Microsoft's acquisition of Activison Blizzard

[Firefly]

I don't know if banned users can still see posts.

However if they can't then

 

[Crow]

Its crazy how MS was able to get the CMA back on their page and working with them again. People said the CMA wouldnt buckle. But they did. MS aint no joke.

 

[Cool hand luke]

Its crazy how MS was able to get the CMA back on their page and working with them again. People said the CMA wouldnt buckle. But they did. MS aint no joke.

Yep. They've also written the playbook for their rivals to getting anything through.

New Bloomberg article:

The UK Flexes Its Antitrust Power in Microsoft’s Activision Deal

The country’s Competition and Markets Authority has positioned itself as the final hurdle for the $69 billion acquisition.

www.bloomberg.com

It's shockingly measured, and the restraint shown and inclusion of an opposing viewpoint makes me think Microsoft is hyper confident and have just laid off the PR machine. Not what you normally read about this deal. Also, disclaimer: Joost is the paid shill that submitted his laughable paper to the CMA to protest the block on daddy.

Some people have interpreted this as the CMA losing its nerve. Joost Rietveld, an associate professor at University College London who specializes in platforms and gaming, suggests the agency doesn’t want to be seen as a lone wolf. “At a time when the UK is struggling to keep up its reputation as an economic powerhouse, as well as being a fertile breeding ground for tech startups, it doesn’t look good if its competition regulator is the only one left taking issue with such a high-profile deal,” he says.
Others say the CMA may be on the verge of winning its showdown with one of the world’s most powerful corporations. “Rather than considering this a U-turn on the part of the CMA, it could be that Microsoft has realized that its appeal is unlikely to succeed,” says Anne Witt, a professor of law and a member of the EDHEC Augmented Law Institute in France.

 

[Eternal_Wings]

Well guys I think it’s no use to further discuss it at this point. You shouldn’t have to much hope for CMA‘s final report. Also FTC‘s court case I see less to no hope to win this.
I wish this charade would be finally over. Where is the use of regulators if BigTech gets away with everything?

 

[Eternal_Wings]

SoloKingRobert is mad.


Judge Corley apparently said so:

As a game publisher, Sony’s PlayStation Studios, is responsible for blockbuster hits like
God of War, The Last of Us, and Spider-Man, the vast majority of which can be played only on
PlayStation. (See PX7053 (Ryan Dep. Tr. Vol. I) at 20:16–20:23; RX5055 at 015–016.) And as a
purchaser of third-party games,
(PX7054 (Ryan Dep. Tr. Vol. II) at 107:10–18.; Dkt. No. 283,
6/23/23 Tr. (Spencer) at 357:12–16.)
Sony views exclusive content as crucial to PlayStation’s continued success and to
“differentiate [their] platform.” (PX7053 (Ryan Dep. Tr. Vol. I) at 212:19–23; RX0079.) As a
result, Sony offers far more exclusive first- and third- party titles than Xbox. (PX7053 (Ryan Dep.
Tr.) at 169:24–170:2; Dkt. No. 283, 6/23/23 Tr. (Spencer) at 362:17–23.) Sony also enjoys “an
enormous competitive advantage” because it can draw on the intellectual property of “Sony
Music, Sony TV, and Sony’s film library” for its game development. (Dkt. No. 285, 6/28/23 Tr.
(Kotick) at 723:13-16.) The number of exclusive games available on PlayStation dwarfs the
number available on Xbox, with eight exclusive games on PlayStation for every one on Xbox.
(RX2098-001 (“Overall, for every 1 exclusive Microsoft game, PlayStation has 8 of them.”); see
Dkt. No. 284, 6/27/23 Tr. (Bailey) at 684:3–25; RX5055 at 018–019, Exs. 11A, 11B; Dkt. No. 285,
6/28/23 Tr. (Nadella) at 849:1–8 (“The dominant player [i.e., Sony] there has defined market
competition using exclusives and so that’s the world we live in.”).)
Sony has often paid third-party studios to “skip” Xbox—either entirely or to delay a title’s
release on Xbox. (Dkt. No. 283, 6/23/23 Tr. (Spencer) at 313:4–8.) For example, on June 22,
2023, while this trial was happening, Square Enix released Final Fantasy XVI, the latest release in
the iconic Final Fantasy franchise, exclusive to PlayStation 5. Previous versions of Final Fantasy
shipped on Xbox, but the reason Final Fantasy XVI is a PlayStation exclusive is because Sony
“pa[id] to exclude Xbox.” (Id. at 312:20–313:8, 441:18–443:1.) ZeniMax, too, was paid by Sony not to ship Deathloop or Ghostwire for Xbox, and one of the reasons Microsoft bought ZeniMax
was concern Sony would also arrange for Starfield to go exclusive and skip Xbox. (Id. at 314:16–
24.)

