By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Angelus said:
Spade said:

Not surprising. Can’t wait for game journalists to write articles about scumy this practice is. Jk lol, of course they won’t give a shit.

I literally got into an argument about this a couple of days ago and the persons argument was that MS Money-Hats too and said that the Indie games that are timed exclusive on Xbox (which is the only examples that they can give) are comparable to the big AAA hats from Big Publishers that Sony paid to keep off Xbox like FF, Silent Hill, Star Wars etc



Around the Network
EspadaGrim said:
Angelus said:

Not surprising. Can’t wait for game journalists to write articles about scumy this practice is. Jk lol, of course they won’t give a shit.

I literally got into an argument about this a couple of days ago and the persons argument was that MS Money-Hats too and said that the Indie games that are timed exclusive on Xbox (which is the only examples that they can give) are comparable to the big AAA hats from Big Publishers that Sony paid to keep off Xbox like FF, Silent Hill, Star Wars etc

Yep. Definitely the same. Not intellectually dishonest at all.



An excerpt of Activision Blizzard's response to the FTC’s lawsuit.




And oh yeah my high on life achievments are annoyingly bugged. It not even game me 'defeat boss' achievement...






Goddamn Activision-Blizzard's response is spicy, they sound pissed and they make reference to Sony a few times.

Activision Blizzard said in its filing that the FTC "invented highly gerrymandered relevant product markets — including a 'high-performance console' market limited to Xbox and PlayStation consoles, as well as individual markets for multi-game subscriptions and cloud gaming — in an attempt to support its conclusory theories of harm."

The FTC's wildest supposition is that Activision content would be available on subscription and cloud gaming services if not for the merger. The FTC alleges that the Transaction would harm Xbox's competitors for multi-game subscription and cloud gaming services because Activision might otherwise one day make its content available to those companies. These allegations are not only facially speculative and conclusory, they are entirely divorced from the facts. Activision's aversion to multi-game subscriptions and cloud gaming is widely known in the industry and is supported by ample testimony and evidence in the investigative record in this case. The only plausible "but for" scenario here is that Activision's new releases would not be available on subscription or cloud gaming services at all absent the Transaction, meaning that Xbox's plans to bring Activision games to subscription and cloud can only be viewed as output enhancing and overwhelmingly procompetitive. A theory premised on the notion that Xbox can withhold from its competitors something they never would have had access to in the first place reeks of desperation and is destined for failure.

The FTC's disregard for these benefits to consumers and focus on supposed harms to Xbox's deep-pocketed competitors betrays a fundamental disconnect between the FTC's theories and the antitrust laws' underlying purpose, which is to protect competition, not competitors. The FTC is asking this Court to protect the world's largest gaming companies from further competition from Xbox, and thereby turning antitrust on its head. Blinded by ideological skepticism of high- value technology deals and by complaints from competitors, the FTC has not only lost sight of the realities of the intensely competitive gaming industry, but also the guiding principles of our nation's antitrust laws.

In particular, China-based gaming companies have been aggressively expanding in the U.S. by investing in U.S. gaming companies (e.g., Tencent's 40% stake in Epic Games, developer of Fortnite) and funding start-up gaming studios, all while enjoying protected access to the largest revenue opportunity in gaming at home in China. If Xbox were to cut off any of its platform competitors from Call of Duty, gamers using those platforms would simply move to alternative games instead. What's more, Sony has many high-quality existing games and an unrivaled war chest of intellectual property spanning movies, television, and music, upon which it can draw to develop even more games and franchises. If Xbox were to remove Call of Duty from PlayStation, Sony has more than enough weapons in its arsenal to continue to compete effectively.

(i) Xbox lacks the ability, let alone the incentive, to foreclose its competitors from Call of Duty. The FTC's conclusory allegations to the contrary ignore all available real- world evidence, resting instead on a purely hypothetical "but for" world that has no basis in reality;
(ii) The FTC's theory assumes that a gaming platform cannot succeed without Call of Duty. The notion that a single game or franchise is the key to the continued competitive vigor of the highly dynamic video game industry is facially absurd and contradicted by the plain facts; and
(iii) The FTC's alleged relevant markets are made up for this litigation and are entirely nonsensical.

Giving consumers high-quality content in more ways and at lower prices is what the antitrust laws are supposed to promote, not prevent.

20221222_9412_Resp_Activisions_Answer_PUBLIC.pdf

Microsoft also accused FTC of violating the U.S. Constitution multiple times, this is going to get nasty if it makes it to court.

Activision-Blizzard has no reason to hold back in tone, they're just dropping some truth bombs on FTC with a fuck you attitude, Lol.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 23 December 2022

Ryuu96 said:

Microsoft also accused FTC of violating the U.S. Constitution multiple times, this is going to get nasty if it makes it to court.

