Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13

stu11 said:
Come on, surely you can do better than that. What about how Sony killed Sega and How the PS2 was a piece of junk. Its not like Microsoft is such a saint. They jumped the price of their console at launch by a hundred bucks for the last 2 generations, then came out with a console that you can't play the old discs on. But never mind from what I've read there is deal being done so Microsoft can complete their little purchase, Sony gets a 10 year deal with COD and Microsoft get to subsidize the losses they make on their console by selling COD to PS owners for $70 for the next 10 years. Everyone is going to be happy ...lol
Click to expand...

I could do better than that. I also don't know why your trying to come back at MS. You are the one who said people don't trust MS. I only responded that people don't trust Sony.

Also why skip to PS2 . Are you too young to remember people having to put their playstations upside down or the right angle to get it to read discs ? There were class action lawsuits.

not sure why you are upset with the option of a discless machine. Some people don't want discs. They are antiquated. I haven't bought a game on pc with a disc in 20 years


I am not sure people are going to be happy with the way Sony fans are collectively loosing their shit. I am also sure when MS starts to bring traditionally pc activison / blizzard games to xbox they will again flip a shit. Its just like how starfield is both going to be a terrible game but also it should be forced to be on playstation. It's trippy listening to the crazyness that is happening with this.
 
Last edited:
eastmen said:
I could do better than that. I also don't know why your trying to come back at MS. You are the one who said people don't trust MS. I only responded that people don't trust Sony.

Also why skip to PS2 . Are you too young to remember people having to put their playstations upside down or the right angle to get it to read discs ? There were class action lawsuits.

not sure why you are upset with the option of a discless machine. Some people don't want discs. They are antiquated. I haven't bought a game on pc with a disc in 20 years


I am not sure people are going to be happy with the way Sony fans are collectively loosing their shit. I am also sure when MS starts to bring traditionally pc activison / blizzard games to xbox they will again flip a shit. Its just like how starfield is both going to be a terrible game but also it should be forced to be on playstation. It's trippy listening to the crazyness that is happening with this.
Click to expand...
One thing is for sure. You ve been flipping your shit about Sony being "first" and the idea that MS might lose the merger :ROFLMAO:
 
At this point, it won't really matter if Sony does or doesn't sign the deal, it's if the regulators think it's a reasonable offer. If they find it's satisfactory it'll pass through fine.
 
eastmen said:
I could do better than that. I also don't know why your trying to come back at MS. You are the one who said people don't trust MS. I only responded that people don't trust Sony.

Also why skip to PS2 . Are you too young to remember people having to put their playstations upside down or the right angle to get it to read discs ? There were class action lawsuits.

not sure why you are upset with the option of a discless machine. Some people don't want discs. They are antiquated. I haven't bought a game on pc with a disc in 20 years


I am not sure people are going to be happy with the way Sony fans are collectively loosing their shit. I am also sure when MS starts to bring traditionally pc activison / blizzard games to xbox they will again flip a shit. Its just like how starfield is both going to be a terrible game but also it should be forced to be on playstation. It's trippy listening to the crazyness that is happening with this.
Click to expand...
Huge surprise! people tend not to trust profit driven, shareholder controlled corporate entities .. period. They only care about profits and don't give a fuck about anything or anyone else (witness Disney of late with how they cranking up the Disney World pricing - despite getting hammered in their streaming ..lol). The people I'm talking about are in the EU, UK and US antitrust investigators and they certainly don't trust Microsoft, they are trying to prevent another Netscape incident. (see! I'm old enough to remember that!)

As for the Series S, that's great for you that you don't give a shit about physical media, speak for yourself but others do care about physical media ( you know, like those people who use those "crappy ancient" dare I say "antiquated" Vinyl LPs) and for those of us who like to collect older physical games, the Series S is a useless waste of space. In about 20 years all it will be useful for is a wimpy space heater. (Physically it kinda looks like one already ..lol)

As for people still being mad and flipping their shit, they probably will. People will crap their pants over anything. I'm sure you'll be shitting your pants everywhere if it is suddenly announced that Sony purchases another developer that you like. After watching the temper tantrum you've thrown over Insomniac and Bungie being owned by Sony, god help us if they Sony announce someone like Square Enix ...lol :runaway:
 
I might have to go back and watch a Hoeg video again about how the FTC Process works. I see some posts already about the FTC not being able to accept concessions unless they sue, then work out a settlement and have it signed and entered into the courts. I'm just not sure which video would have the overview of the FTC Process.
 
