• Install Base's 1-year anniversary - Let's talk and celebrate!

    Check out the thread here!

  • Manga Sales | Discussion Thread

    We have created a thread to talk about manga sales. Check out the thread here!

Microsoft has acquired Activision Blizzard for $68.7 billion (NEW UPDATE: "FTC likely to file a lawsuit", Politico)

enpleinjour

Member
Pronouns
He/Him
Why? CoD is not a do-or-die franchise. CoD is not required for market success. Franchises change owner all the time. If MS were to buy CoD, GTA and FIFA in one big sweep, I'd understand anti-trust mechanics to kick in. But only CoD?

Yes, because the videogames industry is already one of the most "monopolised" industries on Earth. There are 3 console platforms around the entire world or 4 distribution platforms if you include Steam.

Any platform that buys a big supplier is going to be treading anti-trust lines, let alone the biggest publisher in video game history, and offering more money than every platform has ever spent on mergers combined, and having control over your biggest competitor's (Sony) number one supplied IP (COD).

So apparently the foreclosure goalposts

Foreclosure of multi-game sub services is something the CMA mentioned in Phase 1, EU commission has already mentioned the market of game sub services under investigation and the FTC is likely to mention as well.

Any asset type can be deemed an essential input.
 

Radagon07

Member
I think you think too much about it, the FTC cannot legally block the purchase, neither it nor anyone else, at most they can ask for consent secrets.

but whoever says that this acquisition is a monopoly does not know what the truth is talking about.

How is it going to be a monopoly when with the acquisition it does not even reach 10% of the total turnover of the industry....
 
Yes, because the videogames industry is already one of the most "monopolised" industries on Earth. There are 3 console platforms around the entire world or 4 distribution platforms if you include Steam.

Any platform that buys a big supplier is going to be treading anti-trust lines, let alone the biggest publisher in video game history, and offering more money than every platform has ever spent on mergers combined, and having control over your biggest competitor's (Sony) number one supplied IP (COD).
Your gonna have to walk through the process of the bolded because if that is considered a monopoly then we lost the meaning of monopoly.

The only way you start treading on anti-trust is one of the other platforms get acquired. Otherwise all I’m getting from this is Sony is affected therefore bad. It’s about the same arguments that the CMA, FTC, & a few others have thrown about.
 

Pancracio17

Member
Pronouns
Him/They
Strictly console gaming is fairly limited with only 3 major players, but gaming as a whole is not really monopolized at all. Any mobile phone or computing device can play games. If any platform gets close to a monopoly taking gaming as a whole its probably the apple store lol.
 

meatbag

Member
So far CMA phase I said COD is an essential input
And I do not see any way they can prove it is.

There are 3 console platforms around the entire world or 4 distribution platforms if you include Steam
There is also Epic Games Store and, oh, mobile gaming which outdoes console gaming in revenue. So no, there is no "monopolization" going on at all.

Also you’re just disregarding a huge part of the market not on any of these platforms like LoL
Well, this is pretty much how CMA is justifying their stance, too. By narrowing the scope of the market.
 

Vault-Tec

Member

Hellblade

Member

Activision gains as report downplays Politico item on potential FTC Microsoft challenge​


CNBC's David Faber appeared to throw some cold water on a Politico report from last Wednesday that the Federal Trade Commission is likely to file an antitrust lawsuit to block the $95/share Activision sale to Microsoft.

"I don't necessarily directional believe that story from Politico is correct from last week," Faber said on the business network. "I don't have any reporting that I would go out strong with, but this is a situation that continues to bear watching. And those who believe that there's an extraordinarily high likelihood that it's going to get blocked, let's give it a little more time."
Credit to Idas for the find
 

Vault-Tec

Member
Activision Blizzard (NASDAQ:ATVI) was added to Wedbush's Best Ideas List with the firm expecting the game maker's $69 billion sale to Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) "highly" likely to be completed within the next six months.

The Wedbush comments come after Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo and Truist on Monday raised their ratings on Activision (ATVI), pointing out that the stock is discounting both the potential Microsoft (MSFT) deal and an overall improvement in the business.

 

enpleinjour

Member
Pronouns
He/Him
What about the EGS? Also are we just ignoring Google and Apple stores?

Also you’re just disregarding a huge part of the market not on any of these platforms like LoL.

There is also Epic Games Store and, oh, mobile gaming which outdoes console gaming in revenue. So no, there is no "monopolization" going on at all.

EGS has miniscule marketshare. By Epic's own numbers from the case it was $0.7B vs Steam which was estimated in 2019 $5.8B.
CMA, EU, Sony, and nearly all third parties have already settled that the mobile games market is a separate market than the PC+console market. Some even regard the console market of game distribution as separate due to how different the competitor sets are.

