Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
  1. #61
    Bloodsail Admiral
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Celement View Post
    Epstien proved major aspects of the 90s satanic panic were real retroactively.
    This forum is often full of nonsense but this is beyond the pale.

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Alayea View Post
    Au contraire, I have. All you have done is repeatedly misinterpret my responses. So I will repeat myself one last time, in smaller words that you will hopefully understand this time:

    This lawsuit that the FTC filed. They don't want merger between Microsoft and Activision Blizzard. Because of XYZ (for sake of keeping this short). Reasoning for their lawsuit is not iron-clad (not to be confused with "wearing something made of iron"). Because it's not, it's doubtful that FTC will get what it wants.

    There you go.
    And you're still wrong. Microsoft is blatantly attempting to create a monopoly which is illegal.

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    And you're still wrong. Microsoft is blatantly attempting to create a monopoly which is illegal.
    NO they aren't. Sony and Nintendo are right there and they still aren't going to even be #1 with this merger. That is in no way a monopoly.

  4. #64
    The Insane rhorle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    17,339
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    And you're still wrong. Microsoft is blatantly attempting to create a monopoly which is illegal.
    That is a little strong. The objections from Sony that it looks like the FTC is acting on is over Call of Duty potentially going exclusive. This isn't really about a monopoly but about anti-competitiveness. That can happen without a monopoly existing.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Baraden View Post
    MS have already indicated they're prepared to counter-sue, and given that the FTC has literally no legal grounds here, they would win

    It won't go that far of course, it's just chest-pounding
    They have an extremely good case, actually. Its monopolistic behaviour (not a monopoly - the behaviour that LEADS to one), which MS has been successfully sued for.... over a dozen times. And thats not even including settlements.

    In fact, Microsoft's record against anti-competition suits is basically zero wins on their part.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Unholyground View Post
    You would be quite foolish to think it's not going to go through.
    Uhh... are you missing the part where the EU Comission is ALSO going to not let them do it?

    Its an uphill battle for MS at this point and their record on things like this is basically zero. They lose basically every anti competition case brought against them.

    The main reason this isn't anti competitive is because the games are gonna be on every system maybe over time some won't be but that isn't the case right now so Sony doesn't have a leg to stand on with that.
    They absolutely do, since literally Microsofts most recent acquisition (Bethesda) they absolutely 100% pinky-promised that Bethesda would still bring its games everywhere.

    And then IMMEDIATELY broke that promise the day the buyout was finalized. The reason the FTC is coming for them is LITERALLY because of their previous actions. \
    There aren't really any other companies against this
    Other than EA, Square, Ubisoft, and the Embracer Group (guys who bought Eidos, Deep Silver, et al). So.... like literally all of their competition. You know, "no one". Problem you're having is you're forgetting to include venues outside the US. All those companies filed complaints with the EU Comission.

    I personally want it to go through because it benefits me as a gamer and a game developer.
    It doesn't do either of those things. But, cool. You've got the right to be wrong.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Proskill View Post
    u said they want to keep him. if they do then he doesnt get those 69 (nice) billion
    uhh.. thats not how stock works.

    It is quite common for the old CEO to stay on when the company is acquired. He gets a ton of money (NOT 69 Billion, as he is not remotely close to the sole or even majority shareholder in ActiBlizz) because hes a stock holder and will be paid out like every other stock holder.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Tech614 View Post
    There is no reality where the purchase gets blocked by the FTC. This is them stalling to get the deal they want and because they had a bone to pick with MS for awhile.

    If the deal somehow gets blocked it's going to be because of European Regulators which are way more strict than the opposition in the US, but even they likely go away if MS signs the deal they want from them.
    Which they already said outright they would never do. Like... EU Comission was like "Agree to X terms" and Microsoft's response was literally "no, not ever". The EU Comission is going to kill this. Theyve all but said it outright at this point.
    Last edited by Kagthul; 2022-12-11 at 06:33 AM.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Kagthul View Post
    In fact, Microsoft's record against anti-competition suits is basically zero wins on their part.
    That's likely because most suits that weren't a slam dunk against them ended in a settlement. This is a very common statistical effect related to survivor bias - lawsuits that don't look like they'll succeed often don't get to a verdict, because they're either dropped or settled. It's not impossible to find those numbers, but it's usually not as obvious as ones for which a verdict was actually entered.

