Open link in next tab
FTC loses again, Microsoft is now clear to close the Activision-Xbox deal in the US
https://www.windowscentral.com/gaming/xbox/ftc-appeal-of-microsofts-activision-blizzard-deal-for-xbox-denied-by-court
Full steam ahead.
https://www.windowscentral.com/gaming/xbox/ftc-appeal-of-microsofts-activision-blizzard-deal-for-xbox-denied-by-court
Full steam ahead.
Just curious, could you list tangile points which would lead to a loss for consumers?
The only thing I can think of is MSFT becoming evil and making everything shit and super expensive, in which case talent would leave to create new studios and customers would move to competitors where they would get a better deal. This is possible because in this industry any game can become a top seller (Vampire Survivors, Stardew Valley, BattleBit for e.g.) and there are competitors like Tencent, Sony, Nintendo, Rockstar, all succeeding without ABK games.
Here are some of the pros I can think of:
Getting access to ABK games under a subscription services gives cheaper access to games as long as the subscription fee is less than $70/quarter, assuming avg gamer buys CoD every year to play for 3 months. And when it becomes more expensive than that, avg gamer would simply buy the games like they currently do.
CoD on GeForce now for next 10 years makes cloud gaming more lucrative, and competitive given how poor xCloud is compared to GeForce Now.
Having CoD on Sony platforms for at least next 10 years leaves enough time for Sony to invest in first party shooters, something they had ignored for so long.
Xbox getting content and quality parity for CoD acts as a equilizer for all gamers, something which Sony was blocking so far with exclusivity contracts.
Microsoft getting some leverage over monopoly of App Store and Play Store to push for lower commisions or alternate stores on respective mobile OSes makes it better for all mobile devs by bringing competition.
AB games coming to steam also sounds like something PC gamers would like.
Microsoft potentially clearing the toxic culture at ABK and allowing unionisation only makes it a much safer and equal working place. It may not lead to high quality best seller games, but I guess ABK can benefit from lack of toxicity at cost of lack of profits.
Update: those who are downvoting, please do share your thoughts. I'm happy to learn more and update my perspective on this.
MSFT becoming evil
You are nearly 40 years late.
As someone who's been a Blizzard customer for 30 years roughly. Selling to Activision was a bad move from a customer perspective. Selling all that to Microsoft is utter bobbins. I 100% think Microsoft games division is currently less horrible than Bobby Kotik. It's a real; real low bar. But I know for a fact that as a customer I'd be much more satisfied if Blizzard was independent again and able to develop at their own pace and schedule. And not that of some distant detached greedy CEO focused on quarterly profits, and what they can cancel in the short term to boost them.
Also I have this controversial statement. There should be no locked down consoles or console exclusives for the last 20 years or so. They've all been one of 3 more or less common PC microarchitectures. Intel, PPC, and ARM. Hell before that they were largely Z80 or 6502 based. Those at least ran bare metal with fairly specialized configurations and timings. All the modern stuff largely runs on otherwise largely common commodity hardware with well-known APIs and back ends. Just artificially locked down.
We're not talking about the sale that started Blizzard into this mess though.
There's also a fair few consoles that have come out over the years and are not locked down. Steam Machines are a perfect example - and no one remembers them because they were too expensive. Why were they too expensive? Because they weren't being financed by exclusive products that drove people to the platform to cycle sales.
Even Steam basically made its inroads via exclusivity. When Half-Life 2 came out, it felt like a terrible forced piece of software that Valve was pushing. It's never been technical capability or CPU architecture that encouraged exclusivity - hell, half of Microsoft's good exclusives are made in Unity or Unreal, and some of them ended up getting easy Switch ports.
Actually, everyone is in love with steam machines currently. It took Valve a bit to find the right form factor and application. But they did get there. Have you heard of the steam deck? There have been other hand held PC systems before. But Valve released the definitive gaming one. And the software is there for other hardware manufacturers to use if they like.