See below how badly concentrated the game distribution market is:

Console game distribution:
  • Sony : [40-50] %
  • Xbox : [10-20] %
  • Nintendo : [30-40] %
HHI = 3475 (midpoint)

Console/PC game distribution:
  • Sony : 30% [20-30]
  • Xbox : 15% [10-20]
  • Nintendo : 10% [0-10]
  • Valve: 15% [10-20]
  • Tencent : 15% [10-20]
HHI = 1675

Even then this in only due to Chinese law of game distribution in China and Tencent's domination there. In all countries outside China, it is way higher. It was noted that Valve had [40-50]% marketshare in the UK for PC game distribution. Without Tencent:

HHI = 2200+

Marketshare of Top 4 (C4) = 80%


The following figures below are all regional HHIs, meaning they would be far lower if this was a global competitor set.

Whereas for console/PC gaming, there are effectively only 4 firms that control 80% of the distribution of video games in pretty much every country in the world bar China, where it becomes 5.

UK:
Screen-Shot-2022-11-30-at-11-51-22-PM.png
Screen-Shot-2022-11-30-at-11-54-04-PM.png

US:



Your gonna have to walk through the process of the bolded because if that is considered a monopoly then we lost the meaning of monopoly.

The only way you start treading on anti-trust is one of the other platforms get acquired. Otherwise all I’m getting from this is Sony is affected therefore bad. It’s about the same arguments that the CMA, FTC, & a few others have thrown about.

I said monopolised. You've got a misunderstanding of anti-trust and anti-trust law. Any significant anti-competitive effect, whether its consumer related, competitor related or worker related (in the law and only recently being brought back) is under jurisdiction of anti-trust agencies.

And I do not see any way they can prove it is.

Sure they can. Essential just means it is irreplaceable. Its up to regulators and courts to decide what that means, but COD being a $30B+ LTD franchise, top yearly release for 15 year+, and the number 1 IP by total user spend on Playstation are all compelling arguments on its irreplaceable aspects.
 

Radagon07

Member
EGS has miniscule marketshare. By Epic's own numbers from the case it was $0.7B vs Steam which was estimated in 2019 $5.8B.
CMA, EU, Sony, and nearly all third parties have already settled that the mobile games market is a separate market than the PC+console market. Some even regard the console market of game distribution as separate due to how different the competitor sets are.

See below how badly concentrated the game distribution market is:

Console game distribution:
  • Sony : [40-50] %
  • Xbox : [10-20] %
  • Nintendo : [30-40] %
HHI = 3475 (midpoint)

Console/PC game distribution:
  • Sony : 30% [20-30]
  • Xbox : 15% [10-20]
  • Nintendo : 10% [0-10]
  • Valve: 15% [10-20]
  • Tencent : 15% [10-20]
HHI = 1675

Even then this in only due to Chinese law of game distribution in China and Tencent's domination there. In all countries outside China, it is way higher. It was noted that Valve had [40-50]% marketshare in the UK for PC game distribution. Without Tencent:

HHI = 2200+

Marketshare of Top 4 (C4) = 80%


The following figures below are all regional HHIs, meaning they would be far lower if this was a global competitor set.

Whereas for console/PC gaming, there are effectively only 4 firms that control 80% of the distribution of video games in pretty much every country in the world bar China, where it becomes 5.

UK:
Screen-Shot-2022-11-30-at-11-51-22-PM.png
Screen-Shot-2022-11-30-at-11-54-04-PM.png

US:





I said monopolised. You've got a misunderstanding of anti-trust and anti-trust law. Any significant anti-competitive effect, whether its consumer related, competitor related or worker related (in the law and only recently being brought back) is under jurisdiction of anti-trust agencies.



Sure they can. Essential just means it is irreplaceable. Its up to regulators and courts to decide what that means, but COD being a $30B+ LTD franchise, top yearly release for 15 year+, and the number 1 IP by total user spend on Playstation are all compelling arguments on its irreplaceable aspects.

dude no regulator is going to back out on this acquisition. That is the first thing you should understand, no current law can reverse that purchase, for a reason the regulators do not want to go to trial, because Ms is going to crush them in court.

Cod is NOT the most played fps, fortnite, apex legends, Pubg..... they are played much more.....

the acquisition will close very soon, with the COD concession for 10 years, which is the maximum that a regulator can ask for.

all ABK games in gamepass day 1
 
I said monopolised. You've got a misunderstanding of anti-trust and anti-trust law. Any significant anti-competitive effect, whether its consumer related, competitor related or worker related (in the law and only recently being brought back) is under jurisdiction of anti-trust agencies.
Considering how many people are pushing back against you understanding of anti-trust & anti-trust law I’d say your not any better. So I’ll ask again to walk us through your thought process? I’ll also ask that you help create an understanding of anti-trust & anti-trust law. Considering you’ve struggled this entire thread to convince people I’m not holding my breath.
 
Last edited:

meatbag

Member
COD being a $30B+ LTD franchise, top yearly release for 15 year+, and the number 1 IP by total user spend on Playstation are all compelling arguments on its irreplaceable aspects
These are arguments for CoD being a lucrative franchise, not arguments for being "irreplaceable". Nintendo thrives without COD (and you yourself included them as part of the console market); ergo, CoD is not essential.

