Microsoft has been temporarily restrained from buying Activision Blizzard, judge rules

At least until late June.

[lukasmain]

The CMA and the FTC are the only line of defense against MS and their greed. MS are lined up along the boundary of Activision HQ with catapults and trebuchets that are loaded with huge money bags ready to launch over the walls at Activision. Their abhorrent money siege needs to be stopped. Godspeed CMA and FTC. Keep fighting the good fight LOL

[Sonic1881]

FTC just made it harder on Microsoft because Microsoft will have to pay Activision an extra 5 billion dollars smh. Will it ever be over🤔

[lukasmain]

Well what was the cut-off date on their deal? Do we even know that? Like when is the date MS had to close the deal by before they would have to pay Activision 3 billion or whatever it is?

[Sonic1881]

I don't know the official cut-off date. I just heard it was coming up and that's the reason why Microsoft wanted ro close the deal by Friday from what I heard. And you're right, it might be 3 billion instead of 5 billion. It's still a lot of money but Microsoft can afford it

[lukasmain]

@Sonic well seems like MS are not going to make it and will have to pay the 3 Billion.

"Technically, the deal is supposed to close before a July 18th deadline. If the deal isn’t renegotiated to extend that deadline, Microsoft is obligated to pay Activision Blizzard a $3 billion breakup fee."

If Activision were even able to renegotiate to extend the deal, then why wouldn't they have done so before all this?

[S2Killinit]

Good, the more it costs them the more of a deterrent to others seeking to cannibalize the industry like MS is attempting to do. I hope it costs them dearly.

Also, for people who don't know this, the granting of an injunction has significance because it shows that the court believes FTC has a case.

[343_Guilty_Spark]

No it won’t

[blacktiger]

can not afford it because shareholders wouldn't be happy with the management. Cutt of deal is by July I think.

[1Victor]

@potato
If I remember correctly it’s July 18 this year

[GhostScholar]

The greed statement is so stupid. I assume you want a socialist society where doctors and janitors make the same amount money as well. I’d love to hear your progressive and enlightening opinion on when it’s ok to buy a company? Also I guess it’s ok for Sony to shell out millions to keep final fantasy 7 remake from being on Xbox and ff 16.

[MrNinosan]

Timed exclusives has been a thing for years.
During X360/PS3 era, MS did this with everything they could.
FFVII Remake time exclusivity is over, but SE chose not to make the game for Xbox, which is fair, as everything else they try to sell on that platform fails in sales.

[Rikuide]

Conflating someone's concern over the world's second largest corporation buying up gaming's 4th largest with a desire to see doctors and janitors paid the same - now that's stupid.

And obviously I'm not OP, but I'm not OK with Sony's FF deals. Just as I wasn't OK with Microsoft's Tomb Raider deal. Such deals just punish consumers who bought the "wrong" console.

[Bathyj]

Yes doctors and janitors making the same amount of money is the same thing as Microsoft owning everything they don't deserve and have no ability to manage.

[Crows90]

When square themselves look for potential deals sure. Microsoft had the same opportunity.

[DarXyde]

I love how you use the straw man argument against socialism by talking about janitors and doctors, ignoring the fact that the minimum wage isn't a living wage and there is no maximum wage. Anything to say about important members of society who are under paid and the grossly overpaid consultants, executives, and defense contractors? Some things should not be able to bankrupt you, among them education and healthcare. For the record, the military, police, and firefighters are all socialized elements of the US economy.

That aside, you ask when it's okay to buy a company. I would say when a company has a remarkable premise but its vision cannot be realized without backing —even then, I would prioritize partnership over corporate imperialism. Twitch was a good concept, but the infrastructure to do what it does today was totally out of their scope. I hate Amazon, but that made sense. Then your have Oculus and Facebook. Zuck is a tool and losing money left and right. But would Oculus have the resources and product development it has now otherwise? ABK is already ridiculously profitable, and to a fault. Microsoft does not offer much to them, if anything, they couldn't do already. Considering this comes immediately after the scandals, the only benefit I see here is the execs get a golden parachute, and in exchange Microsoft controls like every mainstream FPS between ABK and Bethesda and other franchise. The fact that Kottick walks without any repercussions is reason enough to want this deal to tank. I guess you're okay with that though.

Is it okay for Sony to shell out millions for exclusivity? Yes. Microsoft has been doing this too and I don't have any problems with that strategy because companies retain their autonomy, working relationships are built, and in case you didn't know, Microsoft has many many MANY more millions than their competition. I have no sympathy for them because the resources to compete are right there. They are using that same resource to purchase publishers, so yes, that's greedy AF. You might call that smart business and pro consumer for your XGP content... But I would love to see how many of you would react to Microsoft absorbing major companies and eliminating the competition when they leave you bleeding from the a... wallets... After they have a functional monopoly.

