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

  • averyminya@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think everyone saying market consolidation is bad is missing the point for this particular one.

    This isn’t Google buying and killing another product. This isn’t AT&T buying and merging something. This is the failed company Activision that bought Blizzard and tarnished its name and branding once again being sold off.

    What’s more, this is (effectively) the death of Activision. The bane on gaming since it first started mouthing syllables to the words “corporate profits”.

    I can only really see this as a good thing from pretty much any angle you try to look at it from. The fact that the only thing all the comments here have to say is that “consolidation bad” should be very telling. I’m no fan of Microsoft, but they generally let departments have a vision and execute them. They seem to have less awful stories than most tech cultures, so one would imagine that going from managers who don’t care or are actively participating in hazing you to a place where you are given the space to foster your creative ideas… I’m gonna say this consolidation is probably a good thing if only because of the small chance that the workplace culture changes. In regards to the company, there may even finally be a litany of IP have a chance of seeing the light of day again!

    Time will tell of course but I’d say all you need to do is read the timeline. The last decade has been nothing but awful actions from Blizzard leading up to the buyout, ranging from people doing multiple different boycotts against them for Blitzchang to their now parent company Activision just going full 1970. Microsoft will never be a golden pinnacle of perfection but they haven’t been fostering workplaces where people feel fear and have their freaking bodily fluids stolen.

    I guess I’ll put it this way. Would you rather have the execs behind CoD and WoW or would you rather have the execs behind Halo and Starfield?

    Both suck but one is clearly trying to allow space for heart to exist while having lots of skeletons and decomposing corpses in the closet while the other is whipping its junk out and rubbing it in your face while laughing about making skeletons… too much? lol

    • Hdcase@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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.

      • liminis@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year 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?

        • phillaholic@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They will be anyway, Microsoft doesn’t know how to run studios. They have little to show for in the last 23 years.

      • CO_Chewie@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year 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.

        • Hdcase@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year 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@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year 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.

        • NightOwl@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year 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.

      • phillaholic@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • Ram@lemmy.ramram.ink
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        only wanted to make sure it was extinguished on other systems?

        I hope you’re similarly malicious about Sony’s exclusives too.

        • Hdcase@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, ask me when Sony buys an entire publisher and makes all their future games exclusive.

          • CO_Chewie@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I like the use of the ‘publisher’ qualifier so that there can’t be talk of the numerous studios Sony has acquired over the years that only produce games for Playstation.

      • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year 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.

          • lazynooblet@lazysoci.al
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s likely it would if been marketed as one, just like I’m sure it’ll have Microsoft plastered all over it when the time comes.

            The lesson here is all large corporations can’t be trusted.

        • Hdcase@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think that’s true. Microsoft was afraid of this happening but there was zero evidence it was going to.

    • MJBrune@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t see this as a bad thing but it’s also not a great thing. It’s like watching one village-crushing giant team up with another village-crushing giant because one of the giants isn’t crushing enough villages to be healthy. So they will now crush villages together in hopes both can eat a lot better.

      It’s like aww, they found family… But also they’ll probably crush us at noon so there is that.

    • Dahjoos@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year 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@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year 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!

    • averyminya@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      To be clear, overall I don’t disagree that more consolidation is bad. It’s literally just this instance. Activision needs to die and be restructured.

      • Andy@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah, this is like watching two bad parents fight for custody of a child. Microsoft is ab-so-lutely going to limit the reach and quality of this game off their own system. They might fulfill the letter, but their intentions are clear.

        • CoderKat@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It does (on the website – if you’re using an app, that’s on your app creator). OP simply hasn’t replied to any comments in the thread yet. Last I saw, kbin was missing the OP indicator, but that shouldn’t affect you on beehaw.

          • kelvinjps@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m seeing it from the browser, I’m from the beehaw instance, I didn’t see the op indicator, I saw it was by the username