See below how badly concentrated the game distribution market is:

Console game distribution:
  • Sony : [40-50] %
  • Xbox : [10-20] %
  • Nintendo : [30-40] %
So my understanding is that you believe that if Xbox acquires ABK, Sony would cease becoming a major player in the video game console market?
 

Terrell

Member
Pronouns
He/Him
These are arguments for CoD being a lucrative franchise, not arguments for being "irreplaceable". Nintendo thrives without COD (and you yourself included them as part of the console market); ergo, CoD is not essential.
Nintendo competes without a LOT of best-selling 3rd-party franchises, even in circumstances where they absolutely could have been released on their hardware.

Imagine if Nintendo had gone to the JFTC in the early 2000s and claimed anti-competitive behaviour because Sony was using its stock ownership and financial assistance in the movie industry as leverage for Square to not release Final Fantasy games on Gamecube. It didn't get much more "irreplaceable" in the Japanese market than that at the time other than Dragon Quest (which was also absent).

But we live in a sane world where it was what it was and everyone carried on and made other arrangements.

But now we get crocodile tears from the supposed global market leader SIE when the shoe's on the other foot one time. What's that phrase about not dishing something out?

EDIT: Speaking of the JFTC, when are they going to announce their intentions on this merger? Last we've heard from them, they were collecting submissions from companies with a deadline for submissions in mid-July and I don't see a review of the acquisition anywhere other than that notice of submissions.
 
Last edited:

SoonyXboneUhh

Moderator
dude no regulator is going to back out on this acquisition. That is the first thing you should understand, no current law can reverse that purchase, for a reason the regulators do not want to go to trial, because Ms is going to crush them in court.

Cod is NOT the most played fps, fortnite, apex legends, Pubg..... they are played much more.....

the acquisition will close very soon, with the COD concession for 10 years, which is the maximum that a regulator can ask for.

all ABK games in gamepass day 1
Do you have some links on that? What jurisdictions? Or is that not something written in law and just the usual business you're talkig about?
 

fiendcode

Member
Nintendo competes without a LOT of best-selling 3rd-party franchises, even in circumstances where they absolutely could have been released on their hardware.

Imagine if Nintendo had gone to the JFTC in the early 2000s and claimed anti-competitive behaviour because Sony was using its stock ownership and financial assistance in the movie industry as leverage for Square to not release Final Fantasy games on Gamecube. It didn't get much more "irreplaceable" in the Japanese market than that at the time other than Dragon Quest (which was also absent).

But we live in a sane world where it was what it was and everyone carried on and made other arrangements.

But now we get crocodile tears from the supposed global market leader SIE when the shoe's on the other foot one time. What's that phrase about not dishing something out?

EDIT: Speaking of the JFTC, when are they going to announce their intentions on this merger? Last we've heard from them, they were collecting submissions from companies with a deadline for submissions in mid-July and I don't see a review of the acquisition anywhere other than that notice of submissions.
JFTC will rubber stamp, ABK has basically no interests in Japan and MS only has a few gaming divisions there (Xbox Game Studios Publishing, Zenimax Asia, Mojang Tokyo Studio, Tango Gameworks).

Who we really need to hear from is the SAMR (China). They're basically one of the "big four" who could realistically sink this deal along with FTC, EC and CMA.
 

Terrell

Member
Pronouns
He/Him


Not a shock but definitely think MS wouldn't want it to get this far

It's calling the FTC's bluff, not rolling over at the mention of them filing suit. And considering the FTC's track record in court, MS saying they're ready to go to court is basically them saying:
fb0.jpg

May be premature, but unless the FTC has a tight case against them that exists beyond the arguments put forth so far... it's also a safe bet MS will walk away with what they want AND get to embarrass the FTC in the process.
 

Radagon07

Member


Not a shock but definitely think MS wouldn't want it to get this far

EVERY law firm in the US is saying that the FTC has a losing case if it goes to court.

I don't think the FTC is such an idiot to spend resources and money on it. but it would also be cool to see it to see Lina Khan make a fool of herself
 

Terrell

Member
Pronouns
He/Him
JFTC will rubber stamp, ABK has basically no interests in Japan and MS only has a few gaming divisions there (Xbox Game Studios Publishing, Zenimax Asia, Mojang Tokyo Studio, Tango Gameworks).

Who we really need to hear from is the SAMR (China). They're basically one of the "big four" who could realistically sink this deal along with FTC, EC and CMA.
I'm sure they will, just like I assume my local regulator will (Competition Bureau Canada) and many others. But I am interested to see if any new angles present themselves from other regulators, as well as any published submissions from industry players. Like, if Nintendo is ever going to say anything about this deal (since it's been mostly tight-lipped from the look of things), I expect them to say it to the JFTC.
And really, if no one has a new angle on this merger other than what we've seen so far, it's going through, but if someone somewhere lays down a new and potentially defendable argument against it, the "big four" you mentioned could basically plagiarize their work and run further with it.
 

Baobab

Member
A probably stupid question for a hypothetical situation that seems to be around in this thread :
A deal is struck bewtween MS and Sony that activision games will come to Sony Consoles for the next 10 years.(hypothetical time!)
The deal Of MS acquisition OF Activision is then approved.

