FTC To Review Microsoft's $68.7B Deal To Buy Activision Blizzard (cnet.com) 37
The US Federal Trade Commission will undertake an antitrust review of Microsoft's proposed acquisition of scandal-plagued video game giant Activision Blizzard, reported Bloomberg on Monday. CNET: Microsoft last month announced plans to buy Activision Blizzard in an all-cash deal valued at $68.7 billion. The deal, expected to close within the next 18 months, would make Microsoft the world's third-largest video game maker and give it control of popular franchises including the war simulation series Call of Duty and the fantasy behemoth World of Warcraft. The FTC will reportedly oversee the review instead of the Justice Department, which also has authority over antitrust enforcement. It review will look at whether combining Microsoft, which makes Xbox consoles, and Activision Blizzard could harm competition by limiting rivals' access to major games, according to Bloomberg.
I don't mind (Score:3)
Now let's talk about prescription medication, shall we? Or retail for that matter. Building a network of warehouses like Walmart or Amazon to be competitive is a damn sight more capital-intensive than developing a game.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think MS might have a competitive advantage when they can spam ads about their new game on a billion Desktops at the click of a button?
Re: (Score:2)
I think the OP is just annoyed his specific complaint isn't being addressed (not saying it shouldn't be).
I applaud this action.
First reason is that AAA games are all made by a few big players and this just consolidates it even more. Microsoft owns a bunch of games, gaming devices, gaming operating systems, etc. This is a good thing to stop.
Second reason is that the CEO of Activision Blizzard deserves much worse than a golden parachute from Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
Second reason is that the CEO of Activision Blizzard deserves much worse than a golden parachute from Microsoft.
So you also think that golden parachute is the primary reason this deal is happening at all?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When they do that, its an antitrust issue.
Until then, its not.
Microsoft can have the monopoly, thats not a problem, its if they *use* it anticompetitively, thats when it becomes an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you on principles. But that does not mean we can't look at multiple anti-trust case at the same time. I am sure there is more than one guy work at the FTC! :)
Re: (Score:2)
AAA titles and indie games are not the same market in the same way that an Airbus 380 and a Cessna are both airplanes, but they're not competing in the same market, either.
The amount of AAA publishers is rather limited, and already in too few hands. We see it clearly in how little pressure there is to innovate. That's why we see rehash after rehash of series and franchises and proven game concepts. The indie market is more competitive, with lots of players, that is why you see experimental and innovative ga
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? Your game competes with all other games, especially ones that are released for the same platform (which is what matters most). AAA or not is an indicator for price, innovation (mostly lack thereof), visual fidelity and marketing budget. But it's *not* a different market.
Re: (Score:2)
I literally just explained why not.
Just because they're both games doesn't mean they have the same audience. If you sell ice cream and I have an indian restaurant, we are both selling food, but we aren't competition. People don't EITHER eat an ice cream OR a spicy dinner. These choices are independent of each other. Likewise, people might choose which big MMORPG they play, but they don't go "hm, World of Warcraft or indie racing game, can only play one... difficult choice..."
There's also the simple fact tha
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I know, I just disagree. Not everybody is rigid in terms of preferences (I am now that I am older, I was far more open when I was a kid), so I believe that a gamer (especially younger) could look at both AAA/indie for considering a game purchase, even as either/or, but
Re: (Score:2)
I would agree that the markets are not ENTIRELY seperated - there are some gamers which would pick up an indie title INSTEAD OF an AAA release. Just like some billionaire might opt for a Learjet instead of an Airbus for his next private jet.
The Steam algorithm is a good example. An indie game's success depends a lot on it. An AAA title can basically not care. Most people who pick it up on Steam didn't discover it there, they already knew about it through ads, word-of-mouth, game tests, let's plays, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the bit they leave out after "therefore they don't compete with us" is "and now they never will" and as a result you pay a lot more for lots of things you can't live without beca
Re: (Score:2)
There are many areas were anti-trust is a valid concern, but computer games are pretty low on my list.
Good for you? As long as it doesn't cross your line in the sand of your subjective belief its a non-starter? Holy hell, try some logic next timelogic?
Re: (Score:2)
Simple enough for you?
Re: (Score:2)
The logic is that Microsoft cannot monopolize computer games.
Simple enough for you?
The barriers to entry are low enough that there are lots of indie game companies that make good games.
You imply its a non-starter because indies already make the difference. That is moronic, and literal then defines the AAA studios as monopolies as they don't promote new, different or evolving ideas in the space.
Sounds like its simple enough, even for you.
The barrier to entry in modern AAA (Score:2)
The bigger issue is the console market as a whole (and the living room, which Bill the Gates has been after since the 90s).
Without COD it's likely Sony is going to lose massive ground on console sales. It's clear that this is a response to the PS5 outselling the Xbox 2 to 1.
I could easily this and maybe an EA acquisiti
Re: (Score:2)
There are many areas were anti-trust is a valid concern, but computer games are pretty low on my list. The barriers to entry are low enough that there are lots of indie game companies that make good games.
If this was a gaming company acquiring another gaming company, I might be inclined to agree with you. The reason I think one might think a little bit more about it is because of the vertical integration aspects of it, and vertical integration is the enemy of competition everywhere.
