3 ms·

Isn’t that practically the definition of “anti consumer”behavior - A company division being bailed out by another because of its ineptness? It’s one thing for

Isn’t that practically the definition of “anti consumer”behavior - A company division being bailed out by another because of its ineptness? It’s one thing for Microsoft to continue to pump money into Xbox (look at Amazon and Alexa). It’s another for them to simply purchase the competition.

smoldesu 3y ago
Anti-consumer behavior? I don't think so. Bailing out failing studios doesn't necessarily harm the consumer, and it's especially the case with dead-in-the-water studios like Activision-Blizzard. The alternative would be their corpse getting picked over by companies who want to buy up their IP, and that's certainly not what their consumers want. If Microsoft is really subsidizing a failing business, they should be allowed to do so as long as they find it reasonable. I don't think Sony has the right to demand a favorable status-quo for their consoles if their competitors double down on software investments.
- FumblingBear 3y ago
  Activision-Blizzard-King is by no means a "failing studio" though. They are one of the most successful by nearly any metric. According to MacroTrends [0], "Activision Blizzard gross profit for the quarter ending March 31, 2023 was $1.718B, a 33.28% increase year-over-year." Between powerhouses like CoD, the mobile division of both King's legacy titles like Candy Crush, and newer ones like Diablo Immortal, and Blizzard's Diablo 4 + WoW being very well received, the concern is primarily that instead of making better first party titles, Xbox just wants to acquire exclusive rights to already successful studios + publishers like Bethesda + now ABK. (Weather or not this will actually happen or not is anyone's guess. I'm assuming they will indeed make the titles exclusive). The GP seems to be talking about how Microsoft's Xbox is the one being bailed out by Microsoft Azure / enterprise licensing allowing Xbox to continue to fumble with first party titles without being forced out of the market. IMO the main reason for the uproar is that Microsoft is clearly leveraging their immense market share in the enterprise world to buy out the competition by acquiring studios that were formerly multi-platform and making them exclusive, which absolutely does seem to be anti-competitive and anti-consumer. (To be clear, I think Sony spending a ton of money on exclusivity contracts with Square Enix, etc. is also anti-consumer). [0] - https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/ATVI/activision-blizzard/gross-profit#:~:text=Activision%20Blizzard%20gross%20profit%20for,decline%20year%2Dover%2Dyear https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/ATVI/activision-bl....
stale2002 3y ago
No, that is not the definition of anti-consumer behavior. Anti-consumer behavior is not "losing money". Instead, anti-consumer behavior would be if Microsoft shuts down competition in some way, such that they are the monopoly market leader, and consumers can't buy from else where. This isn't anywhere close to being true, given that microsoft is not the monopoly market leader in the gaming space. That award goes to Sony.
wilg 3y ago
“Anti consumer” is a catch all phrase with no legal relevance that people use to describe whatever behavior they don’t like from companies. The issue here would be “anti competitive” or “anti trust”, the definitions of which the judge certainly is aware of.

smoldesu 3y ago

Anti-consumer behavior? I don't think so. Bailing out failing studios doesn't necessarily harm the consumer, and it's especially the case with dead-in-the-water studios like Activision-Blizzard. The alternative would be their corpse getting picked over by companies who want to buy up their IP, and that's certainly not what their consumers want. If Microsoft is really subsidizing a failing business, they should be allowed to do so as long as they find it reasonable. I don't think Sony has the right to demand a favorable status-quo for their consoles if their competitors double down on software investments.

FumblingBear 3y ago
Activision-Blizzard-King is by no means a "failing studio" though. They are one of the most successful by nearly any metric. According to MacroTrends [0], "Activision Blizzard gross profit for the quarter ending March 31, 2023 was $1.718B, a 33.28% increase year-over-year." Between powerhouses like CoD, the mobile division of both King's legacy titles like Candy Crush, and newer ones like Diablo Immortal, and Blizzard's Diablo 4 + WoW being very well received, the concern is primarily that instead of making better first party titles, Xbox just wants to acquire exclusive rights to already successful studios + publishers like Bethesda + now ABK. (Weather or not this will actually happen or not is anyone's guess. I'm assuming they will indeed make the titles exclusive). The GP seems to be talking about how Microsoft's Xbox is the one being bailed out by Microsoft Azure / enterprise licensing allowing Xbox to continue to fumble with first party titles without being forced out of the market. IMO the main reason for the uproar is that Microsoft is clearly leveraging their immense market share in the enterprise world to buy out the competition by acquiring studios that were formerly multi-platform and making them exclusive, which absolutely does seem to be anti-competitive and anti-consumer. (To be clear, I think Sony spending a ton of money on exclusivity contracts with Square Enix, etc. is also anti-consumer). [0] - https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/ATVI/activision-blizzard/gross-profit#:~:text=Activision%20Blizzard%20gross%20profit%20for,decline%20year%2Dover%2Dyear https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/ATVI/activision-bl....

stale2002 3y ago

No, that is not the definition of anti-consumer behavior. Anti-consumer behavior is not "losing money". Instead, anti-consumer behavior would be if Microsoft shuts down competition in some way, such that they are the monopoly market leader, and consumers can't buy from else where. This isn't anywhere close to being true, given that microsoft is not the monopoly market leader in the gaming space. That award goes to Sony.

wilg 3y ago

“Anti consumer” is a catch all phrase with no legal relevance that people use to describe whatever behavior they don’t like from companies. The issue here would be “anti competitive” or “anti trust”, the definitions of which the judge certainly is aware of.