Déjà vu! You and I have been here before, and just because you inferred that I was suggesting his YouTube video was around longer than he practised law does not mean I was implying it. I keep saying that his legal practising is not relevant. I'm only addressing the guy's commentary as somebody with a social media presence. I thought I made this really clear in my earlier post: "And by relevance, I don't see Richard Hong's legal qualifications or experience as important here - other than folks who may take his position as being meaningful for what he is commenting on"^^^
Here. These are heavy implications.
You seem determined to establishing his credibility but I don't know why. I regret humorously (intended at least) asking if he had any clients. I didn't intend for this to trigger people.
Where, in any of the documents submitted, indicate that acquiring Activision Blizzard will result in the closure of Activision Blizzard. The regulators need to regulate what will happen to the competition in this case: ie Sony and others. Sony needs to prove, according to Sony's arguments, that the entire gaming industry will collapse as a result of MS acquiring Activision Blizzard. He feels its ridiculous, (myself included), you feel this is valid? If he disagrees with Sony's statement here, he doesn't understand UK/European legislation?
I think think you've misconstrued something. Nowhere does Sony, the UK CMA or the EU suggest that Microsoft intend to close Activision-Blizzard, the point is that Microsoft have so much money that writing off billions of investment isn't going to hurt them. This is the counter-argument to the often made statement by Microsoft (repeated by posters here) that not releasing games on PlayStation, Switch or other PC storefronts would is not in Microsoft's commercial interested. Microsoft have chosen to not release Starfield and Elder Scrolls VI on PlayStation demonstrating that the company actually are willing to forego commercial opportunities when it gives their platform a competitive advantage. The only differences between Starfield, Elder Scrolls VI and other games is the X dollar amount.
Given the revenue outlook of games like Call of Duty are far below other investments Microsoft have happily written off, there is far less of a financial reliance on the commercial viability of acquisitions. I.e. they don't need this to be profitable. Your man has made this this same pointin one of his videos, but I cannot recall which because there are so many.
I already said, the economics of an industry is not ralvent to the application of UK and EU merger and acquisition law. The only assessment is whether an acquisition impact the ability for competition.Economics is the science of studying business practices, production, alternative goods, and consumer purchasing behaviour - why is this irrelevant discussion?
Sony is making the argument that ownership of CoD would cause them to foreclose. That means consumers have absolutely no choice but to buy CoD because there are no substitute goods for it and they will go wherever call of duty goes. It's nonsense.
But that would be nonsense but I can't see such a claim by Sony, maybe you quote it? What I do see in the the UK CMA redacted release of Sony's document which - just like Microsoft's document - includes an exaggerated and self-serving account of the industry impact, is that Sony talk a lot of the possible foreclosure of particular business opportunities. PlayStation is profitable because of the culmination of many individual business opportunities. Call of Duty and cash cows like Elder Scrolls and GTA, which sell forever, represent a considerable chunk of those profits. Particularly MTX.
Hmmm, Call of Duty is on the Apple, Sony and Valve storefronts.
You mean the unrelated cash grab apps full of IAPs or the mobile apps to accompany the PC/console game or the actual PC/console Call of Duty games? I can't see any actual Call of Duty games on the iOS or Google Play stores.
I know that the CMA has made some comments about their concern that the acquisition may harm some of those companies, but I don't recall seeing anywhere that most of those companies actually raised any concerns. Granted, I didn't read the full CMA document, so perhaps that has documentation in it specifying exactly which companies have lodged formal complaints?
To let me recap. You don't recall any accounts of concerns in the document you didn't read? Ok.. To be honest, that's the most logical thing I've read in this thread for a long time.