What's the joke ?
Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Glad it wasn't just me that this went over the head of.
Whoosh!
I assumed the joke was that the FTC did no work whatsoever and merely went with parroting exactly what Sony sent via EMail.
They had to have done their own research and their own write-ups for analysis. Right?
Watching the Biden administration I could believe the FTC under him would actually just forward sony's email. So I dunno
Thankless Sony is unwilling to comply with Federal Trade Commission's subpoena over Microsoft-ActivisionBlizzard merger, at least in its original form
This is counterintuitive. One would think that Sony's PlayStation chief Jim Ryan has a Lina Khan poster above his bed because the Federal Tr...
Silent_Buddha
Legend
So, Sony is currently the only major vocal opposition to the acquisition in the US and is now being uncooperative with the very agency (FTC) that they approached in order to voice their opposition to the acquisition. Uh...
I do wonder if Sony is seeing that the current FTC will be unable to stop the acquisition and thus are only doing this to delay it as long as possible in hopes that MS loses interest so that when push comes to shove, when presented with an opportunity to help an agency attempt to prevent the acquisition declines to do so because it would require providing documents that illustrate that it, as the market leader, actively participates in the exact behavior that they say MS will if the acquisition were to go through.
Basically, in helping the FTC stop the acquisition, they may be fearful of the FTC also potentially establishing precedent that would then prohibit Sony from operating in the manner in which they (and the console industry at large) have operated for the past few decades in the very small chance that the FTC were to actually win any future case in Federal court regarding this acquisition.
Compounding that would be public perception that Sony are engaging in the exact activities that they object to MS potentially doing if the acquisition goes through. If documents were made public showing the extent of these business dealings than public opinion may move against Sony. Sony are certainly smaller than Microsoft even if they are the market leader in video games, but they are still a very large multinational corporation. The court of public opinion could then swing from this being about david versus goliath to a spat between 2 large multinationals where both engage in the same activities and one is objecting to the other operating in a similar manner as they themselves do.
Regards,
SB
I do wonder if Sony is seeing that the current FTC will be unable to stop the acquisition and thus are only doing this to delay it as long as possible in hopes that MS loses interest so that when push comes to shove, when presented with an opportunity to help an agency attempt to prevent the acquisition declines to do so because it would require providing documents that illustrate that it, as the market leader, actively participates in the exact behavior that they say MS will if the acquisition were to go through.
Basically, in helping the FTC stop the acquisition, they may be fearful of the FTC also potentially establishing precedent that would then prohibit Sony from operating in the manner in which they (and the console industry at large) have operated for the past few decades in the very small chance that the FTC were to actually win any future case in Federal court regarding this acquisition.
Compounding that would be public perception that Sony are engaging in the exact activities that they object to MS potentially doing if the acquisition goes through. If documents were made public showing the extent of these business dealings than public opinion may move against Sony. Sony are certainly smaller than Microsoft even if they are the market leader in video games, but they are still a very large multinational corporation. The court of public opinion could then swing from this being about david versus goliath to a spat between 2 large multinationals where both engage in the same activities and one is objecting to the other operating in a similar manner as they themselves do.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
Thankless Sony is unwilling to comply with Federal Trade Commission's subpoena over Microsoft-ActivisionBlizzard merger, at least in its original form
This is counterintuitive. One would think that Sony's PlayStation chief Jim Ryan has a Lina Khan poster above his bed because the Federal Tr...www.fosspatents.com
I have said this before and I will say this again. All this will come back to bite sony in the butt. If Sony wants to buy a company and requires approval of the FTC , CMA and others this will all come back up. Will be very amusing if Sony wants to buy square or want to buy UBI and MS just jump in and complains and goes well remember when all these agencies said to us that nintendo didn't exist and so we had to make all these concession ? Yea well when you look at a world without nintendo consoles Sony has about 80% of the market so why are they able to buy this again?
It's just a great look for them.
More or less what many have echoed here; what Sony is accusing MS of doing is what they have been doing. And they don’t want the public to know the extent of what they have been doing in the exclusivity clauses and contracts etc.Thankless Sony is unwilling to comply with Federal Trade Commission's subpoena over Microsoft-ActivisionBlizzard merger, at least in its original form
This is counterintuitive. One would think that Sony's PlayStation chief Jim Ryan has a Lina Khan poster above his bed because the Federal Tr...
Rule breakers complaining about how others are rule breaking is always a fun type of drama see basketball refereeing, football flopping or the end of F1 2021.
I find this exciting. I hope Sony is full discovered here, provide us some insight to the business of games behind closed doors.
I think they are counting on the UK torpedoing the deal. Therefore they don't want to divulge any information if they don't believe they need to. If the UK does approve it, most people feel that the FTC will lose the case or Microsoft will give up. Either way, they get to keep their information secret.Thankless Sony is unwilling to comply with Federal Trade Commission's subpoena over Microsoft-ActivisionBlizzard merger, at least in its original form
This is counterintuitive. One would think that Sony's PlayStation chief Jim Ryan has a Lina Khan poster above his bed because the Federal Tr...
