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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Where do you stand on Microsoft buying Activision/Blizzard?

 

For or against the acquisition?

For 57 43.85%
 
Against 46 35.38%
 
Neutral 27 20.77%
 
Total:130

I'm generally opposed to acquisitions, and I'm generally opposed to the for-profit attitudes every market has. 

How much I care about a specific acquisition varies though. 

Third party publishers I think are best staying as third party publishers. Third party developers can be tricky. They don't tend to be able to support themselves and they need some kind of backing from a publisher. I am not generally too bothered if a developer has primarily made exclusives gets bought by that company. Microsoft buying Playground Games made a lot of sense, and that is probably a deal that benefits everyone. Playground gets more funding. That benefits people who buy their games. It benefits the platform holders and it doesn't take anything away from anyone. 

More bothered by Sony buying Bungie. Third party publishers/developers should continue supporting other platforms. (Which at the very least Bungie and Activision seem likely they will continue doing that.)

On the other hand, I have kind of accepted that this is the market right now. I'm at the point where I just want the acquisition to be done, and wait and see what Sony does after that. (Nintendo too, but I don't think they need to respond in the same that Sony will.) 



Around the Network
zero129 said:
ConservagameR said:

At least Sony didn't knock anyone out of consoles. MS thought about buying Sega but didn't because they thought Sega was to weak to ever take out Sony, so it would be a waste of their time and money. Instead MS launched XB, ending Sega's consoles for good, while aiming to take out PS.

So i guess the original Xbox came out while the saturn and Dreamcast was on the market?.

It's hard to believe that Sega didn't know anything about XB since MS did some work with Sega on Dreamcast before MS pushed them out.

Even if Sega didn't know prior, then they knew in 2000 when XB was announced to the public. Dreamcast production didn't stop until 2001.

Sega likely saw that the writing was on the wall and decided to get while the getting was good. First Sega, then eventually Sony.

zero129 said:
ConservagameR said:

MS get's taken to court for being the worst kind of monopoly, that uses it's power to squash would-be rivals before they're even out of the gate, and is found guilty and get's ordered to separate. Gates even stepped down as CEO during this, coincidentally.

This doesn't prove anything as to MS being extremely controlling and monopolizing? I thought MS wasn't a saint but neither is the competition.

Yes we get it you hate MS and like to blame them with Shitty takes for everything meanwhile you bury your head in the sand and put your hands on your ears saying na na na when it comes to Sony. Your not even worth arguing with anymore.

I wasn't asked to bash Sony, I was asked to explain MS.

You don't seem to go out of your way to bash MS or praise PS, yet I don't find that appalling. Difficult maybe but not deplorable.



Machiavellian said:
ConservagameR said:
Machiavellian said:

What I would like for you to backup is exactly how has MS been extremely controlling and monopolizing compared to the other companies.  I will be the first to say MS has never been a saint company but neither has any of their competition as well.

Machiavellian said:

Not sure if that really actually proved your point.  Exactly what point are you trying to make.  You made some hint at sleazy tactic but what you just posted have absolutely nothing to do with that insinuation.  Then you made another summary with some conclusion about sleazy tactic but still have not listed anything that support that summary.  MS bundling Internet explorer could be considered as a power move but not a unethical tactic.  Not sure you are talking about the same statements you made previously.

MS get's taken to court for being the worst kind of monopoly, that uses it's power to squash would-be rivals before they're even out of the gate, and is found guilty and get's ordered to separate. Gates even stepped down as CEO during this, coincidentally.

This doesn't prove anything as to MS being extremely controlling and monopolizing? I thought MS wasn't a saint but neither is the competition.

Getting sued and taking to court is one thing.  Winning is another.  Anyone in the US can be taken to court that does not mean guilt.  Being a monopoly is not a crime or is it sleazy tactic as you continue to suggest.  Sleazy tactic would be MS actively preventing software from running on Windows or actively making competition software that run on windows run worse while their software always outperforms.  This is the point I would be looking from you to actually make, not that bundling internet explorer into Windows somehow is a sleazy tactic because one judge thought so.  

