Currently Online 
LurkerJ said:
"Why MS made the legally binding deals is irrelevant to those who will benefit from it". It really does though, as the rest of your post shows, the mere fact that the FTC is questioning the buyout is bothering a lot of you for no good reason at all. It's like, here is the biggest buyout in tech history, approve it or get accused of "getting political" and "interfering". So it is important to show that this "interference", regardless of the motivation behind it, is already yielding better outcomes for everyone. "Consumer is mentioned 14 times, Sony is mentioned 70 times, Call of Duty also abbreviated as CoD is mentioned 156 times" I feel like of what you argue is relying on buzzwords, headlines and pure good faith in the largest or the 2nd largest tech company in the world that has proven and documented anti-competitive behaviour in the past. You're also heavily relying on converging arguments and lines of thoughts a lot of what you say ends up being random. Basically what you're doing here is the following "CoD is the main argument, here is a document with the following stats that proves it". You don't even mention that this is the CMA document, not SONY's, not that it matters who wrote it anyway! It doesn't matter because the simple fact is that Bethesda/Activision have some of the biggest IPs in history that can majorly change the outcome of console sales even if CoD remains multiplatform for good, therefore, it doesn't matter who's arguing what, it doesn't change the facts. I also believe these arguments happen to be too convenient for Microsoft to keep the narrative around CoD going and ignore the much bigger picture, so whoever is using this argument, they need to do a better job because it only helps MS in my opinion to keep the story too focused on CoD. "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." "Yes and no logics tell me they won't try a deal on that scale anymore unless this one does not pass" "If Sony were to fight for their user here and not for their margins IMO they would try to strike a deal with MS not only for CoD but most of Acti-Blizz's existing franchises (Diablo, overwatch, Crash...) and I believe MS would agree to all these" Another great examples of you relying on the good will of a giant corporation, while completely ignoring statements made by the giant corporation themselves. Again, MS has said it will be "case by case" basis, and until very recently, the narrative by MS has been "we're not done with acquisitions". So much so that the "who should MS acquire next?" has become recurrent theme in many xbox threads (including the xbox empire on vgc). But here you are, asking me to dismiss all of that and in addition, you are also telling me SONY can secure all other IPs for 10 years if they sat down with MS because you believe it and because you believe that Microsoft is only going to acquire other publishers if this one fails despite their publicly declared intents. Sorry, I don't think you're actually convinced with your own statements, they're just... too naive and I don't believe you are naive. Honestly, I can't believe some are making these arguments, even if we lived in a world in which MS hasn't publicly declared their intents. "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." Well, it would be a nicer world indeed if money and ulterior motives didn't influence politics, but honestly, if you actually think about, letting this acquisition pass without scrutiny is a bigger telltale signs of political interference, because it indicates that someone isn't looking at the biggest tech merger ever when that someone's sole job is to look into these sorts of things. Moreover, Tech giants, including Apple, FB, MS, Tesla have become experts at influencing these sorts of decisions and lobbying governments around the world, by far one of the biggest spenders out there and they increase their lobbying spendings year over year. So even if these challenges are raised against the acquisition are driven by lobbyists, MS shouldn't complain someone else is using their tactics to influence regulators decisions. |
Why make this troll treat if your not going to answer the questions in good fate and not skip to your Blah blah blah nonsense. You didnt even answer the questions just gave more of them yourself. Really if your not going to reply and answere the things put before you and then reply to them things and except them your doing nothing other then making a silly thread that you dont plan on standing by at all or listening to other peoples opinions other then your own.