Re: (Score:1)
né ?
70 billion to dominate , if you want a job in town you can either get bought or stay poor - i dont care much about blizzivision since they were nazi already anyway, as was shown in the last years so they should fit right in, and in a world where most cant afford a console and the rest cant get one b/c the only chips left are potatoez even 140 billion takeovers wont push xbox subscriptions
but in principle all of crotter inc, not just microtter
Lol. (Score:2)
It review will look at whether combining Microsoft, which makes Xbox consoles, and Activision Blizzard could harm competition by limiting rivals' access to major games
Obviously they will say "oh sure we'll still sell to Sony" until the deal closes ... But their history demonstrates otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Microsoft would love it if Sony allowed gamepass into their walled garden.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, not a major antitrust issue, IMO (Score:3)
The plethora of "Indie" game releases, alone, shows there's no monopoly danger here if Microsoft buys a major video game studio. One might argue it reduces the number of the already few studios big enough to produce modern AAA game titles? But this isn't like major cellular carriers, where all the "little guys" are stuck using their towers to even have a business.
Honestly, the major game releases have gotten so elaborate, they're much more like producing a feature film than anything else. I don't think the code at the core of them is anything special, that any decent team of software devs couldn't manage to do on their own? Most of the production budget goes to all the movie-quality cut scenes, the voice acting often done by professionals, the musical scores, the quality of the animations/artwork, and often a goal of a massive size/scope for the "world" the game takes place on/in. If you scale all of that back, you can still wind up with a game with identical mechanics and playability.
All of this makes me wonder why the big movie studios don't pivot more towards opening their own game studio divisions? It seems like your Columbia, Miramax or 21st. Century Fox would have a much in-house talent for producing AAA games as Microsoft?
Re: (Score:2)
The plethora of "Indie" game releases, alone, shows there's no monopoly danger here if Microsoft buys a major video game studio.
Yes, there is.
AAA titles and indie titles don't compete in the same market, except to the very naive. I am an indie developer. I cannot even dream of matching up with any major studio. Not in marketing, exposure, player count, access to media, production value, resources - literally nothing even compares except for the category description "game" on the final product.
It's like saying that Airbus and Boing merging isn't a problem because there are plenty of companies making single-engine prop planes like Ces
re: Indie vs AAA titles (Score:2)
I think you might have missed my point, because sure - I agree with you that there's a huge difference between the two.
My assertion is that really, the things that make AAA titles special are mostly a combination of scale/scope and the greater "production value". A clever game idea is a clever game idea, even without all of that. (Look how many people played and enjoyed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
That's the polar opposite of movie-like graphics or elaborate musical scores.
I feel like Nintendo still g
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no. Much of what you say is right. And I agree entirely on Nintendo. The Wii had sub-par graphics even for its time, but the games were just FUN, while many other games on the more powerful consoles were all visuals and little substance.
I disagree that AAA and indie are only a big pile of cash apart. The development process of an AAA title is very different from an indie title. There are many more stakeholders involved, many more compromises, and much less room to have an innovative idea and stick w
Re: (Score:2)
Top sellers are names that are completely unexpected... for us older gamers.
Apple is the #1 in gaming revenue, thanks to the App Store: https://appleinsider.com/artic... [appleinsider.com]
There is also Tencent, which grew large with their mobile and ported content, but now invested in a lot of western studios. Just recently their increased their portfolio, and own or have minority stake in a lot of companies, including activision blizzard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Btw, Activision also owns King, which make Candy Crush
Re: (Score:2)
This acquisition will have no problems passing (Score:1)
nah... never... (Score:3)
whether combining Microsoft, which makes Xbox consoles, and Activision Blizzard could harm competition by limiting rivals' access to major games
Please... they (*cough* Bungie) would never, ever... (*cough* Halo) do such a thing (*cough* Mac-exclusive turned into Xbox launch title).
Re: (Score:2)
whether combining Microsoft, which makes Xbox consoles, and Activision Blizzard could harm competition by limiting rivals' access to major games
Please... they (*cough* Bungie) would never, ever... (*cough* Halo) do such a thing (*cough* Mac-exclusive turned into Xbox launch title).
Oh no, Microsoft took Bungie from developing for an audience of 50 to 50 million? And please, do you think platform exclusive titles didn't exist before the Xbox?
Re: (Score:2)
They existed, but Halo was already in development and announced as a Mac title. Bungie was a Mac-exclusive developer, and they were doing quite ok.
The point is that the idea that MS planned acquisition wouldn't harm other platforms is naive given that MS has done exactly that before.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a lot of speculation. Yes, they probably welcomed the big pile of cash MS threw at them. They were not exactly competing with the very big studios, all true.
But again, the point is: MS already used acquisition to turn competitor products into their own exclusives. Anyone now saying that their acquisition of Activision certainly won't harm their competitors is living under a rock.
Issue is more about platform access (Score:2)
Many in this thread have already noted there are a plethora of indie and other large game studios to where this is likely not really an antitrust issue "yet" despite the probable negatives of such consolidation in the industry. I see it a bit like Disney whereas it's true they control an outsized proportion of their industry but it's not something that really affects people. I can excise just about everything Disney does out of my life and not really be materially affected whereas something like Comcast d