8 ms·

Email proves Microsoft's Activision bid is designed to eliminate Playstation

• elforce002 3y ago
  Listen, MSFT needs to be divested. Same as Amazon. Simple as that.
• jmclnx 3y ago
  All this shows Microsoft has never changed. That is why I am and always have been suspicious about WSL and Microsoft's influence on the Linux Foundation.
  • bachmeier 3y ago
    Microsoft hasn't changed, but the opposition has. Back in the old days it was easy to hate Microsoft. They were doing as much damage as possible to Linux and open source. Their rivals today are just as bad as they are - maybe worse.
    • BiteCode_dev 3y ago
      Oracle enters the chat.
    • hospitalJail 3y ago
      I want to hate Google, but they still seem to be less evil. Free Excel/Word/PPT(sorry libre office for forgetting about you), Android/Chrome is still FOSS and I use their degoogled versions, they contributed hugely to AI. But yeah, the FAAMG is not something to be worshiped. Heck, its a red flag if you are a genuine fan of one of these companies.
    • matwood 3y ago
      MS did a pretty good job changing their reputation until they foisted the abomination knowns as Teams onto the world.
      • tracker1 3y ago
        IMO Teams is pretty meh... most of them are... and while I like most of Slack better, it is what it is. Teams fits in for those tied to other MS services, Azure AD, O/M365, etc. I do wish Teams. would put a little more effort on their Linux client though. I know it's just an electron wrapper, but still. A little testing and supporting the non-enterprise users would be nice. While I appreciate parts of what MS has done, it's a massive corporation with different divisions doing things that are much more open and others much more closed off. I'm sure there's lots of in-fighting between the differing approaches.
    • manuelabeledo 3y ago
      > Their rivals today are just as bad as they are - maybe worse. I might agree if we look at each one of them individually. The issue with Microsoft is that their product offer has a breath that most competitors cannot even start to fathom. Specifically, Sony Entertainment may be a competitor in the console gaming space, but Microsoft gaming divisions go further, and are tightly integrated with others, e.g. DirectX, Windows, XBox, Azure.
  • BiteCode_dev 3y ago
    And don't forget their new IDE in the cloud move with VSCode. I guarantee once they got enough devs locked in their cloud to write softwares, the spanking will start. And once again, the victims will act all surprised.
    • hospitalJail 3y ago
      Everyone cheers VSCode, but I'm happy with Spyder now that it has VIM. Maybe its time to fork VSCode seriously if people want to use it forever.
      • tikkabhuna 3y ago
        Already done: https://github.com/VSCodium/vscodium https://github.com/VSCodium/vscodium
        • doodlesdev 3y ago
          I prefer VSCodium builds over proprietary Microsoft ones any day of the week, but: > This is not a fork. This is a repository of scripts to automatically build Microsoft's vscode repository into freely-licensed binaries with a community-driven default configuration
          • lapser 3y ago
            There's nothing wrong with that. VSCode will certainly have a lot more development that a fork would ever see. So the best thing to do here is simply build VSCode with all proprietary stuff removed.
            • hospitalJail 3y ago
              The plugins are the real value, and those are built behind the M$ fortress.
              • 3y ago
  • rochak 3y ago
    Switching away from proprietary editors to Vim is the best decision I took in my life.
• rvz 3y ago
  Unsurprising. Microsoft has not changed and will never change. They will do anything to lobby and bribe the regulators such as the ones in the EU to support their anti-competitive and horizontal integration of buying already established multi-billion dollar franchises. There is always an extinguish part with Microsoft and they are getting very clever at redefining the method, as the strategy has always been the same. The only time people realize this is when it is too late, despite all the warnings and red flags.
  • ncr100 3y ago
    Their business is run shrewdly in some areas, especially around competition. The "knifed you in the neck, surprise!" pattern played out for one of my employers / a start-up whom MS paid an endearing visit to from high-level execs, before drowning us.
  • JacobSeated 3y ago
    Lobbying is also a way to secure your interests, and there is nothing wrong with that as long as your interests are ethically defensible. You don't seem to have a list of specific complaints against Microsoft, and in that regard I actually trust regulators more than random defamatory remarks on the internet.
• mcpackieh 3y ago
  Spoilers: "The contents of the message are redacted, but the plaintiffs say [...]" The email may well prove that Microsoft has this plan, I certainly wouldn't put it past Microsoft. It is in the established nature of Microsoft to behave in such anti-competitive ways, the shoe fits. But when the plantiff is using circumstantial evidence to deduce what the email must have contained, I think it's quite a stretch to say the email "proves" anything.
  • planede 3y ago
    In my reading the plaintiff does have the contents of the email, it's in their filing. The contents of the email within the filing itself seem to be redacted from the public.
  • dommer 3y ago
    I'm sure that is the modus operandi for any business. That is, to find ways to give the business an advantage over any competition...and hopefully put them out of business in the process. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    • BiteCode_dev 3y ago
      It's one thing to strategize your opponent demise by creating better products, it's another to use patents, monopolies and market manipulations.
