The UK’s CMA has expressed concern that Microsoft‘s Activision merger could “significantly weaken” PlayStation (Updated with lawyer breakdown)

MeachTheMonster

YourFriendlyHoodMonster
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
69,727
Reputation
3,789
Daps
109,773
Reppin
Tha Land
Because you're too involved in console war bullshyt to ever have this conversation.

Sony has never been in court due to anti competitive business practices. They were sued for not being clear enough about ps plus being required for online with the ps4, and then that recent case about their digital prices, which was quickly thrown out for being frivolous.


You can argue with yourself.

:camby:
Its so crazy to me you think it’s me stuck on console wars. Talk about lacking self awareness :huhldup:

Now with every post you ignore 99% of my post. Take one point out of context then try to argue that. I show proof you are wrong on even that point.


Then you run away to the next topic:stopitslime:

Please respond to what’s actually in my post. Thank you…

And the more recent one wasn’t “thrown out for being frivolous”

The judge said they need more evidence.

Now why would you be on the huge corporations side with their expert lawyers against some gamers actually trying to fix the system? :jbhmm:

Do you think it’s fair that sony has the only digital games store where game codes are not allowed to be sold by other vendors? Doesn’t that seem a bit anti-consumer, anti-competitive to you?

Why do you think it’s ok for sony to pay developers not to put their games on xbox, but you think it’s wrong for microsoft to buy the developer so they can have content for their own platform?
 

5n0man

Superstar
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
16,554
Reputation
3,352
Daps
54,318
Reppin
CALI
Its so crazy to me you think it’s me stuck on console wars. Talk about lacking self awareness :huhldup:

Now with every post you ignore 99% of my post. Take one point out of context then try to argue that. I show proof you are wrong on even that point.


Then you run away to the next topic:stopitslime:

Please respond to what’s actually in my post. Thank you…

And the more recent one wasn’t “thrown out for being frivolous”

The judge said they need more evidence.

Now why would you be on the huge corporations side with their expert lawyers against some gamers actually trying to fix the system? :jbhmm:

Do you think it’s fair that sony has the only digital games store where game codes are not allowed to be sold by other vendors? Doesn’t that seem a bit anti-consumer, anti-competitive to you?

Why do you think it’s ok for sony to pay developers not to put their games on xbox, but you think it’s wrong for microsoft to buy the developer so they can have content for their own platform?
You need to learn the different between bullshyt class action lawsuits and being in court due to violating anti trust regulations.

:camby:
 

Rekkapryde

GT, LWO, 49ERS, BRAVES, HAWKS, N4O...yeah UMAD!
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
150,442
Reputation
27,627
Daps
506,682
Reppin
TYRONE GA!

Half A $

Pro
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
1,148
Reputation
60
Daps
1,992
Sony has spent just as much time as anyone else in court defending their business practices.

Paying to prevent games from coming to other platforms is not “innovation”

Don’t know how you can see Sonys decades long strategy of starving other platforms of content and call that “innovation” but then cry foul when microsoft starts to do the same thing.

And also gamepass and cloud streaming are the definition of innovation. Microsoft saw the direction of the industry and spent tons of money positioning themselves for the change and are now leading the charge. They need to secure content for their platform, otherwise sony would continue their strategy of locking them out from games using their own money and industry dominance.

Microsoft owns Deahtloop and due to sony’s practices they aren’t even allowed to mention the fact that the game will come to xbox. That’s a perfect example of what xbox is up against and why they HAVE to buy studios to compete.

Why do you think it’s ok for Sony to starve xbox of games but it’s not ok for microsoft to fight back by just buying the studios outright?
Stick to posting Sony Stans :mjlol:

At least we'll only think you're stupid instead of knowing.
 

winb83

52 Years Young
Supporter
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
46,016
Reputation
3,894
Daps
69,689
Reppin
Michigan
You are literally just making shyt up breh.

Google was in trouble for signing deals with mobile carriers to give their search engine priority over their competitors, they also had a second lawsuit for signing deals to have control over ad's shown on different websites. Amazon got in trouble because they were collecting data on 3rd party products sold on their website, using that data to develop their own brands and then advertising their own brands over 3rd party product on their website. Facebook was threatening to rip off ideas from other social media sites, using their revenue to promote their version of those sites in order to force them to sell to Facebook.

