What gets me is that this all comes down to just words. Like is this really going to be decided based on whether or not the FTC trusts Microsoft's promises? Granted, I understand that's an...
For months now, Microsoft has sworn up and down that it has no interest in making Call of Duty exclusive to the Xbox if and when its proposed $69 billion Activision acquisition is approved. But as the FTC's request for an injunction stopping that acquisition heads toward opening arguments this week, the federal regulator cites one piece of what it calls "powerful evidence" that it can't trust Microsoft's assurances. In short, as the FTC puts it, "Microsoft's actions following its 2021 acquisition of ZeniMax speak louder than Defendants' words."
What gets me is that this all comes down to just words. Like is this really going to be decided based on whether or not the FTC trusts Microsoft's promises? Granted, I understand that's an oversimplification of the situation, but I do wonder if US antitrust law is really so... informal? I guess I expected something a little more by the numbers. Though given the US' recent history with monopolies (Disney???), I suppose it's not too surprising. Anyone that knows more than me can feel free to correct me here.
Microsoft took the teeth out of antitrust in the 90s/early 00s. They should have been dismantled then and there, as a warning to other would-be monopolists. For those who don't recall... They were...
Microsoft took the teeth out of antitrust in the 90s/early 00s. They should have been dismantled then and there, as a warning to other would-be monopolists.
For those who don't recall... They were judged to be violating antitrust laws. They avoided being split into "operating system" and "software applications" divisions by the skin of their teeth (and probably some hefty donations).
Nowadays Microsoft would probably need to be fractured into dozens if not hundreds of companies to allow proper competition. Think of every single software application that has at least 1 small provider that competes with Microsoft. That's how small Microsoft needs to be shattered to prevent re-forming in the same way the Ma-Bells did before.
I fully do not expect them to actually stop this. I doubt they'll even need more assurances to just throw their hands in the air and say fine, go ahead.
I fully do not expect them to actually stop this. I doubt they'll even need more assurances to just throw their hands in the air and say fine, go ahead.
Even if one does believe that this deal would allow Microsoft to gain a monopoly on the console market -- the US has reason to want that. MS is a US based company, Sony and Nintendo are not.
Even if one does believe that this deal would allow Microsoft to gain a monopoly on the console market -- the US has reason to want that. MS is a US based company, Sony and Nintendo are not.
Lets say there is a formal agreement that a new game isn't an exclusive. Isn't it just math on Microsoft's part to decide whether it complies or not? The fines are pretty fixed values, and far...
Lets say there is a formal agreement that a new game isn't an exclusive. Isn't it just math on Microsoft's part to decide whether it complies or not? The fines are pretty fixed values, and far detached from the value CoD generates.
The FTC judgement against EPIC was $520 Million, and that was two separate ~$250 Million judgements. CoD was $3 Billion in revenue in 2020 alone. The fine against reneging on a promise might be the cost of getting the merger done. I think the "record fines" against corporate wrongdoing aren't going to change how businesses operate unless they're significantly more painful, and it could be the FTC realizing that stopping the merger is the only way they can be effective with or without a formal agreement.
If such an agreement could have adequate teeth to deter this type of behavior, sure that could work but I don't think that's ever been done in the USA, though I see examples in the EU with revenue adjusted fines. Please let me know if there has been similar actions in the USA, I'm certainly not a lawyer.
They...i would say the head of xbox, sees that exclusives are not their priority, they are not going to outsell PS systems. Subscriptions to gamepass is their money making, no matter what device...
They...i would say the head of xbox, sees that exclusives are not their priority, they are not going to outsell PS systems. Subscriptions to gamepass is their money making, no matter what device you play on. Hell i could see them trying to get gamepass on PS at some point if PS would allow it.
Gamepass isn't on PS right now, but I think they might do the thing where they crank up the price of everything cod but also put all of it on gamepass so it just becomes more expensive for people...
Gamepass isn't on PS right now, but I think they might do the thing where they crank up the price of everything cod but also put all of it on gamepass so it just becomes more expensive for people not in their hardware system
I think they'd honor the contracts they're offering (which seem to be to put the game on the system as a regular release for 10 years) and then probably try to move it to Game Pass. Microsoft has...
I think they'd honor the contracts they're offering (which seem to be to put the game on the system as a regular release for 10 years) and then probably try to move it to Game Pass.
Microsoft has been very vocal that they would put all of their games on PlayStation via Game Pass if Sony would allow it on the system, but Sony won't.
That's also arguably an argument in MS's favor. They've offered a way to Sony to put all their games on PS systems but Sony refuses it. So is it really fair to say that they're keeping games exclusive?
I had people say I was too severe when I mentioned that Microsoft's acquisitions previously were bad and concentrating a majority of game development. "There are other studios," they would say,...
I had people say I was too severe when I mentioned that Microsoft's acquisitions previously were bad and concentrating a majority of game development. "There are other studios," they would say, but that's not the point. It's the concentration and control of major franchises that will determine the landscape of video games. This is the end game, and if Activision Blizzard is bought, will do nothing but damage the AAA space. Sure we've got indies and beloved smaller studios, but they're specifically referred to under a different label for a reason.
I see two options:
Block the transaction
Pass regulations requiring reasonable cross-platform support. We won't see a high-spec PS5 game on Switch, but at least anything requiring similar resources should be on similar platforms. If were going to suffer at the hands of an oligopoly we should at least protect customers that will only be harmed by the concentration of major brands under one hardware manufacturer.