    Antitrust suits especially often end in settlement agreements that alleviate the concerns from the suit - agreeing to provisions to curb anti-competitive behaviors, corporate restructuring, altered merger deals, and so on.

    It's exactly what I expect to happen in this case. The FTC will lay out its grievances in discovery, MS/ATVI will have teams of lawyers and business people go over it, and then they'll sit down and find a way to make it work. Maybe by promising not to make CoD exclusive, or whatever. It'll take some time, but I don't expect this lawsuit to kill the deal, only alter it.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by agentsi View Post
    so Blizzard will buy itself away from Microsoft, similar to how Bungie bought itself back from Activision.
    .... could you get the details here MORE wrong?

    Bungie was purchased by MICROSOFT to get Halo on the Xbox (it was originally a *Mac*-first game, and they were going to put it on Windows after the Mac launch). Bungie then, much later, bought themselves back FROM MICROSOFT.

    They then entered a PUBLISHING DEAL with Activision - Activision NEVER owned them. They and Activision mutually broke that agreement because Bungie refused to monetize Destiny as heavily as Activision wanted. Activision couldn't force them, but COULD make their deal problematic by being pedants and assholes about it, so Bungie negotiated a severing of the publishing deal.

    Bungie was recently purchased by Sony. Part of the purchase agreement/contract with Bungie was that Bungie would remain independent of Sony's management apart from general business decisions for 10 years. There's also an option for Bungie to buy itself out, if they can come up with the money (which is a LOT of money, so.. not likely).

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    That's likely because most suits that weren't a slam dunk against them ended in a settlement. This is a very common statistical effect related to survivor bias - lawsuits that don't look like they'll succeed often don't get to a verdict, because they're either dropped or settled. It's not impossible to find those numbers, but it's usually not as obvious as ones for which a verdict was actually entered.

    Antitrust suits especially often end in settlement agreements that alleviate the concerns from the suit - agreeing to provisions to curb anti-competitive behaviors, corporate restructuring, altered merger deals, and so on.

    It's exactly what I expect to happen in this case. The FTC will lay out its grievances in discovery, MS/ATVI will have teams of lawyers and business people go over it, and then they'll sit down and find a way to make it work. Maybe by promising not to make CoD exclusive, or whatever. It'll take some time, but I don't expect this lawsuit to kill the deal, only alter it.
    And then they have to appease the EU Comission, which already listed their demands and Microsoft outright refused to even consider them.

    EU Comission says no, deal still dies.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    That is a little strong. The objections from Sony that it looks like the FTC is acting on is over Call of Duty potentially going exclusive. This isn't really about a monopoly but about anti-competitiveness. That can happen without a monopoly existing.
    Ding ding ding, winner!

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Kagthul View Post
    And then they have to appease the EU Comission, which already listed their demands and Microsoft outright refused to even consider them.

    EU Comission says no, deal still dies.
    It's harder, but not impossible. And the legal situation there is a lot more complicated for various reasons. But it's not at all surprising that MS would say "no way no how!" from the onset - that's a pretty standard bargaining tactic. Don't read anything into bravado of that nature, all that matters is the end result. And I strongly suspect they'll find a way to make it work.

    Though of course nothing is certain.

