Currently Online 
| LurkerJ said:
I think it applies for both IPs and studios really, SONY can't wake up one day and ask Santa Monica to make a successful Call of Duty or mutliplayer game, that's not what the studio was built for. Although I feel like I have probably missed the point you're trying to make here as I don't have the time to lurk around here as much anymore. |
With talent, vision, budget and luck any actor can pull the next "Call of Duty". But if you need to build from the ground up you first need to acquire those talents, build a coherent vision which can be an exercise in patience. With acquisition, you only jump-start the process by attaching a monetary value to this growing pain and skipping it altogether.
LurkerJ said:
No, I can't quote MS saying they would do another $70B deal in the future, this is silly. A made up metric you came up with to dismiss valid arguments. Even if I accept your made up metric and assume MS will only buy smaller companies from now on; this doesn't lessen the effect of these buyouts because cumulative and snowball effects are important factors in how the world works. You are refusing to see that buying companies that are, 10 times smaller than AKB, would cause another shift in the market. MS can buy easily buy Ubisoft next on top of what they have, a company that's tenth the size of AKB, and that will lead to a much bigger effect of Ubisoft was the only company they ended buying. The whole can always be greater than the sum of the parts, and it often is in business. Your made up rules on what count and what doesn't are frankly meaningless. |
First I didn't make some metrics ups nor did I make up some rules, don't know where you see those here. I have only stated why, the way I understand things, MS won't try another acquisition on that scale. You're the one trying to somehow tie this opinion and logic to something else it doesn't apply to like smaller acquisitions.
The more I read you, the more that, despite the fact you made this thread specific to the MS/activision deals your argument are more akin to "I'm against all acquisitions" and "consolidations is bad altogether". This is a perfectly valid political position but it isn't the actual context, in the current context acquisition are allowed provided they aren't detrimental to the industry they happen into and their consumers.
This transaction is neither of those and the "but if they do another acquisition it might be" argument has no value as this new acquisition will still be subject to regulatory bodies oversight. You also have to take into consideration that regulatory bodies don't need an acquisition to intervene. It's not like if they allow the acquisition to proceed MS can do whatever it wants. If MS actually succeeds in creating a monopoly, transactions or not, regulatory bodies will challenged them and may force them to split.
| LurkerJ said:
Ignoring how you actually want to convince me that MS won't buy another big publisher, buying smaller publishers on top of Bethesda and AKB doesn't invalidate my arguments. |
I'm not trying to convince you of anything here, I just explained my understanding of the situation and even stated MS might try to go for another publisher, so don't know how I'm supposed to be trying to convince you of the contrary here.
| LurkerJ said:
"the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" is the driving force behind many business practices. I don't see how you can agree that MS will buy more companies in the future consolidate more of the market under their wing and say those future buyouts aren't relevant, because again, what you are arguing flies in the face of how established business practices work. |
Futur buyouts are not set in stone, and this transaction's success/failure does not make them less or more likely, using this as an argument is literally using a slippery slope/fear-mongering logical fallacy even when you think the probabilities for such are high.
If you want me to accept this as a valid argument to block this deal you would have to prove me without doubt that:
- This transaction's success will inevitably lead to other acquisitions.
- Those others transactions would not have happened in case of this transaction failure.
- Those others transactions would lead MS to have total dominance over the industry.
- Other actors and/or consumers would suffer from those other transactions (and no choosing Xbox over Playsation does not count as consumer suffering, being force to choose a more expensive Xbox over cheaper alternatives would).
- That regulatory bodies would be toothless to prevent it upon those others transactions.
- That regulatory bodies would be toothless to adjudicate a monopoly situation would one arise.
| LurkerJ said:
And again, even if we accept your made up business plans and made up rules, MS can still spend another $70b buying multiple smaller studios and I end up being validated, because you can buy 10 more smaller studios instead of a massive one and achieve a similar outcome.
I am being sarcastic, obviously. |
Yes they can but that doesn't change a thing to my understanding of the situation and current policy context regarding acquisitions in general.
Last edited by EpicRandy - on 06 February 2023