Bundling Explorer into Windows I would not consider a controlling move unless MS also made it so that no other browser could be run on the system.  While being the browser for windows, Safari is the default browser for Mac OS. Its expected by user to have a default browser for the OS more than it being a controlling move.  All OS have a default browser, so I still do not see your point.  Also Apple bundle pretty good software within the OS just like MS bundle basic software within Windows. Linux distros also bundling a lot of default software. No one would think paint is preventing someone from using Photoshop but the ideal of having basis features to an OS would not be or is considered a controlling move.  

Like the case against them. There's no need to be sleazy with the software if nobody get's the chance to compete because they get hindered prior.

I wouldn't consider the judge talking to reporters as having anything to with how MS operated their business prior, leading them to court. I would also consider the CEO stepping down while in court as a sign of guilt. Who's considerations are correct?

As for expectations, people used to expect to pay for new things and probably more than they would want to. Today people expect new things for free and are upset when they cost anything, especially when its supposedly too much. I still expect to pay for things. Which expectations are correct?

What are the odds that with an appeal from a supposed corrupt, stop it quietly before it becomes a problem company, that instead of another guilty verdict (with possibly a less harsh sentence this time around), MS get's let completely off the hook? Which or who's judgement is correct?

If a control hungry company, like all the rest some would say, can get out of trouble using more corruption without it being obvious, then they likely aren't controlling and corrupt? Which or who's corruption is acceptable?

I guess my point here is, since you keep asking, wouldn't you say, that no company is a saint, and all are guilty of some type of sleazy corruption?



ConservagameR said:
Machiavellian said:
ConservagameR said:
Machiavellian said:

Not sure if that really actually proved your point.  Exactly what point are you trying to make.  You made some hint at sleazy tactic but what you just posted have absolutely nothing to do with that insinuation.  Then you made another summary with some conclusion about sleazy tactic but still have not listed anything that support that summary.  MS bundling Internet explorer could be considered as a power move but not a unethical tactic.  Not sure you are talking about the same statements you made previously.

MS get's taken to court for being the worst kind of monopoly, that uses it's power to squash would-be rivals before they're even out of the gate, and is found guilty and get's ordered to separate. Gates even stepped down as CEO during this, coincidentally.

This doesn't prove anything as to MS being extremely controlling and monopolizing? I thought MS wasn't a saint but neither is the competition.

Getting sued and taking to court is one thing.  Winning is another.  Anyone in the US can be taken to court that does not mean guilt.  Being a monopoly is not a crime or is it sleazy tactic as you continue to suggest.  Sleazy tactic would be MS actively preventing software from running on Windows or actively making competition software that run on windows run worse while their software always outperforms.  This is the point I would be looking from you to actually make, not that bundling internet explorer into Windows somehow is a sleazy tactic because one judge thought so.  

Bundling Explorer into Windows I would not consider a controlling move unless MS also made it so that no other browser could be run on the system.  While being the browser for windows, Safari is the default browser for Mac OS. Its expected by user to have a default browser for the OS more than it being a controlling move.  All OS have a default browser, so I still do not see your point.  Also Apple bundle pretty good software within the OS just like MS bundle basic software within Windows. Linux distros also bundling a lot of default software. No one would think paint is preventing someone from using Photoshop but the ideal of having basis features to an OS would not be or is considered a controlling move.  

Like the case against them. There's no need to be sleazy with the software if nobody get's the chance to compete because they get hindered prior.

I wouldn't consider the judge talking to reporters as having anything to with how MS operated their business prior, leading them to court. I would also consider the CEO stepping down while in court as a sign of guilt. Who's considerations are correct?

As for expectations, people used to expect to pay for new things and probably more than they would want to. Today people expect new things for free and are upset when they cost anything, especially when its supposedly too much. I still expect to pay for things. Which expectations are correct?

What are the odds that with an appeal from a supposed corrupt, stop it quietly before it becomes a problem company, that instead of another guilty verdict (with possibly a less harsh sentence this time around), MS get's let completely off the hook? Which or who's judgement is correct?

If a control hungry company, like all the rest some would say, can get out of trouble using more corruption without it being obvious, then they likely aren't controlling and corrupt? Which or who's corruption is acceptable?

I guess my point here is, since you keep asking, wouldn't you say, that no company is a saint, and all are guilty of some type of sleazy corruption?

The case did not show MS hindering at least at that time anyone from putting a browser on the OS.

A judge who talks about a case can be seen as not impartial which can cause all kinds of problems with the judicial process.  So you believing its not a big deal does not mean the judge actions were not a big deal.

We can do if then buts all day long but until there is actually evidence its a waste of time.  I do not live in if then buts.  This is why we have a process to expose such things instead of delving into what ifs.

You still have not established any corruption, all this guessing what could or could be means nothing without actually showing corruption.  If we go down your position where we believe that something could be there without any actual data to support it than we can believe everyone and everything is corrupt.  How can you prove me wrong if I say well if if your actions or non actions are corrupt behind the scenes without proof.  This does not support any real argument, it just throws out unsubstantiated opinion without substance.

I have already stated that no company is a saint, but what I have not stated is that they use sleazy tactics or even tried to insinuate such a position without proof.  I would agree that all business when they gain an advantage will continue to push for that advantage in their market.  That does not mean they need to resort to corrupt tactics to achieve it. My point is that you have not supported your first claim and continue to throw out well what ifs, this is not a solid position to support your previous statements.



Azzanation said:

Alby_da_Wolf said:

 

I'm a PC gamer, so I should get the games anyway, but I'm against as I don't trust MS. Since the beginiing, MS only owned one part of the x86 PC, the OS, but it always tried to behave as if it owned the whole platform, and I'm against this.

 

 

 

Ill assume you don't game on Windows than. Would be an odd relationship if you did.

It surely is!

I game on Windows, Android and Linux, but I try to give MS as little power as possible.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW! 
 


Around the Network
Machiavellian said:
ConservagameR said:

Like the case against them. There's no need to be sleazy with the software if nobody get's the chance to compete because they get hindered prior.

I wouldn't consider the judge talking to reporters as having anything to with how MS operated their business prior, leading them to court. I would also consider the CEO stepping down while in court as a sign of guilt. Who's considerations are correct?

As for expectations, people used to expect to pay for new things and probably more than they would want to. Today people expect new things for free and are upset when they cost anything, especially when its supposedly too much. I still expect to pay for things. Which expectations are correct?

What are the odds that with an appeal from a supposed corrupt, stop it quietly before it becomes a problem company, that instead of another guilty verdict (with possibly a less harsh sentence this time around), MS get's let completely off the hook? Which or who's judgement is correct?

If a control hungry company, like all the rest some would say, can get out of trouble using more corruption without it being obvious, then they likely aren't controlling and corrupt? Which or who's corruption is acceptable?

I guess my point here is, since you keep asking, wouldn't you say, that no company is a saint, and all are guilty of some type of sleazy corruption?

The case did not show MS hindering at least at that time anyone from putting a browser on the OS.

A judge who talks about a case can be seen as not impartial which can cause all kinds of problems with the judicial process.  So you believing its not a big deal does not mean the judge actions were not a big deal.

We can do if then buts all day long but until there is actually evidence its a waste of time.  I do not live in if then buts.  This is why we have a process to expose such things instead of delving into what ifs.

You still have not established any corruption, all this guessing what could or could be means nothing without actually showing corruption.  If we go down your position where we believe that something could be there without any actual data to support it than we can believe everyone and everything is corrupt.  How can you prove me wrong if I say well if if your actions or non actions are corrupt behind the scenes without proof.  This does not support any real argument, it just throws out unsubstantiated opinion without substance.

I have already stated that no company is a saint, but what I have not stated is that they use sleazy tactics or even tried to insinuate such a position without proof.  I would agree that all business when they gain an advantage will continue to push for that advantage in their market.  That does not mean they need to resort to corrupt tactics to achieve it. My point is that you have not supported your first claim and continue to throw out well what ifs, this is not a solid position to support your previous statements.

United States v. Microsoft Corp. - Wikipedia

On June 28, 2001, the Circuit Court overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft. This was partly because Jackson had improperly discussed the case with the news media while it was still in progress, violating the Code of Conduct for American judges.

Ultimately, the Circuit Court overturned Jackson's holding that Microsoft should be broken up as an illegal monopoly. However, the Circuit Court did not overturn Jackson's findings of fact. The Circuit Court adopted a "drastically altered scope of liability" due to Jackson's conduct, which was favorable for Microsoft.

The Department of Justice announced on September 6, 2001, that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft and would instead seek a lesser antitrust penalty. Microsoft decided to draft a settlement proposal allowing PC manufacturers to adopt non-Microsoft software.

