FTC Seeks to Block Microsoft Corp.’s Acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Inc.

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Interesting… FTC listed the companies that are not fair game to be purchased.

EA, Take 2, Ubisoft and Activision are the blocked ones.

I'm glad they actually addressed this because it's something I also recognized as very important, tho not at the start of all this. There's an inherent value in the independent free market of 3P developers & publisher, and you can even say it acts as a checks-and-balances of sorts to the vertical integration of 1P teams under platform holders (be they hardware, services, or both). I think a balance (figuratively speaking) has to be present with that in the market.

Compare it to say how the movie/studio industry is. Remember when studios also fully owned the movie theaters? Yeah that got stopped for good reason. Studios can actually have ownership of theaters today thanks to a recent overturn of the 1948 law, but I'm sure that is not going to suddenly allow studios to buy up all the major 3P theater chains, otherwise it'd create the same problems seen during the '30s and '40s that required regulation in the first place.

In that example, the major studios would be the platform holders and the theaters would be 3P game developers, a theater chain being a 3P publisher. But back to the point, yes some kind of steady 3P presence in the market that can operate more or less independently of platform holders (outside of needing to provide content on products of those platform holders, obviously) is a requirement IMO, and if MK's purchase of ABK were allowed to go through with no issue, what would have prevented further consolidation of the bulk of the 3P publisher market?

When a company like Activision accounts for something like a whole 1/5ths of 3P market monetary valuation, suddenly having 20% of the independent 3P market be owned by a platform holder wholesale who is still operating on the traditional console business model (to some notable extend) AND fully subsidizing a services business model on top of that, I can see how that can create problems of concern. Because what excuse then would regulators have to stop, say, Apple from purchasing EA (which has been rumored), or Tencent purchasing a huge 3P publisher? No other 3P publisher is as valued or large as ABK, and companies like Apple have virtually no presence in the console gaming industry. Tencent would have a tougher time considering the revenue they already make through gaming, but they don't have a hardware console or subscription service that purchased IP could be used to effectively heavily subsidize for market share, now do they?

There were always so many landmines for MS to navigate through with this acquisition and I also think them making offers and deals for content they did not even legally own yet (and sharing that on Twitter, no less) may've also bit them in the ass.

Listened to Hoag lawyer. Interesting point made, this going to court and MS fighting it will take years leaving them in limbo. He also got asked on a personal level if he supports the merger, he said no - does not like major consolidation and what effects it has.

Anyway from my own assessment either ms walks away or be stuck in court for years fighting it - the limbo does not sound appealing. Maybe heavy concessions can still be accepted, but it’s feeling like all or nothing here by FTC.

Didn't think about the time it'd take to fight this in court for them. I heard they can't even begin the process until July 2023, and I'm guessing it would take them a good 2-3 years in court for it.

Which for Microsoft will probably not even be worth it if the CMA also blocks the deal, which is highly likely at this point. So that would now be them fighting multiple cases in multiple courts, all with their own fees, splitting legal staff & resources, etc. It's more likely that Microsoft just walks away from the deal and pays ABK the $3 billion.

Poor Phil, guy is getting roasted on twitter, like he might need to get off that sm shit, close off his sm accounts and do what Jim Ryan does and only show up to announce games from here on out.
Today was more embarrassing for Xbox than what Jack Tretton did to em in June 2013. How do you show your face ever again, today was a horrible day for them. No show at tga, blocked from competing by gov regulators, politicians calling them out on sm..... ouch

On the one hand I do feel kinda bad for them given the obliteration of confidence & ego I think anyone in his position would've felt yesterday. On the other hand, I think ego and hubris got to their head, as well as Satya's (somewhat less so) and Brad Smith's, and this is a way they're being humbled.

I don't understand why they were going public with commitments for COD to Nintendo & Valve for content they did not even legally own yet. I can see how that would've been interpreted as arrogance by the regulators, even manipulative to a degree, to influence their decision process with overt public pressure that could act as interference. At least, that's one possible thing that may've happened.

Honestly tho I'm a LOT more surprised that MS had no game updates or reveals for the TGAs. They've made it a habit to do stuff for the TGAs since 2019 but suddenly they have nothing? I still feel Sony not having a Showcase this year was a bit of a missed opportunity but they made up for it with actual releases, obvious tie-ins to other big reveals (SH2 Remake for example), and throwing a couple fat juicy bones at the TGAs with HFW expansion and Death Stranding 2, among other stuff.