Why would not Nintedo feel damaged in that scenario?
How is it a "competitive free market" that guarantees my competitor (sony) a big chunk of profit generating software and not to me?( console market)
When was i supposed to compete with sony for that "guarantee"? If i was not invited/part to the deal between Microsoft and Sony isn´t this market collusion or an unfair competitive advantage?


From a personal and a customer point of view if the deal goes through as outlined above:
- i defintely see "an added value" to a MS/ xbox --> more guaranteed content on conosle and game pass + other goodies( candy crush etc..)
- i defintely see "an added value" to a PlayStation --> more guaranteed content and assurance i will get activision games for TEN years
- i definitely see a disadvatage for nintendo beacuse there is no certainity that Nintedo will get any games form ACTV while the other two players defnitely will...and those games are big relevant games that i as a customer would like to get to play.
It does not matter COD was not for a long time on a nintendo console, as a customer i know for a foreseeable future Sony has a guarantee and Nintedo does not.

Again maybe i am oversimplifying, or not understanding the finer points....As a customer any deal that guarantees something to sony ( in the console space) does provide an advantage to PlayStation that was not obtained in a free market competition against Nintendo and this is especially true if we consider this deal in the future for an X amout of years ....
 
Last edited:

SoonyXboneUhh

Moderator
A probably stupid question for a hypothetical situation that seems to be around in this thread :
A deal is struck bewtween MS and Sony that activision games will come to Sony Consoles for the next 10 years.(hypothetical time!)
The deal Of MS acquisition OF Activision is then approved.

Why would not Nintedo feel damaged in that scenario?
How is it a "competitive free market" that guarantees my competitor (sony) a big chunk of profit generating software and not to me?( console market)
When was i supposed to compete with sony for that "guarantee"? If i was not invited/part to the deal between Microsoft and Sony isn´t this market collusion or an unfair competitive advantage?


From a personal and a customer point of view if the deal goes through as outlined above:
- i defintely see "an added value" to a MS/ xbox --> more guaranteed content on conosle and game pass + other goodies( candy crush etc..)
- i defintely see "an added value" to a PlayStation --> more guaranteed content and assurance i will get activision games for TEN years
- i definitely see a disadvatage for nintendo beacuse there is no certainity that Nintedo will get any games form ACTV while the other two players defnitely will...and those games are big relevant games that i as a customer would like to get to play.
It does not matter COD was not for a long time on a nintendo console, as a customer i know for a foreseeable future Sony has a guarantee and Nintedo does not.

Again maybe i am oversimplifying, or not understanding the finer points....As a customer any deal that guarantees something to sony ( in the console space) does provide an advantage to PlayStation that was not obtained in a free market competition against Nintendo and this is especially true if we consider this deal in the future for an X amout of years ....
That is exactly the point I was talking about when I said every remedy that even mentions the name Sony and/or Playstation is automatically invalid and disqualified.
It has to be market and competition neural.

"not taking away from current existing platforms"
"bringing to more platforms, and players"
"not making exclusive to only Microsoft operated / owned platforms"

That is stuff that would be possible and makes sense.
 

enpleinjour

Member
Pronouns
He/Him
It's calling the FTC's bluff, not rolling over at the mention of them filing suit. And considering the FTC's track record in court, MS saying they're ready to go to court is basically them saying:

May be premature, but unless the FTC has a tight case against them that exists beyond the arguments put forth so far... it's also a safe bet MS will walk away with what they want AND get to embarrass the FTC in the process.

FTC is not afraid to go to court. It's their entire M.O. You don't change the interpretation of law by sitting out, you go to court. It's already worked very well for the DoJ, and even for the FTC as some companies bow out of mergers simply to not deal with the court fights and extended timelines.

A deal is struck bewtween MS and Sony that activision games will come to Sony Consoles for the next 10 years.(hypothetical time!)

I wouldn't expect Sony to accept any deal, don't know why you would either. This is what they said to the CMA:

"The only way to preserve robust competition and protect consumers
and independent developers is to ensure that Activision remains independently owned
and controlled."


Sony have the upper hand here, with the FTC likely to block, CMA rejecting most of MS's arguments in Phase 1 and seeing what the FTC and CMA are doing, the EU may follow as well.

There's a big chance this deal falls through as a result.
 

Baobab

Member
I wouldn't expect Sony to accept any deal, don;t know why you would either. This is what they said to the CMA:

"The only way to preserve robust competition and protect consumers
and independent developers is to ensure that Activision remains independently owned
and controlled."
Fair enough, i put it in words nor precisely enough so let me add this Addendum( event though the "deal/agreement" between MS and Sony is all over this thread) :
Jim Ryan personally complained that the deal offered by Phill Spencer was not adequate enough for COD, he wanted more assurance, more guarantees for more time that COD will come to PlayStation/Sony.
Now as you say Sony will not accept any direct deals with Micorsoft.....
.....So the only way to achieve anything at all form this deal for Playstation is going to be through Remedies/concessions/ or similar instruments entirely dependent on Public institustions that have authority over this matters/mergers/acquisitions.
These authorities can not make any remedy or concession that will not be market and competition neutral--> so no specific mention of SONY/playstation can be involved. Anything that applies to Sony has to apply to Nintendo or Steam etc.... or is at the mercy of the market-oriented decision by Microsoft, the new owner.
How can therefore Sony expect any concession from the authorities that will be even remotely similar to the above complaints and requests from Mr. Ryan regarding guaranteed presence of Call of Duty on PS- consoles?
None in my opinion, it seems that Sony are betting it all to make the deal fail..just like you said.
We will see how will it go, i personally can not see a reason for Sony complaints, everything they adress as an issue in this deal from a cutomer point of view, i already had to endure from them as their customer.
 