And you're having some heavy misremembering of history there. Halflife 2 had Physical releases outside steam. The only console it was never on was Nintendo's. Having releases for PS2/3, OG Xbox and 360. As well as physical releases for Windows and Mac. Correct me if I'm wrong but steam has only ever been avalible for Windows Mac and Linux. So no, Valve didn't play exclusivity games.
If I were forced under duress to pick a gaming corporation as being the good one. Good and corporation are two words that generally don't go together. But Valve would be one of the closest. A generally flat socialist like company heirarchy. Largely platform agnostic. And has done more than any other company to reduce lockin. Their contributions to Wine and Proton are pivotal.
Actually, everyone is in love with steam machines currently.
Who? Are you talking about the steam deck? That thing won't even sell 10% of the amount of consoles that the last placed xbox sells this generation. It probably won't even sell half as many consoles as the xbox will sell in its worst year.
People don't care about steam machines, they just like steam the digital distribution game platform.
It's not automatically a bad thing either.
Consumers win here in many ways. Why is "consolidation" in this specific case a bad thing?
It’s not automatically a bad thing either.
In the long run it is always a bad thing.
Consumers win here in many ways. Why is “consolidation” in this specific case a bad thing?
Because Microsoft now controls even more of the gaming landscape. For instance, who is going to enter the console space when all of the games needed are either locked to Sony or locked to Microsoft? When Google briefly tried to launch Stadia they could at least get big third party games on there, even if they couldn't get Microsoft / Sony games, that's out the window after MS / Sony's buying spree.
Who has tried to enter the console gaming space in the last 20 years as it is? Microsoft are the last one to try lol.
When Google briefly tried to launch Stadia they could at least get big third party games on there
They didn't though, even when Microsoft didn't own Activision.
If a new console competitor entered the market you can bet your arse that microsoft would want minecraft and COD on it, for example, because more players = more money. Why do you think Microsoft have been agreeing to put COD on everything under the sun, and are still releasing minecraft games on other consoles?
You also act like there are a limited number of IPs to go around. There aren't, you can make as many IPs as you want.
Who has tried to enter the console gaming space in the last 20 years as it is?
Google, OnLive, Gaikai, Apple
And yeah, part of my point is that the e,using hegemony prevents people from trying, making it more entrenched will only make things worse.
If a new console competitor entered the market you can bet your arse that microsoft would want minecraft and COD on it, for example, because more players = more money.
Then why is Starfield exclusive? Why are there still a plethora of console exclusive games?
Why do you think Microsoft have been agreeing to put COD on everything under the sun, and are still releasing minecraft games on other consoles?
Because owning AB and using the rest of their exclusives is more valuable than just cod and signing a lot of loud deals about cod might get regulators off their back.
You also act like there are a limited number of IPs to go around. There aren't, you can make as many IPs as you want.
No, I'm just accurately assessing that there are a very finite number of game studios making games at the scale of AB.
Google, OnLive, Gaikai, Apple
None of whom actually made games, just let you stream other companies games. Microsoft will absolutely let others stream their games if they wanted to.
Then why is Starfield exclusive? Why are there still a plethora of console exclusive games?
Starfield isn't a cashcow that makes more and more money the more people that play it like GaaS games like COD are.
No, I’m just accurately assessing that there are a very finite number of game studios making games at the scale of AB.
Activision Blizzard realistically only make 3 games these days - COD, Diablo, Overwatch.
I disagree.
Would you prefer the direction Activision-Blizzard is going in, by profiting off of users in predatory practices within their games like now?
Man, so much doom talk with you guys. What is the better alternative? Remain the status-quo? Because in doing so, that is a worse condition for consumers in comparison. And fuck that word too, CONSOOMER, because it's a dirty word that blankets all of society to be like cattle with wallets. That's what we're all are now? Where's the dignity?
Genuinely asking, do you think the "profiting off of users in predatory practices" that ABK does now will change unde Microsoft? I'm conflicted on the acquisition but I would be highly surprised if that is something Microsoft changes.
Personally, yeah, I would like the status quo to remain because as shitty as ABK is, I can make the choice not to support their practices by not buying or playing their games. Yes, I realize that by being acquired by Microsoft doesn't somehow allow them to put a gun to my head to play their games but it does discourage competition now that they are under the same umbrella.
That's not the conversation you initially raised but sure we can talk about that too. What they did was despicable and yet kotick is still there, and I want him and the others responsible brought to justice. He stands to be paid out millions when the merger is completed and that is rewarding him rather than punishing. The pessimist in me says that he will find another company somewhere willing to hire him because look at the disgusting things he's gotten away with and subsequently rewarded for by being paid out. So yes I want them to be out of ABK but not with him getting another 0 in his bank account.
Bummer. This is terrible news for consumers and is really going to hurt competition. Microsoft has already shown that they're going as exclusive as possible with their recent acquisitions, so we can probably expect to never see any new Activision/Blizzard titles outside of Microsoft's ecosystem now, and that's a huge umbrella of content that the rest of players are going to miss out on.
Not necessarily.
The FTC did important work here even if it wasn't successful in the suit.
Microsoft got Zenimax and was then rather excessive in how they handled it, and that is a large part of what prompted this degree of pushback by regulatory bodies.
If Xbox wants to leave the door open for future acquisitions they are very much aware they need to tread carefully moving forward.
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the Zenimax titles end up as timed exclusives down the road rather than permanent exclusives as announced.
Similarly, Sony has set any of their own future acquisitions up for potential scrutiny if they continue down the path of total exclusively, and what's likely going to end up happening is each side plays their bargaining chips to end up with mutual releases after timed windows.
This is arguably better than Activision Blizzard ending up in the hands of Tencent and going even further in the direction of Diablo Immortal, and may even help curb future exclusivity across the industry.
(In general, first party studio ownership leads to better games and less microtransaction BS.)
Less exclusivity in the future may largely rest on the FTC and other regulatory bodies having aggressively pushed back on this here and now.
In trade regulation you don't need to necessarily win the fight to still have a net positive influence.
Microsoft got Zenimax and was then rather excessive in how they handled it, and that is a large part of what prompted this degree of pushback by regulatory bodies.
If Xbox wants to leave the door open for future acquisitions they are very much aware they need to tread carefully moving forward.
This reads like a rather optimistic take to me.
What Microsoft learned here is that they can buy a publisher (Bethesda), make that publisher's games exclusive, and still get the biggest gaming acquisition in history approved by regulators.
Microsoft will likely pause acquisitions for a bit, but everyone else that wants to get into/stay in gaming is going to look into them even more than before. I'd be surprised if Sony doesn't end up buying someone decently large (but not as large as Activision: Sony cannot afford anything like that). Everyone seems to think Sony would go for Square Enix but I think they would make a different choice.
Yes, Sony will very likely eye an acquisition (possibly even the one extensively rumoured over the years that isn't Square Enix), but that'd be to shore up their bargaining position over exclusivity.
The exclusivity fight, particularly if mutually assured destruction, isn't a winning bet long term.
There's an ebb and flow to this industry, and we've already seen under Jim Ryan the shift to PC ports after exclusivity windows.
Honestly, the biggest thing holding back Sony ports to Xbox is probably Microsoft's insistence on platform support for the Series S.
Not great to engineer streamlined system that you push to the max with first party titles to then instead get held back planning to support your competitor's worst product.
Honestly, the biggest thing holding back Sony ports to Xbox is probably Microsoft's insistence on platform support for the Series S.
I don’t agree with that assessment given Sony only published games on the Xbox One when forced to by the license holder. They also seem to do just fine porting their games to PC where there is a host of different hardware configurations. Go look at the minimum PC specs for Ratchet and Clank; that sure seems like it could run on a Series S to me.
Sony will very likely eye an acquisition (possibly even the one extensively rumoured over the years that isn’t Square Enix)
Sony won't be allowed to since they're the market leader by a long way.
Honestly, the biggest thing holding back Sony ports to Xbox is probably Microsoft’s insistence on platform support for the Series S.
