It's strange indeed.. I mean the character looks like the actress without that beauty spark. Not that I find the character ugly in particular, I think she's kind a cute actually, but cute doesn't cut it on my pie- & maneating adventures :P 

Of course it's likely this Fable is very different with more pre-written & talking character etc which isn't necessarely a bad thing at all. We'll see.

But then you’d be complaining pretty people make you feel insecure. 

This is the point I was trying to allude to before. It seems like they almost intentionally warped her looks to make her exaggeratedly unattractive, when in reality the actress looks pefectly fine.

If the trailer had started with her character looking like she does on the left, maybe even a bit more plain and innocent as you'd expect for the young starting MC, and then gradually showed her looks being warped over time through actions-- daily fist fights to mess up her face, eating poorly to ruin her teeth, drinking too much alcohol etc.etc. --then I'd say "Ok, this is Fable. Your actions directly affect your character's growth over time, reflecting your personal experience and choices." Instead, the trailer came off more like "This is our character, this is how heroes look in our world, we've chosen to mold this franchise based on our interests now, not yours."

I'm being hyperbollic so that you can understand the perception of people who are more vocally unhappy. Personally I still think there's been far too little shown to make any real judgement, but I worry that just as people are too quick to criticise the game, just as many people are too quick to pre-emptively make excuses for what could be a bad situation in the making.

The opposition of MS/ABK to the FTC preliminary injunction request is 244 pages long :p

It includes:

- The legal arguments (around 25 pages long).

- 72 exhibits (lots of them redacted).

- The full commitments to the EC, although the agreements with Nvidia, Boosteroid and Ubitus are redacted.

- The full Sony Corporate Report 2022.

- It mentions at least 3 times the article from FT (from different sources) where Sony chief Kenichiro Yoshida warned about the technical problems of cloud gaming.

- The report from MLex in December 2022 saying that Microsoft didn't mislead the EU over the ZeniMax deal, in response to the FTC concerns.

Lots of reading to do!

I'll keep updating the post during the next few hours with highlights from it. If the opposition is published online, it should be here.

Updating...

The FTC has never persuaded a court to preliminarily enjoin a merger involving anything close to the facts here. Unlike in other merger contexts, the government gets no presumption of harm as to vertical mergers because they do not eliminate a competitor from the marketplace and are widely recognized to be procompetitive. The U.S. antitrust agencies have rarely sought to enjoin vertical mergers and have lost every recent case when they tried. Indeed, the FTC is asking this Court to be the first in decades to find a vertical merger unlawful. (Page 1)

This is the exceptional case where the Court can rely on actions rather than words. Microsoft's valuation of the deal was premised on making Activision's limited portfolio of popular games more accessible. And since the transaction was announced, Microsoft has sought to address any concerns that might be raised about the deal. Here is what Microsoft has done:

- Committed to bring Activision's games to Xbox Game Pass, a subscription gaming service offering numerous games for $9.99 per month, rather than up to $70 per game;

- Signed a binding contract to bring COD to Nintendo (which does not currently have it);

- Offered Valve, the popular digital PC game distributor, a ten-year deal for Activision content, which Valve declined REDACTED;

- Signed contracts to make Activision games available on leading services that "stream" popular games to devices of consumers' choosing;

- Obligated itself, as part of the global regulatory process, to grant streaming rights to current and future Activision games to other cloud gaming services, regardless of whether Xbox decides to stream those games on its own service; and

- Offered Sony a contract to guarantee access to Activision content on PlayStation for ten years, on equal footing with the Xbox console versions, REDACTED; (Page 2)

The FTC simply ignores these facts, claiming that it needs to offer only scant proof to stop the transaction. The FTC is wrong. The government has the burden of proof in seeking the "extraordinary and drastic remedy" of "a preliminary injunction prior to a full trial on the merits." Because the FTC's central claim is that Xbox will withhold Activision content from rivals (principally the market leader, Sony), it must also show that the combined firm would have "the ability and incentive" to foreclose competitors. And the FTC must show that such foreclosure "is likely to substantially lessen competition" in a properly pleaded product and geographic market. On each of these issues, the FTC must show that the evidence "raise questions going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful as to make them fair ground for thorough investigation, study, deliberation and determination." (Page 2)

The FTC cannot come close to carrying its burden. After 18 months of investigation and litigation, including 56 investigational hearings and depositions and the production of nearly 6 million documents, the FTC offers only a minuscule collection of incomplete quotations in support of its motion. The record will decisively refute the FTC's claims. (Page 2)