Last edited:

Tokuiten

Infected with 'Xenoblade'. 御免なさい🙇‍♀️
Member
FTC is not afraid to go to court. It's their entire M.O. You don't change the interpretation of law by sitting out, you go to court. It's already worked very well for the DoJ, and even for the FTC as some companies bow out of mergers simply to not deal with the court fights and extended timelines.



I wouldn't expect Sony to accept any deal, don't know why you would either. This is what they said to the CMA:

"The only way to preserve robust competition and protect consumers
and independent developers is to ensure that Activision remains independently owned
and controlled."


Sony have the upper hand here, with the FTC likely to block, CMA rejecting most of MS's arguments in Phase 1 and seeing what the FTC and CMA are doing, the EU may follow as well.

There's a big chance this deal falls through as a result.


@enpleinjour Asking you personally, would you find it fair and reasonable if the AB-deal was denied and failed? If yes, why?
 

fiendcode

Member
FTC may sue but they're more likely to continue their losing streak in that scenario, this isn't a strong case for them. FTC has lost every case they've ever brought based on a theory of harm in nascent or future markets (even before the current admin) and that's likely to be what any case brought against MS/ABK would have to hinge on (subscription, streaming).

Khan may have to overrule staff (again) to even bring the case, like Meta/Within. If she'd listened to staff then she also wouldn't have been forced to drop half the case (reducing competition within fitness app market) just to keep it going.

One thing I will say for FTC still bringing weak cases though, I applaud the approach and if a governmental body believes law is broken they should pursue justice. DOJ could learn some lessons here, it's unethical to only uphold the law when you think you can win.
 
Last edited:

SoonyXboneUhh

Moderator
None in my opinion, it seems that Sony are betting it all to make the deal fail..just like you said.
We will see how will it go, i personally can not see a reason for Sony complaints, everything they adress as an issue in this deal from a cutomer point of view, i already had to endure from them as their customer.
Sony is playing both cards here. The official and the public card.
Officially they try to get the deal blocked and ATVI stays independent.

Microsoft also made public statements they can use for later negotiations when play A fails and the deal gets approved without remedies.


That's how I see it.
Microsoft still seems to be playing nice guy. So I doubt they would go and say "fuck it, we will hurt Sony for that even if it costs us a lot".
Especially with Xbox Series not selling extraordinarily well already. The CoD market without Playstation really is quite limited.
But maybe CoD being exclusive would finally move some Xbox consoles at scale.
 

Radagon07

Member
Sony is playing both cards here. The official and the public card.
Officially they try to get the deal blocked and ATVI stays independent.

Microsoft also made public statements they can use for later negotiations when play A fails and the deal gets approved without remedies.


That's how I see it.
Microsoft still seems to be playing nice guy. So I doubt they would go and say "fuck it, we will hurt Sony for that even if it costs us a lot".
Especially with Xbox Series not selling extraordinarily well already. The CoD market without Playstation really is quite limited.
But maybe CoD being exclusive would finally move some Xbox consoles at scale.
Microsoft will go as far as necessary for this deal to be fulfilled, the COE has declared that with concessions it will pass safely, the FTC cannot go to trial because it would make a fool of itself by not having evidence of anything illegal, and CMA according to what they say with the COD 10 years It is enough for them to accept, by the way I was informing myself and a regulator cannot ask for more than 10 years by law in almost any country.

Uhmm that xbox series doesn't sell extraordinarily well? this year it will sell 11.5-12 million consoles huh... without having released a single AAA game.....imagine in 2023 with packs with redfall, starfield, forza, hellblade 2.....now is when truth begins the generation for MS
 

allan-bh

Member
One thing I will say for FTC still bringing weak cases though, I applaud the approach and if a governmental body believes law is broken they should pursue justice. DOJ could learn some lessons here, it's unethical to only uphold the law when you think you can win.
Spent tax payer money for sue in clearly losing cases isn't something I consider that should be applauded and don't build credibility for the regulatory process.

FTC under Biden administration is doing a terrible job, their visions aren't sustainable in court, they're basically making political moves.
 
Last edited:

SoonyXboneUhh

Moderator
Uhmm that xbox series doesn't sell extraordinarily well? this year it will sell 11.5-12 million consoles huh
No sure about that.
Im just looking at the available data.

