I mean they walking into a court of law like this company has a history of doing this so we need to block them from buying another company and literally their history is 3 games that have not been released two of which are new IPs and one of which doesn't even have a release date.Skyrim is on Playstation Plus right now
CNBC is not impressed with the lawsuit from the FTC. Reaching like Dhalsim.
Lina Khan is an ideologue, none of that matters to her. They are hoping to now make Microsoft give up because if they felt that they had a strong case, it'd go to a federal court instead of placing this for August 2023. Because they want it in their internal court and just run out the clock on the acquisition. So, if the CMA, EU and China approves, Microsoft comes back at the FTC and basically says Knuck if you Buck and see you in court. Virtually everyone sees through this.It's kind of baffling to see the FTC build a case that's designed to protect the interest of a single competitor in the market especially when that competitor is effectively a monopoly in that defined market. The high end gaming console market it like 70ish % Sony 30ish percent Microsoft. The case is they could damage the company that holds 70% of this market.
Even if Microsoft yanked Call of Duty from PlayStation entirely what does it maybe go to 50-50 at best?
You asked for one example and I gave you one. Fallout and doom will be announced as exclusive when they're eventually announced. Like I said, it would be a PR nightmare for microsoft to pull released games that people have already paid for off playstation.You have a single game that has also yet to be released. Where are the others? You said Fallout and Doom are exclusive as well. Where are the actual released games that Microsoft has either pulled off PlayStation or franchises they've done that too since the merger?
If the EU felt Microsoft violated their pitch for purchasing Zenimax they have avenues to rectify that
I'm not suggesting the courts do anything, I was explaining why the Bethesda deal was brought up.You're suggesting the court looks at I guess just Elder Scrolls a yet to even be released game and extrapolate that instance to all games even in the face of Microsoft presenting a binding contract saying they won't do that with Call of Duty? Good luck.
No it isn't, but regulators generally don't want things to get to a point where a break up is necessary.Forcing a company to sell a purchased asset isn't unprecedented.
Different administrationIf Disney can buy fox and there is no blockage or concessions MS buying AB shouldn't be a problem at all.
Anyone with common sense that doesn't have personal interest or just a fan boy knows it.
That happened under a different administration and even then they had to divest their sports networks as a concession. I mean, I don't get you people. You're in here whining about a regulatory body doing what they should have been doing a long time ago.If Disney can buy fox and there is no blockage or concessions MS buying AB shouldn't be a problem at all.
Anyone with common sense that doesn't have personal interest or just a fan boy knows it.
Right, I get that still...Different administration
Different politics at the moment
I actually forgot about the sports stuff. But who's whining? The fact of the matter is there is nothing to "protect" Blocking this because of worries of potential future abuse is some minority report type behavior.That happened under a different administration and even then they had to divest their sports networks as a concession. I mean, I don't get you people. You're in here whining about a regulatory body doing what they should have been doing a long time ago.
Microsoft has history in this area. Everything they do should be heavily scrutinized.Right, I get that still...
I actually forgot about the sports stuff. But who's whining? The fact of the matter is there is nothing to "protect" Blocking this because of worries of potential future abuse is some minority report type behavior.
The only gaming company to currently show monopolistic behavior in the gaming sector is Sony and the Sony playstation.
nikka you said the words. You the one now “playing”I'm not gonna play word games with you.
I said Microsoft told regulators they had no intent to make games exclusive. That's true.
I posted a statement directly from regulators stating that microsoft clarified that the intent of the acquisition wasn't exclusivity because there was no incentive to do that.
Nothing here speaks to any intent. It’s about profitability. And then, they literally detail what the incentive would be to make the games exclusive.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
The fact that you don't believe it says it all.Microsoft has history in this area. Everything they do should be heavily scrutinized.
Embrace, extend, and extinguish - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The fact that you believe what's in bold says it all.