[FinalFantasyFanatic]

Dumb comment, but a better comparison would be Disney buying up all the movie studios, how's that been working out for us these days? I would kill for some more variety in the movies that come out these days. I'm so sick of mega corporations owning everything and losing competition in any given sector.

Don't know why you made a comparison to socialism (which is code word for "anything I don't like"), when capitalists would pay them the same if they could get away with it, I suspect you also consider taxation theft.

[KwietStorm_BLM]

Nobody cried foul and ran to the courts when Xbox lived off of 3rd party deals and timed exclusives during the 360 era, not with GTA IV, not with Bioshock, not with Fallout. NOBODY. Now everyone is falling for Microsoft's cries for attention because Richie Rich is apparently getting bullied by little PlayStation. It has absolutely nothing to do with 2 decades worth of studio mismanagement and wasted opportunity. It's all PlayStation. There is such a huge difference between a single game exclusive or even a studio versus an entire publishing branch, the largest in the entire industry. They lose absolutely nothin by keeping them third party. They just want to keep it for themselves and fix their own software problem just like with Bethesda.

[blacktiger]

call it what you want but do you want Micorosoft to control entire gaming industry which what happened with Internet Explorer and Windows with shady business. Microsoft learned big time but again they are being sneaky.

[1Victor]

@ghost:”Also I guess it’s ok for Sony to shell out millions to keep final fantasy 7 remake from being on Xbox and ff 16.”
Microsoft did it with gears of wars and may other franchise during the 360 era if it was ok then why it isn’t now •••• 🤔oh wait it’s because the shoe’s on the other foot with the festering boil on it. Gotcha

[shinoff2183]

Ghostscholar, that's such a bs analogy.

Zenimax , inxile, obsidian, Ninja theory that's wasn't enough for ms to compete they gotta buy another publisher. Also again with the 3rd party exclusives does ms not have 3rd party exclusives ? I'll answer that myself they do.

[TheKingKratos]

What the frig is this comment ?!

[ManMarmalade]

Supply and demand. We live in a world with 8billion people and a constant and evolving society. It wont be long before we have rules controlling how many kids we can have just to keep up with the plague that is humanity. Convenience is not necessity.

[BlackTar187]

Taxation is theft.

[King_Noctis]

Admit that you simply don't want the deal to go through for personal reasons, whatever they may be. The FTC's job is to prevent monopolies, not protect companies like Sony. There is no reason to believe this deal will result in Microsoft's 'dominance' of the video game industry, and there's certainly no evidence that it will. Shouldn't there be evidence before you tell someone what they can and can't buy? There is literally no way this deal results in an industry monopoly for Microsoft. And the only way this deal doesn't go through IMO is if Activision decides to take the 3 billion and run if it's not sorted by the deadline.

[Crows90]

Seeing as this would be a monopoly on Western gaming companies...don't see your point.

Sony hasn't bought all Asian companies.

[MrSec84]

If multiple major publishers are joined into one entity then that creates a monopoly, here's the definition of monopoly:

the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service:
"the state's monopoly of radio and television broadcasting"
a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service:
"passenger services were largely in the hands of state-owned monopolies" · "France's electricity monopoly, EDF"
a commodity or service in the exclusive control of a company or group:
"electricity, gas, and water were considered to be natural monopolies"

A compony doesn't need to own everything to become a monopoly, they just need to own enough to sway consumer decisions, what MS already had, then the ZeniMax acquisition and now Activision-Blizzard would do exactly that.

[343_Guilty_Spark]

MrSec84

There is no proof of a monopoly

[FinalFantasyFanatic]

It's not protecting Sony, it's preventing what would be a clear monopoly, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Have people not learnt that monopolies in any sector has led to worse outcomes for consumers in the long run?

[Petebloodyonion]

@Crows
Didn't know that MS owns EA, Take 2, WB, Embracer, or Devolver Digitals
Or you can explain to me your Western monopoly again?

@Mr Sec84
I'm wondering to whom your definition of monopoly applies
cause everything you said could easily apply to Playstation with how they use the digital store and current market share to dictate hows the business goes
For example, the 30% cut from Sony is passed to Switch and Xbox user since Sony dictate that a game can't be sold at a lower cost on a competing platform (parity clause).
Charging companies fees for crossplay.