Which it likely never will.

Even if the case does end up in front of a federal judge, it would probably just get tossed, so there would never be much in the way of back and forth proceedings. 



Around the Network
Angelus said:
Ryuu96 said:

Microsoft also accused FTC of violating the U.S. Constitution multiple times, this is going to get nasty if it makes it to court.

Which it likely never will.

Even if the case does end up in front of a federal judge, it would probably just get tossed, so there would never be much in the way of back and forth proceedings. 

I think there is a good chance that the FTC is crazy enough to take it to court, even if the CMA/EC approves it, I think if CMA/EC approve it then FTC may simply skip straight to federal court, FTC has spoken up lately about how important it is to take risks even if they keep losing, their case against Meta in a federal court is filled with extremely shoddy evidence as well.

You're right though that it should be tossed by a judge fairly quickly. There is a lot of speculation that the losses are to force a change in law, I don't know how that would work, maybe the FTC keeps losing so they go to Congress like "see, we're trying to stop these mergers but the law prevents us, we have to change the law or we won't be able to stop anyone" Lol.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 23 December 2022

It'd be funny if CMA/EC do approve it, but FTC opts to take Microsoft to court and as a result, FTC comes out of it as the only major regulatory body without a concession agreement, it won't matter to us since any concession Microsoft agrees to with a major regulatory body would be enforced worldwide but a bit of a PR blackeye to FTC...CMA and EC got a concession and FTC got...nothing.



konnichiwa said:

An excerpt of Activision Blizzard's response to the FTC’s lawsuit.




And oh yeah my high on life achievments are annoyingly bugged. It not even game me 'defeat boss' achievement...

Damn, that is a really good response, matches my thoughts perfectly. Instead of worrying about the fact that the current market leaders are continuing to strengthen their positions with timed hats galore, and in Sony's case, lots of acquisitions of their own, the FTC is more concerned about some possible future mega-Microsoft that very likely may never exist. The whole purpose of anti-trust laws are to protect consumers from the anti-consumer moves of dominant companies, such as Sony's frequent AAA timed hat deals, and yet they're more worried about allowing Microsoft to become a rival for Sony. It just doesn't compute. They're not here to protect Sony, they're here to protect consumers, and as a consumer I am unsatisfied with their lack of protection when it comes to Sony hatting like 3 third party AAA exclusives each year, and I'm unsatisfied with them trying to block Xbox from becoming a proper competitor for Sony. 

Last edited by shikamaru317 - on 23 December 2022

Retro Friday

Going back to Persona 4 Ultimax on 360. I'm trying to do a side by side comparison on the series x controller vs. 360 controller.

I'm using the 360 controller with the battery pack in the back not the wireless, which is not very comfortable tbh.

Overall Ergonomics: Series X --> Grips feel better
Thumb sticks and D-pad: Series X --> D-pad is miles better and love the ridges compared to the cheaper thumbsticks.
Face buttons - 360 --> Honestly, I think I like the 360 buttons better, they feel less cheap and more tactile if that's the word for it.
Back bumpers - Still unsure... -- > This is where I'm not 100% sure which I like better. P4U doesn't use the RT much, but I kind of like the feel of the clickiness. I feel like the RB bumpers are improved over the xbox one which might make it better than the 360 for me, but again I'm conflicted.



https://www.trueachievements.com/gamercards/SliferCynDelta.png%5B/IMG%5D">https://www.trueachievements.com/gamer/SliferCynDelta"><img src="https://www.trueachievements.com/gamercards/SliferCynDelta.png

A Gamepass employee just confirmed there is no 2nd Gamepass update for December, the first month without 2 updates as far as I know. I really hope this is not the start of a new precedent of only 1 update per month going forward. This is not the right time for Xbox to get lax with Gamepass, not when Sony is gunning for them hard with PS+ mid and high tier.

For December Gamepass added 10 Games, one of which was PC only, another of which was an Xbox One version of a game already on Gamepass on Xbox Series. The breakdown of those remaining 8 games was 1 AAA, 2 AA's, and 5 indies.

By comparison, for December, PS+ mid tier added 18 games while PS+ high tier added 4 games. The breakdown for those 22 games is 9 AAA's, 8 AA's, and 5 indies.

Xbox really needs to step things up with Gamepass in 2023, they definitely shouldn't be getting lax like this. This kind of overconfidence can be dangerous (it reminds me of Sony moving from PS2 to PS3), not to mention as a Gamepass subscriber I personally don't feel satisfied with these December additions at all. 

Last edited by shikamaru317 - on 23 December 2022