BRiT said:
At this point, it won't really matter if Sony does or doesn't sign the deal, it's if the regulators think it's a reasonable offer. If they find it's satisfactory it'll pass through fine.
Click to expand...
And that's exactly what MS is showing the regulators.. basically just how unreasonable Sony will be. Like as if nothing MS could do would be enough for them. It could either work for Sony, or backfire spectacularly.
 
BRiT said:
I might have to go back and watch a Hoeg video again about how the FTC Process works. I see some posts already about the FTC not being able to accept concessions unless they sue, then work out a settlement and have it signed and entered into the courts. I'm just not sure which video would have the overview of the FTC Process.
Click to expand...
This appears to be the best video which I thought was already posted here.
Unlike the stuff about the CMA and the EU, he has a better handle of what should have been expected of the FTC.
 
Dr. Nick said:
This appears to be the best video which I thought was already posted here.
Unlike the stuff about the CMA and the EU, he has a better handle of what should have been expected of the FTC.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, most of all the videos are posted here, but there's just so many that it's tougher to figure out which is the best fit as so many of the workings are sprinkled throughout the collection.
 
BRiT said:
I might have to go back and watch a Hoeg video again about how the FTC Process works. I see some posts already about the FTC not being able to accept concessions unless they sue, then work out a settlement and have it signed and entered into the courts. I'm just not sure which video would have the overview of the FTC Process.
Click to expand...

The FTC can accept concessions at any point. The major reason for a company offering concessions before the FTC brings a case to court is to avoid going to court in the first place. It isn't even about whether the FTC could or could not win an injunction. In many cases t's about whether or not the cost of the concession is more or less than the cost of going to court.

However, the current FTC director has publicly stated that she does not like concessions and is unlikely to accept any concessions.

While on the face of it some group that is anti-large corporation cheers this on, this also undermines what little power the FTC actually has WRT mergers and acquisitions (courts domain in the US). Being unwilling to accept concessions means you lack the leverage to affect a pending acquisition or merger without going to court.

When you consider that some of the concessions offered in order to avoid going to court are outside of the bounds governed by the relevant articles pertaining to aquisitions and mergers, if the cases goes to court and the FTC is basing their case on things that fall outside of what the law covers, then they'll lose the cases and there will be no concessions. This is what is currently happening with the current FTC when trying to take corporation to court and then losing their case based on them attempting to broaden the scope of governing articles.

Whereas, if they were more willing to accept concessions, then they would be more likely to affect the changes that the current head of the FTC desires.

For example, the current head of the FTC is pro-labor and looks to push pro-labor issues whenever a merger or acquisition is looked into by the FTC. However, labor issues fall outside of the jurisdiction governing mergers and acquisitions. If the case were to be brought in front of a judge based on what the current head of the FTC considers important (improving labor conditions) but doesn't argue persuasively or present evidence of the harm that it would cause to consumers, then the case will be lost and the merger/acquisition will be allowed to proceed with nothing that the current head of the FTC desires.

If instead, the FTC were to back off of a threat to take the case to court if a concession were offered by the acquiring corporation to improve labor conditions, then the current FTC would achieve one of the goals that they consider to be important even if the law as written doesn't have anything to say about it.

Of course, further complications for the current head of the FTC is their desire to prevent all large mergers and acquisitions which leads to them being unwilling to accept concessions in larger deals which then leads them to kind of throwing things against the wall in hopes that something will stick when bringing a case before the court. Said behavior meaning that they often lose their cases and the merger/acquisition goes ahead anyway.

Regards,
SB
 
BRiT said:
At this point, it won't really matter if Sony does or doesn't sign the deal, it's if the regulators think it's a reasonable offer. If they find it's satisfactory it'll pass through fine.
Click to expand...
Worse for Sony. If the deal goes through and sony didn't sign then MS has the leverage and can push for better terms or may just simply put cod on steam , switch and xbox and call it a day
 
eastmen said:
Worse for Sony. If the deal goes through and sony didn't sign then MS has the leverage and can push for better terms or may just simply put cod on steam , switch and xbox and call it a day
Click to expand...
Call of Duty will be multiplatform one way or another but since Sony only seems to care about Call of Duty and nothing else. Actively trying to torpedo a deal that also encompasses Blizzard and King. They get Call of Duty and nothing else.
 