I mean MS just announced a price increase to $70 for 2023, but they couldn't show some brief new footage for Starfield, RedFall or Forza along with release dates and preorders? Are they not H1 2023 releases? We got release dates and preorders for SF VI, FF XVI etc. at the show for H1 2023 (June, specifically). Heck, we got a release date for the HFW expansion and we only saw confirmation/reveal of that last night! We didn't even get an update for Hellblade II, Avowed or Perfect Dark, so I'm pretty much resigning that Hellblade II or Avowed are 2023 games whatsoever (particularly surprising in the case of Hellblade II).

I think they will use this to force congress to regulate the industry more. 4 AAA pubs is not enough imo and the FTC sees it that way too.

Personally I'd hope the industry could self-regulate while acting with some communication with government regulators. It could get almost too restrictive if government regulatory bodies directly regulate matters in the industry, but having them act as overseers of regulatory rules agreed upon between them and industry representatives of the various platform holders & 3P publishers.

So, something more like the ESRB or CERO but with more direct government regulatory oversight and communication (and enforcement of certain stipulations, practices etc. agreed upon by all industry corporations).

 

[Satoru]

Absolutely right.

It's funny how PC and Xbox fanboys mock Mark Cerny. when the guy has a LONG list of innovations and seemingly-impossible hardware and software products in his resume. The things he did at Atari, SEGA and as an independent consultant before Sony brought him into the fold is amazing. Crash Bandicoot wasn't possible on the PS1 without the ways he invented of doing things.

When someone of that calibre is your head of R&D for hardware, you WILL get results you wouldn't be able to otherwise.

And I think we can be very confident he not only developed the PSVR2 in tandem with the PS5, but that he's already working on the PS6.

 

[KiryuRealty]

And I think we can be very confident he not only developed the PSVR2 in tandem with the PS5, but that he's already working on the PS6.

Dr Richard Marks is the mastermind of PSVR, and has been working on it since the PS1 days, but you can be sure Cerny has helped out here and there, and I would be stunned if no decisions regarding the PS5 hardware were made with supporting the PSVR 2 in the best ways possible.

 

[Loy310]

I'm glad they actually addressed this because it's something I also recognized as very important, tho not at the start of all this. There's an inherent value in the independent free market of 3P developers & publisher, and you can even say it acts as a checks-and-balances of sorts to the vertical integration of 1P teams under platform holders (be they hardware, services, or both). I think a balance (figuratively speaking) has to be present with that in the market.

Compare it to say how the movie/studio industry is. Remember when studios also fully owned the movie theaters? Yeah that got stopped for good reason. Studios can actually have ownership of theaters today thanks to a recent overturn of the 1948 law, but I'm sure that is not going to suddenly allow studios to buy up all the major 3P theater chains, otherwise it'd create the same problems seen during the '30s and '40s that required regulation in the first place.

In that example, the major studios would be the platform holders and the theaters would be 3P game developers, a theater chain being a 3P publisher. But back to the point, yes some kind of steady 3P presence in the market that can operate more or less independently of platform holders (outside of needing to provide content on products of those platform holders, obviously) is a requirement IMO, and if MK's purchase of ABK were allowed to go through with no issue, what would have prevented further consolidation of the bulk of the 3P publisher market?

When a company like Activision accounts for something like a whole 1/5ths of 3P market monetary valuation, suddenly having 20% of the independent 3P market be owned by a platform holder wholesale who is still operating on the traditional console business model (to some notable extend) AND fully subsidizing a services business model on top of that, I can see how that can create problems of concern. Because what excuse then would regulators have to stop, say, Apple from purchasing EA (which has been rumored), or Tencent purchasing a huge 3P publisher? No other 3P publisher is as valued or large as ABK, and companies like Apple have virtually no presence in the console gaming industry. Tencent would have a tougher time considering the revenue they already make through gaming, but they don't have a hardware console or subscription service that purchased IP could be used to effectively heavily subsidize for market share, now do they?

There were always so many landmines for MS to navigate through with this acquisition and I also think them making offers and deals for content they did not even legally own yet (and sharing that on Twitter, no less) may've also bit them in the ass.



