55

Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/11/23779039/microsoft-activision-blizzard-ftc-trial-win

From the article, quoting Judge Corley:

... the Court finds the FTC has not shown a likelihood it will prevail on its claim this particular vertical merger in this specific industry may substantially lessen competition. To the contrary, the record evidence points to more consumer access to Call of Duty and other Activision content. The motion for a preliminary injunction is therefore DENIED.

#gaming @gaming

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Hdcase@beehaw.org 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"Execs behind Starfield"

The same execs that bought the company already half way through development of Starfield, and rather than delivering anything new or of value, only wanted to make sure it was extinguished on other systems?

As for "execs behind Halo," the less said the better. I've never seen a series driven so hard into the ground.

[-] liminis@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago

It’s almost certainly a positive to see Bobby Kotick (boy do I struggle to maintain this site’s cardinal rule as far as he goes ) losing influence in the “AAA” games industry; but it’s not good to see MS buying every studio they can get hold of. Both these things can be true simultaneously.

My biggest concern with MS’s rampant acquisition spree is what happens when there’a an economic downturn (as already seems to be the near future); will those newly acquired studio be subject to the corporate euphemism that is ~dOWnSiZiNg~? How many working on moderately niche titles will be out of a job and their work indefinitely shelved?

[-] phillaholic@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

They will be anyway, Microsoft doesn’t know how to run studios. They have little to show for in the last 23 years.

[-] phillaholic@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago

Forza. That’s it. They weren’t behind Fable, they weren’t behind gears of war, they weren’t behind halo. Microsoft has nothing to show here. Every developer they’ve bought in the past has turned out nothing special afterward, just sequels of diminishing quality.

[-] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago

The same execs that bought the company already half way through development of Starfield, and rather than delivering anything new or of value, only wanted to make sure it was extinguished on other systems?

Sony were reportedly in talks to purchase full exclusivity of Starfield, so can't blame MS.

[-] phillaholic@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

They don’t get credit for it. It wouldn’t have been a Sony game either.

[-] lazynooblet@lazysoci.al 2 points 1 year ago

It's likely it would if been marketed as one, just like I'm sure it'll have Microsoft plastered all over it when the time comes.

The lesson here is all large corporations can't be trusted.

[-] Hdcase@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

I don't think that's true. Microsoft was afraid of this happening but there was zero evidence it was going to.

[-] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

It was one of the reasons why they bought zenimax, so there was clearly enough evidence for Microsoft to spend $8bil.

[-] CO_Chewie@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

Okay there... And before thay Sony was trying to lock Starfield away on their side so what's your point? The current market is driven by exclusives thanks very much to Sony and Nintendo.

[-] Hdcase@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago

I would argue there's a huge difference between, say, one year of timed exclusivity for one game, versus buying an entire publisher and making every single one of their future games exclusive.

[-] NightOwl@lemmy.one 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

On the flip side those who really dislike hardware locks requiring specific devices to run games would see a console only exclusive a bigger concern.

Since viewed from PCs it isn't just a Microsoft game, but one that can be played on Linux with Proton and possibly MacOS with their game porting toolkit with various different hardware configurations as opposed to a locked down proprietary one.

Once Sony shows a much bigger effort to embrace open hardware options as opposed to trying to funnel people to their proprietary one with unknown status of future ports I will be less wary of their attempts at acquisitions. And well Nintendo never will.

[-] NightOwl@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago

And Sony and Nintendo aggressively want to push towards proprietary hardware exclusives. Sony has improved in that area, but every exclusive is still a big question on if it'll even be available on the PC and if so when. Just the long release schedule is an attempt to draw more people who can't wait to a proprietary closed ecosystem.

[-] phillaholic@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

That’s only because Microsoft has no taste and can’t figure out how to actually create an IP.

[-] ram@lemmy.ramram.ink 3 points 1 year ago

only wanted to make sure it was extinguished on other systems?

I hope you're similarly malicious about Sony's exclusives too.

[-] Hdcase@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Well, ask me when Sony buys an entire publisher and makes all their future games exclusive.

[-] CO_Chewie@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

I like the use of the 'publisher' qualifier so that there can't be talk of the numerous studios Sony has acquired over the years that only produce games for Playstation.

[-] ram@lemmy.ramram.ink 1 points 1 year ago

When did Xbox last make a game Xbox exclusive?

this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2023
55 points (100.0% liked)

Gaming

30423 readers
337 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS