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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] lagomorphlecture@beehaw.org 38 points 1 year ago

Seriously though? They bought Bethesda and look what they're doing there. Now they get to add another massive developer as if they weren't already ridiculously huge? This monopoly stuff has to end. I don't just mean gaming either. Like 5 companies control our entire food supply. There can only be one internet provider in any area. It's insane.

[-] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 26 points 1 year ago

This is the inevitable conclusion to free-market based economies. The market will pick winners, and those winners will then have a capital advantage over all new entrants, allowing them to outcompete anyone they want, and to use their size to control the market at large. It’s literally built into the system. The attempts at reform we try are rolled back eventually, and we end up in the same place again. Ma Bell broke up, and for a while we had competition across the industry and innovation. Eventually, market leaders were picked, and we end up where we are now, with few options, and little difference between the ones we have.

[-] bermuda@beehaw.org 9 points 1 year ago

Oligopoly, not monopoly. Monopoly implies there's just 1 company. In gaming there is far from one company.

[-] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 6 points 1 year ago

This monopoly stuff has to end.

Microsoft aren't a monopoly, especially in gaming. Even buying ABK they won't be even remotely close to a monopoly.

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

What did Microsoft do with Bethesda?

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

Bought them and made their games Microsoft exclusives.

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

Let's be honest. Bethesda games have always been PC exclusives. All other platforms got an unfinished beta and PC got the real game.

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

MS isn't even top 2 in a hardware market of 3. They're not even top 4 in publishers either. Hardly a monopoly.

[-] averyminya@beehaw.org 22 points 1 year ago

I think everyone saying market consolidation is bad is missing the point for this particular one.

This isn't Google buying and killing another product. This isn't AT&T buying and merging something. This is the failed company Activision that bought Blizzard and tarnished its name and branding once again being sold off.

What's more, this is (effectively) the death of Activision. The bane on gaming since it first started mouthing syllables to the words "corporate profits".

I can only really see this as a good thing from pretty much any angle you try to look at it from. The fact that the only thing all the comments here have to say is that "consolidation bad" should be very telling. I'm no fan of Microsoft, but they generally let departments have a vision and execute them. They seem to have less awful stories than most tech cultures, so one would imagine that going from managers who don't care or are actively participating in hazing you to a place where you are given the space to foster your creative ideas... I'm gonna say this consolidation is probably a good thing if only because of the small chance that the workplace culture changes. In regards to the company, there may even finally be a litany of IP have a chance of seeing the light of day again!

Time will tell of course but I'd say all you need to do is read the timeline. The last decade has been nothing but awful actions from Blizzard leading up to the buyout, ranging from people doing multiple different boycotts against them for Blitzchang to their now parent company Activision just going full 1970. Microsoft will never be a golden pinnacle of perfection but they haven't been fostering workplaces where people feel fear and have their freaking bodily fluids stolen.

I guess I'll put it this way. Would you rather have the execs behind CoD and WoW or would you rather have the execs behind Halo and Starfield?

Both suck but one is clearly trying to allow space for heart to exist while having lots of skeletons and decomposing corpses in the closet while the other is whipping its junk out and rubbing it in your face while laughing about making skeletons... too much? lol

[-] 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?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] 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.

[-] 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Dahjoos@lemmy.fmhy.ml 8 points 1 year ago

My main argument against the acquisition is that the morons behind Activision/Blizzard will get a ridiculous payout

These people should get a lifetime ban from executive positions, not a payout

[-] averyminya@beehaw.org 8 points 1 year ago

To be clear, overall I don't disagree that more consolidation is bad. It's literally just this instance. Activision needs to die and be restructured.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] MJBrune@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago

I don't see this as a bad thing but it's also not a great thing. It's like watching one village-crushing giant team up with another village-crushing giant because one of the giants isn't crushing enough villages to be healthy. So they will now crush villages together in hopes both can eat a lot better.

It's like aww, they found family... But also they'll probably crush us at noon so there is that.

[-] Glarrf@midwest.social 3 points 1 year ago

Your comment made me step back a minute, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I tend to agree with your assessment after looking at this scenario more closely. I'm no fan of Microsoft but Activision isn't exactly a great studio. Only time will tell!

[-] Glarrf@midwest.social 14 points 1 year ago

The consolidation of the gaming industry will be just another tale of oligopoly in a capitalist society I guess. Yaaay.

[-] randomaside@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 year ago

We're heading towards the balkanization of all digital content, DRM is the method they will use to enforce their rule.