No, it's that sony don't want to release their games on xbox. Don't be silly. Playstation basically is Sony these days. Everything else they own has either died or faded into irrelevance apart from cameras and tvs. Playstation is their biggest asset, and they would never consider releasing their games on their competitors consoles.
won't be allowed to since they're the market leader
That's not really how it works.
would never consider releasing their games on their competitor's consoles
Eh, we'll see.
Oh really?
So when I was subpoenaed as an expert witness for a FTC hearing where a market leader was acquiring a company in that space and I was being asked by the FTC regulator about the recent trends in the competitive landscape specifically around a large competitor who had recently gone into the same market but was still not the dominant player - and that acquisition went through, it means they messed up and should have asked Whirlybird for how it should have worked instead?
One of the interesting things about the Internet is that you don't always know who is on the other end of a comment.
Having been involved in the process before, having sat on an advisory group for one of the two console divisions we are discussing here, and having had both broader companies as clients, I can assure you that it's a bit more complicated than you seem to think.
As long as PS sells better than Xbox, they don't really need to acquire companies as it also makes economic sense for third party studios to simple agree on an exclusivity deal with the console leader.
We can already see how most multiplatform games actually perform better on PS5 despite Xbox Series X being a notch better. In fact, some games even lack features on Xbox (Callisto Protocol to date has shitty Ray Tracing on Xbox with poorer performance, Resident Evil 4 Remake having better controls on PS5 compared to Xbox) even without any deals that we know of, while games like Hogwarts Legacy have exclusive content just for PS5, and FF XVI outright being exclusive to PS5. Sony didn't have to acquire these devs to make that happen, the devs get to remain independent and sell their game exclusively on the largest current gen console.
And if and when Xbox sales actually start to match that of PS, they can still make PS+ a better service by having day one releases before going for acquisitions.
It doesn't feel like it, but with ABK, Microsoft finally has parity with Sony when it comes to number of IPs, with Sony still being the market leader with most reach and "true" exclusives that require you to buy the console.
Sony didn’t have to acquire these devs to make that happen, the devs get to remain independent and sell their game exclusively on the largest current gen console.
They didn't, they just use their market leader position to make it happen - which is what should actually be being stopped and investigated by the regulatory bodies.
Make no mistake - Sony won't be allowed to purchase a big publisher. They are the overwhelming market leader. Just because the last placed Microsoft were allowed to it doesn't mean the first placed Sony can, especially since everyone knows the very first thing sony would do is make every single game Playstation exclusive (and then probably raise the price of all games to USD$90 and raise the price of the console $100).
What Microsoft learned here is that they can buy a publisher (Bethesda), make that publisher’s games exclusive, and still get the biggest gaming acquisition in history approved by regulators.
Microsoft are in last place in the gaming industry, so why wouldn't (and shouldn't) they be able to buy a publisher? If they were the overwhelming market leader like Sony then there's not a chance in hell this would get approved..........but they're not. They're last.
It's absurd how everyone is now like "this opens the floodgates and means that everyone can buy everyone!". It means nothing of the sort. If sony were to try and buy EA or Take 2, as people are now suggesting, it would be blocked almost universally because they're the overwhelming market leader. The companies position in the industry matters. The point is to stop monopolies, and allowing the leader to get bigger goes against that. Allowing the last placed competitor to buy companies doesn't.
Microsoft, producer of 1 of 4 popular gaming devices, owner of the windows operating system, is in last place?
Yes, they are.
They're currently getting outsold over 2:1 by Playstation. They have tens of millions less service subscribers than Playstation has. They are being skipped by many big third party games. Owning windows doesn't get them any money from games sold on Steam/Epic/etc.
How are they not in last place in gaming? They're last in revenue. They're last in software sales. They're last in hardware sales. They're last in subscriber numbers. They're last in peripheral sales. They're last in.....you get the point.
Cool, why do you think that's relevant?
Who is the market leader in the video game industry?
Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the Zenimax titles end up as timed exclusives down the road rather than permanent exclusives as announced.
Yeah, I really hope this is how things play out with that acquisition. I'd really love to be able to play Elder Scrolls 6 (some day), but don't want to be forced into a separate ~$500 purchase in order to play it.
Similarly, Sony has set any of their own future acquisitions up for potential scrutiny if they continue down the path of total exclusively, and what’s likely going to end up happening is each side plays their bargaining chips to end up with mutual releases after timed windows.
Yeah, this is a concern I've had with Sony acquiring Bungie. Although, Bungie's new game, Marathon, is already slated to be cross platform, so the fact that they're not immediately going into exclusivity-mode is a good look, so far. Hopefully we see a similar pattern with their other new IP, Matter, whenever they share more about that.
If I was Sony I'd now immediately partner with Nvidia to offer their cloud gaming service on PS4 and PS5.
I know they are trying to roll their own but I think that's a mistake, and offering their users the ability to access Microsoft games on the equivalent of a 4080 for $19.99/mo for the duration of playing the one exclusive a year they'd actually care about would be the biggest F-U to Xbox.
Yes, in theory it could cannibalize software sales through channels they don't get a cut, but generally I'd prefer playing locally on a PS5 than dealing with compression artifacts on cloud offerings, even if the cloud offering is good enough to not buy a $500 separate box.
Why would Sony let Nvidia’s cloud service onto the PS storefront? If Sony wanted players to have access to an equivalent cloud model that Sony didn’t control, they’d just let Game Pass onto PlayStation.
let Game Pass onto PlayStation
Yeah, right.
Delivering a subpar workaround for your users is different from giving a subscription service that you don't get a cut of which is better than your current offerings.
Sony is exposed to far less risk to their revenue letting Nvidia in than Microsoft.
Nvidia would be max single digit cannibalized sales but would probably put a significant dent into the potential market of PS5 owners that might otherwise have bought Xbox hardware for exclusives.
Game Pass would likely be well into double digit cannibalized sales for both games and subscription services.
Yeah. When IBM started getting wary of antitrust in the 80s, that paved the way for Microsoft, and when Microsoft started getting wary of antitrust in the 90s, that paved the way for Google. The FTC may be toothless, but the more it sucks up a corporation's time and resources and just makes things difficult, the more it serves it's purpose regardless.
I don't know what to think about this acquisition. What I do know is that the FTC should pick their battles in a different way. There are at least a couple of other tech companies (Google, Amazon) that should be broken up because they're monopolies and I don't know why nobody at the FTC seems to be looking at them.
Big corporation gobbling up even more of the market is NEVER good for anyone but the corporation and it's shareholders.
Not for the consumers. Not for the gobbled. Just for the gobblee.
They have been picking their battles.
Breaking an existing company up into multiple smaller companies is an order of magnitude more difficult for a US regulator than stopping a company from buying another one. The FTC is running face first into a legal system that has methodically chipped away at anti trust law for generations. That's the obstacle here, not picking the wrong battles.
They have been picking their battles.
Poorly. Very poorly. Under Khan they've been an absolute shitshow of mismanagement.
What's Figma?
(Honestly I don't actually want to know what Figma is, I mostly just want to make someone giggle childishly)
It's used to design websites for the most part.
Like Photoshop but geared towards web pages.
The big thing was they did great co-authoring. Adobe tried and failed at it multiple times and started losing market share to Figma, so instead of competing they just bought it. Like they did with Macromedia.
The FTC is actually looking at Google
The Department of Justice (DOJ) also recently filed an anti-trust lawsuit against Google in particular.
The only people on the planet who give a shit about this within the provided context of gaming are Sony fanboys.
If people actually gave a shit about megacorporation problems and the FTC, they would be pissed the FTC took this bullshit case as an excuse to pretend to do things while Walmart and Amazon destroy every grocery chain and many other goods markets.
Within the context of gaming, Activision might be one of the 3 gaming companies worse than Microsoft. Microsoft owning them might actually improve their products and reduce their microtransactions.