If anybody/any company doesn't like this they ought to re-think their acquisitions and decisions so they can ensure a competitive marketplace so the government doesn't have to.
I think that's the issue here that makes me not as worried about MS. This isn't the early 00's where a single exclusive can make or break an entire generation of consoles. MS had that chance with...
It's the concentration and control of major franchises that will determine the landscape of video games.
I think that's the issue here that makes me not as worried about MS. This isn't the early 00's where a single exclusive can make or break an entire generation of consoles. MS had that chance with Halo infinite, and I understand it was a rocky launch. But even if Halo Infinite was as evergreen a title as Halo 2 back in the day: I don't think the needle would have been pushed to Microsoft that way. There's a dozen large 3rd parties (and I doubt every single one of them are looking to sell) and Nintendo/Sony each have dozens of first party IP's to compete with.
Even if this went through and all CODs went Xbox only next year I don't think that would "determine the landscape of video games". Games as a medium is so much larger and diverse now. We had Hogwarts Legacy and Eldin Ring from 3rd parties launch to similar numbers to COD, and Tears of the Kingdom is probably going to dwarf all 3 in a few years' time. I'm not too worried about COD swamping all over these like it may have done in 2003.
I mostly agree with you, I'm not convinced any game can stand up and rip people away from other systems anymore. Starfield is maybe the biggest hype game in a while and even it doesn't seem like...
I mostly agree with you, I'm not convinced any game can stand up and rip people away from other systems anymore. Starfield is maybe the biggest hype game in a while and even it doesn't seem like it's really doing that, though it may be convincing some people to buy Xboxes. Tears of the Kingdom was huge hype of course but there was never any question it'd be anywhere other than a Nintendo system.
But... while Elden Ring and Hogwarts Legacy can sell numbers similar to COD, they still don't compare to COD's revenue. Elden Ring sells as much as a COD game... but COD launches a new game every single year and does bonkers sales. I believe Black Ops 4 sold 15 million copies, and that was the worst-selling COD game in many many years and was considered a "disappointment" sales-wise (most likely because they dropped single player for that one, so people who wanted SP skipped it). Modern Warfare 2019 crossed 30 million copies. Most of them sell in the 20 million range. Elden Ring has done 20 million which is an unprecedented success... for COD, selling 20 million in a year is not a big success at all.
Then on top of that, COD also has MTX: previously they had larger DLCs, now they have Battle Passes and some promotional MTX stuff for eSports teams I think w/ the new content being released via seasons. But even more importantly, COD also has two other games running concurrently with the yearly releases: COD Warzone, and COD Mobile.
For the sake of perspective... Activision announced last year that the COD franchise has passed $30 billion in revenue. That's a lotta dineros.
I'll say what others have already mentioned but emphasizing what I feel hasn't been stated directly. The problem with this is that the FTC doesn't have the enforcement powers or capability to go...
I'll say what others have already mentioned but emphasizing what I feel hasn't been stated directly. The problem with this is that the FTC doesn't have the enforcement powers or capability to go at these companies that already have problematic setups and break them up and they don't have the ability to consistently address these issues going forward, partially through administration changes but also just overall budget constraints among other issues. They're now targeting this one specific deal which doesn't necessarily make Microsoft anymore onerous than Sony is or has been for decades. They can't undo the damage already done, and blocking this one deal only looks "fair" if they can consistently enforce this standard going forward, which they almost certainly can't or won't.
And this isn't about forcing development on other platforms as others have mentioned, its about preventing actions that lead to these situations. Sony shouldn't have been able to offer favorable deals for exclusivity windows or full exclusivity to companies not owned/controlled by Sony, and the same is true for Microsoft not being allowed to do those things. In that way it would encourage purchasing development studios, but then they should also be blocking those purchases when it's necessary.
I think these oversight agencies need some kind of funding and taxation system based on the industries they're regulating. Whether it's based on market capitalization, revenues, profits, combinations of those or some other metrics, the oversight agencies need to grow dynamically. Taxes specifically earmarked for oversight agencies based on the criteria previously mentioned. It has to be some mixture of largest organizations within it's purview and total activity so that it can handle taking on large organizations and many small ones.
When I look at this deal, that's what I struggle with in supporting the FTC blocking it, because it just seems the enforcement is so inconsistent or damn near non-existent that it just seems like a deal that favors Sony as they're the market leader in console by a large margin (I don't think anyone is really counting Nintendo here because they aren't really competing on the same level). If there was some reason or indication for me to believe that this was the starting point of the FTC oversight ramping up, then I'd probably support it with little reservation. But there's been no legislative action that would make that possible, and that's really the only way the FTC or any of these other oversight agencies can become more effective going forward.
And yet, when was the last time the FTC broke up a company due to anti-trust/monopoly issues? They may have been created for that purpose, but they seem pretty toothless these days, which I think...
And yet, when was the last time the FTC broke up a company due to anti-trust/monopoly issues? They may have been created for that purpose, but they seem pretty toothless these days, which I think was the point they were trying to make.
Don't get me wrong (see my other posts in topic), I don't think the FTC will, because anti-trust is defacto dead. I'm just saying its not for a lack of having power or capability. Will I suppose...
Don't get me wrong (see my other posts in topic), I don't think the FTC will, because anti-trust is defacto dead. I'm just saying its not for a lack of having power or capability.
Will I suppose is the best. And that's probably no small part due to the deeply engrained corruption that permeates politics.
The FTC doesn't exist in a vacuum, the powers given to any regulatory agency by Congress are not exactly well-defined to the point that they can't be contested in court, and the dynamics of that...
The FTC doesn't exist in a vacuum, the powers given to any regulatory agency by Congress are not exactly well-defined to the point that they can't be contested in court, and the dynamics of that change over time. Furthermore, you have the legislative and the executive branch that end up changing who is allowed to head these regulatory agencies which not only impacts what the agencies can do but impacts the consistency of the agencies which is the other point that I emphasized. Just look at the FCC as a prime example of how this happens.
I realize you covered that by saying "deeply ingrained corruption that permeates politics" but it's all part of it. The power they were given was dependent on the institutions and the variables around those institutions at the time those agencies were created. If those things change significantly enough, then their power can go away with it despite whatever legislative bills brought those agencies into existence and whatever power was supposedly given to them through that.
Effectively they do not have the power to do so because the regulatory agency is not capable of correcting the problem itself. It's at the mercy of other institutions to correct the problem, whether it's budget constraints or political appointments that are designed to neuter the regulatory agencies or something else.
Specifically to my wording before, they lack the enforcement power because all these other elements make it so they literally will never actually try to enforce it, or in the case that they do, they will lose. They don't even have the budget to do so is one element of it. Their budget is $430 million in 2023. How are they going to take on Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Google, Apple, Meta, literally name just about any big company, on a $430 million budget? Because there's likely been numerous cases over just the past couple decades where the FTC probably should have stepped in on all of those companies and many more and it didn't. I realize I mentioned a yearly budget and then discussed decades of problems, but just multiply the numbers and realize the budget over that whole time period still is fucking nothing compared to what these companies have at their disposal.
Yeah I don’t think it’s an accident they’re going after MS on gaming and not, say, cloud computing. Gaming is a side hustle for MS, they’ll take a hit and move on. If we came for Azure, MS would...
Their budget is $430 million in 2023. How are they going to take on Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Google, Apple, Meta, literally name just about any big company, on a $430 million budget? Because there's likely been numerous cases over just the past couple decades where the FTC probably should have stepped in on all of those companies and many more and it didn't.
Yeah I don’t think it’s an accident they’re going after MS on gaming and not, say, cloud computing. Gaming is a side hustle for MS, they’ll take a hit and move on. If we came for Azure, MS would go nuclear and the FTC can’t take that fight. It also helps that Sony is also a corporate behemoth that sides with the FTC on this.
This is tough because all 3 platforms are also publishers. People can point to offering exclusivity to FF16, but Sony at the same time has made "3rd party exclusives" for stuff like Destrutcion...
Sony shouldn't have been able to offer favorable deals for exclusivity windows or full exclusivity to companies not owned/controlled by Sony, and the same is true for Microsoft not being allowed to do those things.
This is tough because all 3 platforms are also publishers. People can point to offering exclusivity to FF16, but Sony at the same time has made "3rd party exclusives" for stuff like Destrutcion All stars. Then there are weird edge cases like how COD Cold war was published by Sony in Japan only (a more common occurrence in the 90's/00's, but still happens today). How do you determine between licencing out an IP to a 1st party studio (e.g. Spiderman. Did Insomniac pay for exlcusive use?) , publishing a title, or paying for exclusivity without hurting all 3 types?
These platform holders aren't just making a box and raking in their share of revenue from creators. They help many other studios get their games on the platform, and fund many others. I'm not sure if losing all that to prevent this idea of monopolization is the right decision.
I always see these posts and think to myself how is this worse then the current market where there is no real competition and for example Sony dominates the console market. Even most arguments...
I always see these posts and think to myself how is this worse then the current market where there is no real competition and for example Sony dominates the console market.
Even most arguments seem like projection because most stuff is already done by someone.
So, I wanna make sure I’m understanding you correctly, but let me open with I definitely agree the market is already in a rough spot. Your point though is because the market is already in bad...
So, I wanna make sure I’m understanding you correctly, but let me open with I definitely agree the market is already in a rough spot. Your point though is because the market is already in bad shape, what does it matter if it gets worse?
In my eyes, Sony’s market cap is currently somewhere in the range of like 120 billion. Microsoft spent more than 50% of what Sony is currently worth on a single acquisition. Things are already bad, but giving a company worth 2.5 trillion the ability to continue to absorb more space seems like a way worse reality than our current one?
This doesn’t even account for the idea that Microsoft no longer even sees Sony as a competitor anymore, even with its commanding console lead.
why does it have to get worse? and for whom? playstation players? and especially how? what if microsoft leaves the market because it's in it's current state a money pit? Doesn't a Monopoly of Sony...
why does it have to get worse? and for whom? playstation players? and especially how?
what if microsoft leaves the market because it's in it's current state a money pit? Doesn't a Monopoly of Sony sounds a lot worse!?
i'm not a fan of consolidation and megacorps but this seems just like ms is buying a big gamestudio and all ps players throw a fit because they fear the get the same exlusive treatment sony currently practices. aka projection
ps: always assuming Microsoft acts in good faith in the feature. but evidently they not always do
It gets observably worse because Sony nor Nintendo can compete. How does Sony counter offer ~70 billion dollars? How does any company compete against buying power like that? This isn’t a game...
It gets observably worse because Sony nor Nintendo can compete. How does Sony counter offer ~70 billion dollars? How does any company compete against buying power like that? This isn’t a game studio, this is a publisher which houses tons of game studios.
The other thing is Sony can’t monopolize the space, they don’t have the capital to do that. I feel like the exclusive/game studios argument is thrown around without remembering that at no point could MS not do the same thing, they chose not to. In the instance of Act/Blizz it is completely impossible for Sony or Nintendo to be involved in the conversation.
I think the thing to keep in mind here is MS has zero skin in the game, the Xbox division could be shuttered tomorrow and their stock value would dip for a few weeks then shoot way up when people realize they shed the money pit that is Xbox. Could the same be said about Sony’s PlayStation division? Probably not.
i see it the same and would say it's worth to keep them in the market because sony as a company isn't a nice player either. now they are on the edge to not f erveryone over. valid and i did...
I think the thing to keep in mind here is MS has zero skin in the game, the Xbox division could be shuttered tomorrow and their stock value would dip for a few weeks then shoot way up when people realize they shed the money pit that is Xbox. Could the same be said about Sony’s PlayStation division? Probably not.
i see it the same and would say it's worth to keep them in the market because sony as a company isn't a nice player either. now they are on the edge to not f erveryone over.
The other thing is Sony can’t monopolize the space, they don’t have the capital to do that. I feel like the exclusive/game studios argument is thrown around without remembering that at no point could MS not do the same thing, they chose not to. In the instance of Act/Blizz it is completely impossible for Sony or Nintendo to be involved in the conversation.
valid and i did address this in my ps. but for now they acted in good faith and that makes me want to trust them. a little.
It gets observably worse because Sony nor Nintendo can compete. How does Sony counter offer ~70 billion dollars? How does any company compete against buying power like that? This isn’t a game studio, this is a publisher which houses tons of game studios.
but with that kind of power that deal doesn't really matter. it's only done because it's a safe play. they could invest that money into a small studio and make them AAA big. but success as ms has certainly noticed isn't guaranteed. And this is also my problem with these arguments. because they make it out like the problem is going away when the deal isn't done. because as long as not all players have to play fair the game is skewed
And I’m not asking MS to shutter its Xbox division, I’m just expecting regulators to stop a deal that sets a very dangerous precedent for the space. I don’t want another industry to just be...
i see it the same and would say it's worth to keep them in the market because sony as a company isn't a nice player either. now they are on the edge to not f everyone over.
And I’m not asking MS to shutter its Xbox division, I’m just expecting regulators to stop a deal that sets a very dangerous precedent for the space. I don’t want another industry to just be swallowed up by MS, Amazon, Google, Apple, etc.
valid and i did address this in my ps. but for now they acted in good faith and that makes me want to trust them. a little.
I don’t think they have though. When they acquired Bethesda, they immediately made Redfall, Starfield, and Elder Scrolls 6 Xbox/PC exclusives. All of those games were slated multi-platform. I don’t think Microsoft from a historical perspective deserves the benefit of the doubt here.
but with that kind of power that deal doesn't really matter. it's only done because it's a safe play. they could invest that money into a small studio and make them AAA big
Investing in studios they build is very different than acquiring a currently existing multi-platform publisher. It’s actively removing a good number of options that previously existed for all consumers.
I think in the end, I’m not saying blocking the deal solves all problems and everything is fine. I think what I’m saying is approving the deal sets us down a path that we can’t walk back from. The gaming space is already small enough, we don’t need to continue to make it smaller.
If stuff works under mac/linux I'd not call it exclusive because with the steamdeck that's basically everything except for two silos. And Nintendo already has a deal so there's that. The publisher...
If stuff works under mac/linux I'd not call it exclusive because with the steamdeck that's basically everything except for two silos. And Nintendo already has a deal so there's that.
The publisher part is somewhat true although currently it doesn't look like much changes. Maybe Playstation is forced to make deals but I'm all for it.
Nevertheless i think this is a market/political problem and this is just an insignificant battlefield because the root cause is something else.
Megacorps are a drag but until something changes we can only hope they act in good faith. Banning this deal won't change that. It's not like sony is dragging their feet as it tries to buy bungie for 9billion
I think we will just disagree here ideologically, which is fine. I just find issue with the largest single acquisition in Microsoft’s history being classified as an insignificant battlefield.
I think we will just disagree here ideologically, which is fine. I just find issue with the largest single acquisition in Microsoft’s history being classified as an insignificant battlefield.
Well if something changes afterwards I'd change my stance on this. But if the deal doesn't go through and it's just business as usual than it was not very significant imo.
Well if something changes afterwards I'd change my stance on this. But if the deal doesn't go through and it's just business as usual than it was not very significant imo.
And I'll throw this out there...So what if Sony dominates the console space? Does making the #2 console player even larger actually help new entrants into the console market? If not, you're not...
And I'll throw this out there...So what if Sony dominates the console space?
Does making the #2 console player even larger actually help new entrants into the console market? If not, you're not giving customers choice, you're helping lock in the duopoly.
Microsoft dominates the PC desktop, and their Xbox division is plenty profitable. They are a viable competitor to Sony, in the same was Google is to Apple.
What if Microsoft leaves the console market because except for gamepass they have not much going for them? Extending my answer #1 with the fact that multiple big players including google tried to...
And I'll throw this out there...So what if Sony dominates the console space?
What if Microsoft leaves the console market because except for gamepass they have not much going for them?
Does making the #2 console player even larger actually help new entrants into the console market? If not, you're not giving customers choice, you're helping lock in the duopoly.
Extending my answer #1 with the fact that multiple big players including google tried to enter the market and failed that there is some secret sauce. And my guess it's having games that players want on your system. Here is imo Microsoft the most open in the console market (meaning the least exclusives)
Microsoft dominates the PC desktop, and their Xbox division is plenty profitable. They are a viable competitor to Sony, in the same was Google is to Apple.
is it? i've only ever found revenue posts but nothing on profits. care to share?
They’re not. They’re instead trying to block MS from buying Activision in the first place.
I don't think the FTC should have the authority to force a company to release a product in a particular format.
They’re not. They’re instead trying to block MS from buying Activision in the first place.
…if and when its proposed $69 billion Activision acquisition is approved. But as the Federal Trade Commission's request for an injunction stopping that acquisition…
I would hazard a guess that maybe a federal agency full of lawyers who specialize in trade and anti-trust law probably have a good sense for how strong of a case they have for taking action.
Regulatory agencies can only use statutes, rules and previous court decisions and I doubt there's anything there to support the FTCs reasoning.
I would hazard a guess that maybe a federal agency full of lawyers who specialize in trade and anti-trust law probably have a good sense for how strong of a case they have for taking action.
That's really not equivalent for a so many reasons... A better example would be if a car manufacturer (let's use Ford) had a proprietary fuel format (let's call it FUel). But dont worry, FUel cars...
Would the FTC force an auto manufacturer that was buying another automaker to sell all their vehicles in gasoline format and diesel?
That's really not equivalent for a so many reasons...
A better example would be if a car manufacturer (let's use Ford) had a proprietary fuel format (let's call it FUel). But dont worry, FUel cars will run gas, but FUel won't work in a gas engine. Ford starts an in house FUel network but then decides to buy Exxon as well. When they buy Exxon they convert (almost) all stations to FUel only but still run them under the Exxon brand. THEN Ford tries to buy up Shell and then Chevron. The FTC would step in here and block the acquisitions.
The FTC isn't going to force MS to release games in other formats, you're right; they're going to block the acquisition. MS is allowed to have a proprietary format as long as it doesn't become a monopoly.
If US anti-trust laws actually still had substance they wouldn't have to do that, Microsoft would have been split up by now (as well as some other monopolies). I agree with @vord's comment, if...
I don't think the FTC should have the authority to force a company to release a product in a particular format.
If US anti-trust laws actually still had substance they wouldn't have to do that, Microsoft would have been split up by now (as well as some other monopolies). I agree with @vord's comment, if anti-trust laws were successful Xbox,the game studios, office / Edge, Windows, and Azure cloud and perhaps Bing would all be separated into separate entities (perhaps in a different configuration but roughly that)
I think the analogy isn't particularly apt - for one, gasoline and diesel aren't proprietary formats. Though, I'd argue that both cases come down to the same root problem: consolidation is rarely...
I think the analogy isn't particularly apt - for one, gasoline and diesel aren't proprietary formats. Though, I'd argue that both cases come down to the same root problem: consolidation is rarely in the best long-term interest of the consumer, the worker, and the economy as a whole.
I have no real opinion on which branch of the government this kind of regulation falls within the purview of, I just think this acquisition is a bad proposition for everyone but the shareholders, regardless of exclusivity. The fact that any regulatory body would rely, whether voluntarily or as a last resort, on promises from any company in this country is sad.
That's a bad comparison because there isn't a fuel monopoly that harms drivers in a similar way, gasoline was simply the market-decided superior fuel. The government would have, or should have,...
Would the FTC force an auto manufacturer that was buying another automaker to sell all their vehicles in gasoline format and diesel?
That's a bad comparison because there isn't a fuel monopoly that harms drivers in a similar way, gasoline was simply the market-decided superior fuel. The government would have, or should have, intervened if a company bought up any and all diesel manufacturers and shut down their diesel engine divisions.
The issue is we have had, for a long time, a broad competitive game marketplace that is now being consolidated a small number of companies, but it doesn't map cleanly to any other industry because we have multiple $500 devices with software for them that should run on three major platforms (PC, XBox, PS5), but might not be able to because one company simply can't compete with output but has the capacity for large-scale acquisitions and mergers.
What gets me is that this all comes down to just words. Like is this really going to be decided based on whether or not the FTC trusts Microsoft's promises? Granted, I understand that's an oversimplification of the situation, but I do wonder if US antitrust law is really so... informal? I guess I expected something a little more by the numbers. Though given the US' recent history with monopolies
(Disney???), I suppose it's not too surprising. Anyone that knows more than me can feel free to correct me here.Microsoft took the teeth out of antitrust in the 90s/early 00s. They should have been dismantled then and there, as a warning to other would-be monopolists.
For those who don't recall... They were judged to be violating antitrust laws. They avoided being split into "operating system" and "software applications" divisions by the skin of their teeth (and probably some hefty donations).
Nowadays Microsoft would probably need to be fractured into dozens if not hundreds of companies to allow proper competition. Think of every single software application that has at least 1 small provider that competes with Microsoft. That's how small Microsoft needs to be shattered to prevent re-forming in the same way the Ma-Bells did before.
God I love it here.
I fully do not expect them to actually stop this. I doubt they'll even need more assurances to just throw their hands in the air and say fine, go ahead.
Even if one does believe that this deal would allow Microsoft to gain a monopoly on the console market -- the US has reason to want that. MS is a US based company, Sony and Nintendo are not.
US regulatory bodies have less teeth than your average great grandparent.