The only thing in common with those companies is the fact that they leveraged money and used insider data to eliminate competition.


if you read what the CMA are saying about the merger, it sounds like Microsoft is dangerously close to being able to operate like Amazon was before they got in trouble.

Microsoft already has a combination of assets that is difficult for other cloud gaming service providers to match. By having a large and well-distributed cloud infrastructure, Microsoft will be able to host games on its servers on preferential terms and reach gamers throughout the world without having to pay a fee to third- party cloud platforms. By having Windows, the OS where the vast majority of PC games are played, Microsoft can stream games to Windows PCs without having to pay an expensive Windows licensing fee and may be able to design and test games made for Windows more effectively than rivals. And by having an existing console ecosystem, Microsoft has an existing user base of gamers to which it can promote its cloud gaming services, as well as a range of popular games that it can offer.

The Merger would, therefore, bring together the company in a uniquely strong position to offer cloud gaming services with one of the industry’s strongest gaming catalogues. The CMA is concerned that, by leveraging ABK’s content and Microsoft’s wider ecosystem, Microsoft will have an unparalleled advantage over current and potential cloud gaming service providers. This could result in increased concentration in cloud gaming services or the market ‘tipping’ to Microsoft, and ultimately deny consumers the benefits of competition between new and emerging providers vying to succeed in cloud gaming. The CMA recognises that, if Microsoft were to significantly increase its market power in cloud gaming services, this could have knock-on effects on independent game developers and publishers who compete against Microsoft’s own gaming portfolio, and who could be disadvantaged in a number of ways, such as by having to pay higher fees or by being demoted on Microsoft’s gaming ecosystem.



This literally means nothing, and has nothing to do with Sony being anti competitive, they're still able to dominate Sony strictly by creating more innovative products.

And you're full of shyt if you think Sony had anything to do with Sega releasing the failed Sega cd and Sega Neptune, then creating the Saturn which was more expensive, hard to develop for, and had a surprise release that pissed of devs. Who then had to rush unfinished games onto the system because Sega lied about when they were releasing the system. Plus the Dreamcast having such poor security measures that people were able to bootleg games and play them easily.

Sony's success had nothing to do with that, they dominated with a more innovative console that attracted customers because it was cheap, and attracted devs because it was easy to develop games for.


you made the claim that Sony engaged in anti competitive practices to get to where they are, and so far you've just brought up how bad other companies fukked up through no fault of Sony's. Literally just making up a narrative.

And you're still lying about this, the 360 was outselling the ps3 for years because it was cheaper, had better games, attracted developers because developing games on it was easier. Games sold better and also ran better on it. The turning point of that generation was when microsoft created the kinect and switched gears to the casual market trying to compete with Nintendo, while Sony doubled down on releasing a variety of unique games for the hard-core market.
So I'm making shyt up when I say Google uses it's market dominance in the search engine space to crush competitors? I'm making shyt up when I say Amazon and Apple leverage their market dominance to directly compete with other companies and or weaken them / buy them out? Apple fukkin just bought Beats to sideline them and increase the strength of AirPods.

The CMA argument is literally hypothetically if the gamble Microsoft is taking pays off and the entire industry heads into cloud based subscription gaming over the way the marketplaces is right now we feel as if Microsoft would be too strong to compete with in that space given the moves they're making today. It's like a government agency saying Tesla would be too strong for traditional auto makers to compete with in the EV space so they try to hamstring them on buying lithium related battery companies so one day when others decide to get into the space seriously they can still compete. When everybody else was making ICE cars Tesla decided to go their own way going all in on EVs. When everyone else wasn't all on on gaming subscription cloud services Microsoft decided to go all in on it.

Game Pass is an innovative product Microsoft is creating. It is their solution to the fact that they can't outsell Sony in the console space. They shifted to making Xbox as a platform a service available on multiple devices so they can expand their reach beyond the Xbox console. In one breath you argue that they should be more innovative and in the other you argue that their solution is unfair because of the resources they're expending toward it. It can't be both ways. I have Netflix and I have Disney+ and I have HBO Max. Nobody says I can only have a single service. I can sub to all the services I want. The same is true of cloud gaming.

