Microsoft's acquisition of Activison Blizzard

[AshHunter216]

Everyone see Idas latest?

Seems very biased too... saying Microsoft shut down the FTC's arguments etc.

His text;

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The opposition of MS/ABK to the FTC preliminary injunction request is 244 pages long

It includes:

- The legal arguments (around 25 pages long).

- 72 exhibits (lots of them redacted).

- The full commitments to the EC, although the agreements with Nvidia, Boosteroid and Ubitus are redacted.

- The full Sony Corporate Report 2022.

- It mentions at least 3 times the article from FT (from different sources) where Sony chief Kenichiro Yoshida warned about the technical problems of cloud gaming.

- The report from MLex in December 2022 saying that Microsoft didn't mislead the EU over the ZeniMax deal, in response to the FTC concerns.

Lots of reading to do!

I'll keep updating the post during the next few hours with highlights from it. If the opposition is published online, it should be here.

Updating...

The FTC has never persuaded a court to preliminarily enjoin a merger involving anything close to the facts here. Unlike in other merger contexts, the government gets no presumption of harm as to vertical mergers because they do not eliminate a competitor from the marketplace and are widely recognized to be procompetitive. The U.S. antitrust agencies have rarely sought to enjoin vertical mergers and have lost every recent case when they tried. Indeed, the FTC is asking this Court to be the first in decades to find a vertical merger unlawful. (Page 1)

This is the exceptional case where the Court can rely on actions rather than words. Microsoft's valuation of the deal was premised on making Activision's limited portfolio of popular games more accessible. And since the transaction was announced, Microsoft has sought to address any concerns that might be raised about the deal. Here is what Microsoft has done:

- Committed to bring Activision's games to Xbox Game Pass, a subscription gaming service offering numerous games for $9.99 per month, rather than up to $70 per game;

- Signed a binding contract to bring COD to Nintendo (which does not currently have it);

- Offered Valve, the popular digital PC game distributor, a ten-year deal for Activision content, which Valve declined REDACTED;

- Signed contracts to make Activision games available on leading services that "stream" popular games to devices of consumers' choosing;

- Obligated itself, as part of the global regulatory process, to grant streaming rights to current and future Activision games to other cloud gaming services, regardless of whether Xbox decides to stream those games on its own service; and

- Offered Sony a contract to guarantee access to Activision content on PlayStation for ten years, on equal footing with the Xbox console versions, REDACTED; (Page 2)

The FTC simply ignores these facts, claiming that it needs to offer only scant proof to stop the transaction. The FTC is wrong. The government has the burden of proof in seeking the "extraordinary and drastic remedy" of "a preliminary injunction prior to a full trial on the merits." Because the FTC's central claim is that Xbox will withhold Activision content from rivals (principally the market leader, Sony), it must also show that the combined firm would have "the ability and incentive" to foreclose competitors. And the FTC must show that such foreclosure "is likely to substantially lessen competition" in a properly pleaded product and geographic market. On each of these issues, the FTC must show that the evidence "raise questions going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful as to make them fair ground for thorough investigation, study, deliberation and determination." (Page 2)

The FTC cannot come close to carrying its burden. After 18 months of investigation and litigation, including 56 investigational hearings and depositions and the production of nearly 6 million documents, the FTC offers only a minuscule collection of incomplete quotations in support of its motion. The record will decisively refute the FTC's claims. (Page 2)

First, there is no evidence to support the FTC's central theory that Xbox will take COD away from Playstation. The FTC does not cite a single document or witness even suggesting this will happen. On the contrary, Jim Ryan, the CEO of SIE, and the chief commercial opponent of this deal, said privately on the day it was announced REDACTED. Withholding COD would harm Xbox. It would contradict the valuation the Board relied on in approving the deal, which assumed profits from continued Playstation sales. It would cut off highly lucrative income stream to one of Microsoft REDACTED. And it would make COD a worse game and enrage the gaming community, because much of the game's popularity steams from the way it brings together players who use competing consoles. It is therefore unsurprising that every single worldwide regulator that has examined the deal other than the FTC has rejected this theory, including both the EC and the CMA (Page 3)

Third, the FTC has failed to identify relevant antitrust markets, dooming their entire case. Potential anticompetitive effects can be measured only in a properly defined market. But the FTC has replaced sound economics analysis with results-orientated "contort[ions] to meet its litigations meets" Hicks vs PGA Tour. As one example, the FTC claims that gaming's PCs and Nintendo's consoles (both far more popular than Xbox) are not in the same market as Playstation and Xbox, even though the economic evidence REDACTED have said the opposite. Why does the FTC contradict REDACTED in this respect? Because recognizing Nintendo and PCs as part of the market would destroy the FTC's flimsy foreclosure theory: Nintendo has been successful for years without COD, as was the dominant PC game store Valve's Steam. COD cannot be essential to competition if market participants thrive without it. (Pagye 4)


---------------------------------

The responses are also such cringe... 'Fatality' for instance.

