| 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.
- the "to those who will benefit from it" was not without meaning also the FTC questioning the merger ain't bothering me what is bothersome is the fact they decided to sue on patently false reason for political reason.
"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.
- I linked the CMA referral decision, I don't rely on Buzzwords, headlines or good faith, you can read it for yourself it is predominantly about CoD. Also you rely too much on a 25 years old case brought under a long-gone management team for MS that was overturned in appeal because the initial Judge was found to have bias in favor of the prosecution. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/microsoft-antitrust.asp
You're also heavily relying on converging arguments and lines of thoughts a lot of what you say ends up being random.
- That line sure is random with a half veiled insult, won't debate it, it bring 0 value.
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 didn't hide the fact it was the CMA it obviously is, it was clear it was if you clicked the link and that's the point The document matter because it's from the UK regulatory body and the stats have highlighted are just that highlights if you read the document you end up with the same conclusion that the arguments against the merger predominantly revolve around CoD. And other than CoD your are giving way to much power to bethesda and activision franchise, new Ips on the same level as those are created every year by many actors in the industry including Sony.
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.
- Funny things is, it's actually Sony that focused the story entirely 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.
- I don't rely on MS goodwill in any of those quote that's only your wrongful interpretation of my statements.
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".
- Sony also stated they're not done with aquisition
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
- No not because I believe it but because MS is stuck in a position were making any concession would help their case. Sony could make any demands to MS in regard to Acti-Blizz ips and MS would likely consent to those... or maybe not but Sony should at least try. Sony won't though because they want to kill the deal altogether even at the risk of it being allowed without any concession. that's why MS made deals with Nintendo and proposed the same to Steam, because it expose the bad faith argument made by Sony that MS is acting in bad faith with CoD deals.
and because you believe that Microsoft is only going to acquire other publishers if this one fails despite their publicly declared intents.
- Never said MS won't make acquisitions again just don't believe in will target publisher of that size again and I explained my logic which you conveniently didn't quote. I also added "But if I'm wrong, well Microsoft may try I guess, but this deal cannot be blocked because MS may do another in the future, that's not a valid argument."
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.
- Now that's some passive-aggressive line, won't debate this line it has 0 merits
"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.
- And again I agree and did not argue elsewise and as it is someone's sole jobs too look into these things, in the case of this merger proposal you would think they would have come up with betters arguments not some that experts agree the uphill battle is on the FTC side and that the overall strategy kinda nutty (Douglas Melamed, a former antitrust expert who helped bring a major successful case against Microsoft in the '90s).
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.
- I never claim MS challenges were due to government lobbying.
- Health and general business industries lobying are actually estimated to be bigger than big tech (Communications/Electroniscs) and Energy sectors just as big.
- literaly every company will complain if they are victim of a loby whether they loby themselves or not. If Sony were the victim of a loby they would complain even if they loby themselves as any company would, I agree that's not without hypocrisy.
|
