yes, that was quite literally what i was doing, so you’re calling a spade a spade lol. i only knew your opinion on these topics based off how you responded in this thread and your response starts off with already stating your mind probably never would’ve changed, so that seemed fairly indicative to me of your general feelings towards this type of business. also the operative word is “if,” in my statement. i was never condemning you to that POV; so, thanks for letting me know where you stand.

and yes, i still do basically think all big acquisitions are bad. i’ve stated my stance on that in response to Ryuu himself, for the reasons i gave. however, different to how you opened in this thread, i was open to the conversation from the start and i actually have softened on the perspective of this decision in spite of still thinking big business acquisitions are wrong.

Appreciate the fair response. 👍

I guess we differ simply in that we don't have the same future fears, for the reasons I've stated, I believe the gaming market is more protected against that level of consolidation but that's fine, I can't really debate a future with proof

For me, I'm of course against some acquisitions and wouldn't like to see a massive consolidation but I just don't have the fear of that happening. Do I think more will happen? Sure, but I still don't think it's going to come down to like 3-5 companies owning practically everything, again for the reasons I stated in my previous post.

I think each acquisition should be judged on its individual merits and not a possibility future because then it makes it difficult to know where to cut things off, it's also not really fair (Imo) to block an acquisition on the basis that some others in the future may consolidate the industry even if you slow down and even if your specific acquisition right now is perfectly legal and doesn't significantly harm consumers or competition.

Judging the ABK acquisition on its merits, it has been deemed to be more pro-consumer than not, more pro-competition than not, doesn't give Microsoft a huge advantage over the competition. ABK is largely about Mobile for Microsoft as well. In the year ending 2021, Mobile accounted for 36% of ABK's revenues, in the year ending 2022, Mobile accounted for 47% of ABK's revenues. Microsoft has next to zero foothold in Mobile and ABK without Mobile would be a much less expensive company as well. Microsoft is more concerned about Mobile than Xbox exclusivity, Lol.

Yeah, I'm a little concerned about outside companies as well but Google dipped out the moment they realised it would be expensive, as per usual with Google who don't commit to anything new. xCloud is a failure for Xbox so far but at least they're sticking with it, Lol. There are others who are still lurking though like Amazon, oh I forgot to mention Netflix as well.

But these guys are just seeing the facts, irrelevant of Microsoft's acquisitions, the Gaming Industry is a massive business now, it's one of the largest entertainment sectors, there are studies saying it's bigger than film and music combined, it's rapidly growing as well, but the silver lining maybe is that a large portion of that growth comes from mobile while console has a lower ceiling so maybe they just focus on mobile.

Yeah, the FTC did a terrible job, I think it wouldn't have mattered how long they had though, they were always arguing from a tough position, I wish they'd use these resources on actually winnable cases, it's like them taking Meta to court earlier this year for acquiring a VR Fitness Start-up Company that nobody had ever heard of...They lost...Again...I'm not against FTC going after certain companies but actually pick good ones, make good cases, stop wasting your limited resources, especially with a Supreme Court desperate for an excuse to stamp on your neck...

did you mean to respond to my post with this? i agree the EC acted well in this instance.

Damn, nicely put post.

You have softened on this because you were confronted with actually good arguments.

It's important to remember those offerings to Sony were only a way to legally bind MS to counteract Sony's sabotage attempt with something they always knew Xbox would not do anyway as per Ryan's own words prior to any challenge and MS proposal:

“It is not an exclusivity play at all, They’re thinking bigger than that, and they have the cash to make moves like this. I’ve spent a fair amount of time with [Phil] Spencer [and] Bobby [Kotick], and I’m pretty sure we will continue to see Call of Duty on PlayStation for years to come.”

“We have some good stuff cooking. I’m not complacent, I’d rather this didn’t happen, but we’ll be OK, we’ll be more than OK.”

It's also supported by the fact no internal MS documentation/communication with ABK obtained by regulatory bodies ever mentioned that exclusivity was at play with this acquisition.

