231–240 of 490 posts
This is weird. The judge says that because there won’t be any anticompetitive effects in the next 10 years (because MS made a pinky promise), this merger is fine? What about after those 10 years? What about anything not Call of Duty?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 f…
Why does it matter that it's entertainment? If at some point consumers have to pay more than they would in a more competitive market, how is that not harm? If you believe that this is a move that will result in less consumer choice and more possibility for MS to extract more $$$$, then you don't like it.
No one HAS to pay for entertainment. It's a pure luxury. There's tons of things you can do with your free time besides playing video games (let alone brand-new AAA console titles): go outside, take a hike, play an instrument, take up a hobby, socialize, learn to cook, write your own software, I could go on and on. You can even do other forms of entertainment with your time: watch a movie or TV series, watch YouTube, watch a sports game, actually play in a sports game, play retro video games on archive.org or in an emulator, etc. All these things compete with (modern Activision) video games for time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would players be harmed by an IP changing hands and being made exclusive on a particular platform?
For one, lack of consumer choice. To play those games, I would need to buy an Xbox, whereas for the last 20 years, Call of Duty, etc. has been multiplatform.
Then play a different game.
How could closing the deal look like in practice while the UK is blocking it? Would that mean Microsoft can't sell Activision Blizzard games in the UK?
This is just from eyeballing the top results of some Google searching so may not be super accurate, but it looks like the console games market is around $34 billion a year in the US, $11 billion a year in the EU, and under $1 billion a year in the UK. The merger has been approved by EU and now US regulators. The UK market might be small enough compared to the US and the EU that Microsoft and Activision might find it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given how Microsoft has managed Bethesda (giving them a large amount of autonomy and shipping the doomed Redfall) it's way too optimistic to expect any positive changes for Activision/Blizzard customers. It wouldn't surprise me is Bobby kept running the whole thing, just under Microsoft's ownership. Meanwhile I do expect more Xbox exclusives - which will ultimately harm consumers.
Bobby Kotick is supposed to leave after the acquisition. https://www.gamesindustry.biz/kotick-expected-to-leave-activ...
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Minecraft proves the parent's point. Following your logic, Microsoft should've made Minecraft an exclusive. They didn't. In fact they're expanding the footprint, rolling it out to Chromebooks last month.
This is weird. The judge says that because there won’t be any anticompetitive effects in the next 10 years (because MS made a pinky promise), this merger is fine? What about after those 10 years? What about anything not Call of Duty?
Im hoping Microsoft will altruistically stop producing these addictive “games”. As a new console player, the differences between a game like Halo Infinite and Overwatch (FPS 4v4/5v5) are enough to put me from playing and in control to binging. Here’s a tangent: The most popular sports leagues in the world are mimicked by people all over the world who play casual and team sports. The game itself is not proprietary. Wh…
It takes thousands to produce the simplest video games.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well that’s the idea, isn’t it? If you’re not doing well in your business you aren’t being anti-competitive by trying to buy your way back into the game. Hence, the decision to allow it.
Isn’t that practically the definition of “anti consumer”behavior - A company division being bailed out by another because of its ineptness? It’s one thing for Microsoft to continue to pump money into Xbox (look at Amazon and Alexa). It’s another for them to simply purchase the competition.
If Microsoft is really subsidizing a failing business, they should be allowed to do so as long as they find it reasonable. I don't think Sony has the right to demand a favorable status-quo for their consoles if their competitors double down on software investments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well that’s the idea, isn’t it? If you’re not doing well in your business you aren’t being anti-competitive by trying to buy your way back into the game. Hence, the decision to allow it.
Isn’t that practically the definition of “anti consumer”behavior - A company division being bailed out by another because of its ineptness? It’s one thing for Microsoft to continue to pump money into Xbox (look at Amazon and Alexa). It’s another for them to simply purchase the competition.
Anti-consumer behavior is not "losing money". Instead, anti-consumer behavior would be if Microsoft shuts down competition in some way, such that they are the monopoly market leader, and consumers can't buy from else where.
This isn't anywhere close to being true, given that microsoft is not the monopoly market leader in the gaming space. That award goes to Sony.