Also If Playstation always seems to have the best versions or exclusive versions of major popular 3rd parties games due to the biggest market share weel, isn't that basically what you consider "enough to sway the consumer's decision"?
Well, Sony sure seems to agree that a better Xbox COD would sway ppl decision to go Xbox instead of PlayStation.

So again to whom your definition applies the most?

[mkis007]

The reason playstation isn't a monopoly is because they dont own other publishers. Their market dominance emerged over time from before the ftc even cared about the industry. They made what people wanted and energed dominant. Competition is still possible because they dont own everything.

Xbox however just purchased 2 of the largest publishers in the world...Establishing precedent f sony were to buy Square Enix, Capcom, Sega, ubisoft ..etc. you cant just assume it will stop.

[Christopher]

***The FTC's job is to prevent monopolies, ***

And prevent anti -competitive dealings.

[MrSec84]

@Petebloodyonion

"@Mr Sec84
I'm wondering to whom your definition of monopoly applies
cause everything you said could easily apply to Playstation with how they use the digital store and current market share to dictate hows the business goes"

Except publishers still have choice, they can choose where they want to put in the work.
Sony isn't keeping games off of XBox from an entire publisher's catalogue of releases going forward.

"For example, the 30% cut from Sony is passed to Switch and Xbox user since Sony dictate that a game can't be sold at a lower cost on a competing platform (parity clause)."

Microsoft are still allowed to arrange for titles to be included on Gamepass, so basically accessible for free when you have access to the service (which can be free with the Gamepass Quest).

"Charging companies fees for crossplay."

This would arguably be a negative point for Sony, which reduces their appeal to publishers, something that Microsoft or Nintendo can pay up to compete with.

"Also If Playstation always seems to have the best versions or exclusive versions of major popular 3rd parties games due to the biggest market share weel, isn't that basically what you consider "enough to sway the consumer's decision"?"

Sony generated appeal for their customers to buy the PlayStation version, where's the proof that Sony are financially preventing better versions being on Xbox Series X?
PC gets better versions almost all of the time if you have the right level of hardware and Microsoft can pay to make sure devs put the work in on their version, again competing.

"Well, Sony sure seems to agree that a better Xbox COD would sway ppl decision to go Xbox instead of PlayStation."

Where exactly are Sony preventing Microsoft from getting users? How are they stopping people from buying the XBox version.
Brand appeal is created by making the more appealing platform, but Sony aren't buying huge publishers to stop their games from going to other platforms besides PlayStation.

"So again to whom your definition applies the most?"

Creating appeal through work and thus gaining an install base is the very definition of competing, because Sony outdoes the competition through overall product appeal it literally gives other platform holders an example of what you need to do to compete.

By buying up multiple publishing houses and holding games back from their established sellers Microsoft would literally be preventing competition.
Sony can't then go to Bethesda and ask for Fallout 5, Elder Scrolls 6, etc, games which would have unquestionably been on PlayStation and make that happen.

[Rockstar]

It boggles the mind that so many people are rooting for xbox to win this battle. For what reason? Because it will be on GP? You'll get COD on the cheap? What happens if the deal falls through? Likely business as usual. Everyone gets to play COD.

That would truly suck am I right?

[Mr_cheese]

@king

The hypocrisy of saying "personal reasons" when the major factors for xbox gamers supporting this is that they'll get all the games on GP and take it all away from PlayStation.

[GhostScholar]

Everyone that’s down voting me are missing my point. I don’t mind who Sony buys. I don’t care either way. I’m fine with any company making acquisitions. I’m not against Sony. I have all three consoles. My issue is with the people that are being hypocritical. Nintendo has no problem with the buy out. Why does Sony?

[Petebloodyonion]

@MrSec84

"Except publishers still have choice, they can choose where they want to put in the work"
Do they?
Like do you really expect that a major company can easily accept not putting their AAA games on PlayStation?
Heck why do companies like Epic accept to pay a premium to Sony for potential losses regarding Crossplay surely they could all say screw you Sony I will only release my game on Xbox?
Honest why did they have to jump kinds of hoops for getting crossplay like proposing an exclusive PS Vr2 game, making a special presentation so Sony could look like a winner, giving data, etc
https://www.psu.com/news/ep...

"Microsoft are still allowed to arrange for titles to be included on Gamepass"
Didn't know that the complete Xbox game catalog was on Gamepass

"where's the proof that Sony is financially preventing better versions from being on Xbox Series X?"
Have you heard of the parity clause? The exact same thing that Sony ask about the price regarding that version is to be similar and the why you never see AAA Xbox games from 3rd parties with EXCLUSIVE content
https://www.ign.com/article...
https://terminalgamer.com/2...