  9. #69
    Spam Assassin! MoanaLisa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Tralfamadore
    Posts
    32,315
    The earlier argument about the FTC and Kotick is conspiracy-related because it implies that the FTC has a specific interest in keeping Kotick where he is. That may well be the end result (however I think all of this is more performative than serious) but it won't be because the Federal Trade Commission (and other governmental bodies in countries other than the U.S.) have any interest in keeping Kotick specifically where he is. It's because they don't trust Microsoft. Given MSFT's business history they have a point in warning MSFT off any actions that may seem to appear monopolistic or anti-competitive.
    Last edited by MoanaLisa; 2022-12-11 at 06:51 AM. Reason: Rephrased the first sentence for clarity
    Two rules for living: "Don't go around hurting each other. Try to understand things." — William Least Heat-Moon (Blue Highways)

  10. #70
    But letting Disney do as they please was okay, eh? Sure.
    Oh and while I'm at it, Sony can choke on a dick as well. They were the ones that agressively used exclusivity for 2 hardware generations and now they bitch that someone else could do it to them? Fuck them.
    #1) MMO-C should be glad that the British Empire is no more, because they'd want a piece of all the copium trade here.
    #2) Angry players come to the forums to complain about the game... but what loser only comes to the forums to complain about the forums and its users?
    #3)Felating Blizzard too eagerly may lead to oxygen deficiency and worst case asphyxiation. Long-term effects range from delusions up to cerebral necrosis. #4) The WoW playerbase doesn't deserve housing.

  11. #71
    even after reading just the first sentence of Bobbys answer i know he already knows the deal will not happen. if you are in that business you understand what i mean. sadly, because imo a MS acquisition would have been the best of the 3 obvious options:

    option 1)
    the deal happens. MS and Phil Spencer dictate the new philosophy. means that at least the overnext xpac has at least A CHANCE to be something new and maybe better. at least its even a chance.

    option2)
    the deal never came up. meaning the all stays exactly the same like BfA, SL and DF for the next 10 years. at least it’s stable and you know what you get. and ppls at Blizz never had that deal in their heads.

    option 3)
    the most horrible option. the deal is on the table. many ppls at Blizz have half their mind already in „we are overtaken anyway. we will see what comes. maybe better, maybe worse. but for sure what we do at the moment will change soon“. and now imagine: ppls with this mindset, at this point, are told NOW: „sorry, nothing changes. deal canceled.“. have you the slightest imagination HOW SHIT the next xpac will be then? every least bit of motivation and creativity is dead. instant. and there was not much at Blizz 2022 anyway. breaking the deal and after that „just keep doing the same as always“, for another 5 years, will end up in the worst xpac since cata+WoD+SL combined. think about a BfA/SL like xpac, ending in .1 and go WoD from there.

    imo option3 is the most horrible thing that could happen for us customers/players. even when deal had been never on the table (option2) would be million times better. when option2 already lead to BfA/SL like expansions. imagine to which type of expansions option3 will lead to.

    imo the deal will not happen and Bobby already realizes this. but in the end ATVI and wow will be left as a pile of shambles. mass leavings, budget problems, sheduling latencies… if the deal breaks, this creates a situation especially WoW will nearly never recover from. mid next xpac they end up at 300.000 players niche product imo. the most stupid thing someone like Bobby have ever done, is to publish the deal before being 100% sure they have no monopoly government problem. but what he did will fuck up the company so hard, if the deal breaks.

    very very bad for wow players imo.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by baskev View Post
    i get against monopoly positions of companies...but why can elon musk have several tech markets in his pocket then?

    But i hope microsoft still buys blizzard. Just fire bobby.

    When i look at diablo 4 , all the gameplay video's i see a great game. That looks and feels good ( as far as i can see). But then comes the monitization....and i almost puke how bad it is.

    Or look at dragonflight....it shows blizzard still has the skills. But somewhere up the chain bad choices are being made.
    2 things here to mention:

    1)
    don’t forget when you look at DF: you see what they did the last 2-3 years ago. not things that happened, to 80% of DF you see now, AFTER Blizz-ppl heard „MS will buy us“. so the pure existence of the deal has not yet ANY influence on what you see as customer, using their actual product.

    2)
    don’t value a new expansion after 2 weeks. SL was received incredibly well the first 2 months after release. same for BfA. have a look about that fact, and when the SL/BfA tours went wrong, on the internet. or watch the actual Asmongold video, where he compares what he said at the beginning of SL and what he said last week about DF“, as some starting point. ppl forgot quickly the past, when the actual present is shiny.
    Last edited by Niwes; 2022-12-12 at 12:40 AM.