Didn't think about the time it'd take to fight this in court for them. I heard they can't even begin the process until July 2023, and I'm guessing it would take them a good 2-3 years in court for it.

Which for Microsoft will probably not even be worth it if the CMA also blocks the deal, which is highly likely at this point. So that would now be them fighting multiple cases in multiple courts, all with their own fees, splitting legal staff & resources, etc. It's more likely that Microsoft just walks away from the deal and pays ABK the $3 billion.



On the one hand I do feel kinda bad for them given the obliteration of confidence & ego I think anyone in his position would've felt yesterday. On the other hand, I think ego and hubris got to their head, as well as Satya's (somewhat less so) and Brad Smith's, and this is a way they're being humbled.

I don't understand why they were going public with commitments for COD to Nintendo & Valve for content they did not even legally own yet. I can see how that would've been interpreted as arrogance by the regulators, even manipulative to a degree, to influence their decision process with overt public pressure that could act as interference. At least, that's one possible thing that may've happened.

Honestly tho I'm a LOT more surprised that MS had no game updates or reveals for the TGAs. They've made it a habit to do stuff for the TGAs since 2019 but suddenly they have nothing? I still feel Sony not having a Showcase this year was a bit of a missed opportunity but they made up for it with actual releases, obvious tie-ins to other big reveals (SH2 Remake for example), and throwing a couple fat juicy bones at the TGAs with HFW expansion and Death Stranding 2, among other stuff.

I mean MS just announced a price increase to $70 for 2023, but they couldn't show some brief new footage for Starfield, RedFall or Forza along with release dates and preorders? Are they not H1 2023 releases? We got release dates and preorders for SF VI, FF XVI etc. at the show for H1 2023 (June, specifically). Heck, we got a release date for the HFW expansion and we only saw confirmation/reveal of that last night! We didn't even get an update for Hellblade II, Avowed or Perfect Dark, so I'm pretty much resigning that Hellblade II or Avowed are 2023 games whatsoever (particularly surprising in the case of Hellblade II).


Personally I'd hope the industry could self-regulate while acting with some communication with government regulators. It could get almost too restrictive if government regulatory bodies directly regulate matters in the industry, but having them act as overseers of regulatory rules agreed upon between them and industry representatives of the various platform holders & 3P publishers.

So, something more like the ESRB or CERO but with more direct government regulatory oversight and communication (and enforcement of certain stipulations, practices etc. agreed upon by all industry corporations).

I agree on the self regulation, but with big companies like MS throwing around literally 100 billion in less than 5 years something their main competitors could not do in 50 years combined, gov will have to apply themself to make sure the meta's the amazons, the microsofts who dont want to create from the ground up dont come in and just buy the whole shit up.

The biggest disappointment yesterday for MS was the fact that nothing was shown at tga, nothing to be excited for the brand outside of price increase in 2023, the ftc stuff was minor for me, the biggest issues is the lack of imminent content. I gotta give that fan base credit, because i would have been bailed on Xbox, the consistent output is just not there and they have been given some many chances and time to get it right, damn shame.

 

[Satoru]

Dr Richard Marks is th mastermind of PSVR, and has been working on it since the PS1 days, but you can be sure Cerny has helped out here and there, and I would be stunned if no decisions regarding the PS5 hardware were made with supporting the PSVR 2 in the best ways possible.

Cerny absolutely has a hand in it. He even has patents in the are of Foveated Rendering.

 

[KiryuRealty]

Cerny absolutely has a hand in it. He even has patents in the are of Foveated Rendering.

Makes sense. The SEGA 3D shutter glasses for the Master System were a Cerny creation, so he definitely has an understanding of optics, on top of everything else. The guy is a mad wizard.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I wouldn't call to degrade something to bring to more players a game released almost 10 years ago just before they release a tv show of it, and to release on PC a couple of years later on PC a great AAAish game that couldn't have great sales and probably wasn't profitable because having a niche-ish game concept and was released exclusively to a console that still had a very small userbase.

It didn't affect the quality of the games and apparently doesn't affect their console or console game sales, in any case the effect may be the opposite: recent 1st party games like GoWR, Horizon 2 and Gran Turismo 7 were the fastest selling games in the history of these brands and gamedev studios.