First, there is no evidence to support the FTC's central theory that Xbox will take COD away from Playstation. The FTC does not cite a single document or witness even suggesting this will happen. On the contrary, Jim Ryan, the CEO of SIE, and the chief commercial opponent of this deal, said privately on the day it was announced REDACTED. Withholding COD would harm Xbox. It would contradict the valuation the Board relied on in approving the deal, which assumed profits from continued Playstation sales. It would cut off highly lucrative income stream to one of Microsoft REDACTED. And it would make COD a worse game and enrage the gaming community, because much of the game's popularity steams from the way it brings together players who use competing consoles. It is therefore unsurprising that every single worldwide regulator that has examined the deal other than the FTC has rejected this theory, including both the EC and the CMA (Page 3)

Third, the FTC has failed to identify relevant antitrust markets, dooming their entire case. Potential anticompetitive effects can be measured only in a properly defined market. But the FTC has replaced sound economics analysis with results-orientated "contort[ions] to meet its litigations meets" Hicks vs PGA Tour. As one example, the FTC claims that gaming's PCs and Nintendo's consoles (both far more popular than Xbox) are not in the same market as Playstation and Xbox, even though the economic evidence REDACTED have said the opposite. Why does the FTC contradict REDACTED in this respect? Because recognizing Nintendo and PCs as part of the market would destroy the FTC's flimsy foreclosure theory: Nintendo has been successful for years without COD, as was the dominant PC game store Valve's Steam. COD cannot be essential to competition if market participants thrive without it. (Page 4)

Source: Idas

Indeed, the FTC is asking this Court to be the first in decades to find a vertical merger unlawful.

Damn, Lol.

First, there is no evidence to support the FTC's central theory that Xbox will take COD away from Playstation. The FTC does not cite a single document or witness even suggesting this will happen. On the contrary, Jim Ryan, the CEO of SIE, and the chief commercial opponent of this deal, said privately on the day it was announced REDACTED. 

I would love to see what that redacted is, I would guess it's something along the lines of Jim Ryan said privately that Xbox would never take CoD away from PlayStation, so if Sony doesn't believe that then why would FTC.

Withholding COD would harm Xbox. It would contradict the valuation the Board relied on in approving the deal, which assumed profits from continued Playstation sales. 

That board point is something I never considered.

And it would make COD a worse game and enrage the gaming community

Gamers Rise Up!

As one example, the FTC claims that gaming's PCs and Nintendo's consoles (both far more popular than Xbox) are not in the same market as Playstation and Xbox, even though the economic evidence REDACTED have said the opposite. Why does the FTC contradict REDACTED in this respect? Because recognizing Nintendo and PCs as part of the market would destroy the FTC's flimsy foreclosure theory: Nintendo has been successful for years without COD, as was the dominant PC game store Valve's Steam. 

It's baffling that FTC is still holding onto the Console SLC and Subscription Service SLC.

Nice read. Kinda funny to see we made most of these arguments in here before or in other threads/article comments. It's almost as if doing critical thinking on this merger make you see how much crap FTC have been on this. Let's see if the court agree with MS and by extension with us.

Fourth, the FTC has literally no factual basis for its claim that the merger will harm competition in the supposed markets for multi-game library subscription and cloud gaming services. Among other things, there is absolutely no evidence that Activision content would put its content on these services without the deal. To the contrary, Activision views such a step as anathema to its business strategy. The transaction will thus benefit consumers by bringing Activision content to Xbox Game Pass for the first time. (Page 4)

Finally, the equities cut sharply against injunctive relief. The merger agreement expires on July 18, 2023. The injunction sought by the FTC would thus almost certainly scuttle the transaction. Moreover, there is no need for a preliminary injunction because the FTC could obtain effective relief at the end of the administrative process if it prevailed. Microsoft intends to operate Activision similarly to other recent acquisitions, whose studio and creative operations remained separate and continued to build games as they had done pre-acquisition. That means divestiture would be possible if it ever proved necessary. (Page 4)

As a result, the industry is exploring how to expand beyond the traditional model of selling individual games. Some companies have had great success with free-to- play games, which allow gamers to download the game and then decide whether to make in-game purchases such as costumes or special powers. Free-to-play games have allowed small independent companies to grow quickly. For example, Epic Games" valuation has increased from $1 billion in 2012 to over $30 billion, powered by the 2017 launch ofits flagship free-to-play game, Formite. Exs. 5, 6. Free-to-play games are a key part of Activision's strategic vision, and it has successfully launched free-to-play versions of popular games like COD. (Page 5)