Xbox Series sold only 60k in the UK during black Friday week. Xbox One did 130k at the same time. Xbox One did over 100k the first year and even 100k in 2019.
Xbox Series is still behind Xbox One in the US and UK and I don't see that changing in 2023. That leaves 2024 to catch up and 2025 to overtake.


Don't get me wrong. Xbox Series is doing good or even great compared to Xbox One in some markets. But to really move units, the console has to beat the predecessor by a noticable margin in its biggest territories.
 

fiendcode

Member
Spent tax payer money for sue in clearly losing cases isn't something I consider that should be applauded and don't build credibility for the regulatory process.

FTC under Biden administration is doing a terrible job, their visions aren't sustainable in court, they're basically making political moves.
If you don't uphold the rule of law, there is no law. I'd also disagree with some of FTC's moves as an overreach but I can understand the desire to set a new precedent and establish a new standard. It's been necessary for a long while honestly, that acquisitions got through relatively unscathed in previous administrations like Google/Youtube, Disney/Fox, Facebook/Instagram or Amazon/MGM were troubling. Though Khan's indicated they may be revisiting that last one yet.
 

allan-bh

Member
If you don't uphold the rule of law, there is no law. I'd also disagree with some of FTC's moves as an overreach but I can understand the desire to set a new precedent and establish a new standard. It's been necessary for a long while honestly, that acquisitions got through relatively unscathed in previous administrations like Google/Youtube, Disney/Fox, Facebook/Instagram or Amazon/MGM were troubling. Though Khan's indicated they may be revisiting that last one yet.
Government should push for changing laws if they want a new standard. With the currently ones what you get for suing is the losing streak FTC is having.
 

Radagon07

Member
No sure about that.
Im just looking at the available data.

Xbox Series sold only 60k in the UK during black Friday week. Xbox One did 130k at the same time. Xbox One did over 100k the first year and even 100k in 2019.
Xbox Series is still behind Xbox One in the US and UK and I don't see that changing in 2023. That leaves 2024 to catch up and 2025 to overtake.


Don't get me wrong. Xbox Series is doing good or even great compared to Xbox One in some markets. But to really move units, the console has to beat the predecessor by a noticable margin in its biggest territories.
safe? apparently xbox series has more than 3 million Gap on xbox one today and more than 5 million on x360.

It must also be said that there has been a great shortage of series x.

If the xbox series does not reach the x360 numbers, it will be missing a little and with the momentum of everything to come in the next few years it can be crazy, huh.
 

allan-bh

Member
safe? apparently xbox series has more than 3 million Gap on xbox one today and more than 5 million on x360.

It must also be said that there has been a great shortage of series x.

If the xbox series does not reach the x360 numbers, it will be missing a little and with the momentum of everything to come in the next few years it can be crazy, huh.
Xbox 360 had an explosion of sales after Kinect. I think it's safe to say Xbox Series will beat One's sales, but 360 it's not easy.
 

Welfare

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Archivist
No sure about that.
Im just looking at the available data.

Xbox Series sold only 60k in the UK during black Friday week. Xbox One did 130k at the same time. Xbox One did over 100k the first year and even 100k in 2019.
Xbox Series is still behind Xbox One in the US and UK and I don't see that changing in 2023. That leaves 2024 to catch up and 2025 to overtake.


Don't get me wrong. Xbox Series is doing good or even great compared to Xbox One in some markets. But to really move units, the console has to beat the predecessor by a noticable margin in its biggest territories.
UK in general seems to be down. I don't think any console is cracking 1M this year.

XBS has been outpacing XB1 worldwide despite being behind in the US and UK, and right now I think at worst XBS only matches XB1 holiday 2015 in the US.

Worst case scenario is XBS being flat this Q4 YOY and only shipping ~10M for all of 2022. ~11M is my guess.
 

Radagon07

Member
To make clear once and for all the POWER OF THE FTC

The FTC and the DOJ of the admon. Biden has won 0 TRIALS, only two abandoned deals, and 6 lost trials since they have no laws to support them
 

enpleinjour

Member
Pronouns
He/Him
@enpleinjour Asking you personally, would you find it fair and reasonable if the AB-deal was denied and failed? If yes, why?

Yes, I completely support anti-trust regulators in nearly all cases and I pointed out since the day the deal was announced that this was going to face issues with anti-trust.

The videogame industry is already extremely concentrated as is parts of the computing sector. The big leading suppliers being able to be bought by big platforms is a horrible precedent that will concentrate economic power with the existing platforms, rather than force platforms to invest in independent devs, fund new studios, invest in internal studios, increase dev wages and increase worker choice.

If ATVI gets blocked, then T2, EA, Epic, Ubisoft will also get blocked from any current platform and perhaps even big tech companies like Amazon, Facebook and Google. It's good news for the industry versus the other scenario.

That's how I see it.
Microsoft still seems to be playing nice guy. So I doubt they would go and say "fuck it, we will hurt Sony for that even if it costs us a lot".

MS doesn't have a choice. Regulators are already questioning their words.

Spent tax payer money for sue in clearly losing cases isn't something I consider that should be applauded and don't build credibility for the regulatory process.