I think when it comes to PS and PC, the concern is more that any aggressive pushes for console & PC Day 1 (or within a 3 to 6-month time interval), particularly for non GaaS/live-service games, is that it will split optimization workloads and that in turn will impact technical performance which could affect realization of certain creative decisions.

Although I wouldn't necessarily hold this concern for Sony's studios, considering how great stuff like HFW and GOWR are in spite of being Day 1 cross-gen releases with PS4 & PS5. But I think there's the looming reality of what such a broad console & PC Day 1 (or essentially within a launch window) native support (and optimization split thereof) can lead to when you look over at games like Halo Infinite or even Forza Horizon 5, and the concerns people have if that were to befall Sony's games.

There's also the concern of how such a spread in platform support might affect design scope of games; I've expressed concern of late of how the Series S could be an inhibitor in such a way for MS 1P games going forward because it's a fixed spec that will always remain the floor value regardless where minimum spec on PC scales (which can change on a game-by-game basis). Sony thankfully doesn't have a Series S problem in that way, but what if they want to target a wide range of PC configuration spec options and, obviously, also develop for PS5? Could those choices impact design scope?

Personally, I think it would only be something to consider with the live-service/GaaS titles, which makes sense given those aren't usually pushing the tech boundaries in terms of visuals, fidelity and the such. Really I think it's more a concern for some if it were in relation to Sony's marquee 1P single-player, story-driven AAA games because those are the ones that really push graphics, visual fidelity etc. and so you'd want those to push the PS5 to its limits.

Problem with PC though is the most popular GPUs are notably below PS5 spec and it'll remain that way for a few years, and IMO pushing the limits doesn't just mean in terms of prettier graphics but also ways that stuff can influence game design like for example, multi-segmented boss fights against massive creatures spanning over miles with teleportation to different parts of them stretched over an open world. Stuff like that, at the fidelity of a HFW or TLOU 2 etc. can you honestly push game scope like that, pushing the PS5 if you're also aiming for PC minimum specs much lower than a PS5? I don't think so.

So that is IMO the bigger concern but personally I don't see Sony going Day 1 on PC or any sooner than 1-2 years later with ports of non live-service/GaaS titles for reasons like this if we're sticking to technical stuff and game scope, keeping optimization tight and the such. That is in addition to the financial and branding optics reasons why they should stick to a notable 1-2 year buffer between console and PC for most non live-service/GaaS releases. I do still think Sony will probably want to do a launcher for PC in the future, but I don't see Day 1 PC releases for non live-service/GaaS titles even with that, unless they are much less demanding/non-marquee 1P releases. Because, again, you have to keep in mind what the most popular low-end GPU options on PC are likely going to be, and chances are they are going to be lower than a PS5. Heavily so.

Maybe they could simply set very high minimum spec requirements for the marquee 1P AAA releases with their own PC storefront/launcher, however, if they want to do Day 1 on PC for those types of games. That way optimization resources aren't strained, and game scope doesn't have to risk being constrained for lower specifications. Over time, they can just try scaling down or redesigning some parts of the game so that it runs on lower minimum specs and that could coincide with bringing the game over to other storefronts like Steam.

 

[KiryuRealty]

I think when it comes to PS and PC, the concern is more that any aggressive pushes for console & PC Day 1 (or within a 3 to 6-month time interval), particularly for non GaaS/live-service games, is that it will split optimization workloads and that in turn will impact technical performance which could affect realization of certain creative decisions.

Although I wouldn't necessarily hold this concern for Sony's studios, considering how great stuff like HFW and GOWR are in spite of being Day 1 cross-gen releases with PS4 & PS5. But I think there's the looming reality of what such a broad console & PC Day 1 (or essentially within a launch window) native support (and optimization split thereof) can lead to when you look over at games like Halo Infinite or even Forza Horizon 5, and the concerns people have if that were to befall Sony's games.

There's also the concern of how such a spread in platform support might affect design scope of games; I've expressed concern of late of how the Series S could be an inhibitor in such a way for MS 1P games going forward because it's a fixed spec that will always remain the floor value regardless where minimum spec on PC scales (which can change on a game-by-game basis). Sony thankfully doesn't have a Series S problem in that way, but what if they want to target a wide range of PC configuration spec options and, obviously, also develop for PS5? Could those choices impact design scope?

