Microsoft was always going to get their way here, but from the start I've just hoped this will mean positive things for the folks who work at actibliz. MS for all their shadiness over the years had already committed to not standing in the way of unionization. At the end of the day I think this is really the best thing anyone can hope for since big acquisitions never really end up improving things for anyone other than shareholders.

Brym wrote on Jul 11, 2023, 14:51:
It pains me to say this as someone who was quite happy when she was appointed, but Lina Khan is turning out to be a real moron. This was a reasonable case to bring initially, but after all of Microsoft's concessions, she needed to take the "W" and go home. Compound this with some of the other braindead cases she has chosen to bring (the Meta/Within acquisition that she lost, and the case arguing that Prime is too easy to sign up for/too hard to cancel), and it seems like she is just driven by anti-big-tech animus. Who in the world thinks that Prime's 4-click cancellation process is one of the biggest consumer protection problems that need tackling today? Has she ever tried to cancel a gym membership?

I mean, I'm all about anti-big-tech animus. But you still have to pick reasonable battles to fight or else you risk discrediting your whole movement.

Biggest problem that they're running into that they'll continue to is that antitrust regulation has been savaged. In theory Microsoft shouldn't be able to get away with this, but despite their revenue they're the little guy in the gaming space so there's really no legal leg to stand on. Couple that with all of the completely legal anticonsumer practices that go on all the time in the gaming industry and you're right they really should have taken the w and walked away.

The sad thing is if people want any of this to change only congress can do it and that isn't happening.

jacobvandy wrote on Jul 12, 2023, 00:54:

Kxmode wrote on Jul 12, 2023, 00:03:
Microsoft has been pretty good about supporting Steam.

You mean after the years they spent keeping their games exclusive to the Windows store, trying to sell subscriptions and UWP versions to us? Yeah, they did finally realize that wasn't working very well. They're no different than EA or Ubisoft in that regard, 'supporting Steam' because they have to, not because they want to.

Microsoft “supported” Steam enough with thinly veiled threats that Steam made a huge push into Linux gaming. I think that’s what he means.

jacobvandy wrote on Jul 12, 2023, 00:54:

Kxmode wrote on Jul 12, 2023, 00:03:
Microsoft has been pretty good about supporting Steam.

You mean after the years they spent keeping their games exclusive to the Windows store, trying to sell subscriptions and UWP versions to us? Yeah, they did finally realize that wasn't working very well. They're no different than EA or Ubisoft in that regard, 'supporting Steam' because they have to, not because they want to.

That is an impartial observation of their present-day practices, without expressing support or opposition. The comprehension level on this site sometimes makes me hesitant to post.

TL;DR No, I don't mean.

Mr. Tact wrote on Jul 12, 2023, 06:43:

VaranDragon wrote on Jul 12, 2023, 02:41:
Yeah, it boggles the mind that people, regular people, not investors, or media moguls, or tech executives, but gamers and even more so gamers that frequent Bluesnews need to back a horse in this race for some completely irrational reasons. If you are a consumer mergers of this kind ARE NOT GOOD FOR YOU.

While I might agree with your sentiment in general, what was the last time either MS or AB did something you were happy with? If they stop the merger, fine. If they don't, that is fine too. In this specific case I don't see it impacting the consumer THAT much. They are both multi billion dollar corporations who think of consumers as money cows to milk. Whether they are one company or two probably won't have a lot of impact.

Let me put it this way. Competition is good. 2 Software companies competing in the same market is better than one company dominating that market. It's as simple as that. Competition drives innovation, it drives down prices, it is for all intents and purposes the better deal for consumers. Remember when Activision merged with Blizzard? What happened to Blizzard's games as a result of that merger, down the road? Even if both of these companies don't set my world on fire anymore, it's not like combining them is going to improve things somehow.

VaranDragon wrote on Jul 12, 2023, 02:41:
Yeah, it boggles the mind that people, regular people, not investors, or media moguls, or tech executives, but gamers and even more so gamers that frequent Bluesnews need to back a horse in this race for some completely irrational reasons. If you are a consumer mergers of this kind ARE NOT GOOD FOR YOU.

While I might agree with your sentiment in general, what was the last time either MS or AB did something you were happy with? If they stop the merger, fine. If they don't, that is fine too. In this specific case I don't see it impacting the consumer THAT much. They are both multi billion dollar corporations who think of consumers as money cows to milk. Whether they are one company or two probably won't have a lot of impact.

No sense bitchin about this "deal". Corporate consolodation has been the norm for years. End stage global capitalism at work, nothing new to see, move along, let the FTC and the court mucky mucks enjoy thier new dachas in peace.

VaranDragon wrote on Jul 12, 2023, 02:41:

Prez wrote on Jul 11, 2023, 14:54:
It's utterly amazing to me that people will just ignore the completely toxic, anti-consumer business practices that Microsoft has been engaging in since the '80s as they point out the evils of Sony. It's as if people believe one greedy, abusive company is better than the other, when in reality they are all charging forward to milk as much money out of you as possible while absolutely not giving a shit about you. It's stunning that we still have people today championing one company over another when any of them would sell your mother to make an extra dollar.

Yeah, it boggles the mind that people, regular people, not investors, or media moguls, or tech executives, but gamers and even more so gamers that frequent Bluesnews need to back a horse in this race for some completely irrational reasons. If you are a consumer mergers of this kind ARE NOT GOOD FOR YOU.

My primary reason for hoping MS gets it is to kick out Kotick. Petty? Sure. Anti consumer? Yeah.

I have no control over any of thing MS does. Nor Activision. We are all spectators watching a ball game we can never even come close to participating in.