Piracy isn't just moral at this stage, you're obligated to participate as a means to resist.

[-] NightOwl@lemmy.one 5 points 1 year ago

Despite not pirating PC games due to not wanting to risk viruses I am very invested in the cracking scene, since they lead to positive outcomes of some companies removing DRM earlier if a crack comes out. Used to be they'd just be left in indefinitely. Thank you pirates.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Hdcase@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago

As primarily a Playstation and Nintendo gamer, I think this acquisition is going to be 99% bad news for me. Oh well.

[-] CO_Chewie@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago

Can I ask why? Microsoft has a monetary incentive to push the games to other platforms wherever possible. Yeah they may hold a few back (see Starfield) to try and sell consoles but I don't expect them to withhold all. There were some interesting articles that this deal is more about the mobile gaming (King) rather than COD or other AB games.

As an Xbox and Nintendo owner I feel Sony/Nintendo have done more harm to the industry by reinforcing exclusives (both times and complete) than Microsoft. Wouldn't it be in Microsoft's right to do what the market leaders are doing and take advantage of exclusives to try and gain market share back? We also saw with testimony/discovery during the trial that Sony would often say one thing publicly and another internally. I think Sony only opposed this cause they wanted to stoke the fire of fandoms.

[-] BadlyDrawnRhino@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago

Microsoft are no longer interested in selling consoles necessarily, otherwise they'd be holding stuff back from PC as well. They're interested in getting people into their ecosystem through Game Pass.

And while I agree with you that Sony and Nintendo have used plenty of anti-consumer practices, Microsoft has also done so in the past and I think the only reason they've been more pro-consumer of late is because they've been the underdog for a long time now. I would be anticipating a change in their behaviour the more people they get to subscribe to Game Pass, and this Activision-Blizzard deal is a huge step towards that.

[-] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 4 points 1 year ago

Exactly. Sony have spent years leveraging their market leading position to further put them in the lead via paying to keep content and games off Xbox. Their market position is their strength and they leverage it. Microsoft's strength is their financial power, and they're now finally leveraging it. Sony need to be pulled back to the pack and pulled in line with their anti-consumer practices. The more market share and dominance they get the worse they get for consumers, as they've shown many times.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Hdcase@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

Phil Spencer said every single future Zenimax game is going to be exclusive, so it's not just a few being held back.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] chloyster@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I still don't understand all the people who are cheering this on. Why is consolidation of the industry a good thing. Is it really just because you want the games on gamepass?

Edit: in retrospect, I do agree I would be happy to see the leadership be ousted from acti-blizz. Since the merger is happening, I may as well see the good in it (if they are indeed getting ousted, that remains to be seen). I do think it is a worrying trend overall though

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] araquen@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

Normally, I would not be happy about this, but this is the exception. Even as a Mac gamer (and please don’t at me - I have had decades of sass coming from the PC community. Let me enjoy my platform. I get what I need) this is a win. Activision was always poison for Blizzard. At the bare minimum, Microsoft will enforce corporate HR standards - may not be awesome standards, but it’s a lot better than Activision turning a blind eye. And it’s in Microsoft’s best interest to support native Mac development where it exists (and while I don’t see Blizzard ramping up their Mac dev team to previous (if meager) levels, I expect that the games I enjoy will continue to work fine on my machine, which is a modest ask.

I mean, if Microsoft bent over backwards to prop up Apple in those dark days (and you could have concussed me with a feather when Gates announced MS was investing in Apple IIRC on stage during an Apple keynote) they’ll support other platforms.

Should all gaming fall under several big umbrellas? No. But getting the Activision Board and C-suite out of the “day to day” of studio development can’t hurt.

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

From what I've heard, Blizzard's C-suite and company culture was already poison before Activision. I'm not sure Microsoft will care about much more than getting a profit out of the deal.

load more comments (4 replies)

Boooo. Competition is always better in capitalism. Even Activision blizzard as terrible as they are, is competition. No one should be happy about this after how they've gobbled up a huge chunk of the gaming market.

How long until we're forced to log into these games with Microsoft accounts and pay for Xbox live

[-] Spitfire@pawb.social 2 points 1 year ago

So how long until Microsoft restricts all Activision or Blizzard games to being only on Xbox or PC?

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

At least 10 years, likely never. Just like how Minecraft is still multiplatform on every device under the sun, COD/Diablo/etc will be too because that's what their strength is - huge userbases.

load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2023
55 points (100.0% liked)

Gaming

30423 readers
342 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