Incorrect. The FTC gets involved in tech acquisitions all the time. Such as the Illumia/grail merger in September. Which the FTC fought in it's own administrative court, and promptly lost. In fact, the FTC/DOJ lost all three of the cases they took to court that month. As for Nvidia/Arm? They were getting pressure from just about every regulator, not just the FTC.
You can't just make shit up as you please? Is that how you try to debate? Does it ever actually work? While I guess you could claim the US government won the case in the 90's on the technicality that it was in 1999 when the verdict was reached. But that doesn't change the fact is that MS promptly appealed the verdict, and that verdict was overturned. MS didn't avoid a breakup in the settlement process, as there was no settlement process. No matter what reality you try to perpetuate, ultimately MS appealed, and the verdict was overturned. That means
It indeed was a good try. Because it worked in completely dismantling your argument.
Absolutely. The other side of the pond's regulators have more teeth to their bite so to speak. The CMA/EU have more authority for sure. This would be a far bigger deal if it were either of those two doing this instead of the FTC. And ultimately that may be the case, it's just that the FTC's release today isn't what many are assuming.
Lol you tried it.
Does FTC really have a fake case? Try looking at it objectively, and you'll see that it is MS with a weak claim.
See. It's right there in your own link.United States v. Microsoft Corp. - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
No, this is not an accurate reading of it. MS appealed the case, and the appeals court threw out the judgement of breakup, while NOT overturning the statement of fact (that MS was engaging in anticompetitive behavior). Throughout that did not get overturned, and still holds to this day.
Ok, you are definitely being ridiculous. Did you read what you posted? You just copy and pasted the FACT that the DOJ is no longer seeking to break up Microsoft. What does that disprove? No one is asking for the dissolution of MS and you posting that single bit out of context and it being irrelevant to the conversation makes what you just did a bit odd.
They'd probably be getting the same pushback with this purchase.
Logic and reading comprehension mixed with common sense are such a rare thing. Thank you.
Successfully too I might add.
There's nothing false about that statement as far as Microsoft withholding content from it's gaming rivals. That's not what you said though. You said that MS buying up 20 IP's and keeping it from consumers. And while I know it might be difficult for those two marbles rolling around in your head to conclude... There is a difference between the two.
See, there you go again with confusing the two. It's funny how you read what they say, change it to what you say, and then pretend as if the two were identical.
It seems as if they LIED because you haven't read the actual report. You've just read the cherry picked hot takes that are making the rounds on twitter today. Also, please show me where anyone besides the FTC has cited that as raising a red flag globally. That ZeniMax report was from the EU. So why hasn't the EU themselves cited it as a reason, or even the CMA for that matter?
Yes, go read that entire write up. Go read what it says... All of it. And not just what your fanboy worshipping hero on twitter posted.
Did you have a good day? how was dinner? See, people like you aren't worth arguing with and I would generally just pretend you didn't exist. I however will be generous and not stoop to your level. You obviously are picking what you want out of not only that article but all of the other articles and information that is readily available. It is also free for you to read. (resisting the human urge to lash back out and stoop to your level) I will assume you are being stubborn and not really attempting to digest the information for what it actually is and are only seeing what you want, or holding on to whatever arguing point you think you have. (bad faith)
116 just sums up what MS said in 108 and 109, that it is highly unlikely they would make the games exclusive.
116 outlines the reasons why they're exclusive, outcome is unlikely doesn't mean MS doesn't foresee those games as system sellers.
And 125 states that EU came to the conclusion that even afterward, there would be no material impact on the competition.
Ultimately, the Circuit Court overturned Jackson's holding that Microsoft should be broken up as an illegal monopoly. However, the Circuit Court did not overturn Jackson's findings of fact, and held that traditional antitrust analysis was not equipped to consider software-related practices like browser tie-ins.[26] The case was remanded back to the D.C. District Court for further proceedings on this matter, with Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly presiding.[27]
I can go along with that point, and had that actually been your initial point, we wouldn't have had this conversation. But that wasn't really your point, or at least that's not what it appeared to be.
The first is irrelevant since no one said that. The FTC noted that MS had the same type of language in that PDF for the EC for upcoming Bethesda games as for CoD. We are seeing the same pattern in both cases. This is also why many are saying that MS lied to the EC, because it can definetly be interpreted as them not making future games exclusive.
Please buy Ubisoft!!
I saw many people claiming MS lied. Did MS tell regulators the same things about Bethesda titles as they did about CoD? I don't recall any ten year pledges for Starfield, Redfall, and the next single player Elder Scrolls. More importantly why is it a problem when a MS first party makes an exclusive game? Is MS just not allowed to do so? Regulators realize other platforms have exclusives right?
Go back a few quotes und you will find the statement they made to the EC, about 5 months before they announced Starfield and Redfall as exclusives. No is saying that MS shouldnt be allowed to make their games exclusive. But making it look like that releasing future Bethesda games exclusively is highly unlikely at the current time and then announcing 2 (+TES6) as exclusives a few months later can be seen as a lie.
What happened with updates to ESO, Fallout 76 and Doom? Surely MS could have made expansions to their newly purchased IP exclusive in an attempt to make their platform more attractive right? I also saw that Quake remake come out not too long ago. I assume that didn't hit PlayStation right?
So what companies are Microsoft allowed to buy and what companies are Sony allowed to buy?
Do you seriously compare updates to existing games, which btw they said they would still support thos on other platforms, to upcoming games?
If this was the case Nintendo should get all the things
It sounds like another 'organic growth' argument. I honestly think it was the size that got the negative attention. Couple that with an activist FTC and you get a suit based on optics and not the law. I'm guessing 8-10 billion will be the upper limit but that also assumes Sony won't say anything. Although seeing what people are saying about Bethesda I would not be surprised to see a suit to force MS to divest from them too.
It hasn't nor has FTC filed for any injunctions so far
-
Please don't spent too much on the celebrations just yet, this might come back to bite you
In either case the company would have separate shareholders and an appointed board with an obligation to do what's best for that company and not a single entity.
Well people are claiming MS has lied. They directly stated they would support existing titles but I don't recall them promising all future unreleased Bethesda games to PlayStation. We've see what a MS promise looks like and this wasn't it. The fact remains that they did not have to put any games on other platforms but they have on multiple titles. Odd for them now to be 'liars'.
Like i said, their statement to the EC regarding future games can be interpreted in different ways. If you think they didnt lie then that is fine. Others might disagree.
Of course, why leave money on the table when the general public is chill with it from the market leader? Like paying for online.