FTC under Biden administration is doing a terrible job, their visions aren't sustainable in court, they're basically making political moves.

Government should push for changing laws if they want a new standard. With the currently ones what you get for suing is the losing streak FTC is having.

Completely wrong in both cases.

The current FTC and DOJ have strengthened anti-trust in the US to a point that has not existed for 40 years. No longer do these agencies play nice to corporations and act as revolving doors. They are here to start taking companies to court, you don't set legal precedent without going court.

In fact, Lina Khan and Kanter are doing such a good job that they have corporate lawyers/lobbyists very scared and CEO's like Jeff Bezos directly upset.

The entire anti-trust community is behind them and anti-trust is becoming more and more popular with the people as they learn about: such as the recent Penguin/SS case or Ticketmaster/LiveNation.

FTC 2022 BLOCKED:
Froniter-Spirit Airlines
Nvidia-Arm
Lockheed-Aero
Saint Peter’s Healthcare System-RWJBarnabas Health
HCA-Steward Health
Sportsmans Warehouse-Bass Pro
Lifespan-Care NE

FTC ONGOING:
FTC v Meta (WhatsApp, Instagram)
FTC v MSFT (ATVI)
FTC v Meta (Supernatural)
FTC investigation Kroger Alberston

DOJ INVESTIGATION:
DOJ v United Health (Change)
DOJ v American Airlines (Jet Blue)
DOJ v Ticketmaster (LiveNation)
DOJ v Adobe (Figma)
DOJ v Realprice (real estate prices)

FUTURE (?):
Amazon/iRobot
Broadcom/VMWare
Oracle/Cerner
MSFT/Xandr
Amazon/One Medical
Albertsons/Kroger
- Judge blocks $4B looting dividend
Black/Knight ICE
Thomas Bravo/ForgeRock

About the law:
  • Don't know where you heard that. Anti-trust law in the US is extremely powerful. Regulators have the tools to break the biggest companies apart if courts allow it. The law is not the issue, it's the fact that much of the law was not being used by prior administrations (they were complicit in lobbying for instance) and that courts/cases were interpreting the law in a different manner.
  • Both are changing:
    • FTC just released new merger guidelines introducing reasons for anti-competitiveness not seen in decades
    • Biden has been appointing judges aggressively and with the Senate in Democrat hands, even more judges will be coming
    • Both the FTC and DOJ have rejected the consumer welfare standard, the idea that only consumers should be the metric for anti-competitiveness, and are taking into account companies affected and worker welfare.
    • More and more of the Democrats are supporting worker welfare now.
 

Jimmy Joe

Member
Pronouns
He/Him
I sincerely hope that this is blocked because consolidation is horrible even if you like capitalism,

but

I don't have any confidence that this deal is going to be stopped
 

Radagon07

Member
Yes, I completely support anti-trust regulators in nearly all cases and I pointed out since the day the deal was announced that this was going to face issues with anti-trust.

The videogame industry is already extremely concentrated as is parts of the computing sector. The big leading suppliers being able to be bought by big platforms is a horrible precedent that will concentrate economic power with the existing platforms, rather than force platforms to invest in independent devs, fund new studios, invest in internal studios, increase dev wages and increase worker choice.

If ATVI gets blocked, then T2, EA, Epic, Ubisoft will also get blocked from any current platform and perhaps even big tech companies like Amazon, Facebook and Google. It's good news for the industry versus the other scenario.



MS doesn't have a choice. Regulators are already questioning their words.





Completely wrong in both cases.

The current FTC and DOJ have strengthened anti-trust in the US to a point that has not existed for 40 years. No longer do these agencies play nice to corporations and act as revolving doors. They are here to start taking companies to court, you don't set legal precedent without going court.

In fact, Lina Khan and Kanter are doing such a good job that they have corporate lawyers/lobbyists very scared and CEO's like Jeff Bezos directly upset.

The entire anti-trust community is behind them and anti-trust is becoming more and more popular with the people as they learn about: such as the recent Penguin/SS case or Ticketmaster/LiveNation.

FTC 2022 BLOCKED:
Froniter-Spirit Airlines
Nvidia-Arm
Lockheed-Aero
Saint Peter’s Healthcare System-RWJBarnabas Health
HCA-Steward Health
Sportsmans Warehouse-Bass Pro
Lifespan-Care NE

FTC ONGOING:
FTC v Meta (WhatsApp, Instagram)
FTC v MSFT (ATVI)
FTC v Meta (Supernatural)
FTC investigation Kroger Alberston

DOJ INVESTIGATION:
DOJ v United Health (Change)
DOJ v American Airlines (Jet Blue)
DOJ v Ticketmaster (LiveNation)
DOJ v Adobe (Figma)
DOJ v Realprice (real estate prices)

FUTURE (?):
Amazon/iRobot
Broadcom/VMWare
Oracle/Cerner
MSFT/Xandr
Amazon/One Medical
Albertsons/Kroger
- Judge blocks $4B looting dividend
Black/Knight ICE
Thomas Bravo/ForgeRock