Innovation is also occurring in distribution. In 2017, Xbox launched Game Pass, a subscription service allowing consumers to play a library of games for $9.99 a month rather than having to purchase each individual title. Xbox invests heavily in Game Pass, making its own new games available in the service immediately upon release (so-called "day and date" releases). Although this means Xbox loses revenue on the sales of individual game titles, Xbox believes that Game Pass will ultimately prompt subscribers to engage with a variety of games and spend more overall. But others in the industry are much more skeptical. REDACTED. Sony primarily puts old games in its service, forcing customers to pay high per-game fees to access new content. (Page 6)

Last, some companies are experimenting with delivery of games through cloud gaming "streaming," which runs games on remote servers that gamers can access on consoles, PCs, mobile devices, or TVs. The idea is to let gamers play games on less highly powered and more affordable devices, particularly salient in less developed nations. Several companies, including Xbox, Amazon, Nvidia, and smaller upstarts, have experimented with different forms of cloud gaming. But the technology remains challenging, particularly for latency-sensitive multiplayer games. Gameplay is balky, and it has proved hard to generate consumer demand or consistent profits. Here too, REDACTED. Likewise, Sony Group's CEO has admitted that cloud gaming faces substantial "technical difficulties" and is "very tricky" from both a financial and technological standpoint." (Page 6)

Among other things, there is absolutely no evidence that Activision content would put its content on these services without the deal. 

This should be a slam dunk in the Cloud arguments but CMA have said that Activision spoke about it once so it must mean they're going to do it in the future, Lol.

The injunction sought by the FTC would thus almost certainly scuttle the transaction.

Expected.

Moreover, there is no need for a preliminary injunction because the FTC could obtain effective relief at the end of the administrative process if it prevailed. Microsoft intends to operate Activision similarly to other recent acquisitions, whose studio and creative operations remained separate and continued to build games as they had done pre-acquisition. That means divestiture would be possible if it ever proved necessary. (Page 4)

Thought this was an interesting thing to point out, that if FTC does win in court in the distant future and then courts ordered Xbox to divest Activision-Blizzard it would be easy due to how they integrated them into their company, similar to recent acquisitions such as Zenimax/Bethesda.

Epic Games" valuation has increased from $1 billion in 2012 to over $30 billion

Cool stat.

Although this means Xbox loses revenue on the sales of individual game titles, Xbox believes that Game Pass will ultimately prompt subscribers to engage with a variety of games and spend more overall.

Variety!

Gameplay is balky, and it has proved hard to generate consumer demand or consistent profits. Here too, REDACTED. Likewise, Sony Group's CEO has admitted that cloud gaming faces substantial "technical difficulties" and is "very tricky" from both a financial and technological standpoint."

Lmao.

Sony is a gaming giant. Its gamer base is two times as large as Xbox's worldwide, and 50% larger in the U.S. (Page 6)

As a game publisher, Sony's in-house developer, PlayStation Studios, is responsible for major hits like God of War, The Last of Us, and Spider-Man, most of which can be played only on PlayStation. As a purchaser of third-party games, Sony pursues exclusivity REDACTED (long two sentences). Sony dwarfs Xbox on exclusives, REDACTED (just a sentence). (Page 7)

By contrast, Xbox's console has consistently ranked third behind PlayStation (first) and Nintendo (second). Xbox has thus pivoted to a different business strategy of making games more accessible. As noted above, Xbox invests heavily in Game Pass. For years, Xbox has tried to get a foothold into mobile gaming, but has had no success REDACTED (four sentences). (Page 7)

Against this backdrop, Xbox and Activision determined that, together, they could significantly improve gaming and increase Xbox's competitiveness. Xbox's vision is to expand choice for gamers and developers by making games more widely accessible on Xbox Game Pass and on mobile devices. A key driver of the merger was Activision's mobile gaming business, which includes popular games like Candy Crush Saga and COD Warzone, a free-to-play variant. (Page 7)

Regulators around the world have been reviewing the transaction ever since. And Microsoft has tried to accommodate any concerns they raised —however speculative those concerns may be. As| noted above, Microsoft has signed a ten-year agreement to bring COD to Nintendo for the first time since 2013. REDACTED. It has offered a similar agreement to Sony that would preserve Sony's access to the game REDACTED it REDACTED but Sony has refused to deal —instead focusing on trying to derail a transaction that would strengthen a rival. Xbox offered a ten-year agreement to keep COD on Valve, the popular PC game platform, but Valve turned down the agreement as unnecessary REDACTED (Page 8)