Personally, I think it would only be something to consider with the live-service/GaaS titles, which makes sense given those aren't usually pushing the tech boundaries in terms of visuals, fidelity and the such. Really I think it's more a concern for some if it were in relation to Sony's marquee 1P single-player, story-driven AAA games because those are the ones that really push graphics, visual fidelity etc. and so you'd want those to push the PS5 to its limits.

Problem with PC though is the most popular GPUs are notably below PS5 spec and it'll remain that way for a few years, and IMO pushing the limits doesn't just mean in terms of prettier graphics but also ways that stuff can influence game design like for example, multi-segmented boss fights against massive creatures spanning over miles with teleportation to different parts of them stretched over an open world. Stuff like that, at the fidelity of a HFW or TLOU 2 etc. can you honestly push game scope like that, pushing the PS5 if you're also aiming for PC minimum specs much lower than a PS5? I don't think so.

So that is IMO the bigger concern but personally I don't see Sony going Day 1 on PC or any sooner than 1-2 years later with ports of non live-service/GaaS titles for reasons like this if we're sticking to technical stuff and game scope, keeping optimization tight and the such. That is in addition to the financial and branding optics reasons why they should stick to a notable 1-2 year buffer between console and PC for most non live-service/GaaS releases. I do still think Sony will probably want to do a launcher for PC in the future, but I don't see Day 1 PC releases for non live-service/GaaS titles even with that, unless they are much less demanding/non-marquee 1P releases. Because, again, you have to keep in mind what the most popular low-end GPU options on PC are likely going to be, and chances are they are going to be lower than a PS5. Heavily so.

Maybe they could simply set very high minimum spec requirements for the marquee 1P AAA releases with their own PC storefront/launcher, however, if they want to do Day 1 on PC for those types of games. That way optimization resources aren't strained, and game scope doesn't have to risk being constrained for lower specifications. Over time, they can just try scaling down or redesigning some parts of the game so that it runs on lower minimum specs and that could coincide with bringing the game over to other storefronts like Steam.

If PC can't keep up with what devs are doing on PS5, Sony will just not bother with PC.

 

[Yurinka]

I went to check out the sources, this is what FTC said about what MS said to EC regarding Zenimax games and rival consoles:

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/D09412MicrosoftActivisionAdministrativeComplaintPublicVersionFinal.pdf

Matches which what MS said to the EC regarding Zenimax games and rival consoles:
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases1/202124/m10001_438_3.pdf

MLex (paywalled article) asked EC about it, and what the EC replied matches with what the FTC said and with MS said to the EC regarding Zenimax since the FTC never claimed that MS made a 'commitment' (so MLex probably added that word) about not releasing exclusive games, but instead MS explained -whitout signing or promising anything- to them why it would make more sense to keep the Zenimax games on rival consoles, and EC approved the deal because considered that (this part follows in the doc. after what's screenshotted) even if MS would make all games exclusive it wouldn't have a meaningful impact enough in the market to cause competition concerns:

I think when it comes to PS and PC, the concern is more that any aggressive pushes for console & PC Day 1 (or within a 3 to 6-month time interval), particularly for non GaaS/live-service games, is that it will split optimization workloads and that in turn will impact technical performance which could affect realization of certain creative decisions.

Yesterday they announced the PC port that when released will be a 10 years old game (recently updated because it's getting a tv show) and a 2 years old game.

I think that they'll continue with their 2+ years vs the original release policy, that could be less if it's an updated version (remaster/remake/next gen special edition) if you count from the release of that update instead of from the original release.

They mentioned multiple times that their devs will continue focused on console only games and that other/new teams will handle the PC ports as they did until now. So people like Nixxes, Iron Galaxy etc will handle the port or maybe some new internal porting team they may open inside their own studios. They mentioned multiple times that the mobile, PC and GaaS is something that is on top of what they were already doing, done by other people, that won't replace or distract them.

In fact, regarding the some (not all) GaaS "maybe" "possibly" releasing day one on PC could be cases like that rumored one where a -not Sony owned- Asian PC developer is making a typical PC title (GaaS MMORPG) using a Sony IP.

