Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 490 posts

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#81

Post by Retric »

pathartl wrote: post #31
Retric wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not about Sony, but customers that own a PS and not an XBox. Microsoft loves to buy studios and restrict access, just look a Halo it was introduced as a Mac game by the studio, Microsoft bought them specifically for XBox and fuck anyone that owned a Mac. 2 years after release they released a copy of the first game because all the work was done. Nothing from the rest of the series.

Please, Apple has been shooting themselves in the foot with gaming for decades. Halo: CE was also released for the Mac, so I'm not sure what the complaint is here.

What are you blaming Apple for Microsoft’s direct customer harm here?

A more than 2 year delay for the first game and never getting the rest of the series is a major downside for existing customers. That’s exactly the kind of monopolist behavior you are supposed to block mergers for. Waiting 2 years cost Microsoft a little revenue directly, but pushed XBox sales which was far more valuable.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#83

Post by robertlagrant »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #63
robertlagrant wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We're long past the point where you can just set rules/laws and companies will abide by it. We're not, but this is pretty nebulous stuff. The state blocking freely agreed transactions because it can foresee some damage is not exactly a clear cut good, other than for people who are reassured by the idea of the state as a benevolent, all-knowing mom and pop, and for the lawyers who get paid a fortune to debate past a…

Because if there is harm the companies pay so little it's just written off as cost of doing business. Yet the harms too often continue. Companies with more resources than small countries are often too big to regulate because they capture the regulators and/or the judiciary. Prevention is cheaper than treatment, especially when treatments have proven so ineffective.

> Companies with more resources than small countries are often too big to regulate because they capture the regulators and/or the judiciary.

Regulatory capture is entirely the fault of the regulator. They don't have to be captured. They choose to be. A government body, funded by taxes, that decides to be captured, is a complete disgrace. People work hard to pay taxes, and they shouldn't be spent on employing people who choose to align with those they should be regulating.

> Prevention is cheaper than treatment, especially when treatments have proven so ineffective.

The same state that has the power to prevent has the power to treat. It chooses not to. Switching approach won't help. Getting regulators to do their jobs will.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#84

Post by paulryanrogers »

robertlagrant wrote: post #83
paulryanrogers wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if there is harm the companies pay so little it's just written off as cost of doing business. Yet the harms too often continue. Companies with more resources than small countries are often too big to regulate because they capture the regulators and/or the judiciary. Prevention is cheaper than treatment, especially when treatments have proven so ineffective.

> Companies with more resources than small countries are often too big to regulate because they capture the regulators and/or the judiciary. Regulatory capture is entirely the fault of the regulator. They don't have to be captured. They choose to be. A government body, funded by taxes, that decides to be captured, is a complete disgrace. People work hard to pay taxes, and they shouldn't be spent on employing people w…

I wish it were that simple. Sadly a large portion of US voters seem to think a revolving door with "industry experts" (i.e. insiders) is desirable. And that courts should defer to business interests above all else.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#85

Post by dnissley »

Larrikin wrote: post #73
dnissley wrote: post #65

I find the whole thing to be a tempest in a teapot -- why is the FTC involved in this at all? For christ's sake it's a video game! If we were discussing access to some critical resource I would understand, but how is this not a criminal waste of our government's time and resources? It reminds me of the congressional baseball steroid hearings. Am I totally off base here? Can anyone explain to me why this case is so cr…

You're totally off base. Video games are not just kids stuff. The industry makes nearly three times more money than the film industry. This is exactly the kind of stakes that FTC should be getting involved in.

Both of these industries are entertainment though -- and to me at least it seems there's a pretty limited amount of consumer harm that could come from various IP exclusivity deals.

Again -- am I thinking about this wrong? What is the consumer harm that could result from the moving of IP from one company to another? A truly dedicated fan has to buy a different console to play their favorite game? Non-truly dedicated fans play one of the hundreds of other FPS games on the market that work with their console of choice?

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#86

Post by xxpor »

AlexandrB wrote: post #68
xxpor wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be incredibly stupid for MS to make CoD an xbox exclusive and completely misses the business case for buying Activision in the first place. Remember, MS is in business to make money , not to win the console wars. Buying the CoD (etc) IP at an inflated price and then immediately cutting off more than half of the revenue would be so mind-boggingly stupid, almost to the point of malpractice. This is why they re…

> It would be incredibly stupid for MS to make CoD an xbox exclusive and completely misses the business case for buying Activision in the first place. So why are Redfall and Starfield Xbox exclusives? Wouldn't they make more money by releasing them for Playstation too?

The economics are different: Redfall isn't a huge name, so it's more valuable for MS to get people into the game pass subscription than the comparatively piddly incremental one-time revenue they'd get from releasing it on PS5.

CoD on the other hand is already a huge name, that releases every year (i.e. recurring revenue, even if it's not a subscription per se), and MS is paying a huge premium for it. Forcing people over to game pass in that case isn't worth taking the hit to reliable revenue you're virtually already guaranteed to get from PS owners.

To be clear: I think it's less important to worry about this as less of a PC/Xbox exclusive than a Game Pass exclusive/available. I'd be willing to bet if Sony approached MS to bring Game Pass to PS, MS would be super willing to do it. Not that Sony would given their business model, but that's basically the point. It's not HW platform exclusivity, but store/subscription exclusivity.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#87

Post by mtsr »

_2z1p wrote: post #72
paulryanrogers wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe considers both direct harm to consumers and harm to competitors because without significant competition, the big players inevitably slide into exploiting customers and their vendors.

The current status quo is on a path to being harmful to both. I love Nintendo but they compete more with Apple and Google than they do with Sony and Microsoft. If Microsoft exits game consoles next generation Sony won’t have any real competition and that will be very bad for consumers. Microsoft needs their own heavy hitting exclusives and they need them sooner than they can home grow them. This acquisition is one of…

An anti-competitive Microsoft conglomerate to compete with PS# is hardly going to better for consumers than a Nintendo-Sony duopoly.

I’d rather we don’t allow bad M&As, even for good reasons.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#88

Post by specto »

darrenf wrote: post #21
specto wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was already approved there too now

When did that happen? On the dedicated CMA page[0] about the inquiry I see nothing since the draft final order[1] in May, which absolutely does not approve it. Quote: On 5 May 2023, the CMA made an Interim Order pursuant to section 81 of the Act preventing each of Microsoft and Activision and all members of their Groups of Interconnected Bodies Corporate from acquiring in the other any interest conferring control wit…

Ah apologies, I read the original news article incorrectly it seems.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#89

Post by AlexandrB »

xxpor wrote: post #86
AlexandrB wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would be incredibly stupid for MS to make CoD an xbox exclusive and completely misses the business case for buying Activision in the first place. So why are Redfall and Starfield Xbox exclusives? Wouldn't they make more money by releasing them for Playstation too?

The economics are different: Redfall isn't a huge name, so it's more valuable for MS to get people into the game pass subscription than the comparatively piddly incremental one-time revenue they'd get from releasing it on PS5. CoD on the other hand is already a huge name, that releases every year (i.e. recurring revenue, even if it's not a subscription per se), and MS is paying a huge premium for it. Forcing people o…

There's so much speculation about motives here. Neither you nor I have any idea what Microsoft's business strategy is. All I can judge them on is their actions. And their actions are buying up large publishers and making their most anticipated games exclusive to the Xbox. Sure Redfall was a somewhat minor release (and a mess), but what about Starfield? The game is hyped up to hell and now an Xbox exclusive as well.
Post reply on HN