The cat is out the bag. We always knew she would rule in favour of Microsoft.

 

[Dr Bass]

Yeah, no. They may have low-level employees who are left-wing, progressive, socialist etc. but the actual people who own the companies, their board of directors, many of their shareholders etc. are generally right-of-center on socio-economic issues, if not even more right-leaning than that.

A lot of the DEI (Diversity, Equality, & Inclusion) stuff you see from these Big Tech companies is virtue-signaling so they can boost their ESG scores with massive investment firms like BlackRock, and look "safer" for investors in general. The big brass at the Big Tech companies don't actually give a crap about or even genuinely support the DEI stuff.

The unfortunate part is these companies (and others like Disney) basically virtue-signal DEI paired with genuinely bad stories and writing, so people conflate DEI stuff now with bad products, as if there haven't been trash shows/games/music/movies etc. that have also 100% lacked any DEI (and continue to). I don't know if that conflation has come about accidentally or if it's been an intentional thing, though, knowing the ease many low-level thinkers in consumer markets can be manipulated through misdirection, to engineer dislike for something that is inherently neither good NOR bad. Like many other things, DEI is inherently neutral. It can be good or bad depending on the intentions and talent of those who push for it in their works.

But I think this is veering a bit off from MS/ABK in particular, so I'll stop here.



I get what you're saying. And one thing 100% right about Big Tech is that they want to control everything. In that sense, they thrive off of an authoritative environment, and have gotten many cues from governments like the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

But I'd still say in terms of the personal beliefs of the company founders, and their biggest investors and board members...when it come to socio-economic things they are probably right-of-center, though in some cases they may be just to grift and virtue-signal to right-wing people (and honestly, they virtue-signal to pretty much everyone). They are fiscally 100% against things like socialism, though.

“Yeah, yes.”

Just look at the makeup of the companies. Look at where donations go. Look at the policies they enact on their products (this is a big one). Look at how they run things like Bing.

It just takes a tiny bit of time and research. Tech companies are left leaning, and there is zero question or doubt about it. They work actively to elect democrats in this country, among many other things.

Are you ignoring data like this?

Silicon Valley’s Politics: Liberal, With One Big Exception (Published 2017)

A new Stanford study found that the nation’s tech elite are extremely liberal on most issues — except when it comes to regulation.

www.nytimes.com

The most liberal and conservative tech companies, ranked by employees' political donations

Netflix employees send 98% of their political contributions to Democrats, while those at Qualcomm split theirs evenly between parties.

www.cnbc.com

Do you honestly think the large majority of the company would stay and work at a place where their values don’t align? Do you have experience in the tech world in the US? Suggesting Microsoft, or any other big tech company is right leaning sounds absolutely crazy to anyone who actually works out here.

Again, no value judgement on this, just stating really simple and easily verifiable facts. There are other companies and industries that are right leaning. But I don’t understand the seeming need to categorize companies like Microsoft in a way that is blatantly false. To quote Biden, “come on man!”

 

[Dr Bass]

SoloKingRobert is mad.


