FTC accuses Microsoft of misrepresenting its Activision Blizzard plans after layoffs
- Thread starter delete12345
- Start date
- News Microsoft Activision/Blizzard
- Status
What a bummer, trillion dollar company always wins
Whack. I hope game devs union up, this is straight unacceptable. I can't stand the video game industry. I feel like it only exists because of its unique ability to exploit people's love of games. I just can't see another reason put up with the Crunch, Underpayment, Online/IRL Harassment, Bigotry, Terrible Management that seems to be common at the indie to AAA space.
I'm saying this as someone who always wanted to join the industry since watching TechTV as a child, even got a CS degree lol.
I'm saying this as someone who always wanted to join the industry since watching TechTV as a child, even got a CS degree lol.
If you are testifying that there wont be layoffs and then fire 1900, they are going to try and get you for it. Doesnt matter if they "should have known", thats not the issue here. They said something and did what they said they wouldnt do
Realistically the FTC should not trust anything companies say that isn't completely backed by hard data, because companies fucking lie all the time in these things, and are aware that the worst penalties they're likely to face are fines that are trivial compared to what they stand to gain with their acquisitions. If the FTC wants to treat the companies word as anything even remotely meaningful then there need to be much harsher enforcement mechanisms, like undoing these deals even if it would have gone through had the company actually been honest on a given issue
I'm not defending Microsoft here, I'm criticizing the FTC as incompetent. Realistically the punishment will be a slap on the wrist too
I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the FTC didn't buy anything MS was saying. However, an independent judge had the final say
Fine them hundreds of millions of dollars, the bare minimum of what these employees should have been paid for a year minimum. Use those funds to reimburse employees let go. Give someone some prison time. Do fucking something to discourage this bullshit of a company lying because they know they'll get a slap on the wrist and a completely inconsequential fine.
I mean surely none of that will happen but still, fuck, I wish there were consequences for the powerful.
I mean surely none of that will happen but still, fuck, I wish there were consequences for the powerful.
Use your CS degree for something else and enjoy much better work conditions, job security and pay. I worked for a big game publisher for a while before returning to more general enterprise and e-commerce software development and I'm good, no more professional gamedev for me.
I think this is the real upside. A lot of the FTCs case last time sort of informally hinged on MS' general reputation around these things, but they had an uphill battle really proving that for the Xbox arm of the business.
Now they've got something solid to point at for the next acquisition, especially if they can make this stick. MS may only pay a fine, but they will have a much harder time nabbing another publisher.
I'm Ok with them getting a fine with the value of all 1900 employees full year salaries so they get to see the redundancy in their financials.
I really wish the FTC luck on this one, Microsoft should be punished and other companies should be warned from pulling the same scam.
ftc issue was that in court they really only argued about harm to sony and its players which where the now bannable comments started chances are they still would have lost as ms at the time hadnt done mass layoffs for there game division yet. but maybe if they had there might have been something in place to prevent it(idk if thats even possible)
We had a mega thread for months and months where the majority convinced themselves it's for the better and competition. Remember the pro consumer moniker? It started with Microsoft's acquisitions of major publishers.
Neither of these will hold true. FTC doesn't really have a case here. The larger context of that statement holds true. ABK even with the layoffs would be able to be ran as before if the merger was undone.
Sure did lol. Out of college got a manufacturing job and didn't look back.
I am sure MS can argue that their plans didn't call for this to happen initially but the situation has changed and the entire industry can reflect that, etc.
Copying something I wrote in another thread where this came up (I was responding to someone saying it was just going to be another "L" for the FTC):
Abyad works in the OGC, and tends to make strong filings (if memory serves, some of the better FTC materials in the original hearings were his but presented by someone else) even though he necessarily covers a wide range of subjects. My fear is that they're trying to re-litigate elements of "fact" from the original hearings in a way that a judge would frown at because they were already established in Microsoft's favor. If there are plausible changes to market conditions or hiring composition (both within Acti-Blizz itself before the purchase or even afterward for the broader market), they will have an incredibly hard time arguing against a company's ability/right to scale staffing reactively to that. It's such a basic function of business that it's hard to demonstrate them being different under Microsoft ownership. Something as basic as the huge glut of hirings during COVID-19 may be a plausible enough "excuse" against what they raise in the filing, even accounting for the PR statement about the layoffs addressing "overlap." I'd have to do more reading on the Clayton Act re: being able to undo the merger, because I feel like that wasn't given much weight when it was brought up during the original proceedings. I totally see what they're going for with the horizontal vs. vertical mention, but they're going to be up against how operational staffing isn't the same thing as the nature of products/services under that terminology.
I hope even if this doesn't go the FTCs way, it makes layoffs at that scale feel a little less "easy" for big corps down the road. I'm not particularly optimistic about that.
Abyad works in the OGC, and tends to make strong filings (if memory serves, some of the better FTC materials in the original hearings were his but presented by someone else) even though he necessarily covers a wide range of subjects. My fear is that they're trying to re-litigate elements of "fact" from the original hearings in a way that a judge would frown at because they were already established in Microsoft's favor. If there are plausible changes to market conditions or hiring composition (both within Acti-Blizz itself before the purchase or even afterward for the broader market), they will have an incredibly hard time arguing against a company's ability/right to scale staffing reactively to that. It's such a basic function of business that it's hard to demonstrate them being different under Microsoft ownership. Something as basic as the huge glut of hirings during COVID-19 may be a plausible enough "excuse" against what they raise in the filing, even accounting for the PR statement about the layoffs addressing "overlap." I'd have to do more reading on the Clayton Act re: being able to undo the merger, because I feel like that wasn't given much weight when it was brought up during the original proceedings. I totally see what they're going for with the horizontal vs. vertical mention, but they're going to be up against how operational staffing isn't the same thing as the nature of products/services under that terminology.
I hope even if this doesn't go the FTCs way, it makes layoffs at that scale feel a little less "easy" for big corps down the road. I'm not particularly optimistic about that.
Last edited:
It was perhaps the best option in a sea of bad options. I for one am not going to pretend that it is not a net good that the old Actiblizz management has or is going to be shown the door or that mass layoffs wouldn't be happening had this merger failed.
A just world would have the whole thing broken apart and pay profit destroying fines irrevocably denying any other company from doing the same.
But hum. Well all know why that won't happen i guess.
But hum. Well all know why that won't happen i guess.
What if they wear a t-shirt and blazer and put some cute shit on a shelf?
Toys for Bob got hit bad but they aren't dead. The offices were closed and the rest of the studio are WFH now.
Most, from what I can tell. There were some in Bethesda Community that seems to be part of a broader initiative to restructure Community across all of Microsoft Gaming. From what I've personally found, none from XGS.
most of them from what we can tell as actiblizz let go of 900 people in california alone which is already almost half of the 1900.
Lying in court is perjury right? Wouldn't they actually have legal grounds to go after them for that?
Okay, the layoffs were bad, but Microsoft said no such thing to the FTC. I read the Feb 7 FTC filing and it claims that Microsoft told them the "two companies will operate independently post-merger." And that's still what's happening. The real problem with most of these layoffs is still directly related to game companies ballooning hiring during the pandemic knowing it was unsistatinable. It was bad business practices across the board, and these layoffs were not "redudancies", which is why actual developers were hit.
You can be against it but not live in La La Land too. What's the point of fighting a giant with a plastic spoon? I'm gonna scoop him to death?
FTC will put their foot in their own ass first. It's an incompetent organization.
What's done is done.
Hopefully, those 1900 can land on their feet.
But the entire video game got rocked by layoffs that past year or so. Not much the FTC will be able to gain from this.
If you go back to most of those threads, most people weren't arguing against the merger because of what it was going to mean for job security.
It was for uh... Other embarrassing reasons.
Hopefully, those 1900 can land on their feet.
But the entire video game got rocked by layoffs that past year or so. Not much the FTC will be able to gain from this.
If you go back to most of those threads, most people weren't arguing against the merger because of what it was going to mean for job security.
It was for uh... Other embarrassing reasons.
Always the same on this fanboy filled forum, first those threads become echo chambers and everyone else is gas lighted, then when what you thought/posted happens you get gas lighted again.
What legal reason existed that this merger shouldn't have gone thru? The ftc had a bad arguments with cloud and cod becoming exclusive. I get it the layoffs fucking suck and I supported this deal in the mega thread on the basis that it would promote competition. The fallout has made me change my thoughts on it.
I just don't want everyone to label all those who supported the deal as negative. People's opinions can change and I hold myself accountable for that. Seeing posts saying "fuck everyone for supporting this deal" is wild. Fuck me too I guess.
Someone posted a gif when the deal closed about licking up the tears of unfathomable sadness from people against the deal.
Maybe said user can say that to the 1,900 people laid off.
I've seen people making this accusation not discerning between someone's behavior vs. what they're saying. If you don't separate those, you'll never understand moderation on any platform. People can be right and also be way out of line and deserve a ban. Someone can be dead-wrong about something important but still be cordial about it.
- Status