Honestly, Care to mention 1 exclusive thing offered (level, perks, skins, character, mode, missions) from a popular AAA game on an Xbox console in the last 10 years because I can name plenty on PlayStation

[Christopher]

***Like do you really expect that a major company can easily accept not putting their AAA games on PlayStation?***

I mean, yeah. It's happened before. Microsoft just isn't paying for it anymore. They are instead buying up publishers and doing Redfall/Starfield releases.

I'd much rather the decision on where it goes stays with a third party than just make more and more first-party. And it's not like Microsoft doesn't have billions to spend on third-party games, right?

[King_Noctis]

@Mr Cheese

Take what away from Playstation? I seriously don’t understand what you guys are talking about anymore. MS clearly offered Sony a 10 years deal for COD on PS. Are you saying they would risking violating the contract and risk going to court with Sony over some sort of nonsensical console war? And why isn’t 10 years enough for Sony to make a COD competitor? Or are you saying they aren’t talented enough?

And why is the game being on Gamepass not beneficial for everyone? Why do you think people can have only one console in their lives and cannot own even a PC?

[InUrFoxHole]

@Crows90
Nice try

[DarXyde]

Sigh...

I get depressed reading things like this. It's genuinely short-sighted and misdiagnoses the plethora of issues people have with it. I don't speak for everyone, but to convey why this deal is a problem as succinctly as I can...

1. The vermin heading ABK will escape all accountability if the acquisition goes through. I would like to remind you that suicide, direct threats of violence, and sexual harassment/assault claims would never be addressed. I've said this before, but I stated unequivocally that if the deal means Kottick and his rogue's gallery go down in flames, I would support this deal immediately. It is the opposite.

2. I don't play ABK games. Haven't supported ABK in any capacity in nearly 2 decades. That said, people wanting it to go through don't seem to understand that it pretty much only means you'll get the games on XGP. I don't see why this deal needs to go through to make that happen if Microsoft is so close with ABK now (unless this is just about saving the exec's asses). Games weren't skipping Xbox, but they sure can skip PlayStation if the deal passes. Perhaps that's what Xbox supporters want? The deal NOT going through means games continue coming to every platform. Deal passes, Xbox and ABK execs win. Deal falls apart, nothing changes. Still get your games.

3. I don't care about the impact to Sony from this. Sony will be fine.

4. To those who play FPS titles, this seems like it's approaching a "brand name" FPS monopoly. The same company would own Call of Duty, Halo, Wolfenstein, Overwatch, Fallout, Dishonored, Doom, Quake, and Prey. You would also have the same company that owns Elder Scrolls owning games like StarCraft, World of Warcraft, and Diablo. That seems like far too much industry concentration. What was the last company Nintendo bought, Monolith? Pretty niche and they were built up to be more successful than ever. I don't think they've released any of their past catalog from PlayStation on Nintendo platforms either. All new IPs. Playstation's one acquisition I can recall that was problematic was Bungie (but their games are multiplatform anyway). Otherwise, the studios (not publishers) they acquired were not acquired because of the branding, but because of the talent.

5. Expect the company heavily invested in AI to acquire these annual franchises like Call of Duty and shed a massive proportion of their workforce in favor of AI-centred development that is profoundly anti labour.

I'm sure there are people who are worried about Sony. I don't see why because the best games on PlayStation aren't ABK titles by a longshot. There are very valid reasons for wanting it to fail. But for those wanting it to go through, why? To block games from others, get them on your rental service? It says a lot if people know about the scandals and STILL want it to pass. That's wild to me and genuinely disheartening.

[MrSec84]

@Peterbloodyonion:

"Do they?
Like do you really expect that a major company can easily accept not putting their AAA games on PlayStation?"

If their main audience is on PlayStation, then they should prioritize where most players play, within the confines of what hardware is capable of.
Publishers like Zeni-Max have already denied Redfall (as poorly executed as that game is), will be denying Starfield and any future titles, even though any of those games all have PS5 versions already far into development.

"Heck why do companies like Epic accept to pay a premium to Sony for potential losses regarding Crossplay surely they could all say screw you Sony I will only release my game on Xbox?
Honest why did they have to jump kinds of hoops for getting crossplay like proposing an exclusive PS Vr2 game, making a special presentation so Sony could look like a winner, giving data, etc
https://www.psu.com/news/ep...