Judge Corley apparently said so:

As a game publisher, Sony’s PlayStation Studios, is responsible for blockbuster hits like
God of War, The Last of Us, and Spider-Man, the vast majority of which can be played only on
PlayStation. (See PX7053 (Ryan Dep. Tr. Vol. I) at 20:16–20:23; RX5055 at 015–016.) And as a
purchaser of third-party games,
(PX7054 (Ryan Dep. Tr. Vol. II) at 107:10–18.; Dkt. No. 283,
6/23/23 Tr. (Spencer) at 357:12–16.)
Sony views exclusive content as crucial to PlayStation’s continued success and to
“differentiate [their] platform.” (PX7053 (Ryan Dep. Tr. Vol. I) at 212:19–23; RX0079.) As a
result, Sony offers far more exclusive first- and third- party titles than Xbox. (PX7053 (Ryan Dep.
Tr.) at 169:24–170:2; Dkt. No. 283, 6/23/23 Tr. (Spencer) at 362:17–23.) Sony also enjoys “an
enormous competitive advantage” because it can draw on the intellectual property of “Sony
Music, Sony TV, and Sony’s film library” for its game development. (Dkt. No. 285, 6/28/23 Tr.
(Kotick) at 723:13-16.) The number of exclusive games available on PlayStation dwarfs the
number available on Xbox, with eight exclusive games on PlayStation for every one on Xbox.
(RX2098-001 (“Overall, for every 1 exclusive Microsoft game, PlayStation has 8 of them.”); see
Dkt. No. 284, 6/27/23 Tr. (Bailey) at 684:3–25; RX5055 at 018–019, Exs. 11A, 11B; Dkt. No. 285,
6/28/23 Tr. (Nadella) at 849:1–8 (“The dominant player [i.e., Sony] there has defined market
competition using exclusives and so that’s the world we live in.”).)
Sony has often paid third-party studios to “skip” Xbox—either entirely or to delay a title’s
release on Xbox. (Dkt. No. 283, 6/23/23 Tr. (Spencer) at 313:4–8.) For example, on June 22,
2023, while this trial was happening, Square Enix released Final Fantasy XVI, the latest release in
the iconic Final Fantasy franchise, exclusive to PlayStation 5. Previous versions of Final Fantasy
shipped on Xbox, but the reason Final Fantasy XVI is a PlayStation exclusive is because Sony
“pa[id] to exclude Xbox.” (Id. at 312:20–313:8, 441:18–443:1.) ZeniMax, too, was paid by Sony not to ship Deathloop or Ghostwire for Xbox, and one of the reasons Microsoft bought ZeniMax
was concern Sony would also arrange for Starfield to go exclusive and skip Xbox. (Id. at 314:16–
24.)

The cat is out the bag. We always knew she would rule in favour of Microsoft.

This reads like a terrible opinion. No thought put into it whatsoever, and just parroted Microsoft.

 

[Banjo64]

This reads like a terrible opinion. No thought put into it whatsoever, and just parroted Microsoft.

I feel sorry for the judge really. It’s the US system that’s at fault.

Who should we depend on to make a thorough decision? A body who’s sole job it is to review anti-trust cases and can dedicate years to reading thousands of documents, speaking to industry insiders and building up a comprehensive knowledge of what they are investigating, or a 60 year old judge who’s got 5 4 hour sessions in a week to learn everything and make a decision.

 

[VillaiN]

SoloKingRobert is mad.


Judge Corley apparently said so:

As a game publisher, Sony’s PlayStation Studios, is responsible for blockbuster hits like
God of War, The Last of Us, and Spider-Man, the vast majority of which can be played only on
PlayStation. (See PX7053 (Ryan Dep. Tr. Vol. I) at 20:16–20:23; RX5055 at 015–016.) And as a
purchaser of third-party games,
(PX7054 (Ryan Dep. Tr. Vol. II) at 107:10–18.; Dkt. No. 283,
6/23/23 Tr. (Spencer) at 357:12–16.)
Sony views exclusive content as crucial to PlayStation’s continued success and to
“differentiate [their] platform.” (PX7053 (Ryan Dep. Tr. Vol. I) at 212:19–23; RX0079.) As a
result, Sony offers far more exclusive first- and third- party titles than Xbox. (PX7053 (Ryan Dep.
Tr.) at 169:24–170:2; Dkt. No. 283, 6/23/23 Tr. (Spencer) at 362:17–23.) Sony also enjoys “an
enormous competitive advantage” because it can draw on the intellectual property of “Sony
Music, Sony TV, and Sony’s film library” for its game development. (Dkt. No. 285, 6/28/23 Tr.
(Kotick) at 723:13-16.) The number of exclusive games available on PlayStation dwarfs the
number available on Xbox, with eight exclusive games on PlayStation for every one on Xbox.
(RX2098-001 (“Overall, for every 1 exclusive Microsoft game, PlayStation has 8 of them.”); see
Dkt. No. 284, 6/27/23 Tr. (Bailey) at 684:3–25; RX5055 at 018–019, Exs. 11A, 11B; Dkt. No. 285,
6/28/23 Tr. (Nadella) at 849:1–8 (“The dominant player [i.e., Sony] there has defined market
competition using exclusives and so that’s the world we live in.”).)
Sony has often paid third-party studios to “skip” Xbox—either entirely or to delay a title’s
release on Xbox. (Dkt. No. 283, 6/23/23 Tr. (Spencer) at 313:4–8.) For example, on June 22,
2023, while this trial was happening, Square Enix released Final Fantasy XVI, the latest release in
the iconic Final Fantasy franchise, exclusive to PlayStation 5. Previous versions of Final Fantasy
shipped on Xbox, but the reason Final Fantasy XVI is a PlayStation exclusive is because Sony
“pa[id] to exclude Xbox.” (Id. at 312:20–313:8, 441:18–443:1.) ZeniMax, too, was paid by Sony not to ship Deathloop or Ghostwire for Xbox, and one of the reasons Microsoft bought ZeniMax
was concern Sony would also arrange for Starfield to go exclusive and skip Xbox. (Id. at 314:16–
24.)

The cat is out the bag. We always knew she would rule in favour of Microsoft.

What a bitch. USA s among the most corrupt countries on planet.

So sony s guilty cause they produce god, tlou......
8 to 1. I d love to see the list of those exclusives.

Stil riding on that rumor from shill Khan about Starfield.

 

[kuzon]

after all of this is over, I bet abk games will release on Nintendo consoles regardless of contracts as they are not direct competition whereas Sony is.

Even though Microsoft said this was about Google and Amazon

 

[Cool hand luke]

after all of this is over, I bet abk games will release on Nintendo consoles regardless of contracts as they are not direct competition whereas Sony is.

Even though Microsoft said this was about Google and Amazon

Look at who MS' cloud contracts are targeted at: bring your own game providers - you buy it on an MS platform or MS takes a cut and then you spend money letting people stream a game they already have through an inferior distribution method that runs on Azure while not making a dime off microtransactions because the contract forbids it. These aren't competitors. Where are Google's and Amazon's contracts?

MS acting like the jinx looking to kill everyone and then confessing to it in emails.

 

[AshHunter216]

This reads like a terrible opinion. No thought put into it whatsoever, and just parroted Microsoft.

The wildest thing is how MS have gaslight everyone into thinking that 3rd party timed exclusives is some unique practice to Sony that only they employ. The judge even fell for the 8 to 1 figure even though the majority of that is Japanese devs that don't see an Xbox version as worth it.

It's like people want to punish Playstation and by extension those of us who game on it for being a more popular platform.

 

[Acquiescence]

Sarah Cardell of the CMA addressing accusations that her team has caved in to pressure from Microsoft. Skip ahead to 7:30.

 

[FatKaz]

Sarah Cardell of the CMA addressing accusations that her team has caved in to pressure from Microsoft. Skip ahead to 7:30.

Crooks the lot of them, most people who watch this will have no idea how they bent over for microsoft during the CAT hearing on monday. This is all a public facade, they've obviously made up their minds.

Lock her up with corley and vesteger.