I'm wondering where they get the idea from that the FTC are focusing solely on the console market in terms of harm. If that's true the FTC haven’t been paying attention to what's happening overseas. Either way, Florian Muller is a clown for ever thinking Idas was anti acquisition.

I am curious though. Why does era hate Playstation so much and want them to fail so badly? Just for having exclusive games?

 

[FatKaz]

I'm wondering where they get the idea from that the FTC are focusing solely on the console market in terms of harm. If that's true the FTC haven’t been paying attention to what's happening overseas. Either way, Florian Muller is a clown for ever thinking Idas was anti acquisition.

I am curious though. Why does era hate Playstation so much and want them to fail so badly? Just for having exclusive games?

Yeah FTC have definitley been focusing also on cloud.

Lina khan mentioned in an inteview they where looking into cloud and even called it a nascent market just like the CMA and EC. When she mentions concerns about nascent markets, you'll see she uses the same reasoning as the CMA aswell of protecting competition in this growing market.

Skip to 4:27

I'm sure the FTC are well aware of the fact that other 2 major regulators saw enough concern in the cloud market for there to be an SLC.

 

[AshHunter216]

Yeah FTC have definitley been focusing also on cloud.

Lina khan mentioned in an inteview they where looking into cloud and even called it a nascent market just like the CMA and EC. When she mentions concerns about nascent markets, you'll see she uses the same reasoning as the CMA aswell of protecting competition in this growing market.

I'm sure the FTC are well aware of the fact that other 2 major regulators saw enough concern in the cloud market for there

Yeah FTC have definitley been focusing also on cloud.

Lina khan mentioned in an inteview they where looking into cloud and even called it a nascent market just like the CMA and EC. When she mentions concerns about nascent markets, you'll see she uses the same reasoning as the CMA aswell of protecting competition in this growing market.

I'm sure the FTC are well aware of the fact that other 2 major regulators saw enough concern in the cloud market for there to be an SLC.

Yeah, it seems like the majority of Idas' post is dunking on the idea of a console market risk to competition, but that doesn't seem to accurately represent the FTC's full arguments. Is he quoting what Microsoft said or is that his opinion?

 

[AshHunter216]

Is Idas quoting what MS said or is that his opinion?

 

[KiryuRealty]

Is Idas quoting what MS said or is that his opinion?

I am being charitable these days and just blaming his stroke for his continued MS hopium shit.

 

[Bryank75]

Is Idas quoting what MS said or is that his opinion?

I believe it's his thoughts / opinion based on what Microsoft has said....

 

[KiryuRealty]

I believe it's his thoughts / opinion based on what Microsoft has paid him and the other shills to say...

Correction applied.

 

[AshHunter216]

So if MS wins against the FTC, will they close everywhere except the UK or just use this victory to convince investors to grant an extension?

 

[AshHunter216]

I believe it's his thoughts / opinion based on what Microsoft has said....

Sheesh, masks are coming off.

 

[ksdixon]

Valve said they trusted MS so much that they didn't need the deal.

Gabe's a con man.

Remember when he cried about the introduction of the MS Store? MS still haven't gotten that crap figured out, and we're way, way past windows 8.0. Like 10-odd years.

 

[Swift_Star]

I'm wondering where they get the idea from that the FTC are focusing solely on the console market in terms of harm. If that's true the FTC haven’t been paying attention to what's happening overseas. Either way, Florian Muller is a clown for ever thinking Idas was anti acquisition.

I am curious though. Why does era hate Playstation so much and want them to fail so badly? Just for having exclusive games?

Because it’s an American centric forum… they hate everything anime and JRPGs in general. That’s the gist of it.

 

[reziel]

Everyone see Idas latest?

Seems very biased too... saying Microsoft shut down the FTC's arguments etc.

His text;

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The opposition of MS/ABK to the FTC preliminary injunction request is 244 pages long

It includes:

- The legal arguments (around 25 pages long).

- 72 exhibits (lots of them redacted).

- The full commitments to the EC, although the agreements with Nvidia, Boosteroid and Ubitus are redacted.

- The full Sony Corporate Report 2022.

- It mentions at least 3 times the article from FT (from different sources) where Sony chief Kenichiro Yoshida warned about the technical problems of cloud gaming.

- The report from MLex in December 2022 saying that Microsoft didn't mislead the EU over the ZeniMax deal, in response to the FTC concerns.

Lots of reading to do!

I'll keep updating the post during the next few hours with highlights from it. If the opposition is published online, it should be here.

Updating...

The FTC has never persuaded a court to preliminarily enjoin a merger involving anything close to the facts here. Unlike in other merger contexts, the government gets no presumption of harm as to vertical mergers because they do not eliminate a competitor from the marketplace and are widely recognized to be procompetitive. The U.S. antitrust agencies have rarely sought to enjoin vertical mergers and have lost every recent case when they tried. Indeed, the FTC is asking this Court to be the first in decades to find a vertical merger unlawful. (Page 1)

This is the exceptional case where the Court can rely on actions rather than words. Microsoft's valuation of the deal was premised on making Activision's limited portfolio of popular games more accessible. And since the transaction was announced, Microsoft has sought to address any concerns that might be raised about the deal. Here is what Microsoft has done:

- Committed to bring Activision's games to Xbox Game Pass, a subscription gaming service offering numerous games for $9.99 per month, rather than up to $70 per game;

- Signed a binding contract to bring COD to Nintendo (which does not currently have it);

- Offered Valve, the popular digital PC game distributor, a ten-year deal for Activision content, which Valve declined REDACTED;

- Signed contracts to make Activision games available on leading services that "stream" popular games to devices of consumers' choosing;

- Obligated itself, as part of the global regulatory process, to grant streaming rights to current and future Activision games to other cloud gaming services, regardless of whether Xbox decides to stream those games on its own service; and

- Offered Sony a contract to guarantee access to Activision content on PlayStation for ten years, on equal footing with the Xbox console versions, REDACTED; (Page 2)

The FTC simply ignores these facts, claiming that it needs to offer only scant proof to stop the transaction. The FTC is wrong. The government has the burden of proof in seeking the "extraordinary and drastic remedy" of "a preliminary injunction prior to a full trial on the merits." Because the FTC's central claim is that Xbox will withhold Activision content from rivals (principally the market leader, Sony), it must also show that the combined firm would have "the ability and incentive" to foreclose competitors. And the FTC must show that such foreclosure "is likely to substantially lessen competition" in a properly pleaded product and geographic market. On each of these issues, the FTC must show that the evidence "raise questions going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful as to make them fair ground for thorough investigation, study, deliberation and determination." (Page 2)

The FTC cannot come close to carrying its burden. After 18 months of investigation and litigation, including 56 investigational hearings and depositions and the production of nearly 6 million documents, the FTC offers only a minuscule collection of incomplete quotations in support of its motion. The record will decisively refute the FTC's claims. (Page 2)

First, there is no evidence to support the FTC's central theory that Xbox will take COD away from Playstation. The FTC does not cite a single document or witness even suggesting this will happen. On the contrary, Jim Ryan, the CEO of SIE, and the chief commercial opponent of this deal, said privately on the day it was announced REDACTED. Withholding COD would harm Xbox. It would contradict the valuation the Board relied on in approving the deal, which assumed profits from continued Playstation sales. It would cut off highly lucrative income stream to one of Microsoft REDACTED. And it would make COD a worse game and enrage the gaming community, because much of the game's popularity steams from the way it brings together players who use competing consoles. It is therefore unsurprising that every single worldwide regulator that has examined the deal other than the FTC has rejected this theory, including both the EC and the CMA (Page 3)

Third, the FTC has failed to identify relevant antitrust markets, dooming their entire case. Potential anticompetitive effects can be measured only in a properly defined market. But the FTC has replaced sound economics analysis with results-orientated "contort[ions] to meet its litigations meets" Hicks vs PGA Tour. As one example, the FTC claims that gaming's PCs and Nintendo's consoles (both far more popular than Xbox) are not in the same market as Playstation and Xbox, even though the economic evidence REDACTED have said the opposite. Why does the FTC contradict REDACTED in this respect? Because recognizing Nintendo and PCs as part of the market would destroy the FTC's flimsy foreclosure theory: Nintendo has been successful for years without COD, as was the dominant PC game store Valve's Steam. COD cannot be essential to competition if market participants thrive without it. (Pagye 4)


---------------------------------

The responses are also such cringe... 'Fatality' for instance.

This seems more like a rant to me then anything of significance. On a side note I highly doubt he has access to anything the FTC hasn't thrown out yet. I mean nobody expected MS to have to pay $20 million in that Child Accounts on the Xbox situation that happened not too long after that Federal Judge said MS had to comply with handing documents over to the FTC when they were refusing to give them.

 

[Ezekiel]

So if MS wins against the FTC, will they close everywhere except the UK or just use this victory to convince investors to grant an extension?

I keep reading about this 'close everywhere but UK'.

The deal closes or it doesn't. It's not a closure per country.

If they close right now, the merger will be against UK law, and they are susceptible to fines, force divestiture, etc.

 

[AshHunter216]

I keep reading about this 'close everywhere but UK'.

The deal closes or it doesn't. It's not a closure per country.

If they close right now, the merger will be against UK law, and they are susceptible to fines, force divestiture, etc.

That would explain why they haven't closed in the places they have been approved in yet. Can't say I've heard of a merger being completed in some countries but not others.

 

[Airbus]

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Everyone see Idas latest?

Seems very biased too... saying Microsoft shut down the FTC's arguments etc.

His text;

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The opposition of MS/ABK to the FTC preliminary injunction request is 244 pages long

It includes:

- The legal arguments (around 25 pages long).

- 72 exhibits (lots of them redacted).

- The full commitments to the EC, although the agreements with Nvidia, Boosteroid and Ubitus are redacted.

- The full Sony Corporate Report 2022.

- It mentions at least 3 times the article from FT (from different sources) where Sony chief Kenichiro Yoshida warned about the technical problems of cloud gaming.

- The report from MLex in December 2022 saying that Microsoft didn't mislead the EU over the ZeniMax deal, in response to the FTC concerns.

Lots of reading to do!

I'll keep updating the post during the next few hours with highlights from it. If the opposition is published online, it should be here.

Updating...

The FTC has never persuaded a court to preliminarily enjoin a merger involving anything close to the facts here. Unlike in other merger contexts, the government gets no presumption of harm as to vertical mergers because they do not eliminate a competitor from the marketplace and are widely recognized to be procompetitive. The U.S. antitrust agencies have rarely sought to enjoin vertical mergers and have lost every recent case when they tried. Indeed, the FTC is asking this Court to be the first in decades to find a vertical merger unlawful. (Page 1)

This is the exceptional case where the Court can rely on actions rather than words. Microsoft's valuation of the deal was premised on making Activision's limited portfolio of popular games more accessible. And since the transaction was announced, Microsoft has sought to address any concerns that might be raised about the deal. Here is what Microsoft has done:

- Committed to bring Activision's games to Xbox Game Pass, a subscription gaming service offering numerous games for $9.99 per month, rather than up to $70 per game;

- Signed a binding contract to bring COD to Nintendo (which does not currently have it);

- Offered Valve, the popular digital PC game distributor, a ten-year deal for Activision content, which Valve declined REDACTED;

- Signed contracts to make Activision games available on leading services that "stream" popular games to devices of consumers' choosing;

- Obligated itself, as part of the global regulatory process, to grant streaming rights to current and future Activision games to other cloud gaming services, regardless of whether Xbox decides to stream those games on its own service; and

- Offered Sony a contract to guarantee access to Activision content on PlayStation for ten years, on equal footing with the Xbox console versions, REDACTED; (Page 2)

The FTC simply ignores these facts, claiming that it needs to offer only scant proof to stop the transaction. The FTC is wrong. The government has the burden of proof in seeking the "extraordinary and drastic remedy" of "a preliminary injunction prior to a full trial on the merits." Because the FTC's central claim is that Xbox will withhold Activision content from rivals (principally the market leader, Sony), it must also show that the combined firm would have "the ability and incentive" to foreclose competitors. And the FTC must show that such foreclosure "is likely to substantially lessen competition" in a properly pleaded product and geographic market. On each of these issues, the FTC must show that the evidence "raise questions going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful as to make them fair ground for thorough investigation, study, deliberation and determination." (Page 2)