You're talking in circles. Microsoft's game catalog is lackluster so they're out spending money to acquire a catalog with at least a little value to gamers to attract them to their service. To a certain point I say let them. No if they try to buy out EA, Ubisoft, and Take Two after this then obviously a line needs to be drawn but I don't see them buying ZeniMax and Activision as crossing any sort of line.

I did not say Sony used anticompetitive behavior to reach market leadership. I said they exploited mistakes Nintendo made to reach it and once they got there they leveraged their absolute dominance in the space to crush anybody else. I did not say Sony singlehandedly ended SEGA in the console space. I said their dominance in the space contributed to their downfall. You're grossly understating just how hard it is to come into a space and overtake or even legitimately even become competitive with the market leader in the home console space.

I wasn't the only person alive to take a look at the Dreamcast and say Nah I'll just wait for the PlayStation. I in fact have never in my life owned a SEGA console and I've been gaming since the NES / Game Boy days. I chose Nintendo over SEGA every single time I was given the choice and after Sony presented themselves I chose them over SEGA every time. I was a kid and my parents were buying my systems. I got to pick one and I always picked the company that was the market leader just like most other people that only own a single system.

The Xbox 360 outsold the PS3 in certain territories yes but as a whole their total lead on Sony never really grew past the 12 or so million they sold that first year they had all to themselves and through the life of the console it eroded until it was erased entirely. None of that was because the 360 was a better console than the PS3 because it wasn't to me it was because out of the gate Sony hamstrung themselves on price. Had the PS3 came out at the same price as the 360 do you honestly think Microsoft would have spent even a year and a half with a lead on Sony.

In the history of console gaming I want you to show me one time multiple competitors competing in the same space for the same exact customers in the same target demographics one company clearly a market leader some other company comes out and simply innovates by making good games and overtakes them. The reality is the market leader is pretty much enshrined in that position and as long as they don't fukk it up themselves no competitor will be able to take that from them. Any time the market leader changed in console gaming it was more because what the previous one fukked up than anything else. Humans are loyal creatures of habit. Unless they're given a reason they won't change.
 

winb83

52 Years Young
Supporter
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
46,016
Reputation
3,894
Daps
69,689
Reppin
Michigan
Dude is just fukking retarded and thinks it's anti competitive to be successful, blaming Sony for other companies fukk ups like Sony was paying money to make the Saturn a poorly developed piece of shyt.

Can't name a single instance of Sony engaging in anti competitive behavior, just makes the claim because they're on top of market share.


Anyone can look up anti trust laws.




"Regulators must also ensure monopolies are not borne out of a naturally competitive environment and gained market share simply through business acumen and innovation. It’s only acquiring market share through exclusionary or predatory practices that is illegal."


Market share gained through innovation is not anti competitive. leveraging money and buying up publishers is not innovation, I don't know why dude keeps acting like these companies are doing the same type of business.
Sony even just recently barred Resident Evil Village from appearing on Game Pass for at least a year after release. Hmm what gave Sony the clout to swing a deal like that? Could it be their overwhelming market leadership? Nah couldn't be.

Sony would never leverage their market leadership to get favorable marketing deals and DLC deals with other companies that make the version of those companies products that come to PlayStation superior even if that same game is available on another platform. Sony simply innovates and makes great games they aren't out here negotiating deals with other companies to get other games that have a history of appearing on competing platforms pulled off them entirely. It's just a coincidence that if you were looking last year to buy Marvel's Avengers one platform had the promise of Spiderman on it and the others didn't. Such info would surly not influence people's purchase decision.

It's just a coincidence Sony was charging developers for cross platform play to discourage small and medium sized developers from doing it. It's also a coincidence that games like Rocket League had cross platform multiplayer playable on Xbox, Switch, and PC all at the same time while PlayStation wasn't included.

I mean I'd have to be fukking retarded to think Sony would do anything at all from their vantage point at the top to use their market share to weaken their competitors. They just out-innovate them and let the chips fall where they may.
 