Lets say there is a formal agreement that a new game isn't an exclusive. Isn't it just math on Microsoft's part to decide whether it complies or not? The fines are pretty fixed values, and far detached from the value CoD generates.
The FTC judgement against EPIC was $520 Million, and that was two separate ~$250 Million judgements. CoD was $3 Billion in revenue in 2020 alone. The fine against reneging on a promise might be the cost of getting the merger done. I think the "record fines" against corporate wrongdoing aren't going to change how businesses operate unless they're significantly more painful, and it could be the FTC realizing that stopping the merger is the only way they can be effective with or without a formal agreement.
If such an agreement could have adequate teeth to deter this type of behavior, sure that could work but I don't think that's ever been done in the USA, though I see examples in the EU with revenue adjusted fines. Please let me know if there has been similar actions in the USA, I'm certainly not a lawyer.
They...i would say the head of xbox, sees that exclusives are not their priority, they are not going to outsell PS systems. Subscriptions to gamepass is their money making, no matter what device you play on. Hell i could see them trying to get gamepass on PS at some point if PS would allow it.
Could they be planning to have CoD available on PS, but only via Game Pass?
Gamepass isn't on PS right now, but I think they might do the thing where they crank up the price of everything cod but also put all of it on gamepass so it just becomes more expensive for people not in their hardware system
I think they'd honor the contracts they're offering (which seem to be to put the game on the system as a regular release for 10 years) and then probably try to move it to Game Pass.
Microsoft has been very vocal that they would put all of their games on PlayStation via Game Pass if Sony would allow it on the system, but Sony won't.
That's also arguably an argument in MS's favor. They've offered a way to Sony to put all their games on PS systems but Sony refuses it. So is it really fair to say that they're keeping games exclusive?
I had people say I was too severe when I mentioned that Microsoft's acquisitions previously were bad and concentrating a majority of game development. "There are other studios," they would say, but that's not the point. It's the concentration and control of major franchises that will determine the landscape of video games. This is the end game, and if Activision Blizzard is bought, will do nothing but damage the AAA space. Sure we've got indies and beloved smaller studios, but they're specifically referred to under a different label for a reason.
I see two options:
If anybody/any company doesn't like this they ought to re-think their acquisitions and decisions so they can ensure a competitive marketplace so the government doesn't have to.
I think that's the issue here that makes me not as worried about MS. This isn't the early 00's where a single exclusive can make or break an entire generation of consoles. MS had that chance with Halo infinite, and I understand it was a rocky launch. But even if Halo Infinite was as evergreen a title as Halo 2 back in the day: I don't think the needle would have been pushed to Microsoft that way. There's a dozen large 3rd parties (and I doubt every single one of them are looking to sell) and Nintendo/Sony each have dozens of first party IP's to compete with.
Even if this went through and all CODs went Xbox only next year I don't think that would "determine the landscape of video games". Games as a medium is so much larger and diverse now. We had Hogwarts Legacy and Eldin Ring from 3rd parties launch to similar numbers to COD, and Tears of the Kingdom is probably going to dwarf all 3 in a few years' time. I'm not too worried about COD swamping all over these like it may have done in 2003.
I mostly agree with you, I'm not convinced any game can stand up and rip people away from other systems anymore. Starfield is maybe the biggest hype game in a while and even it doesn't seem like it's really doing that, though it may be convincing some people to buy Xboxes. Tears of the Kingdom was huge hype of course but there was never any question it'd be anywhere other than a Nintendo system.
But... while Elden Ring and Hogwarts Legacy can sell numbers similar to COD, they still don't compare to COD's revenue. Elden Ring sells as much as a COD game... but COD launches a new game every single year and does bonkers sales. I believe Black Ops 4 sold 15 million copies, and that was the worst-selling COD game in many many years and was considered a "disappointment" sales-wise (most likely because they dropped single player for that one, so people who wanted SP skipped it). Modern Warfare 2019 crossed 30 million copies. Most of them sell in the 20 million range. Elden Ring has done 20 million which is an unprecedented success... for COD, selling 20 million in a year is not a big success at all.
Then on top of that, COD also has MTX: previously they had larger DLCs, now they have Battle Passes and some promotional MTX stuff for eSports teams I think w/ the new content being released via seasons. But even more importantly, COD also has two other games running concurrently with the yearly releases: COD Warzone, and COD Mobile.
For the sake of perspective... Activision announced last year that the COD franchise has passed $30 billion in revenue. That's a lotta dineros.
I'll say what others have already mentioned but emphasizing what I feel hasn't been stated directly. The problem with this is that the FTC doesn't have the enforcement powers or capability to go at these companies that already have problematic setups and break them up and they don't have the ability to consistently address these issues going forward, partially through administration changes but also just overall budget constraints among other issues. They're now targeting this one specific deal which doesn't necessarily make Microsoft anymore onerous than Sony is or has been for decades. They can't undo the damage already done, and blocking this one deal only looks "fair" if they can consistently enforce this standard going forward, which they almost certainly can't or won't.
And this isn't about forcing development on other platforms as others have mentioned, its about preventing actions that lead to these situations. Sony shouldn't have been able to offer favorable deals for exclusivity windows or full exclusivity to companies not owned/controlled by Sony, and the same is true for Microsoft not being allowed to do those things. In that way it would encourage purchasing development studios, but then they should also be blocking those purchases when it's necessary.
