LurkerJ said:
Let's not forget that Nintendo and steam only benefited from this deal AFTER the backlash MS got and after they became less confident about their previous vulgar approach to the merger. The mere scrutiny ALONE of this deal got MS to make legally binding promises that were not on the table weeks ago. I do believe MS will make games Multiplatform when it suits them, and withhold games when it doesn't. To suggest that MS will selfishly abstain from taking full advantage of the power that these acquisitions provide them with is not realistic in my opinion. They have already said in the past it will not be the case, and they will contemplate the matter on "case-by-case" basis. Make of that what you will. Using the number of employees each company has to argue for the acquisition is looking away from the bigger picture and using a single metric in isolation to get a favourable outcome. Just like portraying CoD as the only issue with this merger. These acquisitions come with legacy ever-green IPs, you can do a lot more damage to the competition with much less number of employees by simply relying on this legacy. As for the prevailing argument you see from the other side, I have not made this argument myself, and I have already stated SONY has indulged in objectionable practices repeatedly and continue to do so. Microsoft possibilities shouldn't be limited by what SONY has or hasn't done, but it 100% should be limited by regulation that seek to prevent monopoly over the industry. |
Why MS made the legally binding deals is irrelevant to those who will benefit from it. Also, MS stated prior to the backlash they were not going to remove CoD from the competition. No company will try to purchase another and offer legally binding concessions before they are/appear to be a necessity. So yeah MS made those as a result of the challenge they face but it is all but normal and expected.
"Using the number of employees each company has to argue for the acquisition is looking away from the bigger picture and using a single metric in isolation to get a favourable outcome"
well, if you isolate that argument from the others and than argue it's a single metric in isolation it's disingenuous, I have not isolated this argument but completed it with the rest of my argumentation.
"Just like portraying CoD as the only issue with this merger"
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/634536048fa8f5153767e533/MSFT.ABK_phase_1_decision_-_1.09.2022.pdf
- Consumer is mentioned 14 times
- Sony is mentioned 70 times
- Call of Duty also abbreviated as CoD is mentioned 156 times
While it is not their only argument it revolves predominantly around it and it is by far their main one.
"These acquisitions come with legacy ever-green IPs, you can do a lot more damage to the competition with much less number of employees by simply relying on this legacy."
Yeah but MS offered assurance it won't, offered legally binding one at that. If that was the concern, Sony would sit with them and try to make Microsoft offer the same kind of deal from Diablo, Wow, Overwatch ... but all they give is silence apparently.
"As for the prevailing argument you see from the other side, I have not made this argument myself, and I have already stated SONY has indulged in objectionable practices repeatedly and continue to do so. Microsoft possibilities shouldn't be limited by what SONY has or hasn't done, but it 100% should be limited by regulation that seek to prevent monopoly over the industry. "
And I agree 100%. Though one would hope a decision on this would be devoid of political interference and factually based which is completely contrary to what we've seen with the FTC decision and reasons.
Last edited by EpicRandy - on 15 December 2022
