway. The FTC is using it in their case against MS.

 

https://www.ign.com/articles/ftc-xbox-making-starfield-and-redfall-exclusive-powerful-evidence-against-activision-blizzard-merger

 

Good to see that come up, the more lies of Microsoft are shown up the better. It is the same deal with the whole 'Microsoft won't make X exclusive because it'll lose them too much money'. Nonsense. As the email told us what we knew all along, Microsoft is attempting to destroy PlayStation. When you're trying to do such a thing, especially when you essentially have unlimited money like Microsoft, however much money they lose making CoD exclusive is irrelevant to them. Shareholders getting unhappy will just be met with 'this is part of making gamepass the netflix of gaming' and that will be that.

[Oberlin1694]

The latest information in regards to the US standing with this isn’t looking good for Microsoft.

 

Theyre now using Microsoft’s purchase of Bethesda and the fact they changed two multiplatform, developed primarily on PS5 games (Redfall, Starfield) into Xbox console exclusives as proof of why the deal shouldn’t be allowed to go through and for why Microsoft shouldn’t be trusted with anything they’re saying.

 

As initially they also said currently in development Bethesda games wouldn’t go Xbox exclusive? Yet the first two they’ve released with them have.

 

Think they shot themselves in the foot massively and the chances of the deal not being blocked any further are slim 

[Oberlin1694]

18 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

The list of who is going to take part in the courtcase has dropped. Microsoft is essentially sending everybody, Spencer, his management team, and even his boss. Opposing them will be an independent guy, a guy from Google, and Jim Ryan. 

 

All of that is however small potatoes compared to: https://www.axios.com/2023/06/20/exhibit-k-microsoft-activision which the people in the "gamers lawsuit" managed to get out into the open.

 

That dumb incompetent Matt Booty straight up stated to Xbox's Chief Financial Officer that the goal of buying Activision was to help in driving PlayStation out of business. We're apparently only seeing this now because Microsoft has thus far worked hard to keep this sealed and away from the public. It is early so give them time, but from what I've seen thus far Microsoft's agents will likely downplay this as a "nothing burger" and 'of course Xbox executives want to run PlayStation out of business, so does PlayStation executives to Xbox'. The problem is you can PR how you like, when it comes to the regulators they take these sort of things seriously. The FTC and CMA have concerns that Microsoft will use its power, enhanced with buying out Activision, to destroy their competitors... and out of Microsoft's own chicken lips we have one of their big men saying that is fully what they intend to do.

 

Congratulations to Aaron Greenberg for no longer being the worst guy at Xbox I suppose. Man appears to do absolutely nothing outside meeting some youtubers now and then, but even such a lack of effort is better than what Booty does.

 

I'm making a thread for the above as I think it is serious enough to warrant it.

I mean this is why they bought out Bethesda and tried to make all of their future games exclusive.

 

I think Microsoft’s big acquisitions all need to be looked at, as even the Bethesda one should never have been allowed to go through. And a push needs to be made here to make an example of Microsoft and their shady practices. Force the games onto PlayStation for them breaking promises they made

18 hours ago, MidnightDragon said:

If the group that is trying to get this e-mail made public succeeds, the amount of damage control MS will have to do will probably be insane. 

They’ll be screwed as it’ll likely see the governing bodies currently investigating them, investigating deals such as the Bethesda one too and could see major changes to that acquisition. Sony buys exclusives and studios to make great games and to help cultivate them into something great.

 

Xbox purely does it to try and stiff the competition as they’re definitely not producing quality games from these studios they buy.