Prez wrote on Jul 11, 2023, 14:54:
It's utterly amazing to me that people will just ignore the completely toxic, anti-consumer business practices that Microsoft has been engaging in since the '80s as they point out the evils of Sony. It's as if people believe one greedy, abusive company is better than the other, when in reality they are all charging forward to milk as much money out of you as possible while absolutely not giving a shit about you. It's stunning that we still have people today championing one company over another when any of them would sell your mother to make an extra dollar.

Yeah, it boggles the mind that people, regular people, not investors, or media moguls, or tech executives, but gamers and even more so gamers that frequent Bluesnews need to back a horse in this race for some completely irrational reasons. If you are a consumer mergers of this kind ARE NOT GOOD FOR YOU.

Kxmode wrote on Jul 12, 2023, 00:03:
Microsoft has been pretty good about supporting Steam.

You mean after the years they spent keeping their games exclusive to the Windows store, trying to sell subscriptions and UWP versions to us? Yeah, they did finally realize that wasn't working very well. They're no different than EA or Ubisoft in that regard, 'supporting Steam' because they have to, not because they want to.

Microsoft has been pretty good about supporting Steam.

Ozmodan wrote on Jul 11, 2023, 20:38:
... but I also think that Microsoft is paying way too much money for a company whose better years are far behind them.

That might be your personal opinion but that's absolutely not the cold harsh economic truth .

Activion Blizzard revenue history (millions of $):

2022 $7,528
2021 $8,803
2020 $8,086
2019 $6,489
2018 $7,500
2017 $7,017
2016 $6,608
2015 $4,664
2014 $4,408
2013 $4,583
2012 $4,856
2011 $4,755
2010 $4,447

The FTC does not base their decisions on the opinion of gamers but on the actual potential economic impact of such a mega merger.

Oh, well. It's a moot point now since the merger will go ahead thanks to the concessions that Microsoft has made.

I think the court did the right thing. The FTC really did not have a case. I do not think that consolidation is ever good for the customer, but I also think that Microsoft is paying way too much money for a company whose better years are far behind them.

Prez wrote on Jul 11, 2023, 15:23:
Just like every other nameless, faceless completely worthless consumer living under unfettered capitalism I will continue using Windows because there is no viable alternative for gaming,

Steam Deck single-handedly has brought Linux gaming more into reality. I don't even run Linux but I have friends who are and they game just fine. Sure there are still many exceptions... but this is not a statement that is as true as it was even 6 months ago or 2 years ago. Certainly there is truth to it. But Linux gaming is so much closer to being a reality now.
See https://www.protondb.com/

I can't believe this is a world where I am more excited about Microsoft to control Activision-Blizzard than Bobby Kotick and fam.

It's the same world where 100M users sign up instantly for a Mark Zuckerberg Twitter rival who used to proclaim they loved Elon Musk and Tesla and now hate him because of Twitter.

So much is backwards now.

Argonius the 3rd wrote on Jul 11, 2023, 14:11:
Dedicated to all the Sony fanboys and Anti-Microsoft activists rooting for Sony.
Sony, which controls almost 70% of the console market, a monopolistic dominance that you were hoping to remain unchallenged.
Sony, that owns Playstation, the most closed, anti-consumer platform of all.
Sony, who paid 3rd party publishers to not release games on competitive platforms or even on gamepass.

You deserve this, all of it.

Can't wait to play Diablo4 next month for free on gamepass.

Don't forget to wash your cheerleading outfit after a workout like that.

* REMOVED *

This comment was deleted on Jul 11, 2023, 18:34. Reason: Personal attacks (rule 1)

* REMOVED *

This comment was deleted on Jul 11, 2023, 18:51. Reason: Personal attacks (rule 1)

it may be far easier to show/prove that mergers are anti-competitive after the fact

I agree. It should be easier for regulators to break up huge corporations into smaller, nimble organizations.

Brym wrote on Jul 11, 2023, 14:51:
It pains me to say this as someone who was quite happy when she was appointed, but Lina Khan is turning out to be a real moron. This was a reasonable case to bring initially, but after all of Microsoft's concessions, she needed to take the "W" and go home. Compound this with some of the other braindead cases she has chosen to bring (the Meta/Within acquisition that she lost, and the case arguing that Prime is too easy to sign up for/too hard to cancel), and it seems like she is just driven by anti-big-tech animus. Who in the world thinks that Prime's 4-click cancellation process is one of the biggest consumer protection problems that need tackling today? Has she ever tried to cancel a gym membership?

I mean, I'm all about anti-big-tech animus. But you still have to pick reasonable battles to fight or else you risk discrediting your whole movement.

This doesn't settle the approval for the merger, only settles an injunction request to postpone a merger until after the approval is granted. The judge here decided the FTC did not prove enough of a hit to competition to encourage an injunction against the merger pre-approval. I agree, they should have come up with better arguments, but I'm not a lawyer or proficient in law by any means, and I don't know their approach in this case. Perhaps they didn't present their case in an approachable manner or maybe the judge was swayed by MS/Actiblizz lawyers who kept bringing the argument back to CoD.

Just my 2 cp, but: it strikes me that it may be far easier to show/prove that mergers are anti-competitive after the fact, several years on, than it is to show pre-merger that the merger will stifle competition. Maybe this is just how our legal system works, there's simply too many variables to account for that could be used to argue a stay of a large-scale corporate merger. But once the merger is completed and 10 years pass, then it may be rather simple to gather data and show that the merger was actually quite bad for competition. How as a society should be make ends meet here? I don't like these large mergers either, and i don't support them, but "big merger bad" is kind of the extent of my personal argument against them, and obviously that isn't good enough in a court setting.

* REMOVED *

This comment was deleted on Jul 11, 2023, 18:51. Reason: Trolling