Yet I agree with you it was not disingenuous to entertain that possibility, what was disingenuous though is discarding Minecraft as a relatable example of what MS can do with the likes of CoD to push the narrative it was undoubtedly MS's plan to do so (I'm no saying you did so personally). It is also worth noting that prior to knowing the EU and CMA had an SLC over the Cloud literally nobody was speaking of the cloud market when highlighting concern over the deals.

Thank you but did you have to quote the entire thing? 🥲

Jk, it's fine, it's just a long post...

Yup. Microsoft doesn't even need a contract to release COD on PlayStation, as you said, they were only doing it to counter Sony's sabotage attempts, there is not a single shred of evidence that Microsoft had any intention of removing COD from PlayStation despite over 1m internal documents and emails being look through by the FTC, Sony themselves said they don't believe they will remove COD, as you mentioned, Lol.

And now that Sony contract isn't currently enforced by any regulator despite Microsoft offering it because in CMA's case they decided Sony doesn't need the protection and in FTC's case they decided to fuck around. The contract still stands though, Microsoft is still offering it even though they don't have to, as long as Sony wants to sign it, but COD doesn't need a contract to release on PlayStation so maybe they won't bother signing it.

However Sony's current agreement with ABK gives ABK a higher split of the revenue, the traditional is 30% split to Sony for each digital transaction but the contract Sony has for COD is less than that, I forgot what the number is, point is Sony makes less money from COD transactions than they do from a traditional split, however IIRC the Microsoft contract is back to a traditional 30% split.

The contract that Microsoft is offering Sony is better than the deal they have right now with Activision-Blizzard in terms of revenue split, Lol.

Anyway, not enforceable yet because no regulators took it upon themselves to do that and only the EC has enforced Cloud Remedies so far. GeForce Now could be described as being done due to pressure from the FTC/CMA but again neither of them have accepted it and if they got their way, the deal would be dead and no contract, so I find it hard to give FTC/CMA credit for these contracts, the EC would have got them, the EC did get them, if the CMA/FTC run back to Microsoft after being embarrassed in court then they're just trying to save face, they don't care about the contracts.

Microsoft taking away Activision Blizzard games permanently from the PlayStation platform is absolutely a bad outcome. Promising to release Call of Duty on PlayStation platforms for the next ten years, if Microsoft doesn't try to renege those contracts like they did successfully with Indiana Jones, and failed to do so with Minecraft Dungeons, is not something I see as some benefit, since Microsoft won't be releasing CoD on PlayStation perpetually. As for the rest of Activision Blizzard's catalog, I expect that to be treated like Bethesda games, or how Microsoft planned to handle Sega if their M&A proposal was accepted; shortly after the acquisition closes, none of those games are going to be releasing on the PlayStation 5, outside of whatever is currently announced. When it comes to competing cloud services, and Nintendo, similar to the PlayStation platform, its only a temporary thing, and for all we know, they might only be doing it to appease regulators, especially with the information that has come out via unredacted court documents.

The many gamers who oppose this deal are concerned about the industry being completely consolidated in a decades time. The variety and choice in the catalog of games we have access to as consumers, on our platform of choice, will slowly disappear as publishers start getting bought up, and gaming becomes four or five walled garden ecosystems/subscription services, similar to the streaming wars. Even if Microsoft is the strongest in this front, they aren't going to acquire every single publisher out there, and they will lose a ton of content. As for Sony, they highlighted one of their paths forward in terms of M&A, where they plan to spin off their financial arm, in order to make bigger investments in their entertainment division. Sony has seen the music industry consolidate, and took part in it, they have seen the movie industry consolidate, and attempted to take part in it via Fox, and now they see the gaming industry beginning to consolidate, from their direct competitor nonetheless. Would Nintendo really sit idly by if Sony decides to acquire a publisher like Square Enix? That's also not considering what Amazon, Tencent, or Netflix will do once the floodgates open. 

Whether or not you think mass consolidation is an irrational outcome to Microsoft's biggest acquisition ever is where we may differ. Personally, I doubt industry consolidation will ease up if Acti/Blizz is cleared, only accelerate. 

My bad, edited it out.