  12. #72
    The Insane rhorle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    17,339
    Quote Originally Posted by Niwes View Post
    the most stupid thing someone like Bobby have ever done, is to publish the deal before being 100% sure they have no monopoly government problem. but what he did will fuck up the company so hard, if the deal breaks.
    Since the shareholders had to vote on the merger it was required to be publicly disclosed. I don't think you know as much as you think you do about this. Even if we ignore the crazy prediction to how WoW will mysteriously suffer with out Microsoft. Not much will change.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    And you're still wrong. Microsoft is blatantly attempting to create a monopoly which is illegal.
    Even with the deal Sony and Nintendo have a larger market share. The gaming market is also very fragmented in general.



    In the end I can guarantee you the deals going to go through.
    Last edited by leviathonlx; 2022-12-12 at 02:07 AM.

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by leviathonlx View Post
    Suuuure, all those games published by Apple and Google. I love playing them.

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Daronokk View Post
    Suuuure, all those games published by Apple and Google. I love playing them.
    The mobile market as practically eclipsed traditional gaming and both of them run the the most successful app stores, which makes them de facto publishers for every independent dev or micro studio out there.
    #1) MMO-C should be glad that the British Empire is no more, because they'd want a piece of all the copium trade here.
    #2) Angry players come to the forums to complain about the game... but what loser only comes to the forums to complain about the forums and its users?
    #3)Felating Blizzard too eagerly may lead to oxygen deficiency and worst case asphyxiation. Long-term effects range from delusions up to cerebral necrosis. #4) The WoW playerbase doesn't deserve housing.

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Kagthul View Post
    .... could you get the details here MORE wrong?

    Bungie was purchased by MICROSOFT to get Halo on the Xbox (it was originally a *Mac*-first game, and they were going to put it on Windows after the Mac launch). Bungie then, much later, bought themselves back FROM MICROSOFT.

    They then entered a PUBLISHING DEAL with Activision - Activision NEVER owned them. They and Activision mutually broke that agreement because Bungie refused to monetize Destiny as heavily as Activision wanted. Activision couldn't force them, but COULD make their deal problematic by being pedants and assholes about it, so Bungie negotiated a severing of the publishing deal.

    Bungie was recently purchased by Sony. Part of the purchase agreement/contract with Bungie was that Bungie would remain independent of Sony's management apart from general business decisions for 10 years. There's also an option for Bungie to buy itself out, if they can come up with the money (which is a LOT of money, so.. not likely).

    - - - Updated - - -



    And then they have to appease the EU Comission, which already listed their demands and Microsoft outright refused to even consider them.

    EU Comission says no, deal still dies.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Ding ding ding, winner!
    you're arguing semantics. Without a publisher they'd be up shits creek, which is why they needed activision in the first place after leaving Microsoft. They may have not owned them as a company entirely, but they owned their publishing rights, which in essence can be more control than owning the actual company. But sure, let's nit pick and try to find shit to complain about and argue about.

  17. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Niwes View Post



    2 things here to mention:

    1)
    don’t forget when you look at DF: you see what they did the last 2-3 years ago. not things that happened, to 80% of DF you see now, AFTER Blizz-ppl heard „MS will buy us“. so the pure existence of the deal has not yet ANY influence on what you see as customer, using their actual product.

    2)
    don’t value a new expansion after 2 weeks. SL was received incredibly well the first 2 months after release. same for BfA. have a look about that fact, and when the SL/BfA tours went wrong, on the internet. or watch the actual Asmongold video, where he compares what he said at the beginning of SL and what he said last week about DF“, as some starting point. ppl forgot quickly the past, when the actual present is shiny.
    - yup i think it has something to do with that

    - Yes and no. While SL was also a decent beginning. I already had some problems with it early on. And this time they fixed/did more things better. But indeed, time will tell.

  18. #78
    It feels like Sony-fanboys port-begging lol
    I hope this merger will take place, it's probably the only thing than can save Blizzard

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •