Microsoft's acquisition of Activison Blizzard
- Thread starter Darth Vader
- Start date
TBH,
Jez has been very pessimistic about the deal since the beginning. He always felt it was going to get blocked somewhere due to "politics" or some other BS.
Jez has been very pessimistic about the deal since the beginning. He always felt it was going to get blocked somewhere due to "politics" or some other BS.
He did become kinda pessimistic after the cma blocked, but it seemed like this case initially revitalized his fanboyism when he started bragging about the other things MS could buy.
He's also a hard bandwagoner. He's was against it and then for it when he was getting roasted on twitter.
This seems like hopium and trying to rationalize 4d chess out of FTC bad case. It would make sense if they kept the whole thing about the console SLC, but it seems like they meagerly tried to throw in cloud concerns here and there. Nothing is showing me that they would change tactics to the cloud concerns in administrative court, now it's all back to the CMA.
I was one of the few people that believed FTC had a real shot in court because there are real anti-trust concerns with this case as we all know, but only if they made the proper case. Their poor performance and even mentioning being worried about the harm to Sony and the judge having to say she's worried about consumers was borderline embarrassing if it happened.
IF the FTC wins, it'll be glorious to see the meltdown at Era.
Best thing the judge can do is grant pi, then have the ftc write up guidelines for the video games industry both cloud and console, regulate the fuck out of it.
1. pubs cant sign/negotiate no more than 4 third party exclusive deals per year with platform holders. So thats 4 per year for Sony, MS, nintendo.
2. 3rd party exclusives cant be permanent, they expire 1 year after game is launched on the initial platform, no extensions.
Call me crazy but i think its the best way to cool off a $2 trillion company and allow more games on all 3 consoles eventually, making your 1st party the only real differentiator, thereby cause them to double down on in house development.
1. pubs cant sign/negotiate no more than 4 third party exclusive deals per year with platform holders. So thats 4 per year for Sony, MS, nintendo.
2. 3rd party exclusives cant be permanent, they expire 1 year after game is launched on the initial platform, no extensions.
Call me crazy but i think its the best way to cool off a $2 trillion company and allow more games on all 3 consoles eventually, making your 1st party the only real differentiator, thereby cause them to double down on in house development.
Last edited:
Sure, if it works most other regs would adopt it imo.
The industry does need regulation at this point tho.
I think cloud is the future, and its so tiny right now that without regulation someone(company with the most money) is going to run away with it.
That's nonsense. WTF i just read
I would personally agree with you but you're not taking into consideration the different countries console presence. I would just like everyone else like to get all these games too but we can't ignore the fact that Xbox hasn't tried to foster relationships in Japan, or China. They tried one exclusive with Square Enix (Platinum Games) but gave them too many ideas to try and ultimately ending up getting scrapped. I think it was Scalebound?
On the main point though I do agree they need to redo the whole regulatory process nobody expected MS to go off the deep end and try and buy rather then help grow or invest Developers.
Speak on it? why is it nonsense? lay that shit out for me fam.That's nonsense. WTF i just read
ok, but in japan if pubs have to limit exclusives per platform holder then the remaining Japanese devs would have no choice but to launch on xbox, that would grow xbox in japan. At the moment devs in japan just sign up unlimited with nintendo and sony.
Well main thing is Platstation and Nintendo are Japanese made so they automatically have the advantage. Secondly they make alot more games for those consoles over there that do not come west.
Because many games are created by moneyhatting or exclusive deals. Gaming thrives on it and it is healthy business for developers, publishers and platform holders.
It would basically kill indies and AA gaming and if it won't kill it, it would kill creativity, progress or exploration.
Even AAA aren't always surviving.
It would make gaming smaller, not bigger.
Imagine China Hero project without Playstation. Oh yeah, there wouldn't be one.
They expanding to other contries now.
Only thing which could be competitive is to make that Playstation use Playstation funding, xbox using xbox funding etc .. but even then, it is playing with fire.
Last edited:
Who on the world cares about Xbox? After their shady intentions got revealed to spend Sony out business, I couldn’t care less what happens with this shitty console brand. 2019 attempted to buy Square Enix, 2020 acquired Zenimax, 2021 bid on Activision Blizzard, 2022 they attempted to buy Sega. Even after MS were exposed to come out that they considered just BUYING (Sony and Nintendo) their competition shows they are running full steam into an attempted monopoly. Screw Microsoft and all its followers. I don’t care about Activision Blizzard games expect for Crash Bandicoot, Spyro and Diablo but I truly hope this deal fells through. The possibility then Microsoft pulling the plug on Xbox division is more likely then ever. Better this cursed brand disappears forever.
Unless she's got the financial model to show such a move would work without becoming loss leading and unviable then just shut your damn mouth.
The sheer idiocy of some of things this judge says beggers belief really.