Also, remember that at least March 2026 they'll continue releasing more stuff in console than in PC every year, which means that the amount of PS Studios console only games will grow instead of decrease over years and that games released the same fiscal year or day one on PC can't be a thing or at least common.

There's also the concern of how such a spread in platform support might affect design scope of games; I've expressed concern of late of how the Series S could be an inhibitor in such a way for MS 1P games going forward because it's a fixed spec that will always remain the floor value regardless where minimum spec on PC scales (which can change on a game-by-game basis). Sony thankfully doesn't have a Series S problem in that way, but what if they want to target a wide range of PC configuration spec options and, obviously, also develop for PS5? Could those choices impact design scope?

No. Whenever they start porting to PC games that will start taking really advantage of PS5 visuals, they'll simply choose the proper minimum specs as they do now with PS4 games. That won't happen soon. We'll have to wait some years to see games really taking advantage of PS5 and once they do it they'll wait some years before releasing them on PC, first to use them as exclusive bait and second to wait until PC has a big enough userbase who can run them, because the average PC gamer always has a potato PC and not the latest GPU, CPU, SSD, etc.

They make most of their money from PS, so (as they said multiple times) they will put most of their efforts and focus on PS. PC for them is a small, secondary, extra revenue source so they won't sacrifice their main money maker -PlayStation- for PC. Same goes with mobile. It wouldn't make any sense and all the strategical decisions they made in the Jimbo era make total sense from a business standpoint.

It's the opposite case of MS: for MS, the main revenue and profit source is Windows and Xbox for them is a small, secondary, extra (unprofitable) revenue source. So they are moving their focus away from Xbox to focus more on PC (and the other consoles, and mobile) instead. Because it's what makes business sense for their particular case, which is very different from the Sony one.

 

[KiryuRealty]

Yesterday they announced the PC port that when released will be a 10 years old game (recently updated because it's getting a tv show) and a 2 years old game.

I think that they'll continue with their 2+ years vs the original release policy, that could be less if it's an updated version (remaster/remake/next gen special edition) if you count from the release of that update instead of from the original release.

They mentioned multiple times that their devs will continue focused on console only games and that other/new teams will handle the PC ports as they did until now. So people like Nixxes, Iron Galaxy etc will handle the port or maybe some new internal porting team they may open inside their own studios. They mentioned multiple times that the mobile, PC and GaaS is something that is on top of what they were already doing, done by other people, that won't replace or distract them.

In fact, regarding the some (not all) GaaS "maybe" "possibly" releasing day one on PC could be cases like that rumored one where a -not Sony owned- Asian PC developer is making a typical PC title (GaaS MMORPG) using a Sony IP.

Also, remember that at least March 2026 they'll continue releasing more stuff in console than in PC every year, which means that the amount of PS Studios console only games will grow instead of decrease over years and that games released the same fiscal year or day one on PC can't be a thing or at least common.


No. Whenever they start porting to PC games that will start taking really advantage of PS5 visuals, they'll simply choose the proper minimum specs as they do now with PS4 games. That won't happen soon. We'll have to wait some years to see games really taking advantage of PS5 and once they do it they'll wait some years before releasing them on PC, first to use them as exclusive bait and second to wait until PC has a big enough userbase who can run them, because the average PC gamer always has a potato PC and not the latest GPU, CPU, SSD, etc.

They make most of their money from PS, so (as they said multiple times) they will put most of their efforts and focus on PS. PC for them is a small, secondary, extra revenue source so they won't sacrifice their main money maker -PlayStation- for PC. Same goes with mobile. It wouldn't make any sense and all the strategical decisions they made in the Jimbo era make total sense from a business standpoint.

It's the opposite case of MS: for MS, the main revenue and profit source is Windows and Xbox for them is a small, secondary, extra (unprofitable) revenue source. So they are moving their focus away from Xbox to focus more on PC (and the other consoles, and mobile) instead. Because it's what makes business sense for their particular case, which is very different from the Sony one.

XBox has never been about making money off the console business for MS, it was about extending and expanding their monopoly to the living room. They never had a plan to become profitable from it, just to trap more people in their ecosystem at any cost.

The first Xbox left that division $12 billion in the hole. No sane company would have greenlit a second console if they wanted to be profitable.

