Why? Microsoft is a trillion dollar company. If they want to compete, they can afford to.
Why not? It's a video game not a critical resource
Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard
11–20 of 590 posts
Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard
#12Why? Microsoft is a trillion dollar company. If they want to compete, they can afford to.
Approval isn't based on whether or not they can afford to compete without the acquisition, it's based on whether or not the acquisition will meaningfully reduce competition.
How could the acquisition of one solvent company by another in the same field not reduce competition? The UK seems to have gotten some token divestiture out of this in the name of not reducing competition too much in a particular area, but merging of competitors by its very nature reduces competition.
Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard
#13Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard
#14Why? Microsoft is a trillion dollar company. If they want to compete, they can afford to.
Capitalism leads to monopolies. They are competing. They have deeper pockets than Sony or Nintendo. Now they own CoD, WoW, and Candy Crush.
Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
The deal was accepted by every country but UK. Now the climb down.
I have to confess I'm not really up to speed on the situation but, from the article... > However, last month the watchdog said a revised deal that included selling cloud gaming rights outside Europe to Activision Blizzard’s French rival Ubisoft had addressed its concerns, indicating the tie-up would be approved. Was this as a result of CMA's pressure, or would it have happened anyway? (If it wouldn't have happened an…
Yes, it was concession caused by CMA's stance.
Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Approval isn't based on whether or not they can afford to compete without the acquisition, it's based on whether or not the acquisition will meaningfully reduce competition.
How could the acquisition of one solvent company by another in the same field not reduce competition? The UK seems to have gotten some token divestiture out of this in the name of not reducing competition too much in a particular area, but merging of competitors by its very nature reduces competition.
If there are 100 roughly comparable companies, a merger happens, and 99 remain, the competition decreased, but the landscape is still competitive.
If there are 3 roughly comparable companies that control 90% of the market, the competition is already low; if two of them merged, very little competition would remain. A duopoly is not as bad as a monopoly, but is still pretty far from an "efficient market".
Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
How could the acquisition of one solvent company by another in the same field not reduce competition? The UK seems to have gotten some token divestiture out of this in the name of not reducing competition too much in a particular area, but merging of competitors by its very nature reduces competition.
If there are 100 roughly comparable companies, a merger happens, and 99 remain, the competition decreased, but the landscape is still competitive. If there are 3 roughly comparable companies that control 90% of the market, the competition is already low; if two of them merged, very little competition would remain. A duopoly is not as bad as a monopoly, but is still pretty far from an "efficient market".
>If there are 100 roughly comparable companies, a merger happens, and 99 remain, the competition decreased, but the landscape is still competitive.
But still less competitive than it was. So why allow a company like Microsoft to make the field less competitive when it could afford to compete instead of buying its competitors? I think a company even half as large or profitable as Microsoft should have to present a pretty damn compelling case before being allowed to make any acquisition at all let alone that of one of their competitors.
Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard
#18Microsoft under Satya has really stepped up. Gaming is now larger than TV and Movies in terms of revenue. I know their cloud rollout didn't work as anticipated, but if they get this acquisition right they will have a money printer for the next decade.
Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Approval isn't based on whether or not they can afford to compete without the acquisition, it's based on whether or not the acquisition will meaningfully reduce competition.
Each competition authority has their own criteria. But in this case, it will meaningfully reduce competition. For some reason UK's CMA only considered cloud gaming, which is a weird fixation. Maybe because it's an emerging market? If all Activison Blizzard games become Xbox exclusive will reduce competition and screw consumers, yet that was dropped as a concern for who knows what reason.
Likely because they thought it was the one they were most likely to be able to win; these are usually pretty narrowly focused.
Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard
#20It's strange to see some gamers praise this acquisition as if it will have any positive effect on some of the games they enjoy. In no world will Microsoft decreasing the competition going to be a good thing for consumers.