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

[eastmen]

And yet there are people out there (like you) that want there to be no investigations in to microsoft and nobody "sticking their nose" into them being able to buy up huge multi format publishers of games. When would you accept oversight and people poking around in their business? Maybe when they've bought up the entire industry minus Sony and (maybe) Nintendo? Or maybe we should have a free for all where Apple/Amazon/Google start copying ms and start buying up the industry, that would be fun too!

Do we really want (or need) another ms monopoly like Windows? Want to be able to install updates when it suits you? tough shit - microsoft makes you do it when they want, regardless of the chaos it causes.




I agree and therefore the very fact that Microsoft aren't giving those assurances that this should be on the Against side.





And I'm sure you'll be fine that multiformat console IPs like Crash Bandicoot and Spyro/Skylanders, Guitar Hero, Tony Hawks and there are probably a fuckload more that would no longer be available on rival formats? You keep pulling stuff like WOW and Starcraft but purposely ignore the tons of other games that would get swept up in to Microsoft. Granted Nintendo won't give a fuck since they really don't want 3rd party games on their platforms anyway.

1) over sight is fine. This deal doesn't suddenly make them the same size or bigger than the other two console manufacturers. After this deal buying EA will surely push them above sony and nintendo and I don't think that would be smart. Of course if sony buys another half dozen or dozen developers between then and now my opinion might change again. If Apple/Amazon/Google start buying up the industry it wouldn't be much different than Sony entering the market or MS entering the market after them. Amazon has already bought a bunch of development teams

2) MS gives you options to postpone updates for months. So not sure what you are trying to state here. Do we want Sony to have a monopoly of high end gaming consoles? Last time MS was unable to compete sony came out with a $500/$600 machine to push their play at a new locked down video format. Imagine a $500-$600 PS3 that actually had more ram instead of a bluray drive. Would have offered a much better gaming experiance. Or this generation where Sony raised the prices of games and then after launch raised the price of their hardware ?

3) Why ? Does sony give assurances when they purchase a developer ? They are the high end console leader by almost double the consoles last generation but they have bought what half a dozen or a dozen developers over the course of that generation and this one. Not a single assurance that those games would stay multiplatform. Do you think Sony continuing to buy up developers and MS continued shrinking of market share is good for the industry? What makes Sony a better monopoly than MS ? Is it brand loyalty ?

If you are fine with Sony continuing to buy developers and make their content exclusive then you should be just as fine if MS does so.

4) Why are you listing off dead Franchises ? The plastic toys to life genre is dead , the plastic instrument genre is dead and so is the skate board genre. The last guitar hero called live was in 2015 7 years ago. The last last Skylanders was 2016 with imaginators . The last new Tony hawk game was pro skater 5 also in 2015. There were remakes of pro skater 1 +2. As a matter of fact Tony hawk made a non activision game called Tony Hawk Skate Jam in 2018. If you look at the meta critic Pro skater 5 had a 39% on xbox one and a 33% on ps4. its a dead franchise

Wow is certainly one of Activisions biggest games it has millions of users every month paying to play. That is why I bring it up.

 

[eastmen]

The Charley Brown analogy is an apples to oranges comparison, if you want to watch the specials you can pick up a DVD (yea physical) and watch it whenever you want and on any player you want (DVD is a standard). Same can't be said for Activision games post MS acquisition.

but that wouldn't be free anymore would it ? Charlie brown used to be on the broad cast networks and I didn't have to pay a dime for them. Now its pay walled regardless of if its dvd or apple tv.

Also what you are describing is exactly like what would happen after the MS purchase of ACtivision. You'd have to buy a new thing to play it in. Regardless of its going from needing a tv with an attenna or a basic cable package you still need to buy a dvd player or bluray player or device that supports apple tv. If a game you want from activision only comes to xbox platforms and steam you'd have to buy a device capable of playing for them. I mean a windows pc is a standard right ? A iphone is a standard and an android device is a standard. Heck an xbox is a standard. buy any of those and play activision games.

 

[iceberg187]

The Charley Brown analogy is an apples to oranges comparison, if you want to watch the specials you can pick up a DVD (yea physical) and watch it whenever you want and on any player you want (DVD is a standard). Same can't be said for Activision games post MS acquisition.

Actually, that lends itself even more to my point. The Charlie Brown specials are available in multiple formats still, however scarce they are in a physical sense in the open market. Same with secondhand games. If you want to play Tony Hawk 2, you might pay an arm and a leg for it and a working PS2/Xbox/GC if you don't have them yourself currently, but they exist. Those older games do not disappear. The cartridges or CDS still exist. The franchise may carry on in exclusive fashion going forward from the point of acquisition but that is Microsoft's prerogative to entertain. Moreover, Apple TV likely represents the lowest barrier of entry to these specials for most and I'm not willing to pay to watch them there nor invest time or money to find a dvd/blu-ray, all of which are my choice. That's the free market, working as intended.

 

[BRiT]

If you want to feel really "great" about the current "functioning" of the FTC...don't read this.

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Meta-Within-Extension-Wilson-Statement-Final.pdf

https://twitter.com/x/status/1605975791958757381

---

Statement of Commissioner Christine S. Wilson
Regarding the Continued Extension of the Deadline to Rule on Respondent’s Motion to Stay in the Matter of Meta/Zuckerberg/Within

Commission File No. 221-0040

December 21, 2022

On August 26, 2022, Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”) moved to stay all administrative proceedings concerning Meta’s potential acquisition of Within Unlimited, Inc. (“Within”) pending a ruling on the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC’s”) preliminary injunction.[1] On September 6, 2022, Complaint Counsel submitted its opposition to Meta’s Motion to Stay.[2] On October 6, 2022, FTC Secretary April J. Tabor informed Counsel for the FTC, Meta, Mark Zuckerberg, and Within that the Motion to Stay “will be resolved after the Commission determines the motion for disqualification that is currently pending before it.”[3] The deadline for the Commission to issue its decision on the Motion to Stay was October 21, 2022.[4] On October 21, 2022, the Commission extended its own deadline to decide the Motion to Stay until November 30, 2022.[5] On November 30, 2022, the Commission extended the deadline – for a second time – to December 21, 2022.[6]

Today, the Commission extended the deadline for a third time. The administrative trial is scheduled to begin on January 19, 2023.[7] The Motion to Stay was filed almost four months ago, and the Commission is now less than a month away from the beginning of the administrative trial. The inability to manage our Part 3 process judiciously will provide further fodder for those who question its integrity.

Of note: The Commission cannot decide whether to stay administrative proceedings until it rules on Meta’s Motion for Disqualification dated July 25, 2022.[8] The Motion for Disqualification requests the recusal of Chair Khan from participating in any decisions concerning the FTC’s review of the Meta/Within transaction on due process and federal ethics grounds.[9] Unfortunately, details about the Commission’s efforts to address the Motion for Disqualification remain non-public, and I cannot disclose them here. Suffice it to say that, in many circumstances, not deciding is deciding. I believe that in refusing to reach a timely decision, the Commission is relying on delay tactics rather than legal reasoning and good government.

I implore my colleagues to decide the Motion for Disqualification without further delay. I have formulated my opinion, and I am ready to move forward with this matter.

---

Footnotes:

1. Respondent’s Motion to Stay this Administrative Proceeding, FTC File No. 221-0040 (Aug. 26, 2022), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/D09411-RESPONDENT_S-MOTION -TO-STAY-THI- %20ADMINISTRATIVE-PROCEEDING-PUBLIC.pdf.
2. Complaint Counsel’s Opposition to Respondent Meta Platforms, Inc.’s Motion to Stay this Administrative Proceeding, FTC File No. 221-0040 (Sept. 6, 2022), https://www ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/D09411%20- %20COMPLAINT%20COUNSEL_S%20OPPOSITION%20TO%20RESPONDENT%20META%20PLATFORMS %2C%20INC._S%20MOTION%20TO%20STAY%20THIS%20ADMINISTRATIVE%20PROCEEDING%20- %20PUBLIC.pdf.
3. Letter from April J. Tabor, FTC No. 221-0040 (Oct. 6, 2022), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/D9411LetterCounselFB.pdf. Meta’s July 25, 2022 petition requests the recusal of Chair Khan from participating in any decisions concerning the FTC’s review of the Meta/Within Transaction.
4. See 16 C.F.R. § 3.22(a) (“Except as otherwise provided by an applicable rule, motions not referred to the Administrative Law Judge shall be ruled on by the Commission within 45 days of the filing of the last-filed answer or reply to the motion, if any, unless the Commission determines there is good cause to extend the deadline.”).
5. Order Extending Deadline to Rule on Respondent’s Motion to Stay, FTC File No. 221-0040 (Oct. 21, 2022), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/d09411commissionorderextendingstayruling.pdf.
6. Order Further Extending Deadline to Rule on Respondent’s Motion to Stay, FTC File No. 221-0040 (Nov. 30, 2022), https://www ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/d09411order2dextendingstayruling.pdf.
7. Scheduling Order, FTC File No. 221-0040 (Sept. 2, 2022), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/D09411 - ALJ SCHEDULING ORDER - %20PUBLIC.pdf.
8. Petition for Recusal of Chair Lina M. Khan from Involvement in the Proposed Merger between Meta Platforms, Inc. and Within Unlimited, Inc., FTC No. 221-0040 (July 25, 2022). See also Letter from April J. Tabor, FTC No. 221-0040 (Aug. 24, 2022) (converting the Petition for Recusal to a Motion for Disqualification).
9. Letter from April J. Tabor, FTC No. 221-0040 (Oct. 6, 2022), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/D9411LetterCounselFB.pdf.