Are you saying that Sony shouldn't get preferential treatment when they've built up the bigger audience on PlayStation?
Before you argue about the size of the audience, it always seems to be the case that PlayStation gets more sales by a wide margin than Microsoft.
Microsoft are now the ones pulling games away from PlayStation, when Zeni-Max would have released everything on PlayStation before the Acquisition.

"Didn't know that the complete Xbox game catalog was on Gamepass"

I didn't say they were all there, it's on a game by game basis, many games are included on Gamepass, do you deny this?

"Have you heard of the parity clause? The exact same thing that Sony ask about the price regarding that version is to be similar and the why you never see AAA Xbox games from 3rd parties with EXCLUSIVE content
https://www.ign.com/article...
https://terminalgamer.com/2...

Parity means it's the same on all platforms, this doesn't support your arguments in the slightest.

"Honestly, Care to mention 1 exclusive thing offered (level, perks, skins, character, mode, missions) from a popular AAA game on an Xbox console in the last 10 years because I can name plenty on PlayStation"

CoD had maps and exclusive content at the XBox One's Launch, which was less than 10 years ago right now.
Titanfall 1 wasn't on PS4, same goes for Dead Rising 3, Ryse Son of Rome, Sunset Overdrive, I'm sure I could come up with more full games to give an example of 3rd party AAA titles that were kept off of the more popular Platform, so entire games that couldn't come to PlayStation because Microsoft bought exclusivity in it's entirety.
Microsoft clearly has the ability to pay more money, it's only where Sony has the better relationship that Publishers may choose to keep the games off of XBox, but this gen the actual game releases unique to XBox Series have been very few and far between, so audiences aren't as likely to the platform where there's little in the way of unique games to make that platform stand out.

You haven't given any examples of Sony actually preventing competition, Microsoft throwing their money around to buy whole publishing houses, with dozens, to hundreds of IPs that usually come to every or most of the none Windows or XBox platforms, to specifically get those games on XBox and stop then coming to anything that isn't on a platform they don't have a hand in does.

[Ashunderfire86]

Microsoft is going to get them eventually so temporary until late June is just pointless. No matter what Activision is going to Microsoft.

[343_Guilty_Spark]

CMA published incorrect data, misinterpreted other data, initially stated they had major concern concerning competition in console gaming, and the flipped the script and decided their major concern was the nascent cloud gaming market in which Major players including Sony have shied away from investing in.

You need have a better argument than “I don’t like that this company has money to spend on another company that wants to be bought”

[MrSec84]

Consolidating 3 publishers under one large company's rule is monopoly, especially when the 2 Microsoft are trying to buy are among the biggest in the industry.
The proof is right in front of your eyes buddy, just because you ignore it, that doesn't mean it's not there.

Preventing one huge company from buying up the industry is literally what the CMA were created for.

[343_Guilty_Spark]

@MrSec84

Not even the CMA stated this.

Show the proof.

[shinoff2183]

343

Unless your the judge over this case , your skewed opinion means nothing. And your opinion is definitely slanted.

[blacktiger]

And they are 90 percent market lol

[ChasterMies]

The FTC is the only defense that consumers need. Microsoft and Activision are both U.S. companies. If it can’t go forward in the U.S., it can’t go forward,

[gleepot]

dont be so dramatic

[darthv72]

Oh no.... whatever will they do?

[Eonjay]

Well for sure they won't be pulling out of the U.S. now will they 😆

[Magog]

This buyout would hurt competition for decades. Good thing the government is finally paying attention.

[GhostScholar]

Anyone who thinks that this buyout would kill competition must have eaten paint chips as a kid. It actually preserves competition.

[MrNinosan]

Anyone who thinks that this buyout doesn't hurt gamers must have eaten paint chips as a kid, and being mind controlled by Spencer.

[PapaBop]

And any Xbox fan defending this deal must have taken a large knock to the head as a baby or is a cheap skate who justs wants Activision's games for free. If I was an Xbox fan, I'd be livid with this deal. Microsoft are wanting to spend 69 billion to not give Xbox fans anything new but to just take away from the competition. They could have easily taken that cash and invested in first party studios and create a first party line up to rival Sony and Nintendo but we all know Microsoft are clueless so would rather throw money around instead.

[FinalFantasyFanatic]

It's pretty clear who the paint chip eaters are and it's not the anti-Activision/Blizzard group, history has proven the opposite of your statement, monopolies tend to do that.

[OptimusDK]

Correct - SONY is the only one tamping competition by the pure size and pressure they have. Just see how the are not only targeting getting games on their service but also keeping it from gooing on others.

That is by fact killing competition.

