They did indeed, not that it pertains to the discussion at hand with government regulation.
Microsoft apparently offered Sony a 10 year deal for COF but don’t turned it down, possibly because they kind of want to use the franchise as a legal argument.
Sony’s response is completely logical once you game it out. Their end goal is to stop the sale, CoD isn’t Activision’s only franchise just its biggest one.
Yes, their complaints about CoD are simply a ploy to try and disrupt competition.
CoD bros should just be buying an Xbox anyways. It’s imperative that Sony gets fucked here. This is the beautiful future.
Heh, well, what they said is a little different. They said even if all Call of Duty players on Playstation switched over to Xbox, Playstation would still have a commanding lead as far as consoles. Of course, it’s a long document, maybe they’re interpreting one of the other stats they presented, there were a number of them, but that’s the one that stood out in my mind. The actual Sony lead in that scenario, like everything else in the document, is scissor percent.
Call of Duty is not replicable. Call of Duty is too entrenched for any rival, no matter how well equipped, to catch up. It has been the top-selling game for almost every year in the last decade and, in the first-person shooter (‘FPS’) genre, it is overwhelmingly the top-selling game. Other publishers do not have the resources or expertise to match its success. To give a concrete example, Electronic Arts — one of the largest third-party developers after Activision — has tried for many years to produce a rival to Call of Duty with its Battlefield series. Despite the similarities between Call of Duty and Battlefield — and despite EA’s track record in developing other successful AAA franchises (such as FIFA , Mass Effect , Need for Speed , and Star Wars: Battlefront) — the Battlefield franchise cannot keep up. As of August 2021, more than 400 million Call of Duty games had been sold, while Battlefield had sold just 88.7 million copies.”
Sony throwing shade on Battlefield
Translation: We have made an ton of money with this, and it is our gawd-given right to keep making tons of money.
I expected people to applaud the buyout because they’re on Game Pass, it’s an amazing deal already, and they want it to get even more games. The same sort of way lots were happy about T-mobile zero-rating Netflix, where they either didn’t think it through or concluded they don’t give a shit and just wanted to stream media on their commutes.
Surprised how many people are rabidly anti-Sony in here. Or is it pro-MS? I didn’t expect to see so much tribalism.
Anyway, I’ve never owned a Sony gaming console, I’ve owned several Xboxen, I’m subscribed to Game Pass, and I’m strongly against the purchase being permitted. Consolidation is always bad. The more players in the market, any market, the better.
I honestly don’t think it’s either. To me it’s mostly come across as eyerolling at Sony clutching pearls. Which is a very different thing than being anti-Sony.
I tend to agree with this, although I’m wary of using words like always or never. :) What’s weird to me is that this is the case that might have issues? Not the dozens of other mega-acquisitions over the past 20 years? Seems like a weird place to draw the line. I’m not opposed to this merger being blocked (although personally it would be good in the short term due to Game Pass) but I’m a little annoyed at the FTC being asleep at the wheel and only deciding to wake up for video games of all things.
Yup, exactly this.
Also the management and ownership of Acti-Blizz is especially horrid, and so that being replaced is a net good thing.
Having this be some Rubicon when things like Tencent exist, Sony’s own position, or even outside video games things like Disney-Fox acquisition is… amusing.
Well, this one is 5.4 times the size of the second-largest acquisition in the gaming space (of all time), when Take2 bought Zynga a couple months back, and MS can leverage its portfolio in an anticompetitive manner because they also make consoles and Game Pass.
Take2 buying Zynga was consolidation, and anticompetitive, but it can’t be leveraged to support another related business. Now if Facebook bought Zynga that would be a different matter.
I mean, the US has been so lax on this kind of thing since the good ol’ trust-bustin’ days that it all seems pretty arbitrary to me.
I just don’t think it comes close to requiring government intervention.
Yep. Consolidation across radio, Disney/Fox, telecommunications, finance and banking, etc? Rubberstamp it all. But wait, a video game merger? Time to draw a line in the sand and do their jobs for a change.
On one hand I’m glad to see mergers getting some scrutiny. On the other I’m saying “Really?!”.
IMHO all FTC anti-trust stuff since the GLBA Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act - Wikipedia has seemed like an out of date organization trying to assert its authority even though it does not really have any place. Kind of like the NCAA with regard to college sports.
It is just weird to me this deal gets scrutiny when Disney/Fox just went through? Disney added loads of fox owned content to their streaming service, removing it from others. Consolidation. They own Hulu now as well as ESPN.
How was that fair and this isn’t?
Things just need to be consistently applied.
Because their buddies stood to gain?
Only thing I can think of.
And, this is a “meaningless” merger they can put up a fight with zero political downside.