 

[FatKaz]

Also conveniently timed pro consumer news(RE: supermarket pricing) from the CMA.

 

[On Demand]

Sarah Cardell of the CMA addressing accusations that her team has caved in to pressure from Microsoft. Skip ahead to 7:30.

This doesn’t make any sense. She says the deal is still blocked. Then why in the court hearing was the CMA saying they want to move forward and cancel the appeal? They were trying so bad to get appeal cancelled and the deal passed. Bumbling themselves all over the place.

 

[FatKaz]

This doesn’t make any sense. She says the deal is still blocked. Then why in the court hearing was the CMA saying they want to move forward and cancel the appeal? They were trying so bad to get appeal cancelled and the deal passed. Bumbling themselves all over the place.

Because she is giving very surface level answers, technically right now it is blocked, but that ignores all the shit they said they are trying to do during the CAT hearing. If the reporter actually started digging deeper her bullshit would be exposed.

 

[Jim Ryan]

 

[Gediminas]

SoloKingRobert is mad.


Judge Corley apparently said so:

As a game publisher, Sony’s PlayStation Studios, is responsible for blockbuster hits like
God of War, The Last of Us, and Spider-Man, the vast majority of which can be played only on
PlayStation. (See PX7053 (Ryan Dep. Tr. Vol. I) at 20:16–20:23; RX5055 at 015–016.) And as a
purchaser of third-party games,
(PX7054 (Ryan Dep. Tr. Vol. II) at 107:10–18.; Dkt. No. 283,
6/23/23 Tr. (Spencer) at 357:12–16.)
Sony views exclusive content as crucial to PlayStation’s continued success and to
“differentiate [their] platform.” (PX7053 (Ryan Dep. Tr. Vol. I) at 212:19–23; RX0079.) As a
result, Sony offers far more exclusive first- and third- party titles than Xbox. (PX7053 (Ryan Dep.
Tr.) at 169:24–170:2; Dkt. No. 283, 6/23/23 Tr. (Spencer) at 362:17–23.) Sony also enjoys “an
enormous competitive advantage” because it can draw on the intellectual property of “Sony
Music, Sony TV, and Sony’s film library” for its game development. (Dkt. No. 285, 6/28/23 Tr.
(Kotick) at 723:13-16.) The number of exclusive games available on PlayStation dwarfs the
number available on Xbox, with eight exclusive games on PlayStation for every one on Xbox.
(RX2098-001 (“Overall, for every 1 exclusive Microsoft game, PlayStation has 8 of them.”); see
Dkt. No. 284, 6/27/23 Tr. (Bailey) at 684:3–25; RX5055 at 018–019, Exs. 11A, 11B; Dkt. No. 285,
6/28/23 Tr. (Nadella) at 849:1–8 (“The dominant player [i.e., Sony] there has defined market
competition using exclusives and so that’s the world we live in.”).)
Sony has often paid third-party studios to “skip” Xbox—either entirely or to delay a title’s
release on Xbox. (Dkt. No. 283, 6/23/23 Tr. (Spencer) at 313:4–8.) For example, on June 22,
2023, while this trial was happening, Square Enix released Final Fantasy XVI, the latest release in
the iconic Final Fantasy franchise, exclusive to PlayStation 5. Previous versions of Final Fantasy
shipped on Xbox, but the reason Final Fantasy XVI is a PlayStation exclusive is because Sony
“pa[id] to exclude Xbox.” (Id. at 312:20–313:8, 441:18–443:1.) ZeniMax, too, was paid by Sony not to ship Deathloop or Ghostwire for Xbox, and one of the reasons Microsoft bought ZeniMax
was concern Sony would also arrange for Starfield to go exclusive and skip Xbox. (Id. at 314:16–
24.)

The cat is out the bag. We always knew she would rule in favour of Microsoft.

Sound like any other xbot clown. FUD and propaganda even parrotted by judge, like WTF?

 

[Eternal_Wings]

@off-topic
Wouldn’t Sony sue them if they would try to exactly copy their technology?
I don’t think this rightful.