5n0man

Superstar
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
16,554
Reputation
3,352
Daps
54,318
Reppin
CALI
So I'm making shyt up when I say Google uses it's market dominance in the search engine space to crush competitors? I'm making shyt up when I say Amazon and Apple leverage their market dominance to directly compete with other companies and or weaken them / buy them out? Apple fukkin just bought Beats to sideline them and increase the strength of AirPods.
Yes you are just making shyt up because if understood why exactly those companies got in trouble, you'd understand how they were using money and resources made due to dominance of different industries to influence another industry. I already explained the details of those cases to you.




"
To recover under a Section 2
claim of monopolization, the plaintiff must show that a company possesses monopoly power in a relevant market and that such power was willfully acquired or maintained, rather than the result "of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.",2
' A claim of attempted
monopolization includes three elements: (1) specific intent to monopolize, (2) predatory or anti-competitive conduct to monopolize that market, and (3) a high probability that the firm will succeed in achieving monopoly power. 2' In contrast, the elements of a Section 2 monopolistic leveraging claim include: "(1) monopoly power in one market, (2) the use of that power... to gain a competitive advantage in another distinct market, and (3) injury caused by the challenged conduct." 3 The controversial difference between monopolization, attempted monopolization, and monopolistic leveraging
- when
asserted as a violation in itself - is that leveraging requires a goal of gaining only a competitive advantage, whereas the other two claims require a purpose of gaining or maintaining monopoly power.24 The
monopolistic leveraging claim extends the reach of Section 2 to situations in which the firm may not be seeking to monopolize and may not even control a significant percentage of the second market8"

This is exactly what microsoft is doing, leveraging money and resources gained due to their dominance in the PC market to influence the gaming industry.
The CMA argument is literally hypothetically if the gamble Microsoft is taking pays off and the entire industry heads into cloud based subscription gaming over the way the marketplaces is right now we feel as if Microsoft would be too strong to compete with in that space given the moves they're making today.
The CMA's job is to prevent any potential monopolization of industries, of course the shyt is hypothetical. You're just too retarded to understand what any of this means.
It's like a government agency saying Tesla would be too strong for traditional auto makers to compete with in the EV space so they try to hamstring them on buying lithium related battery companies so one day when others decide to get into the space seriously they can still compete. When everybody else was making ICE cars Tesla decided to go their own way going all in on EVs. When everyone else wasn't all on on gaming subscription cloud services Microsoft decided to go all in on it.
This example falls flat because Tesla's patents are open source to prevent this situation, any auto maker is free to use automobile technology invented by Tesla.
Game Pass is an innovative product Microsoft is creating. It is their solution to the fact that they can't outsell Sony in the console space. They shifted to making Xbox as a platform a service available on multiple devices so they can expand their reach beyond the Xbox console. In one breath you argue that they should be more innovative and in the other you argue that their solution is unfair because of the resources they're expending toward it. It can't be both ways. I have Netflix and I have Disney+ and I have HBO Max. Nobody says I can only have a single service. I can sub to all the services I want. The same is true of cloud gaming.
Innovation is not leveraging money to buy up intellectual property to gain an advantage on competitors, Disney struggled buying fox and they haven't made any acquisitions since that deal because anymore would be considered anti-competitive.
I did not say Sony used anticompetitive behavior to reach market leadership. I said they exploited mistakes Nintendo made to reach it and once they got there they leveraged their absolute dominance in the space to crush anybody else. I did not say Sony singlehandedly ended SEGA in the console space. I said their dominance in the space contributed to their downfall. You're grossly understating just how hard it is to come into a space and overtake or even legitimately even become competitive with the market leader in the home console space.
Once again, other companies failures does not make another companies success anti competitive. Sega failed because customers lost faith due to their multiple failures. And again Microsoft nearly overtook Sony so no, the shyt isn't as hard as you're making it sound.
The Xbox 360 outsold the PS3 in certain territories yes but as a whole their total lead on Sony never really grew past the 12 or so million they sold that first year they had all to themselves and through the life of the console it eroded until it was erased entirely. None of that was because the 360 was a better console than the PS3 because it wasn't to me it was because out of the gate Sony hamstrung themselves on price. Had the PS3 came out at the same price as the 360 do you honestly think Microsoft would have spent even a year and a half with a lead on Sony.
The 360 was outselling the ps3 in the biggest markets in the gaming industry all the way up til they started fukking up. If Microsoft kept building on what made them successful in the first half of that generation, I have no doubt they would have been ahead of Sony today.
In the history of console gaming I want you to show me one time multiple competitors competing in the same space for the same exact customers in the same target demographics one company clearly a market leader some other company comes out and simply innovates by making good games and overtakes them.
THE 360, just because you don't want to admit it doesn't negate the fact that it happened breh, they made a better console and released better games, sold more games, and made more money than Sony until they tried targeting Nintendo's audience.
 