 

[shrike0fth0rns]

The GAF thread on this is HILARIOUS! Senjutsu Sage honestly thinks MS will of on an acquisition spree, buying SEGA, Capcom and IO Interactive after this. Because the FTC LOVES when a megacorp buyout is blocked and they try to do more of them right away after that!

I can't believe the people saying this deal would have been good for the industry. Funny thing with that, none of them offer any reasons for that belief.

Microsoft can have sega and io lol I only care about capcom. They would have to buy at a premium and make content that sells best on ps exclusive which is dumb. They would lose more than they would gain. I would like to some do it just to witness the fallout of such an asinine strategic move.

 

[KiryuRealty]

Microsoft can have sega and io lol I only care about capcom. They would have to buy at a premium and make content that sells best on ps exclusive which is dumb. They would lose more than they would gain. I would like to some do it just to witness the fallout of such an asinine strategic move.

Now that Nagoshi is gone, I wouldn't miss SEGA much at all. Atlus on the other hand...

Sad to say for someone who was a huge fan of their arcade games and had them all on ColecoVision back in the day, but after learning about what a suicidally dysfunctional company SEGA has always been, at this point it is time to put it out of its misery.

 

[Bryank75]

I've been listening to Sacred Symbols for this week and they have a great section on this, recommend listening to it.

The episode is 5 hours long, incredible amount of content, they put out.

 

[KiryuRealty]

I've been listening to Sacred Symbols for this week and they have a great section on this, recommend listening to it.

The episode is 5 hours long, incredible amount of content, they put out.

As long as the first two hours isn't Colin ordering fucking take-out, I may give it a listen. I noped out of his podcasts when he pulled that shit. If he doesn't respect the listener, I am done listening.

 

[shrike0fth0rns]

Now that Nagoshi is gone, I wouldn't miss SEGA much at all. Atlus on the other hand...

Sad to say for someone who was a huge fan of their arcade games and had them all on ColecoVision back in the day, but after learning about what a suicidally dysfunctional company SEGA has always been, at this point it is time to point it out of its misery.

Atlus is kind of a one trick pony.

As long as the first two hours isn't Colin ordering fucking take-out, I may give it a listen. I noped out of his podcasts when he pulled that shit. If he doesn't respect the listener, I am done listening.

I can’t listen to him he’s a dckhead and talks to much about “ im from Long Island and this gives me a unique perspective on the world”.

 

[KiryuRealty]

Atlus is kind of a one trick pony.

I can’t listen to him he’s a dckhead and talks to much about “ im from Long Island and this gives me a unique perspective on the world”.

WTF is wrong with Long Islanders, anyway? They're seemingly all bigger douchebags than anyone else can be. As if living on the outskirts of Brooklyn is some kind of badge of honour or something.

 

[Old Gamer]

I've been listening to Sacred Symbols for this week and they have a great section on this, recommend listening to it.

The episode is 5 hours long, incredible amount of content, they put out.

And Defining Dukes? They even invited Hoeg Law for a therapy session.

"Yes Sony are dicks, it would have been worth it to give MS a gaming industry monopoly just to teach them a lesson."

 

[KiryuRealty]

And Defining Dukes? They even invited Hoeg Law for a therapy session.

"Yes Sony are dicks, it would have been worth it to give MS a gaming industry monopoly just to teach them a lesson."

It is completely insane how ignorant of the actual situation so many Xbox fanboys are about the bigger picture, especially those in the media.

 

[BigMclargeHuge]

As long as the first two hours isn't Colin ordering fucking take-out, I may give it a listen. I noped out of his podcasts when he pulled that shit. If he doesn't respect the listener, I am done listening.

Yeah, I gave up on sacred symbols awhile ago. Too much off topic conversation for my taste.

Early giantbomb with Ryan Davis was great at mixing off topic stuff but still keeping the focus on games.

 

[BigMclargeHuge]

The GAF thread on this is HILARIOUS! Senjutsu Sage honestly thinks MS will of on an acquisition spree, buying SEGA, Capcom and IO Interactive after this. Because the FTC LOVES when a megacorp buyout is blocked and they try to do more of them right away after that!

I can't believe the people saying this deal would have been good for the industry. Funny thing with that, none of them offer any reasons for that belief.

He's gone away for a bit it seems. Couldn't take all the dunking on he was getting from others. Either way, the Dude is grade a wack job.