The FTC cannot come close to carrying its burden. After 18 months of investigation and litigation, including 56 investigational hearings and depositions and the production of nearly 6 million documents, the FTC offers only a minuscule collection of incomplete quotations in support of its motion. The record will decisively refute the FTC's claims. (Page 2)

First, there is no evidence to support the FTC's central theory that Xbox will take COD away from Playstation. The FTC does not cite a single document or witness even suggesting this will happen. On the contrary, Jim Ryan, the CEO of SIE, and the chief commercial opponent of this deal, said privately on the day it was announced REDACTED. Withholding COD would harm Xbox. It would contradict the valuation the Board relied on in approving the deal, which assumed profits from continued Playstation sales. It would cut off highly lucrative income stream to one of Microsoft REDACTED. And it would make COD a worse game and enrage the gaming community, because much of the game's popularity steams from the way it brings together players who use competing consoles. It is therefore unsurprising that every single worldwide regulator that has examined the deal other than the FTC has rejected this theory, including both the EC and the CMA (Page 3)

Third, the FTC has failed to identify relevant antitrust markets, dooming their entire case. Potential anticompetitive effects can be measured only in a properly defined market. But the FTC has replaced sound economics analysis with results-orientated "contort[ions] to meet its litigations meets" Hicks vs PGA Tour. As one example, the FTC claims that gaming's PCs and Nintendo's consoles (both far more popular than Xbox) are not in the same market as Playstation and Xbox, even though the economic evidence REDACTED have said the opposite. Why does the FTC contradict REDACTED in this respect? Because recognizing Nintendo and PCs as part of the market would destroy the FTC's flimsy foreclosure theory: Nintendo has been successful for years without COD, as was the dominant PC game store Valve's Steam. COD cannot be essential to competition if market participants thrive without it. (Pagye 4)


---------------------------------

The responses are also such cringe... 'Fatality' for instance.

He's just gassing up his audience, nothing more. He might also be feeling pressured to appear more overtly "for the deal" after SoloKnightRober-oh uhm I mean Florian Muller aka FOSSPatents, tried effectively doxxing him and accusing him of astroturfing.

I'm sure he's made similar statements WRT MS having "very favorable chances" with the CMA prior to the CMA blocking them in the UK; this would be no different. These people can waste as much time and keyboard strokes as they want writing their fiction but at the end of the day, they are just trying to tell a fictional tale they desperately want to will to reality by misusing and misunderstanding real-world rules and laws.

I wonder how much Shoot, Yoga Flame, writhingcorpse, Uramallus, Bradbatross, Sullivan, Vigilante Joker, vixolus, TOkenaussie, rscardinals, fiendcode,gremlinz1982, etc. have been jerking off to that post tho. Actually rather not, might look like the following in their rooms:

Spoiler

And yes I'm specifically naming the users with the most biased pro-acquisition takes ITT. Stop hiding behind generalizing them to the whole forum, that just lets them get away with their stupidity in obscurity IMO.

 

[Bryank75]

He's just gassing up his audience, nothing more. He might also be feeling pressured to appear more overtly "for the deal" after SoloKnightRober-oh uhm I mean Florian Muller aka FOSSPatents, tried effectively doxxing him and accusing him of astroturfing.

I'm sure he's made similar statements WRT MS having "very favorable chances" with the CMA prior to the CMA blocking them in the UK; this would be no different. These people can waste as much time and keyboard strokes as they want writing their fiction but at the end of the day, they are just trying to tell a fictional tale they desperately want to will to reality by misusing and misunderstanding real-world rules and laws.

I wonder how much Shoot, Yoga Flame, writhingcorpse, Uramallus, Bradbatross, Sullivan, Vigilante Joker, vixolus, TOkenaussie, rscardinals, fiendcode,gremlinz1982, etc. have been jerking off to that post tho. Actually rather not, might look like the following in their rooms:

Spoiler

And yes I'm specifically naming the users with the most biased pro-acquisition takes ITT. Stop hiding behind generalizing them to the whole forum, that just lets them get away with their stupidity in obscurity IMO.

True.