On August 5, 2002, Microsoft announced that it would make some concessions towards the proposed final settlement ahead of the judge's decision. On November 1, 2002, Judge Kollar-Kotelly released a ruling that accepted most of the proposed DOJ settlement.

Microsoft later "agreed to consent to a two-year extension of part of the Final Judgments" dealing with communications protocol licensing, and stated that if the government later wished to extend those aspects of the settlement as far as 2012, it would not object.

MS only got off initially due to the first judge making a poor and illegal move involving the media, which obviously doesn't change MS past actions leading them to court. MS still ends up guilty after appeal, just with a lesser penalty. MS accepted this, this time.

Convinced yet?



Alby_da_Wolf said:

I'm a PC gamer, so I should get the games anyway, but I'm against as I don't trust MS. Since the beginiing, MS only owned one part of the x86 PC, the OS, but it always tried to behave as if it owned the whole platform, and I'm against this.

---

Azzanation said:

Ill assume you don't game on Windows than. Would be an odd relationship if you did.

---

Alby_da_Wolf said:

It surely is!

I game on Windows, Android and Linux, but I try to give MS as little power as possible.

---

Azzanation said:

That would require you to not buy their games or use their ecosystems. 

Last edited by Azzanation - 1 day ago

ConservagameR said:
Machiavellian said:

The case did not show MS hindering at least at that time anyone from putting a browser on the OS.

A judge who talks about a case can be seen as not impartial which can cause all kinds of problems with the judicial process.  So you believing its not a big deal does not mean the judge actions were not a big deal.

We can do if then buts all day long but until there is actually evidence its a waste of time.  I do not live in if then buts.  This is why we have a process to expose such things instead of delving into what ifs.

You still have not established any corruption, all this guessing what could or could be means nothing without actually showing corruption.  If we go down your position where we believe that something could be there without any actual data to support it than we can believe everyone and everything is corrupt.  How can you prove me wrong if I say well if if your actions or non actions are corrupt behind the scenes without proof.  This does not support any real argument, it just throws out unsubstantiated opinion without substance.

I have already stated that no company is a saint, but what I have not stated is that they use sleazy tactics or even tried to insinuate such a position without proof.  I would agree that all business when they gain an advantage will continue to push for that advantage in their market.  That does not mean they need to resort to corrupt tactics to achieve it. My point is that you have not supported your first claim and continue to throw out well what ifs, this is not a solid position to support your previous statements.

United States v. Microsoft Corp. - Wikipedia

On June 28, 2001, the Circuit Court overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft. This was partly because Jackson had improperly discussed the case with the news media while it was still in progress, violating the Code of Conduct for American judges.

Ultimately, the Circuit Court overturned Jackson's holding that Microsoft should be broken up as an illegal monopoly. However, the Circuit Court did not overturn Jackson's findings of fact. The Circuit Court adopted a "drastically altered scope of liability" due to Jackson's conduct, which was favorable for Microsoft.

The Department of Justice announced on September 6, 2001, that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft and would instead seek a lesser antitrust penalty. Microsoft decided to draft a settlement proposal allowing PC manufacturers to adopt non-Microsoft software.

On August 5, 2002, Microsoft announced that it would make some concessions towards the proposed final settlement ahead of the judge's decision. On November 1, 2002, Judge Kollar-Kotelly released a ruling that accepted most of the proposed DOJ settlement.

Microsoft later "agreed to consent to a two-year extension of part of the Final Judgments" dealing with communications protocol licensing, and stated that if the government later wished to extend those aspects of the settlement as far as 2012, it would not object.

MS only got off initially due to the first judge making a poor and illegal move involving the media, which obviously doesn't change MS past actions leading them to court. MS still ends up guilty after appeal, just with a lesser penalty. MS accepted this, this time.

Convinced yet?

I also saw this on Wikipedia but it is incomplete. It looks like the only wrong thing done by the judge was inappropriate talk to the media while the thruth is that those talks were loaded with partial take against MS

The opinion was notable for its rebuke of Judge Jackson. ``The trial judge engaged in impermissible ex parte contacts by holding secret interviews with members of the media and made numerous offensive comments about Microsoft officials in public statements outside of the courtroom, giving rise to an appearance of partiality,'' the court said. ``Although we find no evidence of actual bias, we hold that the actions of the trial judge seriously tainted the proceedings before the district court and called into question the integrity of the judicial process.''

nytimes.com

Also, in the end, it doesn't really matter, the whole thing happened only because of the time it happened, OSs were only a thing to the masses for less than a decade and a great part of the reason it was seen as monopolistic was due to incompetent competition which was tripping over themselves every now and then (and yes that include Apple).