winb83

52 Years Young
Supporter
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
46,016
Reputation
3,894
Daps
69,689
Reppin
Michigan
Yes you are just making shyt up because if understood why exactly those companies got in trouble, you'd understand how they were using money and resources made due to dominance of different industries to influence another industry. I already explained the details of those cases to you.




"
To recover under a Section 2
claim of monopolization, the plaintiff must show that a company possesses monopoly power in a relevant market and that such power was willfully acquired or maintained, rather than the result "of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.",2
' A claim of attempted
monopolization includes three elements: (1) specific intent to monopolize, (2) predatory or anti-competitive conduct to monopolize that market, and (3) a high probability that the firm will succeed in achieving monopoly power. 2' In contrast, the elements of a Section 2 monopolistic leveraging claim include: "(1) monopoly power in one market, (2) the use of that power... to gain a competitive advantage in another distinct market, and (3) injury caused by the challenged conduct." 3 The controversial difference between monopolization, attempted monopolization, and monopolistic leveraging
- when
asserted as a violation in itself - is that leveraging requires a goal of gaining only a competitive advantage, whereas the other two claims require a purpose of gaining or maintaining monopoly power.24 The
monopolistic leveraging claim extends the reach of Section 2 to situations in which the firm may not be seeking to monopolize and may not even control a significant percentage of the second market8"

This is exactly what microsoft is doing, leveraging money and resources gained due to their dominance in the PC market to influence the gaming industry.

The CMA's job is to prevent any potential monopolization of industries, of course the shyt is hypothetical. You're just too retarded to understand what any of this means.

This example falls flat because Tesla's patents are open source to prevent this situation, any auto maker is free to use automobile technology invented by Tesla.

Innovation is not leveraging money to buy up intellectual property to gain an advantage on competitors, Disney struggled buying fox and they haven't made any acquisitions since that deal because anymore would be considered anti-competitive.

Once again, other companies failures does not make another companies success anti competitive. Sega failed because customers lost faith due to their multiple failures. And again Microsoft nearly overtook Sony so no, the shyt isn't as hard as you're making it sound.

The 360 was outselling the ps3 in the biggest markets in the gaming industry all the way up til they started fukking up. If Microsoft kept building on what made them successful in the first half of that generation, I have no doubt they would have been ahead of Sony today.

THE 360, just because you don't want to admit it doesn't negate the fact that it happened breh, they made a better console and released better games, sold more games, and made more money than Sony until they tried targeting Nintendo's audience.
The 360 finished in last place of it's generation. You're trying to portray that as Microsoft fukking up but the truth is The PS3 caught up to and surpassed the 360 because of the strength of the PlayStation brand globally. The PS3 never caught up to the 360 in the US. It didn't matter because Microsoft had to outsell Sony in places like the US at an unsustainable pace to compensate for places they couldn't move jack shyt in and Sony controlled. The PS3 passing the 360 was inevitable and not a Microsoft fukk up. It would have happened a lot sooner had Sony not fukked up.

You preach about quality and innovation. Nintendo makes quality software. Nintendo innovates. Why then could they not command enough traction to retake the crown from Sony? Why did they have to shift to a blue ocean strategy and chase after non-traditional gamers before they found success again? Why couldn't they through sheer effort and quality software beat Sony at their own game?

