Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/11/23779039/microsoft-activision-blizzard-ftc-trial-win

From the article, quoting Judge Corley:

… the Court finds the FTC has not shown a likelihood it will prevail on its claim this particular vertical merger in this specific industry may substantially lessen competition. To the contrary, the record evidence points to more consumer access to Call of Duty and other Activision content. The motion for a preliminary injunction is therefore DENIED.

#gaming @gaming

    • Hdcase ( Hdcase@beehaw.org ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      3 years ago

      “Execs behind Starfield”

      The same execs that bought the company already half way through development of Starfield, and rather than delivering anything new or of value, only wanted to make sure it was extinguished on other systems?

      As for “execs behind Halo,” the less said the better. I’ve never seen a series driven so hard into the ground.

      • CO_Chewie ( CO_Chewie@beehaw.org ) 
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 years ago

        Okay there… And before thay Sony was trying to lock Starfield away on their side so what’s your point? The current market is driven by exclusives thanks very much to Sony and Nintendo.

        • NightOwl ( NightOwl@lemmy.one ) 
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 years ago

          And Sony and Nintendo aggressively want to push towards proprietary hardware exclusives. Sony has improved in that area, but every exclusive is still a big question on if it’ll even be available on the PC and if so when. Just the long release schedule is an attempt to draw more people who can’t wait to a proprietary closed ecosystem.

        • Hdcase ( Hdcase@beehaw.org ) 
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 years ago

          I would argue there’s a huge difference between, say, one year of timed exclusivity for one game, versus buying an entire publisher and making every single one of their future games exclusive.

          • NightOwl ( NightOwl@lemmy.one ) 
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 years ago

            On the flip side those who really dislike hardware locks requiring specific devices to run games would see a console only exclusive a bigger concern.

            Since viewed from PCs it isn’t just a Microsoft game, but one that can be played on Linux with Proton and possibly MacOS with their game porting toolkit with various different hardware configurations as opposed to a locked down proprietary one.

            Once Sony shows a much bigger effort to embrace open hardware options as opposed to trying to funnel people to their proprietary one with unknown status of future ports I will be less wary of their attempts at acquisitions. And well Nintendo never will.

      • liminis ( liminis@beehaw.org ) 
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 years ago

        It’s almost certainly a positive to see Bobby Kotick (boy do I struggle to maintain this site’s cardinal rule as far as he goes ) losing influence in the “AAA” games industry; but it’s not good to see MS buying every studio they can get hold of. Both these things can be true simultaneously.

        My biggest concern with MS’s rampant acquisition spree is what happens when there’a an economic downturn (as already seems to be the near future); will those newly acquired studio be subject to the corporate euphemism that is dOWnSiZiNg? How many working on moderately niche titles will be out of a job and their work indefinitely shelved?

      • Forza. That’s it. They weren’t behind Fable, they weren’t behind gears of war, they weren’t behind halo. Microsoft has nothing to show here. Every developer they’ve bought in the past has turned out nothing special afterward, just sequels of diminishing quality.

      • Whirlybird ( Whirlybird@aussie.zone ) Banned
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 years ago

        The same execs that bought the company already half way through development of Starfield, and rather than delivering anything new or of value, only wanted to make sure it was extinguished on other systems?

        Sony were reportedly in talks to purchase full exclusivity of Starfield, so can’t blame MS.

    • Dahjoos ( Dahjoos@lemmy.fmhy.ml ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 years ago

      My main argument against the acquisition is that the morons behind Activision/Blizzard will get a ridiculous payout

      These people should get a lifetime ban from executive positions, not a payout

    • Glarrf ( Glarrf@midwest.social ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 years ago

      Your comment made me step back a minute, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I tend to agree with your assessment after looking at this scenario more closely. I’m no fan of Microsoft but Activision isn’t exactly a great studio. Only time will tell!

    • I play only one game from Acti-Blizz regularly which is CoD, since most of my friends play in religiously (time for new friends?). And it is treated so badly by Activision, I hope MS fixes this. I know all the highbrow arguments against consolidation. But I don’t care for Diablo or WoW (sorry) and the one game I play can only win from MS acquisition (impossible to treat it any worse). So I personally want this to go through already.