I also wanted to discuss here about Blackrock and Vanguard group being two of the largest shareholders in both companies and this being a consolidation of the two biggest American gaming companies...

The obvious aim is to dominate gaming, anyone that says otherwise is lying or being disingenuous. They want to turn gaming into the equivalent of the american food industry... where you buy from just 2 or 3 companies even though there is the illusion of choice. It is Pepsico, Nestle or Kraft but Blackrock and Vanguard own all of them.

Much like food, they want to take away the quality, reduce the nutrition, make you fat on quantity and empty calories.....

 

[AshHunter216]

Gaming leaks subreddit apparently does not consider Florian Mueller a trustworthy source.

 

[KiryuRealty]

Gaming leaks subreddit apparently does not consider Florian Mueller a trustworthy source.

View attachment 1631

Nobody should have ever since it was revealed during the SCO Linux lawsuits when it came out that he was a paid Microsoft astroturfer.

That was about 16 years ago.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I'm wondering where they get the idea from that the FTC are focusing solely on the console market in terms of harm. If that's true the FTC haven’t been paying attention to what's happening overseas. Either way, Florian Muller is a clown for ever thinking Idas was anti acquisition.

I am curious though. Why does era hate Playstation so much and want them to fail so badly? Just for having exclusive games?

1: A lot of the mods there (such as Judge) are very much Xbox Ambassadors. Jawmuncher might fall into that group as well

2: Reset got real pissy at Jim Ryan's leaked email that talked about abortion as well his pet cat & dog (in the email, he just basically said coworkers have to agree to disagree on certain topics like abortion, and work together to get stuff done)

3: They probably feel PlayStation was too dominant last generation, even if part of that was Microsoft's own failure to effectively compete

4: They feel that in buying publishers, Microsoft has finally "opened the warchest", which some there probably feel is the only way MS could actually outdo Sony in. Too bad for them that is not a sustainable option in a market that regulators don't want devolving into anticompetitive practices

5: The heavily biased pro-Xbox mods and admin staff on ResetERA have enabled an environment for Xbox fanatics (Yoga Flame, Tigerfish, etc.) to stink up threads with Xbox propaganda and talking points, because the mods themselves support those same ideas. They just want to look more "professional" by not openly saying those things themselves.

6: There's a chance there is a correlation between ResetERA's new owner and said owner having some vested interest in promoting the Xbox brand. That's just very loose speculation on my part tho; no evidence to back that one up yet.

When you combine all those things together, you get the often toxic anti-PS rhetoric that ResetERA loves to push. You can see it today in yet another no-traction FF XVI boycott thread over the lack of POC in the game (even though there are also no Japanese people in the game, and a lot of black & other POC FF fans are loving FF XVI because they are actual fans, not agenda pushers); 100% can bet if that were an Xbox exclusive, you would see no such threads on Reset.

The irony in that case being, ResetERA also thoroughly trashed Forspoken, partly I'm sure because trashing on the then-newest PS exclusive was worth more than actually standing by publicly-voiced progressive values and giving a game with a female POC lead from a Japanese dev team a fair shake.

True.

I also wanted to discuss here about Blackrock and Vanguard group being two of the largest shareholders in both companies and this being a consolidation of the two biggest American gaming companies...

The obvious aim is to dominate gaming, anyone that says otherwise is lying or being disingenuous. They want to turn gaming into the equivalent of the american food industry... where you buy from just 2 or 3 companies even though there is the illusion of choice. It is Pepsico, Nestle or Kraft but Blackrock and Vanguard own all of them.

Much like food, they want to take away the quality, reduce the nutrition, make you fat on quantity and empty calories.....

Oh that's interesting; not surprising Blackrock have investments in both, they seem to have investments in EVERYTHING. But also Vanguard having those same investments (and it's possible Blackrock & Vanguard have investments in each other), yeah you can start to see the higher level of these consolidation concerns.

It's pretty frightening in a way, and how companies like Microsoft are willing to play right along with it because, hey, they win big as well.

Because it’s an American centric forum… they hate everything anime and JRPGs in general. That’s the gist of it.

Well unless it's something Microsoft can take away from Sony/PlayStation (either in whole or in terms of PS no longer having exclusivity to it), like Persona exclusivity.

Then they supposedly love it despite not completing any of those games or not playing them at large volumes even when they go into Game Pass :/