Even having the most popular brand in home console gaming Sony couldn't leverage that into dethroning Nintendo in portables. The same company that did dethroned Nintendo in the home console market folded up in the handheld space after two attempts and decided to leave it to Nintendo alone entirely. I mean you say all you have to do is make quality software and innovate and people will flock to you over the market leader in time making you competitive.

Rising to the status of market leader in the home console space is almost an insurmountable advantage if the company that does it properly executes. Thinking you're going to step into the home console space and beat PlayStation at their own game through pure effort is delusional. The only way you're doing that is if Sony makes some huge mistake or pisses off the entire industry and they turn their back on Sony like was done with Nintendo after the SNES. It's either you change your business strategy (what Microsoft is doing with Game Pass now) or you change your target audience (what Nintendo did after the GameCube) or you exit the space entirely (what all the other console makers that failed did).

You still can't even admit the short term success the Xbox 360 had was more due to mistakes Sony made than Microsoft doing things right because even at their best execution Sony still passed them.
 

The Mad Titan

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 27, 2012
Messages
49,698
Reputation
12,855
Daps
128,043
The 360 finished in last place of it's generation. You're trying to portray that as Microsoft fukking up but the truth is The PS3 caught up to and surpassed the 360 because of the strength of the PlayStation brand globally. The PS3 never caught up to the 360 in the US. It didn't matter because Microsoft had to outsell Sony in places like the US at an unsustainable pace to compensate for places they couldn't move jack shyt in and Sony controlled. The PS3 passing the 360 was inevitable and not a Microsoft fukk up. It would have happened a lot sooner had Sony not fukked up.

You preach about quality and innovation. Nintendo makes quality software. Nintendo innovates. Why then could they not command enough traction to retake the crown from Sony? Why did they have to shift to a blue ocean strategy and chase after non-traditional gamers before they found success again? Why couldn't they through sheer effort and quality software beat Sony at their own game?

Even having the most popular brand in home console gaming Sony couldn't leverage that into dethroning Nintendo in portables. The same company that did dethroned Nintendo in the home console market folded up in the handheld space after two attempts and decided to leave it to Nintendo alone entirely. I mean you say all you have to do is make quality software and innovate and people will flock to you over the market leader in time making you competitive.

Rising to the status of market leader in the home console space is almost an insurmountable advantage if the company that does it properly executes. Thinking you're going to step into the home console space and beat PlayStation at their own game through pure effort is delusional. The only way you're doing that is if Sony makes some huge mistake or pisses off the entire industry and they turn their back on Sony like was done with Nintendo after the SNES. It's either you change your business strategy (what Microsoft is doing with Game Pass now) or you change your target audience (what Nintendo did after the GameCube) or you exit the space entirely (what all the other console makers that failed did).

You still can't even admit the short term success the Xbox 360 had was more due to mistakes Sony made than Microsoft doing things right because even at their best execution Sony still passed them.
:wow:
 

Ruck

Where the hell is, Diamond?!
Supporter
Joined
Aug 12, 2013
Messages
10,024
Reputation
3,209
Daps
30,398
Reppin
Last Frontier
full

Damn. Y'all really be typing essays to get your point across. Y'all better than me
 

winb83

52 Years Young
Supporter
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
46,016
Reputation
3,894
Daps
69,689
Reppin
Michigan
full

Damn. Y'all really be typing essays to get your point across. Y'all better than me
The bottom line is the only people who really look at Microsoft + Activision and think that makes Microsoft a defacto monopoly are people who don't actively follow gaming and PlayStation fanboys who don't want it to happen cause they feel it threatens their brand of choice's dominance.

That's exactly why I want it to happen. A threatened Sony that has to actually compete with Microsoft's innovative and pro-consumer features means I get a better PlayStation console. Those fanboys can't see the forest through the trees. They look at stuff like Game Pass and argue against it, they look at stuff like physical backwards compatibility with all previous generations, smart delivery, price parity on games across generations and shrug. They're like Trump supporters whatever he says they just accept brainlessly. If Sony does it then it must be right if they don't do it I don't need it.

I wonder did they buy Horizon on the PS4 and use the free PS5 upgrade or pay the $10 more and get the PS5 version to support the cause.
 
Top