I think these oversight agencies need some kind of funding and taxation system based on the industries they're regulating. Whether it's based on market capitalization, revenues, profits, combinations of those or some other metrics, the oversight agencies need to grow dynamically. Taxes specifically earmarked for oversight agencies based on the criteria previously mentioned. It has to be some mixture of largest organizations within it's purview and total activity so that it can handle taking on large organizations and many small ones.
When I look at this deal, that's what I struggle with in supporting the FTC blocking it, because it just seems the enforcement is so inconsistent or damn near non-existent that it just seems like a deal that favors Sony as they're the market leader in console by a large margin (I don't think anyone is really counting Nintendo here because they aren't really competing on the same level). If there was some reason or indication for me to believe that this was the starting point of the FTC oversight ramping up, then I'd probably support it with little reservation. But there's been no legislative action that would make that possible, and that's really the only way the FTC or any of these other oversight agencies can become more effective going forward.
I that is mostly just hogwash that ignores the history of the FTC. It was created for the exact purposes of bringing down the banhammer on monopolies.
And yet, when was the last time the FTC broke up a company due to anti-trust/monopoly issues? They may have been created for that purpose, but they seem pretty toothless these days, which I think was the point they were trying to make.
Don't get me wrong (see my other posts in topic), I don't think the FTC will, because anti-trust is defacto dead. I'm just saying its not for a lack of having power or capability.
Will I suppose is the best. And that's probably no small part due to the deeply engrained corruption that permeates politics.
The FTC doesn't exist in a vacuum, the powers given to any regulatory agency by Congress are not exactly well-defined to the point that they can't be contested in court, and the dynamics of that change over time. Furthermore, you have the legislative and the executive branch that end up changing who is allowed to head these regulatory agencies which not only impacts what the agencies can do but impacts the consistency of the agencies which is the other point that I emphasized. Just look at the FCC as a prime example of how this happens.
I realize you covered that by saying "deeply ingrained corruption that permeates politics" but it's all part of it. The power they were given was dependent on the institutions and the variables around those institutions at the time those agencies were created. If those things change significantly enough, then their power can go away with it despite whatever legislative bills brought those agencies into existence and whatever power was supposedly given to them through that.
Effectively they do not have the power to do so because the regulatory agency is not capable of correcting the problem itself. It's at the mercy of other institutions to correct the problem, whether it's budget constraints or political appointments that are designed to neuter the regulatory agencies or something else.
Specifically to my wording before, they lack the enforcement power because all these other elements make it so they literally will never actually try to enforce it, or in the case that they do, they will lose. They don't even have the budget to do so is one element of it. Their budget is $430 million in 2023. How are they going to take on Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Google, Apple, Meta, literally name just about any big company, on a $430 million budget? Because there's likely been numerous cases over just the past couple decades where the FTC probably should have stepped in on all of those companies and many more and it didn't. I realize I mentioned a yearly budget and then discussed decades of problems, but just multiply the numbers and realize the budget over that whole time period still is fucking nothing compared to what these companies have at their disposal.
Yeah I don’t think it’s an accident they’re going after MS on gaming and not, say, cloud computing. Gaming is a side hustle for MS, they’ll take a hit and move on. If we came for Azure, MS would go nuclear and the FTC can’t take that fight. It also helps that Sony is also a corporate behemoth that sides with the FTC on this.
This is tough because all 3 platforms are also publishers. People can point to offering exclusivity to FF16, but Sony at the same time has made "3rd party exclusives" for stuff like Destrutcion All stars. Then there are weird edge cases like how COD Cold war was published by Sony in Japan only (a more common occurrence in the 90's/00's, but still happens today). How do you determine between licencing out an IP to a 1st party studio (e.g. Spiderman. Did Insomniac pay for exlcusive use?) , publishing a title, or paying for exclusivity without hurting all 3 types?
These platform holders aren't just making a box and raking in their share of revenue from creators. They help many other studios get their games on the platform, and fund many others. I'm not sure if losing all that to prevent this idea of monopolization is the right decision.
I always see these posts and think to myself how is this worse then the current market where there is no real competition and for example Sony dominates the console market.
Even most arguments seem like projection because most stuff is already done by someone.
So, I wanna make sure I’m understanding you correctly, but let me open with I definitely agree the market is already in a rough spot. Your point though is because the market is already in bad shape, what does it matter if it gets worse?
In my eyes, Sony’s market cap is currently somewhere in the range of like 120 billion. Microsoft spent more than 50% of what Sony is currently worth on a single acquisition. Things are already bad, but giving a company worth 2.5 trillion the ability to continue to absorb more space seems like a way worse reality than our current one?
This doesn’t even account for the idea that Microsoft no longer even sees Sony as a competitor anymore, even with its commanding console lead.
why does it have to get worse? and for whom? playstation players? and especially how?
what if microsoft leaves the market because it's in it's current state a money pit? Doesn't a Monopoly of Sony sounds a lot worse!?
i'm not a fan of consolidation and megacorps but this seems just like ms is buying a big gamestudio and all ps players throw a fit because they fear the get the same exlusive treatment sony currently practices. aka projection
ps: always assuming Microsoft acts in good faith in the feature. but evidently they not always do
It gets observably worse because Sony nor Nintendo can compete. How does Sony counter offer ~70 billion dollars? How does any company compete against buying power like that? This isn’t a game studio, this is a publisher which houses tons of game studios.
The other thing is Sony can’t monopolize the space, they don’t have the capital to do that. I feel like the exclusive/game studios argument is thrown around without remembering that at no point could MS not do the same thing, they chose not to. In the instance of Act/Blizz it is completely impossible for Sony or Nintendo to be involved in the conversation.
