4 ms·

Good. I have a hard time seeing how antitrust regulators would green light acquiring the combined Activision and Blizzard IP right on the tail end of the Bethe

by kromem 4y ago

Good. I have a hard time seeing how antitrust regulators would green light acquiring the combined Activision and Blizzard IP right on the tail end of the Bethesda acquisition. Especially seeing how almost immediately Bethesda games announced for cross platform became exclusives. Even if MS commits to CoD staying cross platform for a few years, is Diablo 4? What about IP currently in development? Start new studios or something. But just throwing your trillion dollar weight around to buy up all the third party games to starve out your competition is LITERALLY what antitrust regulation was created to prevent.

mamonster 4y ago
Tbh, we have yet to see how anti-trust arguments with regards to exclusives are played out, FTC has not really said anything yet in terms of how they view this development(which by the way is generalized across all digital media). After all, MSFT could just say something like "based on some internal thing we conducted it became clear that the porting cost in terms of man hours/money/etc we decided it did not make economic sense to do a port". And then they compromise by agreeing to port once a game is successful, which is perfectly fine for them. I can also already foresee an argument saying "If NFLX/HBO have exclusives why can't we?". Edit: I know the article is about the EU/UK authorities, but IMO this isn't something they can stop.
- anotherman554 4y ago
  "Edit: I know the article is about the EU/UK authorities, but IMO this isn't something they can stop. " They can't stop the merger but they can presumably say "If the merger happens Xbox can no longer be sold in the UK and EU."
bsjaux628 4y ago
> Especially seeing how almost immediately Bethesda games announced for cross platform became exclusives. Except they didn't, none of the games that are now exclusive were announced multiplatform. You can scream Starfield but the game was not announced nor had confirmed platforms ( plus Sony tried to make it a platform exclusive for themselves) Personally I see this as the EU and UK protecting a bigger monopoly like Sony without giving actual reason why this would be decrimental to the industry when we already know the cesspit that Activision is
reisse 4y ago
> But just throwing your trillion dollar weight around... Let's not forget that competition here is also 100B$ corporations, not some indie shops. And does this really starve out the competition? I don't think Microsoft is going to starve PC gaming market or even Steam on Linux/Steam Deck. Nintendo does not depend on any Activision titles at all. Sony, well, they may take a hit. But if your business depends so much on a few franchises you don't own, well, tough luck.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  It’s already an oligopoly so "tough luck" to your competitors mean your merger is not going through. That’s competition law working as it should.

by kromem 4y ago

mamonster 4y ago

Tbh, we have yet to see how anti-trust arguments with regards to exclusives are played out, FTC has not really said anything yet in terms of how they view this development(which by the way is generalized across all digital media). After all, MSFT could just say something like "based on some internal thing we conducted it became clear that the porting cost in terms of man hours/money/etc we decided it did not make economic sense to do a port". And then they compromise by agreeing to port once a game is successful, which is perfectly fine for them. I can also already foresee an argument saying "If NFLX/HBO have exclusives why can't we?". Edit: I know the article is about the EU/UK authorities, but IMO this isn't something they can stop.

anotherman554 4y ago
"Edit: I know the article is about the EU/UK authorities, but IMO this isn't something they can stop. " They can't stop the merger but they can presumably say "If the merger happens Xbox can no longer be sold in the UK and EU."

bsjaux628 4y ago

> Especially seeing how almost immediately Bethesda games announced for cross platform became exclusives. Except they didn't, none of the games that are now exclusive were announced multiplatform. You can scream Starfield but the game was not announced nor had confirmed platforms ( plus Sony tried to make it a platform exclusive for themselves) Personally I see this as the EU and UK protecting a bigger monopoly like Sony without giving actual reason why this would be decrimental to the industry when we already know the cesspit that Activision is

reisse 4y ago

> But just throwing your trillion dollar weight around... Let's not forget that competition here is also 100B$ corporations, not some indie shops. And does this really starve out the competition? I don't think Microsoft is going to starve PC gaming market or even Steam on Linux/Steam Deck. Nintendo does not depend on any Activision titles at all. Sony, well, they may take a hit. But if your business depends so much on a few franchises you don't own, well, tough luck.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago
It’s already an oligopoly so "tough luck" to your competitors mean your merger is not going through. That’s competition law working as it should.