•

FTC: Xbox-exclusive Starfield is “powerful evidence” against Activision deal

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/06/ftc-xbox-exclusive-starfield-is-powerful-evidence-against-activision-deal/

"Microsoft's actions following... acquisition of ZeniMax speak louder than... words."

The Federal Trade Commission's request for an injunction stopping that acquisition heads toward opening arguments this week, the federal regulator cites one piece of what it calls "powerful evidence" that it can't trust Microsoft's assurances. In short, as the FTC puts it, "Microsoft's actions following its 2021 acquisition of ZeniMax speak louder than Defendants' words."

35 comments

thoro

•

I'm very happy that these agencies are blocking this acquisition. I had no faith they would.

There's nothing good about the fourth largest video game publisher (third for first parties) acquiring the sixth largest (third for third parties). We need more variety, not more consolidation.

coderade

•

I had zero hope this would get blocked. Still not totally sure but the FTC is definitely putting up a solid fight. I’d prefer the consoles be fighting to prove they are the better hardware and software experience, not that they can buy the most studios

NuPNuA

•

I'm not American so not following it that closely, by everythin I've seen online in the last few days have indicated that the FTC are faltering and showing a massive lack of knowledge about the gaming industry at present.

coderade

•

I feel like most regulatory bodies in the US have a massive lack of knowledge of modern industry practices. Or are willing complicit in the anti-consumer practices

Jinxyface

•

It pains me to see so many people praise the acquisition ofr Microsoft to become "competitive" again.

Bro Microsoft is a trillion+ dollar company. They can spend their own fucking money making studios. If they can't, that's their problem. Letting them swallow up long time multi platform studios just to make their long running multi platform games Xbox exclusive is not the answer to that problem.

dan_the_accountant

•

Interesting. I'm against large companies buying up all these developers, but it seems strange that this is where they're trying to draw the line.

silent_clash

•

I don't understand how anybody could see this market consolidation as a positive! Yes, in the short term ABK games will be added to Game Pass, but once Game Pass is the only "game" in town, the price gouging monopolistic behavior will follow.

thoro

•

And worse is that the industry could react with further consolidation if this went through.

After Microsoft bought Bethesda, Sony reacted by buying a series of studios for itself. Yeah those studios had a historically close relationship with Sony already (besides Bungie, the most recent), but now they're officially tied together.

I'm not sure if Sony has the FU Microsoft money to buy another top ten publisher, but imagine if they could and bought out Ubisoft/EA/Square Enix and now those games would never come on Xbox again?

It's already hard enough for gamers to play anything/everything due to exclusivity and needing to buy multiple systems. If I didn't have a PC, I would be extremely annoyed at being unable to play Starfield when I played Oblivion, Fallout 3, New Vegas, Skyrim, etc on PlayStation.

comic_zalgo_sans

•

Permanently Deleted

Katana314

•

Maybe it’s just me - I see enough game studios being formed week by week, not even just making crummy pixel games, that I can never picture any publisher being “the only game in town” in any remotely significant way.

silent_clash

•

Just look at what Spotify has done to the music industry. There was a massive contraction in the music buying market and music streaming services now are fully dominant. And Spotify + Apple have used their oligopoly status to fuck over artists and even record labels, forcing them to accept a fraction of a penny per stream.

It's not a one to one comparison, but I could see subscription-based game licensing crowding out buy to own games eventually if Microsoft keeps consolidating the market as it has been. And then, once consumers are used to never paying for games individually, Microsoft, Amazon, Sony, etc will be able to dictate whatever terms they want to game developers.

UrbenLegend

•

Yeah, exclusives have been a part of the console business model since their inception, so it is odd that they're just starting to look into this business practice now. Still, exclusives do need to die, so better late than never, I say.

conciselyverbose

•

The difference is buying a massive multi platform developer and taking their future production away from the other platform.

Microsoft not publishing Gears of War or Sony not publishing Uncharted on the other platform are adding choice, because those games would have probably never existed without their investment. Microsoft buying Bethesda is taking choice away, because Bethesda was already a big publisher already making games and already had the processes for multiple platforms. They're not suddenly doing the hyper optimization Sony gets out of their funded platform exclusive developers, either. They're using the engine they already had that's already designed to support a bunch of platforms and just not supporting one for the sole purpose of that platform not having it.

NuPNuA

•

Bear in mind that Bethesda/Zenimax weren't in the best shape when MS brought them. They were increasingly focussing on GASS and love service titles after a string of critically loved but low selling titles like Prey. They were taking bags for Sony for times exclusivity on every title and were in talks to do so with Starfield too. We've just seen Bethesda be allowed a whole extra year on SF to polish under MS, where as if they were still independent we may have got a multi format but it would have been rushed out buggy and unfinished by Zenimax last year.

NuPNuA

•

Exclusives are what built the console model we have today though. Nintendo with their still loved franchises like Mario, Metroid, Zelda, etc all began as exclusives to drive NES sales. Sega, Sony, Atari, etc, they've all had exclusives. People only seem to have taken an issue with it in the last decade or so.

xradeon

•

I don't think it's necessarily that they're drawing some kind of line on exclusives now. The issue is that Microsoft has pinky promised that if they buy Activision, that CoD at least (most likely other games as well) will NOT be Xbox exclusives. So that's why Microsoft's purchase of ZeniMax and then releasing a Xbox exclusive out of the deal shows that Microsoft's pinky promise for Activision might not be as good as it seems.

Honestly, I hope the deal gets blocked. I am a slight Microsoft fan boy (and I really loved all of the ree'ing from PlayStation fan boys when it was first announced), but I really hate all of this buying and consolidation of companies, it really needs to stop. Let companies compete with each other.

UrbenLegend

•

So that’s why Microsoft’s purchase of ZeniMax and then releasing a Xbox exclusive out of the deal

Did they ever promise that ZeniMax games would not be exclusive? If so, then yeah, that's pretty shitty.

but I really hate all of this buying and consolidation of companies, it really needs to stop.

Hear, hear!

Kettellkorn

•

I’m pretty sure they were super vague and shady with the language they were using when talking about that.

gamingdexter

•

As a mainly Xbox gamer, that sucks, but understandable. Microsoft has tons of money and Xbox has bought up several studios and let them do small or not great games. I think the ZeniMax buyout sucks for PlayStation owners, but here I am waiting on playing FF and other games (which some eventually came out years later). If it's 3rd party, I don't think they (PS/Xbox) should be able to hold a game for longer than a year. StarField is an Xbox and PC release, that is the difference for me. If PS games released along side PC releases, I'd me more inclined to say it's fine. We'll see how it goes, I'm hoping that StarField will be great and M$ will notice and start investing more money and time into exclusives. Time will tell

iamlyth

•

All this really does is seem to encourage the way Sony does business which is to just buy exclusivity agreements with third party studios. Both methods (buying established studios outright and buying exclusivity agreements) seem highly anticompetitive and bad for gamers overall.

NuPNuA

•

If this deal does end up getting blocked, I can see MS taking their bag and money hatting any third party game that isn't locked down yet as a timed or permanent exclusive. If it's fine for Sony to do things that way, why not MS?

thoro

•

Or they could nurture growing studios and develop new IP under their own management?

NuPNuA

•

So could Sony, instead of locking down stuff like Final Fantasy. They had plenty of developers in Japan to work on a JRPG, but they downsized those studios to focus on their big AAA western Devs.

thoro

•

This is about Microsoft's options to build a better quality library, not a defense of Sony's timed exclusivity practices (practices which Xbox also used when on top during the 360 era).

Still, Sony did nurture the studios they acquired and developed quality titles through those studios that pushed them ahead and gave them the reputation of having a "prestige" library. Even recently, Returnal is an example of such nurturing.

Nothing prevented Microsoft from competing except their own poor management decisions to milk franchises dry from the 360 era without adequate quality controls and a general incompetence at developing a comparably prestigious library since that generation.

Microsoft being blocked from throwing their much larger bags of money at acquiring one of the biggest publishers in the industry does not mean their only option is to do timed exclusivity deals.

ram

•

If we actually want to solve that problem though, the solution isn't to just stop the purchase and call it a day. And I doubt the FTC is going to lobby legislators to actually do their jobs.

iamlyth

•

Right. For the FTC to properly do their job here they need to take into account how the industry is using contracts to circumvent anti-trust.

stephfinitely

•

This argument could be made for any console exclusive. I'm not saying I support the acquisition.