[ChasterMies]

Microsoft is a trillion dollar company that has been selling Xbox for more than 2 decades. If they can’t compete with Sony and Nintendo, it’s because they are doing it wrong,

[sushimama]

MS does not need Activision/Blizzard to compete. They already have Bethesda and all those IP and studios. Buy ABK is serious overkill. They should be blocked

[GamingSinceForever]

@Hypertention140….Preach.

[343_Guilty_Spark]

Hurt competition how? Explain.

[CrimsonWing69]

Can you break it down for me in detail how this hurts competition?

[343_Guilty_Spark]

If he could he would. The CMA couldn’t.

[OptimusDK]

How that - MW will be on other platforms for at least 10 years

[gleepot]

get real son

[shadowT]

Xbox Games Showcase + Bethesda Direct + Activition Exhibition + Blizzard Livestream 2024

[SICKINDIVIDUAL]

Microsoft screwed the Activision deal themselves when they acquired zenimax Bethesda.

[XiNatsuDragnel]

FTC stopped these guys fr

[LordoftheCritics]

Good.

Finally some fairness.

[Crimsonian]

Microsoft has until the 18th of July to finalize the deal or renegotiate an extension. If they miss this date or the renegotiated date then they will have to pay a $3 billion breakup fee.

[shaenoide]

Starfield could have been a multiplateform game enjoyed by more gamers.

It's a good exemple why this AKB buyout must be stopped.

[Shane Kim]

Yup, but it is what it is. Go get some fresh air instead.

[MrNinosan]

Or play other great games.
I guess he have access to a dozen of games while some still wait for the first good game for this gen.

[Ashunderfire86]

And Final Fantasy could have been multiplatform, but you know its a console exclusive to PS4, PS5. Microsoft will get this.

[Crows90]

Yeah well...Sony didn't go forcing square to not release it after the deal...that's their choice.

[Hypertension140]

Please you Xbox fanboys don't care about final fantasy, you're only saying this to defend Microsoft. Why haven't I've seen you guys complain about this in the past, you only talk shit about the series.

@Shane Kim

Nobody imagined Bethesda let alone Activision being acquired by one of the big 3, the fact that it's so shocking tells you that theirs something wrong with these purchases.
Out of all the dumb things fanboys could get upset about, THIS makes sense.

[OptimusDK]

@CEOWS90 - lol what world are you living in.... jesus crist people give me a break

[BehindTheRows]

Tell me — how big was Final Fantasy on Xbox again? It hurts all of less than 1%.

Remove CoD from PlayStation. The consequences would be ENORMOUS. AND, a third party deal =! buying a whole publisher.

Whataboutisms. Irrelevanitis strikes again.

[shinoff2183]

If ms would've walked in their asking for ff16 to be exclusive they would've got laughed out of there. Ff15 10mill plus sold. 1.2 million on xbox. Yall ain't buying games come on. Stop relying on gamepass for everything

I've said it before I know it isn't every Xbox fan but numbers don't lie

And last why cry about 3rd party exclusives now. Yall weren't crying during 360 when they had 3m3rd party exclusives left and right

[Petebloodyonion]

@Behind the Row

If you have a really bad experience with a car brand model would you buy next year's model?
If you get food poisoning in a restaurant will you happily come back to that restaurant to eat the same food?
If you own a console and your favorite fighting game or favorite RPG skip your console due to an exclusivity deal Would you buy the same brand console in the hope that it won't happen again or the more popular brand?

Do you know 1 Xbox 1 user (just 1) who said I'll buy the next Xbox for the next street fighters game or the next final fantasy game?

[Hypertension140]

@shaenoid

Bethesda were also one of the biggest supporters for PSVR so f**k you Microsoft for taking that away.

[mark_parch]

That's one way to look at it. We now know that Phil Spencer delayed the game twice so there's a very realistic chance it would have released late 2021 and been nowhere near the quality we're actually going to get. It's also known that just before the acquisition Sony were in the process of trying to buy some type of exclusivity deal for the game so i'd argue the game is actually better off now due to the acquisition.

[Petebloodyonion]

Let me correct your statement
Starfield "a new unknown untested IP" could have been a multiplatform game enjoyed by "even" more gamers "Unlike FF16, the most popular RPG who's been restricted to the market leaders' platform only".

[tay8701]

And it would have sold better on ps. Can you say the same for FF? XBOX fans don't care about FF. Crisis core wasn't an exclusive game, and guess what it sold like wet dog crap on Xbox.

[Petebloodyonion]

@Tays8701
Why would Xbox gamers care about FF Crisis Core when the main game series has been butchered on Xbox?
Do you know 1 (just 1) Xbox1 user who said Hey I love Final Fantasy so I'll buy the next Xbox in the hope that there's a Final Fantasy game instead of the more popular console where I'm sure it's gonna be there?

