Microsoft's acquisition of Activison Blizzard
- Thread starter Darth Vader
- Start date
I mean, Activision benefits from the deal going through and they're just doing what they can to sway opinion, but the "first of us" pun is pretty cringe imo.
what's the truth being told? Sony can produce good things for themselves, so MS is entitled to buying every 3rd party publisher because they can't?
She's using a well-received TV show as ammo for the deal to pass. This is Activision's COO. She stands to make a hearty ill-gotten sum of money if this deal closes.
the cries ring especially hollow hot off MS launching the Halo TV show. Not our fault they suck equally as bad at TV as they do at games.
We're witnessing a home grown talent take on a giant evil corporation who throws their monopolistic weight around like a big ugly bully.
And somehow, Sony is punching that disgusting bully right in the eye. Love to see it.
Yes. The move is not anti-competitive because even with CoD/Activision Sony still has a stronger range of IP, equal or greater dev teams and a much larger and more established historic market share.
that's too bad so sad for Microsoft. Instead of sucking ass, maybe they should try to actually make some games that get out of the 60-metacritic range, and then maybe people would be more compelled to buy their system.
You can see why people would take issue with having our purchase of a PS5 devalued because the most evil, largest, and wealthiest American company in the world is crying like a little spoiled baby.
This is why Xbox is hated by hardcore gamers.
Xbox would gain a major advantage in terms of sheer volume/number of dev studios and the ability to put out a larger amount of 1st party content yearly, not to mention COD is a huge deal in terms of an IP to own and the amount of revenue it would bring in. Microsoft have also indicated in interviews that they plan to keep buying publishers.
Microsoft wouldn't be spending this much money if they didn't think this deal would give them a massive boost/edge imo.
Sony definitely has motivation to exaggerate the impact of this deal, but Microsoft also has an incentive to downplay the advantage it would give them.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 417
Guest
What are the terms and what is my punishment if I am wrong?
How does "Within 12 months of Starfield launching, it will be on a Playstation platform." Sound? (we may be waiting until 2026 to see this bet play out)
Hey guys, having a successful tv show is the same as having a yearly annualized multibillion dollar franchise. Didnt you know that 70s show and Lost are just valuable as call of duty? Well now you do.
D
Deleted member 417
Guest
They say this like Sony just tripped up and fell onto massive IP's. They worked damned hard for 3 decades to get where they are. They have seen the fall of sega, the rise, fall and rise of Nintendo, the introduction of Online gaming, the dying format of Physical, a new competitor (MS), consoles becoming PC's, adapting to the PC market, the fad of motion controls and now are manoeuvring to be at the forefront of a new gaming technology; VR.
And through all of their successes and failures, including nearly bankrupting the Playstation division, they have cultivated talented teams and grown an impressive catalogue of instantly recognisable characters and IP's. Sony have earned their success, though hardwork, dedication and understanding the industry.
To say "buh sony is doing well, let Microsoft buy their way into doing well" is a real low for the industry. Especially considering that Microsoft threw their lead away during the 360 gen to try and cash in on the casual crowd. And 2 years into a new generation, owning twenty fucking seven studios, they have released Halo (incomplete) and Forza.
If there is one reason I want to see the deal fall through, it's to watch these spoiled kids throw a tantrum about how unfair it all is.
Yep, regardless of how one feels about this deal, arguing that it should go through because a tv show based on one of Sony's original non-purchased IPs is doing well is a bit of a reach.
Nah, they'll buy their way out instead. Gamers can be pissed all they want but FTC intervention is not warranted.
this is why i'm past the point of feeling sorry for them or their customers.
They came out with Xbox One in 2013 AND LITERALLY TRIED TO STEAL YOUR RIGHTS AWAY!
you invested in this willingly. what was your plan?
PlayStation guys are asking for acquisitions to protect the core constituency of what makes the identity of the platform. Square Enix is a good example. The idea being, they need to be locked down as a protection measure against the evil MS monopoly.
Microsoft started this when they bought Bethesda and their stable IP: Doom, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Prey, Dishonored, The Evil Within, Deathloop, Ghostwire Tokyo all gone in one foul swoop.
All had larger communities on PlayStation. That's a fact.
They came out with Xbox One in 2013 AND LITERALLY TRIED TO STEAL YOUR RIGHTS AWAY!
you invested in this willingly. what was your plan?
PlayStation guys are asking for acquisitions to protect the core constituency of what makes the identity of the platform. Square Enix is a good example. The idea being, they need to be locked down as a protection measure against the evil MS monopoly.
Microsoft started this when they bought Bethesda and their stable IP: Doom, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Prey, Dishonored, The Evil Within, Deathloop, Ghostwire Tokyo all gone in one foul swoop.
All had larger communities on PlayStation. That's a fact.
All were actually PC-centric series except the Arkane stuff and PS purchased exclusives. There's your actual fact.
You really don’t know what the term anticompetitive means.
HINT: You can be dead last like Microsoft and still be using monopoly tactics!
Nobody goes this hard with mental gymnastics trying to justify an acquisition unless they know it's on the ropes.
The EU authorities holding the announcement of their findings until the start date of the US lawsuit made it pretty clear the deal is dead, so all this theatre from MS and Activision is just a temper tantrum, and their idiot fanboys are lapping it up.
The EU plays a lot of petty games with the US and stealing the FTC’s thunder by rejecting the deal completely, thereby depriving the FTC of its trial, is right in line with the kind of stunts they pull.
I've also read about situations where the FTC and CMA were against a deal but the EU were the odd man out in approving a deal. Could be a similar situation here. Of course, if any 2 of the 3 are against a deal it becomes way more difficult to close on it.
Last edited:
nabbed from reeee
New report from MLex:
- According to MLex, Microsoft today received formal EU objections to the acquisition (no wonder that there were no leaks, there was nothing to leak
)
- MS declined to confirm receiving the charge-sheet, but said that it’s determined to resolve any issues.
- MS says that "We are committed to solutions and finding a path forward for this deal. We are listening carefully to the commission's concerns and are confident we can address them."
- The CMA is expected to release its provisional findings in the coming days (early February).
I guess that now it’s more likely to get press reports during the week about the SO.
New report from MLex:
- According to MLex, Microsoft today received formal EU objections to the acquisition (no wonder that there were no leaks, there was nothing to leak
)- MS declined to confirm receiving the charge-sheet, but said that it’s determined to resolve any issues.
- MS says that "We are committed to solutions and finding a path forward for this deal. We are listening carefully to the commission's concerns and are confident we can address them."
- The CMA is expected to release its provisional findings in the coming days (early February).
I guess that now it’s more likely to get press reports during the week about the SO.