I think the thing to keep in mind here is MS has zero skin in the game, the Xbox division could be shuttered tomorrow and their stock value would dip for a few weeks then shoot way up when people realize they shed the money pit that is Xbox. Could the same be said about Sony’s PlayStation division? Probably not.
i see it the same and would say it's worth to keep them in the market because sony as a company isn't a nice player either. now they are on the edge to not f erveryone over.
valid and i did address this in my ps. but for now they acted in good faith and that makes me want to trust them. a little.
but with that kind of power that deal doesn't really matter. it's only done because it's a safe play. they could invest that money into a small studio and make them AAA big. but success as ms has certainly noticed isn't guaranteed. And this is also my problem with these arguments. because they make it out like the problem is going away when the deal isn't done. because as long as not all players have to play fair the game is skewed
And I’m not asking MS to shutter its Xbox division, I’m just expecting regulators to stop a deal that sets a very dangerous precedent for the space. I don’t want another industry to just be swallowed up by MS, Amazon, Google, Apple, etc.
I don’t think they have though. When they acquired Bethesda, they immediately made Redfall, Starfield, and Elder Scrolls 6 Xbox/PC exclusives. All of those games were slated multi-platform. I don’t think Microsoft from a historical perspective deserves the benefit of the doubt here.
Investing in studios they build is very different than acquiring a currently existing multi-platform publisher. It’s actively removing a good number of options that previously existed for all consumers.
I think in the end, I’m not saying blocking the deal solves all problems and everything is fine. I think what I’m saying is approving the deal sets us down a path that we can’t walk back from. The gaming space is already small enough, we don’t need to continue to make it smaller.
If stuff works under mac/linux I'd not call it exclusive because with the steamdeck that's basically everything except for two silos. And Nintendo already has a deal so there's that.
The publisher part is somewhat true although currently it doesn't look like much changes. Maybe Playstation is forced to make deals but I'm all for it.
Nevertheless i think this is a market/political problem and this is just an insignificant battlefield because the root cause is something else.
Megacorps are a drag but until something changes we can only hope they act in good faith. Banning this deal won't change that. It's not like sony is dragging their feet as it tries to buy bungie for 9billion
I think we will just disagree here ideologically, which is fine. I just find issue with the largest single acquisition in Microsoft’s history being classified as an insignificant battlefield.
Well if something changes afterwards I'd change my stance on this. But if the deal doesn't go through and it's just business as usual than it was not very significant imo.
And I'll throw this out there...So what if Sony dominates the console space?
Does making the #2 console player even larger actually help new entrants into the console market? If not, you're not giving customers choice, you're helping lock in the duopoly.
Microsoft dominates the PC desktop, and their Xbox division is plenty profitable. They are a viable competitor to Sony, in the same was Google is to Apple.
What if Microsoft leaves the console market because except for gamepass they have not much going for them?
Extending my answer #1 with the fact that multiple big players including google tried to enter the market and failed that there is some secret sauce. And my guess it's having games that players want on your system. Here is imo Microsoft the most open in the console market (meaning the least exclusives)
is it? i've only ever found revenue posts but nothing on profits. care to share?
They’re not. They’re instead trying to block MS from buying Activision in the first place.
I would hazard a guess that maybe a federal agency full of lawyers who specialize in trade and anti-trust law probably have a good sense for how strong of a case they have for taking action.
That's really not equivalent for a so many reasons...
A better example would be if a car manufacturer (let's use Ford) had a proprietary fuel format (let's call it FUel). But dont worry, FUel cars will run gas, but FUel won't work in a gas engine. Ford starts an in house FUel network but then decides to buy Exxon as well. When they buy Exxon they convert (almost) all stations to FUel only but still run them under the Exxon brand. THEN Ford tries to buy up Shell and then Chevron. The FTC would step in here and block the acquisitions.
The FTC isn't going to force MS to release games in other formats, you're right; they're going to block the acquisition. MS is allowed to have a proprietary format as long as it doesn't become a monopoly.
If US anti-trust laws actually still had substance they wouldn't have to do that, Microsoft would have been split up by now (as well as some other monopolies). I agree with @vord's comment, if anti-trust laws were successful Xbox,the game studios, office / Edge, Windows, and Azure cloud and perhaps Bing would all be separated into separate entities (perhaps in a different configuration but roughly that)
Yup, we should have begun the trust busting long ago but it’s never too late to start.
I think the analogy isn't particularly apt - for one, gasoline and diesel aren't proprietary formats. Though, I'd argue that both cases come down to the same root problem: consolidation is rarely in the best long-term interest of the consumer, the worker, and the economy as a whole.
I have no real opinion on which branch of the government this kind of regulation falls within the purview of, I just think this acquisition is a bad proposition for everyone but the shareholders, regardless of exclusivity. The fact that any regulatory body would rely, whether voluntarily or as a last resort, on promises from any company in this country is sad.
That's a bad comparison because there isn't a fuel monopoly that harms drivers in a similar way, gasoline was simply the market-decided superior fuel. The government would have, or should have, intervened if a company bought up any and all diesel manufacturers and shut down their diesel engine divisions.
The issue is we have had, for a long time, a broad competitive game marketplace that is now being consolidated a small number of companies, but it doesn't map cleanly to any other industry because we have multiple $500 devices with software for them that should run on three major platforms (PC, XBox, PS5), but might not be able to because one company simply can't compete with output but has the capacity for large-scale acquisitions and mergers.