 

[eastmen]

Really bad look for the FTC. I think they are sand bagging it cause they know they will loose and are just delaying out. Republicans take the house over in January and I am sure they will make some changes in regards to the ftc

 

[BRiT]

Really bad look for the FTC. I think they are sand bagging it cause they know they will loose and are just delaying out. Republicans take the house over in January and I am sure they will make some changes in regards to the ftc

I doubt much happens, the House of Reps has no direct influence on the process. The most they can do is exert pressure.

The current makeup of the FTC is 3 Ds and 1 Rs, as they never submitted or approved a R appointment.

The Commission is headed by five Commissioners, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, each serving a seven-year term. No more than three Commissioners can be of the same political party. The President chooses one Commissioner to act as Chair.

Commissioners

The Commission is headed by five Commissioners, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, each serving a seven-year term.

www.ftc.gov

 

[eastmen]

I doubt much happens, the House of Reps has no direct influence on the process. The most they can do is exert pressure.

The current makeup of the FTC is 3 Ds and 1 Rs, as they never submitted or approved a R appointment.

Commissioners

The Commission is headed by five Commissioners, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, each serving a seven-year term.

www.ftc.gov

Maybe not but last year the house introduced a bill to restored powers to the FTC that were stripped by the SC

House of Representatives Votes to Restore FTC’s Legal Rights

www.olshanlaw.com

Not sure if it passed tho. So they can easily kill the bill or introduce another one limiting powers more.

 

[BRiT]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1606103233138634753

 

[Malo]

Starfield, Elder Scrolls 6 and likely Fallout 5

 

[BRiT]

The Microsoft Response PDF:

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

 

[BRiT]

Starfield, Elder Scrolls 6 and likely Fallout 5

I think Fallout 5 is too far down the road. May possibly be the Indiana Jones title.

The two next immediate titles are Redfall and Starfield in 2023.

 

[Malo]

I think Fallout 5 is too far down the road. May possibly be the Indiana Jones title.

The two next immediate titles are Redfall and Starfield in 2023.

Ah yes, I forgot about Redfall.

 

[iceberg187]

It is therefore unsurprising that after nearly a full year investigating this transaction, receiving millions of Microsoft and Activision documents, and speaking to over a dozen witnesses, there is no evidence that Xbox intends to take Call of Duty away from PlayStation—or any platform at all. No emails, no text messages, no testimony. There is one reason for that: Xbox does not intend to take that step

Xbox has made this same offer to other competitors, and at least one (Nintendo) has accepted to date. Sony refuses to deal. But a vertical merger causes anticompetitive harm only when the acquired input is "essential." If Call of Duty were truly essential, Sony would have no reason to refuse

The Complaint’s reference to Microsoft’s recent acquisition of ZeniMax—a set of gaming studios acquired in 2020—has no relevance to the current transaction. After that transaction
closed, ZeniMax’s first two new games were made exclusive to PlayStation for one year postlaunch. Xbox anticipates that three future titles — all of which are designed to be played primarily alone or in small groups—will be exclusive to Xbox and PCs. But consistent with its historic approach, Xbox has continued to release new updates of existing ZeniMax games such as Fallout 76 and Elder Scrolls Online on both Xbox and PlayStation, because these games are designed to be played together by broad communities of gamers on different platforms. This last set of games is the one most analogous to Call of Duty. So the ZeniMax experience cuts against the idea that Xbox would make that game exclusive. And it is not just the ZeniMax games where Xbox has taken this approach; Xbox has also expanded (not contracted) access to Minecraft, a similar multiplayer game with a large existing community of gamers who play together from different platforms, since it was acquired. If there were any remaining doubt, Xbox’s offer to put Call of Duty on other platforms on commercially favorable terms for those platforms should eliminate it.

Seems pretty clear to me. This holds true in all regions.

ABK's response is even more forceful

Third, the FTC's made-for-litigation markets defy economic reality. The FTC has invented highly gerrymandered relevant product markets—including a "high-performance console" market limited to Xbox and PlayStation consoles, as well as individual markets for multi- game subscriptions and cloud gaming—in an attempt to support its conclusory theories of harm. But even a cursory view of well-established facts demonstrates that these markets are entirely artificial. For example, the concept of a "high-performance console" market that excludes the Nintendo Switch is patently ridiculous. Nintendo competes directly with PlayStation and Xbox, offering many of the same games and targeting the same gamer demographics. Indeed, [a lot of redacted]. Different strategies of competing for consumer spend, like the Switch's innovative mobile capability, do not define a separate relevant market, despite the FTC's misguided attempts to claim otherwise.

