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

61–70 of 490 posts

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#61

Post by AlexandrB »

zamalek wrote: post #14
MikusR wrote: post #8

A snippet from the case "FTC: We've heard about the harms to Sony... Judge: This is about the harms to the consumer not to Sony. Let's take a break until 4:05."

Qualitatively, there are also more harms to the consumer by leaving Actiblizz in the incompetent hands of the current leadership. I still wonder what all of this is worth given that the merger was blocked in the UK.

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.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#62

Post by MikusR »

ramesh31 wrote: post #27

This is a very good thing for gamers. It reminds me of the Sprint/T-mobile merger, which was a huge win for consumers, allowing T-mobile to actually put pressure on ATT and Verizon. Activision is a terrible company whose iron grip on their beloved IP (bought from Blizzard and Infinity Ward) has been absolutely stifling to the industry. They are almost singlehandedly responsible for everything that sucks about gaming…

Lootboxes and NFTs were by Valve

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#63

Post by paulryanrogers »

robertlagrant wrote: post #56
lesuorac wrote: post #4

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.

> 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.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#64

Post by AlexandrB »

re-thc wrote: post #12
lesuorac wrote: post #4

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.

> What happens in less than 10 years if they don't abide by it? Likely nothing. I don't understand why people believe in these things. > We're long past the point where you can just set rules/laws and companies will abide by it. What's the rule / law here anyhow? There are always workarounds, e.g. it says it will keep it in parity with xbox... well what if they called a new console something else?

> Likely nothing. I don't understand why people believe in these things.

No kidding. They could just introduce a new game franchise called "Duty of Call - Warfare That's Modern" and make that Xbox exclusive instead. Or any number of other workarounds and sneaky tactics.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#65

Post by dnissley »

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 critical?

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#66

Post by throwaway106382 »

16bitvoid wrote: post #35
throwaway106382 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in 10 years I fully expect Sony to have a competitive first party title exclusive to playstation, now that they actually have to give a damn. I love the killzone series but Guerilla seems to be doing fine with Horizon, hopefully a new IP

I wish they would bring SOCOM back.

that would be so awesome, Socom was my absolute favorite game on the PS2 and there hasn't really been anythign to capture that same magic since

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#67

Post by robertlagrant »

xxpor wrote: post #34
darknavi wrote: post #2

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…

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…

Non-"here's my theory as to why this would never happen" counterpoint: they bought Bethesda and made Starfield MS platforms-only.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#68

Post by AlexandrB »

xxpor wrote: post #34
darknavi wrote: post #2

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…

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?

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#69

Post by NoRelToEmber »

abduhl wrote: post #55
NoRelToEmber wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s already monopolized by Sony. You say that as if it means that this acquisition then isn't monopolization. The solution is to sanction Sony, not to make things even worse .

The evidence presented at trial showed that this vertical (not horizontal) acquisition would increase competition in the market. If antitrust laws were based on the conception of monopolization you seem to be suggesting then any acquisition or merger would be a monopolist’s act, and that’s ridiculous.

> vertical (not horizontal) acquisition [..] any acquisition or merger would be a monopolist’s act

Past a certain size, it absolutely is. E.g. a food producer will have a much harder time entering (or staying in) a vertically-integrated market (as an independent entity), where all the grocery chains privilege offerings by producers they own.

Using other near-monopolies as argument for why new ones should be allowed to form will lead to a very consolidated market, which is exactly what anti-trust is supposed to prevent.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#70

Post by addisonl »

chrisoverzero wrote: post #39
htrp wrote: post #29

>The court ruling even agrees with Microsoft in theory about the Nintendo Switch being part of the console market, but also accepts the FTC can reasonably claim it’s not. How is the Switch not a console?

It’s portable.

A portable console.
Post reply on HN