Separately, Xbox has entered five separate ten-year agreements with cloud gaming providers —Boosteroid, EE, Nvidia, NWare, and Ubitus, —to ensure that all Xbox games, including Activision games, can be played on their services. In addition to those agreements, during the European Commission's regulatory process, Xbox committed to grant streaming rights to Activision games to other cloud gaming services—regardless of whether Xbox ultimately decides to stream those games itself. (Page 8)

As a result of these efforts, al but one foreign regulator to pass on the issue has cleared the transaction. The lone exception is the United Kingdom's CMA. But like the European Commission and other global competition authorities, the CMA rejected the FTC's core theories of harm here, tied to console foreclosure and subscription service foreclosure. Its only objection to the transaction was that it might harm, at some point in the future, the evolution of cloud gaming. Xbox is currently appealing that decision.
(Page 8)

To meet its burden to show a substantial lessening of competition, the FTC first must "define the relevant market" in which anticompetitive effects will occur. Courts determine "[t]he outer boundaries of a product market" based on "the reasonable interchangeability of use or the cross-elasticity of demand between the product itself and substitutes for it." Within a relevant market, "[p]roducts need not be fungible." Rather, the "overarching goal of market definition is to "recognize competition where, in fact, competition exists."" By those metrics, the FTC's proposed markets fail entirely. (Page 10)

The FTC offers two unduly narrow proposed definitions of its "high-performance consoles" market. The FTC primarily proposes that PlayStation and Xbox alone compose the entire console market and then alternatively adds Nintendo Switch but still excludes PCs. Both Nintendo and PCs are "economic substitutes," that must be considered in any relevant market. (Page 11)

There is no basis for excluding Nintendo. REDACTED (four sentences). By excluding Nintendo, the FTC inflates Xbox's market share. It also conveniently excludes a key competitor that has thrived without COD for the past decade. (Page 11)

In response, the FTC offers its expert's ipse dixit that Nintendo's Switch is so differentiated along price, specifications, and content that it is in a different product category than the other two consoles. To the contrary, Xbox and Sony compete with Nintendo and with each other on all of these features. For example, the entry-level versions of the current Xbox and Nintendo consoles are offered at the same price point ($299.99). Moreover, while the FTC makes much of Nintendo"s supposed technical differences from the other consoles, it ignores that Xbox and Sony also differentiate their consoles based on performance. The substantial overlap in the three consoles" content libraries further demonstrates that they compete: any of the most popular games on PlayStation and Xbox consoles are also available on Switch. To the extent there are differences, the FTC fails to show that the difference is the result of Xbox and PlayStation games not being available on Switch, as opposed to the many Switch-exclusive titles (such as Mario and Zelda). (Pages 11-12)

The FTC is likewise wrong to exclude PC gaming, which offers specifications and features comparable to or even greater than those offered by consoles. There is also substantial catalogue overlap: In 2022, al but one of the top 30 Xbox titles and al but three ofthe top 30 PlayStation titles were available on PC. Indeed, even SIE's CEO REDACTED. (Page 12)

A related footnote includes more REDACTED content and this: The only evidence the FTC cites to support its position that PCs "are not commercially reasonable alternatives" is testimony from one Microsoft executive in an unrelated case that "she does not "view the Xbox console as a replacement or substitute for the iPhone or iPad." FTC. But the iPhone and iPad are both mobile devices, not gaming PCs. (Page 12)

Finally, even accepting that Nintendo and PC gaming are differentiated from Xbox and PlayStation in certain ways, including with respect to "price, use and qualities," that does not decide the market definition question. That products are differentiated, even in ways that some customers prefer, "do[es] not negate interchangeability," because the relevant question "is not what solutions the customers would /like or prefer," but instead "what they could do in the event of an anticompetitive price increase." Id. As just explained, the evidence shows that Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo, and PCs all serve as substitutes and compete.
(Page 12)

Source: Idas

Half done with the highlights from the legal arguments (12 out 24 pages). You can check them here.

I'm excluding all the references to the exhibits and legal precedents quoted to make things easier to read. But if someone wants a specific one, just let me know and I'll included.

I take a break now and I'll finish them later.

Source: Idas

Can't wait for the FTC to get their ass handed to em. Been a long time coming