The FTC's disregard for these benefits to consumers and focus on supposed harms to Xbox's deep-pocketed competitors betrays a fundamental disconnect between the FTC's theories and the antitrust laws' underlying purpose, which is to protect competition, not competitors. The FTC is asking this Court to protect the world's largest gaming companies from further competition from Xbox, and thereby turning antitrust on its head. Blinded by ideological skepticism of high- value technology deals and by complaints from competitors, the FTC has not only lost sight of the realities of the intensely competitive gaming industry, but also the guiding principles of our nation's antitrust laws.

Second, the FTC's assertion that Call of Duty games are a "powerful influence" on platform adoption is baseless, contrived, and lacking in any legal significance. Courts have long held that a vertical merger can only cause anticompetitive harm when the acquired input is "essential." Call of Duty is a popular and successful game franchise, but it is far from being "essential" or even a "powerful influence" on consumer behavior, as the FTC contends. Indeed, no game or franchise is important enough to make or break a gaming platform. Call ofDuty games offered on consoles, PCs, and mobile devices face intense competition from games across all types and genres, and new hit games developed by small studios regularly skyrocket to success seemingly out of nowhere. This highly dynamic environment provides consumers with infinite choices beyond Call of Duty. In particular, China-based gaming companies have been aggressively expanding in the U.S. by investing in U.S. gaming companies (e.g., Tencent's 40% stake in Epic Games, developer of Fortnite) and funding start-up gaming studios, all while enjoying protected access to the largest revenue opportunity in gaming at home in China. If Xbox were to cut off any of its platform competitors from Call of Duty, gamers using those platforms would simply move to alternative games instead. What's more, Sony has many high-quality existing games and an unrivaled war chest of intellectual property spanning movies, television, and music, upon which it can draw to develop even more games and franchises. If Xbox were to remove Call of Duty from PlayStation, Sony has more than enough weapons in its arsenal to continue to compete effectively.

The FTC's wildest supposition is that Activision content would be available on subscription and cloud gaming services if not for the merger. The FTC alleges that the Transaction would harm Xbox's competitors for multi-game subscription and cloud gaming services because Activision might otherwise one day make its content available to those companies. These allegations are not only facially speculative and conclusory, they are entirely divorced from the facts. Activision's aversion to multi-game subscriptions and cloud gaming is widely known in the industry and is supported by ample testimony and evidence in the investigative record in this case. The only plausible "but for" scenario here is that Activision's new releases would not be available on subscription or cloud gaming services at all absent the Transaction, meaning that Xbox's plans to bring Activision games to subscription and cloud can only be viewed as output enhancing and overwhelmingly procompetitive. A theory premised on the notion that Xbox can withhold from its competitors something they never would have had access to in the first place reeks of desperation and is destined for failure.

 

[BRiT]

The Microsoft Response PDF:

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

The ABK Response PDF:

https://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/editorialfiles/2022/12/23/20221222_9412_Resp_Activisions_Answer_PUBLIC.pdf

 

[BRiT]

They raise claims about the constitutionality of the FTC proceedings:

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Constitutionally, they are correct, what the FTC is attempting to do is an abuse of the power granted to the Executive branch as I've explained previously. The current head of the FTC is attempting to usurp both the powers granted to the Congressional branch as well as those granted to the Judicial branch. That division of power was written into the constitution to explicitly prevent such abuse of power by any one entity within the government.

While you never want to get on the bad side of the President of the US or their political party, MS may have no other recourse than to take the FTC to court because to do otherwise would be to accept tyranny.

Regards,
SB

 

[wco81]

These days everyone cries unconstitutional if things don't go their way because they know the Supreme Court currently is very conservative, with justices friendly to big businesses among other things.

May not be a bad strategy but it would take years to get the case to go up to the Supreme Court.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Starfield, Elder Scrolls 6 and likely Fallout 5

At the pace Bethesda release games, I will be dead before Fallout 5 ships! Half of me wants Microsoft to put different teams on some of these franchise and half of me doesn't. I reckon I would only trust Obsidian with Fallout - they have the heritage.

This "admission" comes as no surprise, but it demonstrates that either Microsoft were not honest when they said that they would review Bethesda games on a per-game basis for release on non-Microsoft platforms, or that even if they were, things can change quickly so as to make any platitudes pointless.

 

[SmooTh]

As Obsidian CEO Urquhart said:

"If we ever got the opportunity to make another Fallout game, we'd make it. There's not even a question of whether or not we would do it, it's just: Will the opportunity arise?,"

but since their Mainteams are busy you'd "save" ~3 years

 

[BRiT]

These days everyone cries unconstitutional if things don't go their way because they know the Supreme Court currently is very conservative, with justices friendly to big businesses among other things.

May not be a bad strategy but it would take years to get the case to go up to the Supreme Court.

There already is one at The Supreme Court of the US challenging these same exact FTC proceedings. It was linked in this thread earlier.