eastmen said:
Worse for Sony. If the deal goes through and sony didn't sign then MS has the leverage and can push for better terms or may just simply put cod on steam , switch and xbox and call it a day
Click to expand...
It will stay on PS with or without agreement. Call of Duty needs PlayStation more than PlayStation needs COD. This should be obvious given how large the PS ecosystem is.
 
stu11 said:
Huge surprise! people tend not to trust profit driven, shareholder controlled corporate entities .. period. They only care about profits and don't give a fuck about anything or anyone else (witness Disney of late with how they cranking up the Disney World pricing - despite getting hammered in their streaming ..lol). The people I'm talking about are in the EU, UK and US antitrust investigators and they certainly don't trust Microsoft, they are trying to prevent another Netscape incident. (see! I'm old enough to remember that!)

As for the Series S, that's great for you that you don't give a shit about physical media, speak for yourself but others do care about physical media ( you know, like those people who use those "crappy ancient" dare I say "antiquated" Vinyl LPs) and for those of us who like to collect older physical games, the Series S is a useless waste of space. In about 20 years all it will be useful for is a wimpy space heater. (Physically it kinda looks like one already ..lol)

As for people still being mad and flipping their shit, they probably will. People will crap their pants over anything. I'm sure you'll be shitting your pants everywhere if it is suddenly announced that Sony purchases another developer that you like. After watching the temper tantrum you've thrown over Insomniac and Bungie being owned by Sony, god help us if they Sony announce someone like Square Enix ...lol :runaway:
Click to expand...
1) Shouldn't you wait and actually see what happens before you make the assertion ?

2) Yea the series s is great. Are we going to shit on the PS5 DE now ? We going to talk about Vinyl records that take a huge amount of energy to create and ship and then sit in land fills for decades or centuries ? Should we do the same with cd/dvd/bluray that not only include all of the above but then break down into micro plastics polluting the world ?

I've been around a long time. I know a lot of collectors who have most of the systems made. I have 80% of the systems ever made going back to my intellivsion . Physical media degrades and breaks down as well as does the hardware. How many of the 150m playstations made are still usable? How many don't even cut it as a wimpy space heater ? how many millions of discs for the playstation have ended up in land fills ?

It's such a weird tangent you went on

3) If sony purchased a developer I liked I wouldn't really care. Eventually it seems the game will come to the PC which is what I play my games on. Like I have said for years. I rather know that Company A now owns the ip and I should expect it to only appear where that company produces games vs Company B making an exclusive deal where I only get to play a part of the content avalible like with the new hogwarts game.
 
Dr. Nick said:
Call of Duty will be multiplatform one way or another but since Sony only seems to care about Call of Duty and nothing else. Actively trying to torpedo a deal that also encompasses Blizzard and King. They get Call of Duty and nothing else.
Click to expand...

iroboto said:
It will stay on PS with or without agreement. Call of Duty needs PlayStation more than PlayStation needs COD. This should be obvious given how large the PS ecosystem is.
Click to expand...

I personally don't think that is true. $200 for a cod box isn't a big spend for a lot of people. If MS takes cod to xbox/ pc / switch only the cost of entry is still low. I don't think it will be one day its on playstation and then boom its not. I think we will see the current contract end , then beta weekends , early dlc and stuff hit the xbox console along with all the marketing focused on the xbox and then ms will move off playstation. That is assuming sony declines a 10 year agreement.

Now what sony's reaction to that would be interesting. I think sony would then scramble to get cod back on the playstation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Activision is making more money on PC than consoles for the first time
Replies
6
Views
1K
Johnny Awesome
J
Cyan
Maybe Microsoft should create a Windows console a la Steam Deck but with many more options, when mobility gaming is one of their priorities-Activision
Replies
15
Views
2K
eastmen
E
BRiT
Activision closes some Blizzard offices [2020-10-08]
Replies
2
Views
1K
Pressure
P
iroboto
PC Game Pass, now includes EA Play! [PCGP, XGP:PC]
22 23 24
Replies
460
Views
87K
Cyan
Cyan
D
  • Locked
Microsoft spending $1 Billion Dollars to stop PS3 Developers!!
2 3
Replies
45
Views
9K
Farid
F
Back
Top