The very same behavior that got Microsoft into trouble back then is used without consequence by Google, Apple, Sony, Nintendo, Amazon, etc. and is in fact still being used by MS (all bundle their app and stores with their respective OS). So, to me, It's funny to use a 20+ years old case to paint today's MS evil all the while every other actor with the proprietary OS are depicting the exact same behavior and are just lucky they haven't been challenged and/or that the context of today is more lenient on those practices.

 

Last edited by EpicRandy - 1 day ago

Ode to a masterpiece

2023 so much great game to play, somehow I know I must walk that alley, but don't you feel in disarray, I'll always come back to you Stardew Valley.

Edit: double post



Ode to a masterpiece

2023 so much great game to play, somehow I know I must walk that alley, but don't you feel in disarray, I'll always come back to you Stardew Valley.

EpicRandy said:
ConservagameR said:

United States v. Microsoft Corp. - Wikipedia

On June 28, 2001, the Circuit Court overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft. This was partly because Jackson had improperly discussed the case with the news media while it was still in progress, violating the Code of Conduct for American judges.

Ultimately, the Circuit Court overturned Jackson's holding that Microsoft should be broken up as an illegal monopoly. However, the Circuit Court did not overturn Jackson's findings of fact. The Circuit Court adopted a "drastically altered scope of liability" due to Jackson's conduct, which was favorable for Microsoft.

The Department of Justice announced on September 6, 2001, that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft and would instead seek a lesser antitrust penalty. Microsoft decided to draft a settlement proposal allowing PC manufacturers to adopt non-Microsoft software.

On August 5, 2002, Microsoft announced that it would make some concessions towards the proposed final settlement ahead of the judge's decision. On November 1, 2002, Judge Kollar-Kotelly released a ruling that accepted most of the proposed DOJ settlement.

Microsoft later "agreed to consent to a two-year extension of part of the Final Judgments" dealing with communications protocol licensing, and stated that if the government later wished to extend those aspects of the settlement as far as 2012, it would not object.

MS only got off initially due to the first judge making a poor and illegal move involving the media, which obviously doesn't change MS past actions leading them to court. MS still ends up guilty after appeal, just with a lesser penalty. MS accepted this, this time.

Convinced yet?

I also saw this on Wikipedia but it is incomplete. It looks like the only wrong thing done by the judge was inappropriate talk to the media while the thruth is that those talks were loaded with partial take against MS

The opinion was notable for its rebuke of Judge Jackson. ``The trial judge engaged in impermissible ex parte contacts by holding secret interviews with members of the media and made numerous offensive comments about Microsoft officials in public statements outside of the courtroom, giving rise to an appearance of partiality,'' the court said. ``Although we find no evidence of actual bias, we hold that the actions of the trial judge seriously tainted the proceedings before the district court and called into question the integrity of the judicial process.''

nytimes.com

Also, in the end, it doesn't really matter, the whole thing happened only because of the time it happened, OSs were only a thing to the masses for less than a decade and a great part of the reason it was seen as monopolistic was due to incompetent competition which was tripping over themselves every now and then (and yes that include Apple).

The very same behavior that got Microsoft into trouble back then is used without consequence by Google, Apple, Sony, Nintendo, Amazon, etc. and is in fact still being used by MS (all bundle their app and stores with their respective OS). So, to me, It's funny to use a 20+ years old case to paint today's MS evil all the while every other actor with the proprietary OS are depicting the exact same behavior and are just lucky they haven't been challenged and/or that the context of today is more lenient on those practices.

If what the initial judge did with the media, made the entire case against MS, then MS would've been found not guilty in the end, which didn't occur.

I'm not even going to start when it comes to all the things that have happened in the past that wouldn't happen or would be handled differently today. 

The initial post was about MS and their relationship with PC's, as to control. I never said MS is alone in this and even Big Mach alluded to that repeatedly.