I don't have a current PlayStation or Xbox. I give a shit about this. Because frankly you're just plain wrong. Two things can be wrong and deserve to be addressed. Just because people are upset about one doesn't mean they aren't upset about the other. The FTC should be tackling both. But they are purposefully hobbled by the opposition.
What unique features of Activision are you worried about Microsoft failing to maintain that feels like a valid part of the megacorporations are burning the world to death conversation?
I am interested in what you think Microsoft is going to do to Activision that will be so horrible.
There are no unique features of Activision. Microsoft will not fail to maintain any of them. And that is the problem.
Quite honestly fuck Activision. I don't give one flying fuck about Activision. Microsoft really can't do any worse than Activision. That's a problem is they can't really do much better either. And it overall reduces choice which is a bigger issue.
The fact that almost all publishing and IP are largely controlled by four or five major groups is bad for consumers, and consumer choice. Tencent, Embracer, Microsoft, and Sony aren't creative altruistic companies. Most if not all of them are realistically just parasites. Who are more of a burden to the studios under them than they are a help. Who through leveraging stolen money and IP or simple strong arm tactics have managed to acquire all this power and influence unduly. I'm especially looking at Microsoft here. Because let me be extra explicit here. Modern Activision is absolutely horrible. It wasn't always that way though. Their name actually used to be a bit of a draw as a publisher or developer. But as they grew unnaturally this way the things got worse as they do with any company that grows unnaturally that way. However, Microsoft was never better. This is who Microsoft was from day one. And you can always count on Microsoft to do the wrong thing in the end. So moving from activation to Microsoft will not ultimately be a good thing.
What choices were eliminated? Are you upset the rapist CEO isn't going to be providing enough avenues for other rapists to publish their games or so etching? Do you think a different set of the 20 billionaires who dictate all of this are now going to dictate it differently?
And again, video games is the market that concerns you for this topic? Again, not the fucking groceries or news media? Fuckimg video games?
This is exactly my point. It's all bad faith bullshit from Sony fanboys.
The stance will move again and again.
What choices are eliminated by one megacorp owning a different one?
How does this change the market for indie developers?
Oh yeah that's kind of the whole topic was the video game market etc. And the FTC Microsoft case. If you want to talk about the rape allegations and all that. Then you need to bring that up. Because that's a whole other can of worms. Where even now you're just creating straw man arguments.
And talk about bad faith bullshit. I'm not a Sony fanboy The last PlayStation I own was a PlayStation 2 and 2001. The last Nintendo I owned was a GameCube in 2003 the last Xbox I owned was never. You don't get much more bad faith than yourself.
And your last few questions are rhetorical, self answering if you will. If I don't want any business with Microsoft. Microsoft owning everyone makes it impossible for me to not do business with Microsoft. It is by definition a bad thing. Indie developers are fine. But again companies like Microsoft Sony etc put up a lot of barriers for many of them. So I have no love for Microsoft Sony etc again. Any more questions? Or at least genuine ones?
Actually, the topic was how fucking stupid the people are who pretend like the Microsoft Activision acquisition was on the radar of megacorporate monopoly problems.
I'll give you this much, that's desperately what you wish it was about. And you've tried very hard to make it about that. It must be frustrating to keep failing so hard though. But I think it's at least ironically funny a Microsoft fanboy like yourself is running around here acting all self-righteous calling everyone else fan boys. Clowns gotta clown I suppose. 🤡
Press a massive X to doubt on reduction of micro transactions. See halo infinite on that front.
The reason I personally don’t want this as someone who does not own a PlayStation or a Nintendo console and likely never will is this leads to a future where Microsoft builds up enough IP where suddenly everything is locked into Microsoft game pass and their own store and windows that anyone wanting to use a different platform may as well just fuck off.
It’s the first step on the road to anti consumer practices that Microsoft has historically always done.
The only people on the planet who give a shit about this within the provided context of gaming are Sony fanboys.
I've owned every Xbox since the OG Xbox and my first thought about the deal was "that shouldn't be allowed".