I do agree. It doesn't make sense to push things this hard when you are seriously pissing off the possible owners of one of your largest 3rd party publishers.
Last edited:
If a game was started before a studio was bought, then it can and can not be relevant with what happened after they get bought.
The buyer might help in making the game better, it might interfere and make it worse or they will stay hands of and it all comes down to the studio. Without detailed knowledge.
Ohhh and Insomniac with Spiderman is a bad example for your case, since it was Sony that gave and made sure that Insomniac could do it, after Marvel reached out to Sony about doing a Marvel game (If I remember it correctly)
Of course its relevant. Games continue to be worked on for years. The start date of the game has little matter in how good a game is when its released. Later this year when Starfield is released MS should receive credit for it as their investments have made it the game it is.
Spider-man was made by insominac and released the year before they were bought (2019) Spiderman Miles Morales was released in 2020. No one stops and points out that Sony had nothing to do with the success of the game because Insominac was a 3rd party developer when the first released and second started development
I can understand why you keep bringing up the Insomniac/Spiderman combo over and over again, I realize that you probably keep thinking about 'what if?' . Had Microsoft signed the Spiderman license when Marvel offered it to them, instead of turning it down. The you would of had an Xbox Spiderman game (developed by Insomniac no less - maybe now owned by MS - possibly looking forward to a sequel to Sunset Overdrive??)
and Starfield day one on GamePass to look forward to. I'm can't blame you, but sadly it didn't happen that way. I understand the bitterness, but you should really be blaming MS for not being ambitious enough by going for the Spiderman license and instead sticking with their own IP, instead of griping at Sony making it.Quote: "
Being from console first-party in my past, I pinged both sides, both Xbox and PlayStation,” said head of Marvel Games Jay Ong, “and said, ‘We don’t have any big console deals with anyone right now. What would you like to do?’ Microsoft’s strategy was to focus on their own IP. They passed.”
Ong adds that when he sat down with PlayStation executives in 2014 and talked about making a superhero game, he said that Marvel could “beat Arkham and have one game at least and maybe multiple games that could drive adoption of your platform.”
No.
From the public info that is out, I would say the most credit MS should get is that they bought somebody that made a good/bad game. Unless people involved shares information that says anything else. Like after MS bought the Betsehda, it impacted us positively/negatively in making the game.
No again.
Sony was involved with the Spiderman game from day 1, they picked/asked Insomniac if they wanted to do it. Wether the game turned out good/bad is mainly down to Insomniac and the type of relation they have with Sony and Marvel.
Sony should get credit for their involvement in the making of the game (what ever it was) regardless of having bought or even if they had not bought Insomniac.
So to compare Spiderman and Starfield is not an apple to apple comparison.
MS bought a company that had a game (one of many) in development, they where not involved with in any other form then it being candidate for release on their platforms. After buying the company, that designation of the game changed it looks like and MS might have taken a more active role.
Sony was an important part in wether or not Insomniac got to do a Spiderman game.
And most likely had a very active role in there from day 1, this before they bought the studio.
Big difference in roles.
I can understand why you keep bringing up the Insomniac/Spiderman combo over and over again, I realize that you probably keep thinking about 'what if?' . Had Microsoft signed the Spiderman license when Marvel offered it to them, instead of turning it down. The you would of had an Xbox Spiderman game (developed by Insomniac no less - maybe now owned by MS - possibly looking forward to a sequel to Sunset Overdrive??)
Quote: "
Being from console first-party in my past, I pinged both sides, both Xbox and PlayStation,” said head of Marvel Games Jay Ong, “and said, ‘We don’t have any big console deals with anyone right now. What would you like to do?’ Microsoft’s strategy was to focus on their own IP. They passed.”
Ong adds that when he sat down with PlayStation executives in 2014 and talked about making a superhero game, he said that Marvel could “beat Arkham and have one game at least and maybe multiple games that could drive adoption of your platform.”
I bring it up because its recent.
Insomniac was a multiplatform dev that sony bought who sony got full credit for a game they had released prior and immediately after purchase. It fits like a glove. Personally after playing Siderman remaster on the steam deck it doesn't play well and has way to many collectors quests. I'd rate it as a high c or low b game.
I can tell you have zero arguement about what I actually said and instead are trying to childishly project what is in your head onto me. With that I am placing you on ignore. Good luck in life
Nothing causes more action than a substantive deadline.
I am sure that Sony is shitting bricks right now. It sounds like this may go back all the way to the COD contracts. I wonder exactly what Sony doesn't want us to see. Perhaps they have been using their user base to get contracts out of companies. If you don't take our deal you wont get on our platform ?
Similar threads