About the law:
  • Don't know where you heard that. Anti-trust law in the US is extremely powerful. Regulators have the tools to break the biggest companies apart if courts allow it. The law is not the issue, it's the fact that much of the law was not being used by prior administrations (they were complicit in lobbying for instance) and that courts/cases were interpreting the law in a different manner.
  • Both are changing:
    • FTC just released new merger guidelines introducing reasons for anti-competitiveness not seen in decades
    • Biden has been appointing judges aggressively and with the Senate in Democrat hands, even more judges will be coming
    • Both the FTC and DOJ have rejected the consumer welfare standard, the idea that only consumers should be the metric for anti-competitiveness, and are taking into account companies affected and worker welfare.
    • More and more of the Democrats are supporting worker welfare now.
The FTC and the DOJ of the admon. Biden has won 0 TRIALS, only two abandoned deals, and 6 lost trials since they have no laws to support them, but here they teach us that the FTC "dismembers" companies.

PS I hope you stop lying because this is the reality, there are no LAWS IN THE US that can prevent these mergers.

I'm sorry for you
 

allan-bh

Member
Completely wrong in both cases.

The current FTC and DOJ have strengthened anti-trust in the US to a point that has not existed for 40 years. No longer do these agencies play nice to corporations and act as revolving doors. They are here to start taking companies to court, you don't set legal precedent without going court.

In fact, Lina Khan and Kanter are doing such a good job that they have corporate lawyers/lobbyists very scared and CEO's like Jeff Bezos directly upset.

The entire anti-trust community is behind them and anti-trust is becoming more and more popular with the people as they learn about: such as the recent Penguin/SS case or Ticketmaster/LiveNation.
Great job, a losing streak suing with arguments not sustainable by the law.

It's easy to not care about losing when the money is from tax payers, not their own.

You sounds like an idealist that likes that mergers are blocked just because...That's what Biden administration is doing, but in court they're being trounced.
 
Last edited:

Welfare

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Archivist
Even if the Biden admin has been losing recently, this article states 4 recent losses


The U.S. Justice Department lost two merger fights last month, failing to stop UnitedHealth Group's bid to buy Change Healthcare and U.S. Sugar's deal for Imperial Sugar Co. Not long before that, in July, a jury found chicken producer executives innocent of price-fixing.
And a judge at the Federal Trade Commission ruled on Sept. 1 against the agency's effort to stop Illumina's merger with Grail.

That doesn't mean they can't eventually win. I'd argue a government on the attack (or defense?) is a good thing, I just don't think this Activision deal is capable of being blocked in the US. The courts will most likely side with Microsoft.
 
Last edited:

reksveks

Member
Pronouns
He/Him
MSFT/Xandr
Would be a fun one given how dominated that industry already is by a couple of players who are already being investigated. I struggle to believe that xandr is greater than 10% of the digital ads industry.

Suspect that they/DOJ will have to get through the Google cases before making a move on MS/Xandr.
 

Terrell

Member
Pronouns
He/Him
FTC is not afraid to go to court. It's their entire M.O. You don't change the interpretation of law by sitting out, you go to court. It's already worked very well for the DoJ, and even for the FTC as some companies bow out of mergers simply to not deal with the court fights and extended timelines.
But is the FTC not afraid to lose their case against one of the biggest acquisitions on record in the past decade? The FTC may be eager to try and block, but that's not indicative of outcomes, especially considering the theories and data points regulators are currently getting hung up on.

SIE‘s arguments to the CMA about an independent ABK being the only way forward start to fall apart if they engage in negotiations for a 10-year deal with Microsoft (after all, if an independent ABK is the goal, why are they not negotiating terms with ABK and without MS instead?), but are they willing to risk that the CMA sees diminished merit in the concerns raised by Phase 1 during the Phase 2 analysis and the deal goes through without concessions, causing SIE to walk away empty-handed and with no leverage?

You’ve mis-characterized the Phase 1 investigation by CMA proceeding to Phase 2 as a “rejection” of Microsoft’s claims, when CMA doesn’t even characterize it as such; they characterize it as MS and ABK not providing a clear case to approve without additional scrutiny, with the “initial review of the deal to determine whether there are any competition concerns” showing concerns that warrant deeper analysis. On that, no one being reasonable disagrees, this thread would not have gone on this long if it weren't for people analyzing the concerns raised in this process. But that’s not an agreement on the merit of the concerns, just that such concerns could be valid and require a closer look for validity. They lay that out themselves pretty plainly, as they're just now entering the part of Phase 2 where they look at all information presented and anything they find from any independent investigation they're running to make a determination on if the concerns issued have merit and what is to be done to resolve them, either by remedies or killing the deal outright.

But to hear you speak of it, SIE has an upper hand because... what, because regulators rightfully determined that the deal warranted more scrutiny? Everyone here agrees with that, even if they disagree with what regulators have chosen to scrutinize and think it is very likely not going to get the result of a cancelled merger. But it's not inherently beneficial to SIE that regulators came to that sort of common sense conclusion, nor is it an indication that regulators will be more likely to stop the merger, either.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom