331–340 of 490 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about it? Will the FTC rule that SqEnix titles must be released on Xbox?
A more accurate comparison would be to force Sony to release their exclusive titles on Xbox. Sony does not own Square-Enix.
How much do ports normally cost? How many units would they need to move to hit even?
Let's all agree that judge need to be investigated. I am NOT surprise if there is some kind of conclict of interest not disclose by the judge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How does this make anyone feel any better? What happens after 10 years? What happens in less than 10 years if they don't abide by it? Does Activision get split back out? I doubt it. We're long past the point where you can just set rules/laws and companies will abide by it. We need to be at the point where we also list the punishment ahead of time.
Depends how good Sony's lawyers are. Theoretically the courts could offer an injunction preventing sale of the CoD until it is also available on whatever equivalent Playstation type system there is.
Would they just build a COD that is dependent on specific MS tech so they cannot release it on competing systems? Why not try and rebrand Call of Duty so that it isn't in violation? Just call it 'Duty'. It starts to get very grey very quickly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about it? Will the FTC rule that SqEnix titles must be released on Xbox?
A more accurate comparison would be to force Sony to release their exclusive titles on Xbox. Sony does not own Square-Enix.
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?
Microsoft employee here, opinions my own. I work in gaming at Microsoft and I really enjoy it. I think Microsoft gives us a ton of space to explore and make our own impact and I am a huge fan* of Phil Spencer. > Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision has been described as the largest in tech history. It deserves scrutiny. That scrutiny has paid off: Microsoft has committed in writing, in public, and in court to keep C…
Why would you be a huge fan of the man who’s single handedly responsible for sinking the Xbox IP ship to the point of having to monopolize the industry to right the ship? I’m surprised people didn’t wake up with the One era lies he kept pushing, and given HNs general distaste for “marketer talk”, how can one be a fan of a dude that every time he opens his mouth, it’s marketing talk (when it’s not a lie). This dude wo…
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…
If MS doesn't care about winning the console wars why don't they just stop making Xboxes entirely? Microsoft's subscription push can't work without winning the console wars since Sony isn't about to let them put GamePass on PS since that kills Sony's revenue model. (That would itself be a very interesting antitrust case.) So they still want to win the console wars, they just want to monetize that victory differently.…
The real issue is Sony has many exclusives which gives Microsoft a better case (despite the judge saying it's NOT about Sony). It certainly harms consumers, so I don't see how the court still approved this especially with the judge's comment against the comparison to Sony. Almost all mergers of this size harm consumers, the fact that it's allowed by default is the crucial issue. If the FTC still had a spine they woul…
I disagree with the opinion that it harms consumers. The economist has an article it recently published that argues that this deal actually helps consumers by speeding up the transition to "streaming" games and cloud gaming as an option. I tend to agree. Just because one large company is buying another large company doesn't mean the deal should be blocked.
We've already seen how this plays out with the proliferation of SAAS and the move to subscription models that leave consumers with nothing if the company goes bust or they stop paying.
Companies that grow beyond a certain size are harmful to the economy. The harm to consumers isn't always direct or obvious but it reduces choice and creates a situation where the company wields outsized power over consumers and the state.
I mostly like Microsoft but they should be a much smaller and more focused company.