It is inexcusable to let a trillion dollar profitable corporation purchase any other profitable corporation. If activision sucks the government should do it's job and investigate them and break them up, not give Microsoft more economic power and less incentive to compete. Good luck getting AB games on whoever tries to launch the next console, if they even bother trying knowing the current hegemony of the gaming landscape.
Microsoft isn't some magic unicorn unqiuely capable of running Activision not like a shit bag and no company should be as big as they already are. It's a hamfisted solution at best to give them control of AB, and one that doesn't actually address or dicentivize future shitty corporate behaviour.
There's one family taking over all the auto dealers in my area.I just started working for them and now if I decide to leave, I feel that I'm screwed if I have to find a job elsewhere in my area and my choices will be low. Microsoft taking over everything is not just bad for consumers, but it's bad for people that work in those industry.
As someone that has somehow played a lot of FPS over the years and amazingly not spent a dime nor a single minute on Call of Duty games, I’m mostly bemused at this whole thing.
Exactly. The games are already microtransactioned and stuck in all different kinds of exclusive deals. These people are just upset it goes against them now.
Why do you have mixed feelings? Has massive industry consolidation ever benefitted the customers in the long run?
The US hasn't shown much interest in breaking up big companies in the past two decades. Once this is done, it practically can't be undone.
Microsoft is more powerful than most world governments. And it keeps expanding and growing.
Sony’s, not Microsoft’s, AAA dominance is bad for the video game industry. Video games are a somewhat unique medium in that smaller development houses can and do compete with the megacorps. I’d rather Sony have healthy direct competition over them eating up even more market share.
Competition between Sony and Microsoft with Nintendo also having their own parallel strategy is good and better than the alternative, imo.
Because Sony is so far ahead in the console battle that it’s important they have competition (Nintendo is not competition).
There’s a push and pull here in terms of exclusives being bad but also having Sony becoming a monopoly / having no completion would also be bad.
And Microsoft becoming a monopoly/ having no competition is good? How is anyone supposed to complete with a billion dollar company who can just out buy the competition?
I take it that if Sony responded with buying out 2K and making all those games exclusive you'd be fine with it because that's healthy competition for Microsoft?
Just waiting for Amazon to buy EA or Ubisoft and have them say its exclusice for Amazon Luna subscribers and gamers to go "wow, this is great I can finally play Assassins Creed on my phone and it increases competition!"
And Microsoft becoming a monopoly/ having no competition is good?
Microsoft aren't going to have a monopoly in video games at any time in the foreseeable future.
I very much agree competition is good but this should be brought about by Microsoft producing competitive games/services rather than purchasing more of the industry. For the record, I don't like the idea of Sony or another large corporation buying other studios or publishers either
Even Microsoft agrees they’d prefer to do it by producing competitive games, which isn’t in question here though. The dispute is whether this gives Microsoft an anti-competitive monopoly.
Even though mergers of this size aren’t good for gamers, it doesn’t even put Microsoft anywhere near equal footing with Sony, never mind giving Microsoft a monopoly.
but this should be brought about by Microsoft producing competitive games/services rather than purchasing more of the industry.
Why, because you say so?
You just seem like an Xbox fanboy upset at Sony's actions, trying to hurt them at the expense of the consumer. It seems immature.
I assure you that that’s not it. I’ve owned every company’s consoles over the years and want to see competition. Microsoft seems to be currently flailing and I think that that’s bad for the industry as a whole.
trying to hurt them at the expense of the consumer
Vastly more consumers benefit from this purchase than are hurt, so no, I don't think it's that. The only people it "hurts" are Sony fanboys.
Also nothing that person said indicates that they are "hurt" in any way. Maybe take a look in the mirror to see who is hurt by this deal.
Haven't bought a console outside of a Switch in 15 years. I fail to see how anyone can see the 22nd largest company in the world buying one of the largest games publishers in the world is not going to bring a benefit, and I don't think Microsoft needs to worry about expanding its cashflow.