The Microsoft / Activision Blizzard acquisition |OT| Antitrust Simulator (completed; discussing post-merger issues)

zou · Dec 9, 2022

God, the whole thing is just a bunch of "what ifs" and dubious, irrelevant or outright false claims.

104. The Proposed Acquisition would give Microsoft the ability to engage in several strategies to degrade access to Activision content on rival consoles and subscription services, including timed exclusivity, exclusive downloadable content available only on Microsoft's products, and a variety of other means across the Relevant Markets.

That's not really dependent upon an acquisition and something the only other, "relevant" market participant is already doing

108. If permitted to take control of Activision, Microsoft would have an incentive to disadvantage rivals by withholding or degrading Activision content. Gaming is a growing and lucrative market opportunity and one in which Microsoft is already well-positioned. Microsoft already has a built-in incentive to promote its own products wherever possible, and it fully understands the competitive power that owning Activision's leading gaming content would yield.

They are so well positioned, they are third in a two player market. And a company being incentivized to promote their own products isn't limited to Microsoft, is it?

109. Prior to the Proposed Acquisition, Activision sought to maximize its profits from sales of its video game titles. The Proposed Acquisition would change Activision's incentives, because Microsoft stands to gain significant profits from additional gamers purchasing Xbox consoles or Xbox Game Pass.

I would love to see the numbers on this.. Somehow I doubt they would make up tens or hundreds of millions in PS sales by selling a console at cost (at best)

dglavimans · Dec 9, 2022

Idas said:
MLex emailed the European Commission about the FTC accusation and they provided a very interesting answer:

As I mentioned yesterday, so much focus on the Zenimax case and the exclusivity issues didn't make any sense.

And the EC is almost accusing the FTC of lying, things could get serious.

FTC is like: 'the hell EC you supposed to have my back on this'

This can get ugly now because.. That's lying or sheer incompetence

dusan · Dec 9, 2022

This case is closed, GG.

BringBackSonics · Dec 9, 2022

Grubb speculated that this might make the FTC embarrassed and want to settle for basically trying to push through a sham case

View: https://twitter.com/jeffgrubb/status/1601276972042264577?s=46&t=D6GKrW7ubo6UED1oPGCAgA

leburn98 · Dec 9, 2022

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn_NFatzKRM

vixolus · Dec 9, 2022

Chaos Legion said:
The FTC's entire crux with this is that Microsoft cannot necessarily be trusted to follow through with non-binding agreements if their past behavior with Zenimax is an indicator of how they will operate with Activision under their control. Microsoft purposely highlighted that they were not incentivized to pursue exclusivity with Zenimax content, however, as the EU responded this morning, they never guaranteed that they wouldn't.

The FTC is doubting the validity of Microsoft's current assurances based on their actual statements to the EU with regards to Zenimax. Again, you can disagree with that, hell, even disagree with their interpretation of Microsoft's statements to the EU (although, I still think it's a bit generous to interpret it as you chose to), but accusing the FTC of lying is ignoring what's actually stated in the complaint.

FTC: " Microsoft assured the European Commission ("EC") during its antitrust review of the ZeniMax purchase that Microsoft would not have the incentive to withhold ZeniMax titles from rival consoles. But, shortly after the EC cleared the transaction, Microsoft made public its decision to make several of the newly acquired ZeniMax titles, including Starfield, Redfall, and Elder Scrolls VI, Microsoft exclusives."

EU: "Microsoft didn't make any commitments to EU regulators not to release Xbox-exclusive content following its takeover of ZeniMax Media."

Neither party is lying?

"cannot be trusted to follow through with non-binding agreements if their past behavior with Zenimax is an indicator of how they will operate with Activision under their control."

They followed through with their 'non-binding agreements' re: Zenimax, though?

"Microsoft purposely highlighted that they were not incentivized to pursue exclusivity with Zenimax content, however, as the EU responded this morning, they never guaranteed they wouldn't."

I don't think you understand what Microsoft was highlighting. They said not incentivized to pursue ENTIRE exclusivity with Zenimax content on Xbox. Meaning, no more selling Skyrim on PSN or eShop. Cancelling the distribution of Zenimax games at large, and only having them available on Xbox. NOT that there would not be exclusive titles, at all. They DID tell the EU there would be exclusive titles. The EU knew this, and determined EVEN IF they DID make EVERYTHING exclusive (pull out of stores), that would be fine. No agreements or concessions were necessary to prevent this.

You only quote once from the EU but not the rest of their statements:

"The commission cleared the Microsoft/ZeniMax transaction unconditionally as it concluded that the transaction would not raise competition concerns," the EU watchdog said in an emailed statement.

The absence of competition concerns "did not rely on any statements made by Microsoft about the future distribution strategy concerning ZeniMax's games," said the commission (IE. THEY DID NOT JUST TAKE MICROSOFT AT THEIR WORD ON FUTURE DISTRIBUTION STRATEGIES)

The EU agency found that even if Microsoft were to restrict access to ZeniMax titles, it wouldn't have a significant impact on competition because rivals wouldn't be denied access to an "essential input," and other consoles would still have a "large array" of attractive content.

Jiraiya · Dec 9, 2022

gremlinz1982 said:
Microsoft never gave any assurances. They always said case by case basis.

I was told that was pr speak yesterday. SilverX

That's some wild ish.

DukeBlueBall · Dec 9, 2022

Chaos Legion said:
The FTC's entire crux with this is that Microsoft cannot necessarily be trusted to follow through with non-binding agreements if their past behavior with Zenimax is an indicator of how they will operate with Activision under their control. Microsoft purposely highlighted that they were not incentivized to pursue exclusivity with Zenimax content, however, as the EU responded this morning, they never guaranteed that they wouldn't.

The FTC is doubting the validity of Microsoft's current assurances based on their actual statements to the EU with regards to Zenimax. Again, you can disagree with that, hell, even disagree with their interpretation of Microsoft's statements to the EU (although, I still think it's a bit generous to interpret it as you chose to), but accusing the FTC of lying is ignoring what's actually stated in the complaint.

FTC: " Microsoft assured the European Commission ("EC") during its antitrust review of the ZeniMax purchase that Microsoft would not have the incentive to withhold ZeniMax titles from rival consoles. But, shortly after the EC cleared the transaction, Microsoft made public its decision to make several of the newly acquired ZeniMax titles, including Starfield, Redfall, and Elder Scrolls VI, Microsoft exclusives."

EU: "Microsoft didn't make any commitments to EU regulators not to release Xbox-exclusive content following its takeover of ZeniMax Media."

Neither party is lying?

I appreciate your effort to explore the nuance of this statement. Maybe you should do the same to explain why the FTC is using only four independent publishers for AAA gaming, why Nintendo is excluded from high performance gaming, but PC is also. There is certainly a lot here that I need some help understanding.

I_love_potatoes · Dec 9, 2022

I don't understand how it's acceptable that FTC can basically delay the whole thing to their own timetable in hopes that the deal is abandoned instead of being taken to court.

Is there really no way for Microsoft to go another legal way to be like "Hey they lied, we'd like the date to be set much earllier to prove the lies" or something like that?

vixolus · Dec 9, 2022

I_love_potatoes said:
I don't understand how it's acceptable that FTC can basically delay the whole thing to their own timetable in hopes that the deal is abandoned instead of being taken to court.

Is there really no way for Microsoft to go another legal way to be like "Hey they lied, we'd like the date to be set much earllier to prove the lies" or something like that?

That's what the Supreme Court is determining in June apparently. Which is a long way to go

crazillo · Dec 9, 2022

FTC and CMA both haven't been looking very good in this process at times, I must say. Glad the EC cleared that part about Zenimax exclusivity up, I couldn't have stood years and years of fanboys saying that MS lied about Bethesda ZeniMax games.

Again, I just hope the dust settles in January when we're getting two very important decisions.

dglavimans · Dec 9, 2022

I_love_potatoes said:
I don't understand how it's acceptable that FTC can basically delay the whole thing to their own timetable in hopes that the deal is abandoned instead of being taken to court.

Is there really no way for Microsoft to go another legal way to be like "Hey they lied, we'd like the date to be set much earllier to prove the lies" or something like that?

At this point who knows… we just heard a huge news drop that potentially harms the FTC

The_Iceman2288 · Dec 9, 2022

So the FTC needed to bowl a 300 to block this deal and they just hit a gutterball on the first go?

BringBackSonics · Dec 9, 2022

leburn98 said:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn_NFatzKRM

She basically says FTC has a large hill to climb. I think we all know this is a sham lawsuit

SilverX · Dec 9, 2022

Jiraiya said:
I was told that was pr speak yesterday. SilverX

That's some wild ish.

What a weird thing to @me for from another thread lol. I said the FTC is claiming MS said what they quoted and that the ¨case by case¨ was PR speak because it was what was said in press releases and very different from what the FTC was actually stated to regulators. I would understand you holding what I said so highly if I was the FTC..... you don´t think I am the FTC right?

BringBackSonics · Dec 9, 2022

The_Iceman2288 said:
So the FTC needed to bowl a 300 to block this deal and they just hit a gutterball on the first go?

The fact that the EC responded to this publicly is definitely a huge egg on the face for the FTC.

UraMallas · Dec 9, 2022

Chaos Legion said:
FTC: " Microsoft assured the European Commission ("EC") during its antitrust review of the ZeniMax purchase that Microsoft would not have the incentive to withhold ZeniMax titles from rival consoles. But, shortly after the EC cleared the transaction, Microsoft made public its decision to make several of the newly acquired ZeniMax titles, including Starfield, Redfall, and Elder Scrolls VI, Microsoft exclusives."

EU: "Microsoft didn't make any commitments to EU regulators not to release Xbox-exclusive content following its takeover of ZeniMax Media."

Neither party is lying?

They are being as gracious as possible to the FTC here. They aren't calling them liars because they are a huge regulating body that EC deals with regularly.

The fact they came out the day after the FTC claims with this clarifying statement is incredibly novel and tells you all you need to know about what EU is saying. Follow the actions, not the words.

Seraphs · Dec 9, 2022

leburn98 said:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn_NFatzKRM

>>Anti-trust lawyers love to draw narrow markets

>>Again they didnt make a real allegations of the market share here

>>As you note, they do define this high end console market and sort of draw nintend out of it.

Stoppabl3 · Dec 9, 2022

leburn98 said:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn_NFatzKRM

That was basically the nicest possible way to say that the current FTC has lost their minds.

christocolus · Dec 9, 2022

MS vindicated....

BringBackSonics said:
Grubb speculated that this might make the FTC embarrassed and want to settle for basically trying to push through a sham case

View: https://twitter.com/jeffgrubb/status/1601276972042264577?s=46&t=D6GKrW7ubo6UED1oPGCAgA

well done EC.

Theorry · Dec 9, 2022

leburn98 said:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn_NFatzKRM

I hate when people use some bad laptop mic for this with a big echo.
If i was that news station i would say come back with a headset on lol

thelastikilla · Dec 9, 2022

Sorry, but FTC is saying the truth. This is from the Zenimax deal:

(107) The Notifying Party submits that Microsoft has strong incentives to continue making
ZeniMax games available for rival consoles (and their related storefronts).105
(108) The Notifying Party explains that the profitability of a strategy to make ZeniMax
games exclusive to the Xbox console would depend on a trade-off between: (i) the
value of attracting new players to the Xbox ecosystem; and (ii) the lost income from
the sale of ZeniMax games for rival consoles (through the related storefronts). In this
regard, the Notifying Party forecasts that a significant share of ZeniMax games sales
will occur on rival consoles over the life cycle of the newly released console
generation.
106 Based on such a trade-off, the Notifying Party submits that a
hypothetical console exclusivity strategy would be profitable only if it led to an
increase in the number of Xbox users [forecast million] over the next five years,
corresponding to an increase in Xbox shipments [forecast percentage] above the
forecast level.
107
(109) In the Notifying Party's view, it is implausible that Microsoft would achieve such
results. Firstly, the Notifying Party considers that such a strategy is likely to be
successful if service differentiation is weak and the content at issue is extremely valuable.
108 However, rival consoles are significantly differentiated, and have
accumulated brand loyalty.

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases1/202124/m10001_438_3.pdf

People are mixing different things, there was no formal COMMITMENT to no exclusivity, EC is right, nor has FTC said. FTC said this, which is true:

"Microsoft decided to make several of Bethesda's titles including Starfield and Redfall Microsoft exclusives despite assurances it had given to European antitrust authorities that it had no incentive to withhold games from rival consoles."

tarman76 · Dec 9, 2022

BringBackSonics said:
She basically says FTC has a large hill to climb. I think we all know this is a sham lawsuit

She also says that the FTCs claim of misleading the EC over Bethesda content is one of their linchpins. Haha. Oops.

BringBackSonics · Dec 9, 2022

christocolus said:
well done EC.

I'm surprised the EC publicly rebuked the FTC, Khan and her team has to be flipping some tables right now.

Tagyhag · Dec 9, 2022

Like I said before, I'm glad the FTC is not letting these multi billion dollar corporations run around doing whatever the fuck they want.

But have a better case...This just makes you look worse.

I_love_potatoes · Dec 9, 2022

vixolus said:
That's what the Supreme Court is determining in June apparently. Which is a long way to go

Hopefully it's changed. You should not be able to delay it knowing you'll lose in court in hopes they drop the deal because they won't want to wait. Really stupid that it's thing in the first place.

dglavimans said:
At this point who knows… we just heard a huge news drop that potentially harms the FTC

Maybe Idas can be of help here for us? Lol

Idas is there any legal workaround for Microsoft to get an earlier date? Especially knowing that EC basically denied FTCs comment, could that be used to somehow up the court date or something? I find it crazy how FTC can delay this to August just because they want to.

vixolus · Dec 9, 2022

thelastikilla said:
Sorry, but FTC is saying the truth. This is from the Zenimax deal:

People are mixing different things, there was no formal COMMITMENT to no exclusivity, EC is right, nor has FTC said. FTC said this, which is true:

"Microsoft decided to make several of Bethesda's titles including Starfield and Redfall Microsoft exclusives despite assurances it had given to European antitrust authorities that it had no incentive to withhold games from rival consoles."

Because the FTC is mischaracterizing Microsoft's statements/assurances to the EC. That "Exclusive games = withholding games", whereas Microsoft stated they had no incentive to withdraw distribution or availability of games, but they DID say they would have exclusive games to the EC. The FTC is wrong.

UraMallas · Dec 9, 2022

thelastikilla said:
Sorry, but

Apology accepted. Read the new updates pls.

BringBackSonics · Dec 9, 2022

tarman76 said:
She also says that the FTCs claim of misleading the EC over Bethesda content is one of their linchpins. Haha. Oops.

Yeah, I like how they pointed out Nintendo wasn't considered a high end console

El_Chino · Dec 9, 2022

BringBackSonics said:
Grubb speculated that this might make the FTC embarrassed and want to settle for basically trying to push through a sham case

View: https://twitter.com/jeffgrubb/status/1601276972042264577?s=46&t=D6GKrW7ubo6UED1oPGCAgA

I doubt it but that would be a wise move.

Idas · Dec 9, 2022

Idas said:
MLex emailed the European Commission about the FTC accusation and they provided a very interesting answer:

I can't share the link yet because it's behind a subscription service (they usually share part of the content a few days later here).

So, I made screens captures (from mobile). I hope it helps (I'll try to look for a better solution later):

B7-B195-CD-3-D9-F-43-BF-8-FC8-E582-F265355-B

Image B7-B195-CD-3-D9-F-43-BF-8-FC8-E582-F265355-B hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

89-AB7629-5-F91-4-A57-B0-D1-31178-AF654-CE

Image 89-AB7629-5-F91-4-A57-B0-D1-31178-AF654-CE hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

599-B296-C-4439-449-B-B1-BD-6-FF4605-CCF08

Image 599-B296-C-4439-449-B-B1-BD-6-FF4605-CCF08 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

877-EFF25-DD5-B-4395-AFA2-C57-D97-A72-B0-A

Image 877-EFF25-DD5-B-4395-AFA2-C57-D97-A72-B0-A hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

32-A8-DA53-D906-464-E-A999-A6-C74761-A508

Image 32-A8-DA53-D906-464-E-A999-A6-C74761-A508 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

320-DB51-B-173-C-479-A-95-BC-4-BC822-EB9825

Image 320-DB51-B-173-C-479-A-95-BC-4-BC822-EB9825 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

A33-EFB04-06-F2-41-B1-8-CB6-046-D3-ED297-BA

Image A33-EFB04-06-F2-41-B1-8-CB6-046-D3-ED297-BA hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

29-D7136-D-BC57-4129-AF89-18-B7-AF2-DEA19

Image 29-D7136-D-BC57-4129-AF89-18-B7-AF2-DEA19 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

As I mentioned yesterday, so much focus on the Zenimax case and the exclusivity issues didn't make any sense.

And the EC is almost accusing the FTC of lying, things could get serious.

I added screen captures to the article. I hope it helps!

DukeBlueBall · Dec 9, 2022

BringBackSonics said:
She basically says FTC has a large hill to climb. I think we all know this is a sham lawsuit

OMG. She knows the industry so well. Better than any pundit that I've seen being interviewed about this case.

Montresor · Dec 9, 2022

God bless the European Union regulator.

Disco Infernal · Dec 9, 2022

Leadership at the FTC needs to be evaluated. Holy shit what a blunder.

BringBackSonics · Dec 9, 2022

DukeBlueBall said:
OMG. She knows the industry so well. Better than any pundit that I've seen being interviewed about this case.

I think they said she used to be a FTC commissioner.

gofreak · Dec 9, 2022

gremlinz1982 said:
Microsoft never gave any assurances. They always said case by case basis.

Well, you can substitute 'arguments' for 'assurances' in that case. MS was transparent about future 'case by case' handling of exclusives etc. But I don't think technically the FTC's comment says otherwise. What it does explicitly say is that arguments about a lack of foreclosure incentive look weak given that MS ignored that lack of foreclosure incentive with Zenimax games, and that's true. They're not saying MS hid that possibility.

I'm not a massive fan of this deal, but, I cautioned against the 'misled the EC' interpretation from the start yesterday, when people were saying that was terrible for the deal etc. While there is space for that interpretation, I don't see the inherent implication of MS 'lying' to the EC in those statements. To me they just say arguments to regulators about natural incentive not to foreclose don't matter a jot given MS's acquisition history, and that's not an unfair assessment IMO. Nothing the EC has said contradicts that - indeed, an implication in what they say is that if they had decided the deal based on those arguments, things might be different.

BringBackSonics · Dec 9, 2022

Disco Infernal said:
Leadership at the FTC needs to be evaluated. Holy shit what a blunder.

Starting to feel like khan is gonna throw someone under the bus for the fuck ups

Confidence in government regulatory bodies going down ⬇️⬇️

UraMallas · Dec 9, 2022

BringBackSonics said:
Grubb speculated that this might make the FTC embarrassed and want to settle for basically trying to push through a sham case

View: https://twitter.com/jeffgrubb/status/1601276972042264577?s=46&t=D6GKrW7ubo6UED1oPGCAgA

Hoeg notes this just now but says it's highly unlikely you can shame this FTC given the document they put out is embarrassing enough on its own to not be released typically. I.e. it simply isn't about a coherent argument. They know they are on weak ground and don't care. They are ready for the fallout.

Diarrhea Day-Lewis · Dec 9, 2022

Did Microsoft say they told EU that? I may have missed but I thought FTC was referring to early Beth language of "we don't want to take games away" which ended up being just not ending active GaaS but that new games (like starfield) were cancelled on other systems?

I got the impression it was more FTC was saying they could just take away games that aren't COD easily like with Bethesda coz they used similar language for that too.

Like the new Crash game wouldn't be cancelled for Sony and Nintendo but when Crash 5 is announced it would be for Microsoft run platforms only, is what I mean. Did FTC say they made concessions with EU on Bethesda? I must have missed it

Also how much would the court case even cost? This is Microsoft. They are worth 2T and spending 70b here. Even if the court case ran $500M, I assume they'd do it no matter what. (But it can't possibly cost THAT much right ?)

Jiraiya · Dec 9, 2022

SilverX said:
What a weird thing to @me for from another thread lol. I said the FTC is claiming MS said what they quoted and that the ¨case by case¨ was PR speak because it was what was said in press releases and very different from what the FTC was actually stated to regulators. I would understand you holding what I said so highly if I was the FTC..... you don´t think I am the FTC right?

It's related news…not odd at all. You don't need to be the ftc…you chose to go by their pr speak. Said to wait until the trial until the EU was like…nah way before it happened.

Seems Microsoft has been adamant about certain games being exclusive, not taking away existing titles and ongoing live service games and keeping some multiplatform regardless. Behind close doors and in public.

vixolus · Dec 9, 2022

bonesawisready5 said:
Did Microsoft say they told EU that? I may have missed but I thought FTC was referring to early Beth language of "we don't want to take games away" which ended up being just not ending active GaaS but that new games (like starfield) were cancelled on other systems?

I got the impression it was more FTC was saying they could just take away games that aren't COD easily like with Bethesda coz they used similar language for that too.

Like the new Crash game wouldn't be cancelled for Sony and Nintendo but when Crash 5 is announced it would be for Microsoft run platforms only, is what I mean. Did FTC say they made concessions with EU on Bethesda? I must have missed it

and nothing about that is illegal or would substantially lessen competition. It would increase competition against Sony/Nintendo and bolster their offering.

BringBackSonics · Dec 9, 2022

UraMallas said:
Hoeg notes this just now but says it's highly unlikely you can shame this FTC given the document they put out is embarrassing enough on its own to not be released typically. I.e. it simply isn't about a coherent argument. They know they are on weal ground and don't care. They are ready for the fallout.

True, but did they think they would get publicly rebuked by the EC? At some point you need restore some level of confidence to the public as a regulatory body.

zou · Dec 9, 2022

Chaos Legion said:
FTC: " Microsoft assured the European Commission ("EC") during its antitrust review of the ZeniMax purchase that Microsoft would not have the incentive to withhold ZeniMax titles from rival consoles. But, shortly after the EC cleared the transaction, Microsoft made public its decision to make several of the newly acquired ZeniMax titles, including Starfield, Redfall, and Elder Scrolls VI, Microsoft exclusives."

EU: "Microsoft didn't make any commitments to EU regulators not to release Xbox-exclusive content following its takeover of ZeniMax Media."

Neither party is lying?

That's some rather generous editing on your part.

Relevant quotes from the PDF:

III. Microsoft's Statements and Past Actions Indicate that It Will Likely Act on Its Incentives to Disadvantage Rivals by Withholding or Degrading Activision Content

114. Moreover, Microsoft's past conduct is telling. Despite statements by Microsoft to European regulators disavowing the incentive to make ZeniMax content exclusive post-close, after the EC cleared the transaction, Microsoft plans for three of the newly acquired titles to become exclusive to Microsoft's Xbox consoles and Xbox Game Pass subscription services.

115. Microsoft's previous representations to the EC about its incentives after its purchase of ZeniMax were not borne out by Microsoft's own post-merger behavior. Instead, Microsoft put its true post-merger incentives on full display when it decided to deny rivals its newly acquired future releases and thwart consumers who would choose to play them on a competing product

The same arguments could have been made without referencing supposed commitments (or statements, or representations) made to the EC. They were purposely included to create the impression MS mislead regulators (and that's a generous interpretation).

leburn98 · Dec 9, 2022

vixolus said:
"cannot be trusted to follow through with non-binding agreements if their past behavior with Zenimax is an indicator of how they will operate with Activision under their control."

They followed through with their 'non-binding agreements' re: Zenimax, though?

"Microsoft purposely highlighted that they were not incentivized to pursue exclusivity with Zenimax content, however, as the EU responded this morning, they never guaranteed they wouldn't."

I don't think you understand what Microsoft was highlighting. They said not incentivized to pursue ENTIRE exclusivity with Zenimax content on Xbox. Meaning, no more selling Skyrim on PSN or eShop. Cancelling the distribution of Zenimax games at large, and only having them available on Xbox. NOT that there would not be exclusive titles, at all. They DID tell the EU there would be exclusive titles. The EU knew this, and determined EVEN IF they DID make EVERYTHING exclusive (pull out of stores), that would be fine. No agreements or concessions were necessary to prevent this.

You only quote once from the EU but not the rest of their statements:

Agreed. Something to also consider that is often overlooked. Something like Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim sold over 30 million copies since it's release in 2011. COD does that annually. Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Doom, etc. are simply not comparable in anyway, shape or form to Call of Duty.

thelastikilla · Dec 9, 2022

vixolus said:
Because the FTC is mischaracterizing Microsoft's statements/assurances to the EC. That "Exclusive games = withholding games", whereas Microsoft stated they had no incentive to withdraw distribution or availability of games, but they DID say they would have exclusive games to the EC. The FTC is wrong.

No, it's not. As most is interpretable because are vague statements, Microsoft said that there was no incentives to make games exclusive and they did it, and they are saying the same with Activision.

I understand that Microsoft PR machine wants to make the FTC look embarrasing, but there is no case here.

vixolus · Dec 9, 2022

thelastikilla said:
No, it's not. As most is interpretable because are vague statements, Microsoft said that there was no incentives to make games exclusive and they did it, and they are saying the same with Activision.

I understand that Microsoft PR machine wants to make the FTC look embarrasing, but there is no case here.

source? Because I have shared plenty of evidence proving the opposite in this thread. You are conflating the exclusive distribution and availability of all Zenimax games with some Zenimax games or future games will/may be exclusive.

Uzuzu · Dec 9, 2022

leburn98 said:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn_NFatzKRM

I like how the newscaster and the ex-FTC lady can't help but laugh when they bring up the FTC argument that Nintendo's not part of the market. It's laughable to virtually anyone with even a small knowledge of gaming.

dglavimans · Dec 9, 2022

thelastikilla said:
No, it's not. As most is interpretable because are vague statements, Microsoft said that there was no incentives to make games exclusive and they did it, and they are saying the same with Activision.

I understand that Microsoft PR machine wants to make the FTC look embarrasing, but there is no case here.

The EC publicly tells that the FTC is wrong on this. They don't need Microsoft PR machine at this point to look enbarrasing

ElFly · Dec 9, 2022

shameful display by the FTC, they need to be more rigurous

but it's good this comes out now instead of the middle of the lawsuit

Captain Tuttle · Dec 9, 2022

DukeBlueBall said:
OMG. She knows the industry so well. Better than any pundit that I've seen being interviewed about this case.

She may not know the ins and outs of the video game industry but she used to be FTC commissioner meaning she's an expert on deals like this

The Microsoft / Activision Blizzard acquisition |OT| Antitrust Simulator (completed; discussing post-merger issues)

Prophet of Truth

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

Prophet of Truth

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

Prophet of Truth

Antitrusting By Keyboard

Prophet of Truth

Prophet of Truth