Or let's use your logic I'm sure that just removing COD from Playstation for 1-2 years would not harm the IP or the PlayStation brand. It would be back (perhaps) but hey PS users just need to show commitment to COD by buying our Bo2 remaster spinoff in the meantime.
You don't need to answer the second part, Sony already answered by stating how disastrous it would be long term.
https://www.gamespot.com/ar...
https://www.gamespot.com/ar...

[343_Guilty_Spark]

It’s day one on PC and available on multiple cloud services.

Also the Bethesda was approved. Or Bugthesda correct?

[shinoff2183]

Starfield is gonna be a great game imo but it won't sell well. Alot of ps5 players would've bought this and made it a sh ton of money. Would've sold more on ps5 probably then any other gaming device.

[Ryuk_2007]

Just a heads up for those who only read the headlines but this is exactly what M$ wanted. Instead of waiting until August for the pre-trail, FTC took the bait that M$ was gonna close over them and filed an injunction. Now it jumped straight into the end game and in around 3 weeks the we'll know if it passes or blocked in America.

[S2Killinit]

Clearly you dont know the effect of an injunction and its significance.

[343_Guilty_Spark]

There is no significance. FTC now has even less time to make a compelling case.

[SullysCigar]

An injunction can also be extended. Another point lost on the xbox faithful. Even after the August FTC deadline, the CMA appeal will take FAR longer - possibly into next year.

[MIDGETonSTILTS17]

I love that Xbots are reading about “injunctions” instead of playing all of the games they bought an XsX for…

Drink more koolaid, I’ll be playing Returnal and Pavlov.

[S2Killinit]

@343
Ok. what do I know, Im just an attorney.

[shinoff2183]

Sure thing ryuk

You into q to

[talocaca]

The horrors! If this is blocked Microsoft might have to use its unlimited resources to make their own quality titles 😱

[FinalFantasyFanatic]

Oh no, they may have to use one of many of the studios they own to actually output some decent stuff, this is so un-competitive for Microsoft.

[Mikeyy]

It's ironic, Microsoft has more money then anyone on the planet, they could easily start new studios, and poach all the talent they want with insane, unheard of salaries, making them offers they can't refuse, and actually make good games, but they don't do that. Instead they buy up 3rd party juggernauts, and force them to stop supporting playstation. That's all it's about, Microsoft isn't heros is any of this. It's about hurting competition. They could give a shit about creating value for Xbox gamers.

We spent 69 billion to give you guys, games you where already going to get... they could easily cut deals to get games on gamepass without owning the companies, but they don't do it, because that wouldn't hurt sony...

[goldwyncq]

If Sony's the one buying Activision you people would be cheering them on. I don't recall anyone complaining when Playstation paid for those exclusive CoD deals last gen.

[AmUnRa]

Just like MS did on several games, its the same song with you guys.
By the way getting timed exclusive games is NOT the same as buying Third Party developers and a whole publisher and demand that games in development for the PS beiing scraped...apples and oranges here guys....

[MrSec84]

The issue is that Microsoft had already bought ZeniMax Media (Bethesda, etc), they have Xbox and Microsoft Studios, now they want to add another one of the biggest publishers in the world with Activision-Blizzard.

If Sony were buying Activision-Blizzard then it would be evening the odds.

Sony and MS both paid for exclusivity on CoD maps and Marketing, because it worked for both parties at the time, it's not like Sony could outspend Microsoft.

[raWfodog]

"If Sony were buying Activision-Blizzard then it would be evening the odds."

No, another 'wrong' does not make it right. Each company should invest more in their first-party studio titles if they want to 'compete'. This is going so far from where the industry should be heading.

[MrSec84]

@raWfodog: In your opinion, it's not good for the industry for Microsoft to be able to buy up everyone they want, then keep those games off of the platform that would arguably sell far more copies than XBox would.
Sony are perfectly within their right to protect the interests of their customers and the wider game buying community.

Why should Microsoft be allowed to buy the rights to masses of IPs, especially when those games have a far smaller audience on XBox compared to PlayStation?

[Mikeyy]

I take it you weren't born yet during the 360/ps3 era? Everything you supposedly despise, Microsoft was doing back then.

[ocelot07]

These people seemingly forget the 360/PS3 era. Or as you said where to young or not born at the time.

Fallout 3 and I believe Skyrim had timed exclusive dlc on Xbox.

Grand Theft Auto 4 had a fairly lengthy timed exclusive period on Xbox.