      • pixl97 3y ago
        you forgot to finish with "as a previously convicted monopolist"
        • clnq 3y ago
          And as a business that has publicly stated that they don't think they can compete on quality of their products - https://www.eurogamer.net/phil-spencer-there-is-no-world-where-starfield-is-an-11-out-of-10-and-people-start-selling-their-ps5s#comments https://www.eurogamer.net/phil-spencer-there-is-no-world-whe....
• bluescrn 3y ago
  It just seems odd that such an unimportant merger is being so strongly resisted. At the end of the day, videogames are completely unimportant to society (edit: ok, completely non-essential, rather than 'unimportant') It was rejected by the UK, under a government with a history of privatising critical natural monopolies (railways, energy, water, Royal Mail), no less. (Meanwhile, the likes of Blackrock and Vanguard are seemingly allowed to pretty much own everything, and manage to remain fairly invisible to average consumers/voters...)
  • ecshafer 3y ago
    Blackrock and Vanguard don't own everything. While Blackrock does directly control some assets, Vanguard doesn't. They have a large amount of assets under management, which means they manage assets for other people. If all of Vanguard's clients removed their money, vanguard's assets would be a few buildings in Malvern, PA. Even their votes on the board are because they are proxy voters for the actual owners (the clients), and most people just don't exercise their right to vote on things.
  • surgical_fire 3y ago
    > It just seems odd that such an unimportant merger is being so strongly resisted. Videogames are a huge consumer market. Monopolistic behavior will harm consumers. The fact that other companies in others areas "are allowed to pretty much own everything" is a non-comment. Hypothetical regulatory actions against "the likes of Blackrock and Vanguard" do not preclude regulatory action against Microsoft/Activision.
    • hospitalJail 3y ago
      >Monopolistic behavior will harm consumers. Why is buying 1 studio monopolistic? I have been gaming for decades and I've never felt the need to play games from every studio. Heck, large studios are mostly a negative in the modern era. They have the resources to use microtransactions and DRM. Meanwhile indie games have to try their best to get any attention. Even if M$ bought every studio in existence, PlayStation and Nintendo, there would still be indie games in a few years. Not to mention uncountable number of games from the last few decades that is enough entertainment to last you a few lifetimes.
• bsjaux628 3y ago
  Company A tries to push rival Company B out of the market and vice versa, what is the news here? Every company under the sun has the same objective.
  • pixl97 3y ago
    When one of the companies is a convicted monopolist, yea, it's news.
• thenerdhead 3y ago
  This is stupid. Look at the marketshare for Xbox vs. Playstation today and across the last couple decades. Obviously their goal is to compete with Playstation... If you think this merger will "eliminate" or lock-out Playstation for these major titles, you're seriously fooling yourself.
  • oneTbrain23 3y ago
    The real issue isn't at Xbox eliminating PS. The issue is escalation of buyouts/mergers with the survival of the strongest, richest, and biggest market - essentially a monopoly of a market. This not only destroy the actual game selling diversity but also hogging of potential new game programmers and artists. Those wished to start in this industry will have to pay their homage tax/initiation with some internships or job there. If the this deal is allowed, Sony (with the backing of Japanese governments) will start to do massive mergers. And we even not talk about Chinese governments involving to back Japanese, and Chinese companies as long as not USA-based. There is not a need to favor Microsoft or Xbox with this merger. They can easily sign deals with Activision to get exclusive dlcs or games. They already done so with OpenAI ChatGPT without the need to swallow it. This merger MUST be stopped. Anyone against it is just being incredible naive and believe MS is guided by a saint or Mother Teresa.
  • Timon3 3y ago
    > If you think this merger will "eliminate" Playstation, you're seriously fooling yourself. If you think this is impossible, you're seriously fooling yourself. Most people look at two things when buying a video game console: which games does it provide, and what consoles do my friends have? If most of the popular and recurring franchises are only available for one platform (and will stay as such in the future), why could PlayStation fundamentally not go under?
    • atraac 3y ago
      > If most of the popular and recurring franchises are only available for one platform Funny how noone asked that over last decade when Sony paid mountains of gold to various developers for exclusivity.
• JacobSeated 3y ago
  I honestly do not care about that, if it was the case. Competition can be a very bad thing in this field, because it decreases the quality of the games by limiting compatibility with other, often older, established platforms, and forces people into a vendor lock-in. There should be a law that required platform compatibility. Games released on playstation and xbox should also be available on the Windows and Linux PCs – it's not because Microsoft can't do it, it is because they want to keep users locked-in. As an old gamer I'd hate to see Blizzard on Microsoft's hands, but as a Microsoft shareholder I would not mind it. Surely there must be a middleground. Microsoft could buy half the shares. I just fear what will happen with the ecosystem of games playable on battle.net, support for old games. Etc. If you look at EA Games, then many of the titles released through them is full of bugs that causes crashes, and games might not even be playable on modern systems. Not so with Blizzard titles.
  • shkkmo 3y ago
    > There should be a law that required platform compatibility. Games released on playstation and xbox should also be available on the Windows and Linux PC That seems like it would ruin indy devs. I'd much prefer a law that prohibits or severely limits the terms of exclusivity agreements.
    • JacobSeated 3y ago
      I would not mind that actually, because games developed my so-called independent developers are usually not that good. Creating quality games requires a large amount of cash reserves to pay for a creative team, including programmers; independents usually do not have that luxury. If Microsoft got to buy Blizzard it might actually cement Blizzard's future, securing the old titles and ensuring future ones. But, it might also get shut down because of lack of focus. I'd much rather have Blizzard remain independent to some degree, because then they may remain undisturbed. Having said that, however, the arguments presented by regulators are pretty much ridiculous. They seem to only care about competition, and not about what is best for the future of Blizzard and gaming. Too much competition can ultimately degrade and obstruct the end users – I'd also hate to see that.
• tkuraku 3y ago
  Microsoft is just too big. I hope they are blocked from buying Activision. We don't need any more centralization!
• tomku 3y ago
  Can we get the headline changed to not omit critical context present in the Axios headline that the "proof" is being claimed by lawyers suing Microsoft?
• elefanten 3y ago
  This is old news among the trial watchers. The article author has clarified (and updated the article near the end) that he was informed the email is from 2019 and doesn’t pertain to the Activision acquisition. https://twitter.com/stephentotilo/status/1671304215006773257 https://twitter.com/stephentotilo/status/1671304215006773257 And legal commentators have shared precedent that competitive expressions by management are not necessarily “anticompetitive” per the law. https://twitter.com/hoeglaw/status/1671267277700755460 https://twitter.com/hoeglaw/status/1671267277700755460 Also, this filing is from the private case against the deal (not the FTC case) which was already denied a preliminary injunction given this email.
• elzbardico 3y ago
  I think that the cloud assets Microsoft has in Azure are a far more eminent competitive threat than buying Activision. Microsoft has against Sony the advantage of being able to leverage its cloud division to undercut Sony with GamePass. From day one, Microsoft has datacenters close to most markets and can just add more and more racks of Xboxes in those locations, leveraging their investments in the cloud business to gain an advantage in the gaming business.
  • mnd999 3y ago
    Are you suggesting Microsoft spinning off Azure should be a condition?
    • elzbardico 3y ago
      A firewall should be enough. Xbox should use Azure as any other customer, with no special conditions. At least not the ones that Sony or any other could get from Azure given their contract volumes.
• micromacrofoot 3y ago
  This is the natural consequence of infinite growth winner-takes-all competition, bunch of MBA cutthroat nonsense. There's 0 reason Microsoft and Sony need to actually compete on this front... it's a massive market with enough space for both of them to make absurd amounts of money.
• pradn 3y ago
  In this thread, people are 1) assuming what the lawyers say is actually contained in the redacted text (and would stand the scrutiny of the court) 2) that Microsoft's culture twenty years ago is largely similar to its culture today. This is one of those times a bunch of commenters run with the same ideas - the number of these doesn't make them any more credible.
• clnq 3y ago
  I wonder if how this connects to Phil Spencer saying earlier this year that making great games won't help overtake PlayStation[0]. That was said shortly after the second government commission blocked MS's acquisition of Activision. Perhaps executives were still ruminating on their recently failed strategy to kill PlayStation? Regardless, it's sad they're pursuing this race to the bottom rather than trying to improve their own products to a competitive standard. [0] https://www.gamespot.com/articles/there-is-no-world-where-starfield-is-so-good-people-sell-their-ps5-and-move-to-xbox-phil-spencer-says/1100-6513821/ https://www.gamespot.com/articles/there-is-no-world-where-st...
• bentobean 3y ago
  When a Microsoft employee receives a call from Matt Booty (head of XBox Game Studios), do you think they say to those around them - “I’m sorry, please excuse me. I have to take this Booty call.”?
• pjmlp 3y ago
  Sure, 3rd place console, is going to eliminate the champion of exclusive deals.
• glimshe 3y ago
  If someone is the evil dominant company in games here, that would be Sony. Having a strong competitor to the Playstation empire isn't a bad thing.
  • TheRealDunkirk 3y ago
    Neither one should be as big as they already are. Can we just stop all of this vertical integration in tech? We had this "conversation" in the US in the early 1900's, and I think we nominally balanced all the interested involved. Then the economists all got bought off to say that monopolies were a GOOD thing, and the government stopped putting any limits on corporations at all. We need to return to serious "trust busting."
• tracker1 3y ago
  I REALLY don't like the idea of hardware companies also owning content creation at all. Wether it's Sony owning film companies or MS owning game companies. There should absolutely be some level of conflict and negotiation between these portions of the market in order for markets to work. Vertical monopolies are just as bad as horizontal ones. Much like the government, I really feel that corporations should be limited in scope and conglomerates are problematic. edit: I've had a disdain for Sony since the CD computer malware a couple decades ago. Between that and Bluray winning the content war, when HD-DVD had won on pricing.