FIFA the one series that rivals COD each and every year in terms of casuals. Had full on exclusive legend cards for about 5 or 6 games.

Call of duty had timed exclusive dlc. Month long timed exclusives on new map packs if I remember correctly.

[raWfodog]

@ goldwyncq
I can't speak for anyone else but I don't think neither company should be trying to acquire a 'publisher' that has an umbrella over a wide variety of games. I don't even like them acquiring third-party studios. I want to go back to the time when the major third-party studios were independent and released multiplatform titles for all to enjoy, and it was up to the Nintendo, PlayStation and Xbox first party studios to release exclusives for their platforms.

[Auron]

Oh well...🤷‍♂️

[Petebloodyonion]

It's a logical step for the FTC.
MS and Activision will probably extend the agreement till next year since they are currently invested in legal actions.

[Eonjay]

I agree. The question really is what Activision will want from Microsoft in exchange for an extension. If they demand 10 Billion if the deal fails then Microsoft won't bite but I'm sure they will be more 'reasonable'.

[Petebloodyonion]

They will probably ask nothing since they are both willing to go the distance in court and Activision do wants to be bought.

[MIDGETonSTILTS17]

They’re already lucky to be kept afloat by Starfield, which originally had plans for ps5, too…

Would anybody be holding onto their Xbox without Starfield on the horizon this year?

They don’t make AAA’s… so why let them buy more AAA IPs?

[Abear21]

Wall Street needs to figure out how to optimize profits then they’ll allow it.

[mastershredder]

I'm just here for the comments on this one. Holy hell...grabs popcorn.

[YourMommySpoils]

It's time to bring down Activision and not support it.

[anast]

This is funny.

[SouljAx360]

Can we start blocking all third party exclusivity deals? People keep saying Sony is "investing" in 3rd party which is why they get exclusivity deals. But that is BS. Guarantee that if Microsoft were asked to match Sony's investment they would help pay for it too. Sony is making those deals to keep games away from Xbox and PC. As a PC gamer, I don't want to have to wait 2 years(1 year for it to come out, 1 year for it to get fixed) to be able to play FF games. And yes it works the other way around as well. People on PS5 shouldn't have a buy a Series S/X just to play Starfield especially since they may have been playing all of them on PS since FO3. The exclusivity shouldn't have started yet for BGS games. It's all BS.

[giovonni]

If that’s the case everyone should become a publisher and just put their games on one machine. I agree with you though their needs to be a strict law/rule to minimize Those kinds of third party deals, I feel like after this their will be a real hard look at how business is done in the gaming sector.

[giovonni]

Well, I hope the FTC is prepared MS has two days to respond with their Rebuttal. On top of that after doing research they will be in front of the same judge that dismissed the Meta court case, so the judicial order is very familiar with this case.

[sushimama]

Microsoft does not need Activision Blizzard to compete. Everyone knows that. They buy Bethesda and all those ip and studios. They are good

[giovonni]

Sony doesn’t need to buy exclusivity deals for popular games either to compete, but here we are. Businesses are going to do what they can to be the most attractive product. Activision wants to be brought by MS, MS can do it. If Sony had the money they would have did it too. They’re already sneaking in trying to make side deals. All fair in love war business and politics. This whole good ol boy company persona is lame.

[Jon61586]

I dont understand what the big deal is. Activision isnt the power house it once was outside of COd and that is just one game. Blizzard releases games every 10 years. I say let the deal go through and maybe activision might be get back.to whY thry once were.

[badz149]

welp...it's time to move your business out of the US now, right, MS?

[Noskypeno]

I'm an Xbox fan and I don't want this deal to go through. I don't know about the shareholding position, I just know that it can be manipulated. Many years ago, I was told that there was going to be another alternative for low calorie sweetener, but when they did the study they gave the rats the equivalent of 6 lbs of the sweetener and they developed cancer. The people that were told to invest in the other option, all made a good amount of money because of it. Would the other sweetener be a healthy alternative? I don't know, but giving the rats the equivalent of 6 lbs of anything would not be an accurate measurement. Like others have said, with this money they can buy multiple studios, including making a game that can rival COD that could be on gamepass.

[jaydiggler]

I'm confused with all the comments that this is a bad thing for Microsoft. They wanted this because the FTC just wants to delay delay delay and this forces a hearing in a couple weeks. Then the injunction hearing will last 5 days and if Microsoft wins they can close the deal before their July 18 deadline. Yes the UK is still blocking but it seems clear Microsoft is ok closing without them.

[UltimateOwnage]

Good