Video Gamers Sue Microsoft In US Court To Stop Activision Takeover (reuters.com) 49
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Microsoft was hit on Tuesday in U.S. court with a private consumer lawsuit claiming the technology company's $69 billion bid to purchase "Call of Duty" maker Activision Blizzard will unlawfully squelch competition in the video game industry. The complaint filed in federal court in California comes about two weeks after the U.S. Federal Trade Commission filed a case with an administrative law judge seeking to stop Microsoft, owner of the Xbox console, from completing the largest-ever acquisition in the video-gaming market. The private lawsuit also seeks an order blocking Microsoft from acquiring Activision. It was filed on behalf of 10 video game players in California, New Mexico and New Jersey.
The proposed acquisition would give Microsoft "far-outsized market power in the video game industry," the complaint alleged, "with the ability to foreclose rivals, limit output, reduce consumer choice, raise prices, and further inhibit competition." A Microsoft representative on Tuesday defended the deal, saying in a statement that it "will expand competition and create more opportunities for gamers and game developers." After the FTC sued, Microsoft President Brad Smith said, "We have complete confidence in our case and welcome the opportunity to present our case in court."
The proposed acquisition would give Microsoft "far-outsized market power in the video game industry," the complaint alleged, "with the ability to foreclose rivals, limit output, reduce consumer choice, raise prices, and further inhibit competition." A Microsoft representative on Tuesday defended the deal, saying in a statement that it "will expand competition and create more opportunities for gamers and game developers." After the FTC sued, Microsoft President Brad Smith said, "We have complete confidence in our case and welcome the opportunity to present our case in court."
Activision purchase by Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Activision purchase by Microsoft (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But I heard they get all their money from customers, so the bottom line is all about the customer.
Re: (Score:2)
Proof: See how Activision screwed over all the gamers with Diablo Immortal, Warcraft 3 remake, Diablo 3, WoW Retail, Hearthstone, etc and they are still a money making company
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, what? I thought companies paid their share holders, not the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
No acquisition in history ever benefited the customer. It's always about the company greed and bottom line, never about the customer.
Hmm, I feel I could name a couple:
1. Google acquiring Android Inc - Android would have never competed with Apple like it has without that merger
2. Disney purchasing Pixar - Pixar was able to increase the number of movies it produced, which were still of high quality
And that is without any research.
Re: Activision purchase by Microsoft (Score:1)
"none have been forced to exclude playstation"
'forced' nice weasel word. the school bully didnt force me to stop talking to you. he just had a friendly chat with me.
lets look at bethesdas last few major releases:
oblivion
skyrim
fallout 4
fallout 76
elder scrolls online
all those released on ms windows, ms xbox and sony playstation.
now lets look at bethesdas next 2 games in the making since microsoft bought them:
star field - microsoft windows and microsoft xbox only. no playstation
elder scrolls 6 - microsoft win
Re:Activision purchase by Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
While I don't like this deal I have to agree with this point, Activision as a parent corporation is not good and has in most gamers opinions been a negative for Blizzard whose reputation was fairly sterling before being acquired.
It's fair to criticize MS for becoming way too big in the space and for their other... indiscretions in other product lines but as far as their XBox Game Studios is concerned they appear to be pretty developer friendly.
If anything I personally would prefer of MS took Blizz by itself and left Activision and Kotick to the wind.
Re: (Score:2)
While I don't like this deal I have to agree with this point, Activision as a parent corporation is not good and has in most gamers opinions been a negative for Blizzard whose reputation was fairly sterling before being acquired.
It's fair to criticize MS for becoming way too big in the space and for their other... indiscretions in other product lines but as far as their XBox Game Studios is concerned they appear to be pretty developer friendly.
If anything I personally would prefer of MS took Blizz by itself and left Activision and Kotick to the wind.
I've normally nothing nice to say of MS, but their games division hasn't been that bad. They still make decent games like Age of Empires and don't seem to have gone down the sell half a game and the rest in 20 $6 packages route. I'm a member of the PCGMR though, so spend little thought on the console peasant world.
MS's biggest sin IMHO is trying to force me to get an XBOX live account to play single player Halo (erm... I just erm... liberated a copy of the MCC instead and shit, I was ready to pay full pr
Re: (Score:2)
Activision-Blizzard
later renamed Microsoft Skype LinkedIn GitHub ZeniMax Bethesda id software [219 more companies] Vivendi Games Sierra On-Line Activision Infocom Blizzard
Can't be real gamers (Score:3)
LOL No (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a single video gamer is involved here. Microsoft was sued by lawyers hoping to make a buck, nothing more. An epically pointless waste of time of the legal system, a system which is already seeing an actually relevant lawsuit in progress by the FTC.
Re: (Score:2)
Has the FTC ever actually denied a merger?
Re: (Score:2)
The FTC doesn't have the power to deny mergers. The only thing they can do is take legal action to get a court to deny the merger. That is what they are doing here (and have done in plenty of other cases).
Re: (Score:1)
_Almost_ never. But close to 100%.
My last 2 companies got bought. Our lawyers basically said, "Fill out this paperwork, don't lie about anything, pay the fees and it'll be ok". They had zero concern our deals would even be looked at. Rubber stamp.
Only big potentially political issue mergers are at risk and most of those go through anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously doubt you have ever owned a company let alone one profitable enough to be bought by a bigger company.
Re: (Score:1)
Then you'd be wrong but your opinion is irrelevant because you're a mindless idiot, easily triggered and big time jelly.
"I don't like your politics therefore you must be a moron incapable of running a business or retiring early!" is your point. That's just stupid. There are people all over the politically spectrum who have been successful in business and also failures.
You can't imagine how someone with a different world view than you could possibly be successful. Easy. I worked my ass off 7 days a week
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously doubt you have ever owned a company let alone one profitable enough to be bought by a bigger company.
What are you talking about. He is way smarter than you. No seriously check his username.
Unfortunately he's also a prolific troll.
Not since the rule change (Score:2)
Biden just changed their policy, so that for the first time in 20+ years competition is now a factor. This means Microsoft can't just pinky swear to keep prices down and get approval.
That said, we've been voting with our guts since the 90s, and the courts and regulators are pretty well packed and captured. So Biden's change might not amount to much. If we
Re: (Score:2)
Has the FTC ever actually denied a merger?
Not the point I was making. But yes the FTC is taking action against this merger.
The point was that the FTC is using the same courts that these ambulance chasers are, so this is literally a waste of time. Either the FTC wins and the merger is denied, or the FTC loses and the court decides there's nothing wrong. A few fuckwits with a separate lawsuit is irrelevant.
It's honestly hard to see how this won't simply get thrown out on standing either. When has a common person ever had any standing to intervene in
I don't see how they're gonna make a buck here (Score:2)
Furthermore it's a private lawsuit, not class action. So you can't use that trick where Microsoft settles the class action suit and gets immunity from further lawsuits.
This very likely is actual gamers that don't want this merger to go through. And for damned good reason I'd
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about gamers, but market consolidation is almost universally bad. The Biden administration has taken a step in the right direction, taking a hard-line on mergers and acquisitions, but what we really need is a real "trust buster" like Teddy Roosevelt again.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't get it....
People are hoping that if there is diversity in the gaming industry that there will be more innovation.
There hasn't been any real innovation since about 2005. Just regurgitation of dead end game types.
This is somewhat caused by the gaming industry and gaming distribution turning into a monolithic industry.
Re: (Score:1)
I get it perfectly. How is activision being acquired reducing gaming diversity? I already covered this. Activision is a publisher. They make very few original games. Being part of an even bigger monster will be absolutely zero change to the number of original games made.
If you think an independent activision will somehow result in greater game quality then why hasn't it already done so?
Re: (Score:2)
Ok wise guy, what was the last innovative game then?
This is just a regurgitation of the meme that everything was better when you were younger.
Yet more stupid lawsuits (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yet more stupid lawsuits (Score:4, Interesting)
That's not the right argument - every console has exclusive titles. The question is would Microsoft take something that is not presently exclusive, and make it exclusive or add restrictions that otherwise wouldn't exist? The answer "almost assuredly" - and this is what makes it anticompetitive.
Re: (Score:2)
How about with the biggest title and franchise they've ever had: Halo.
Halo was originally developed to be multiplatform and run on both Apple's and Microsoft's platforms. By the time it was demo'd at MacWorld, it was nearly complete, with all the cross-platform code done and only some graphics and performance tweaks pending. It was going to be a simultaneous release, and the hype was intense and everywhere. So what happened? Exactly what the GP mentioned. Microsoft bought Bungie and cancelled the Mac v
Re:Yet more stupid lawsuits (Score:4, Insightful)
And leave billions of dollars on the table?
The only product Activision has is Call of Duty. Call of Duty's #1 platform is PlayStation, which I believe is much larger than #2 PC and #3 Xbox. Microsoft, in spending billions acquiring ABK (Activision/Blizzard/King) would be foolish to leave all the Playstation money on the table making it Xbox exclusive. Ditto PC money.
Microsoft could, or they could do what they did with Minecraft and just have it on so many platforms, they basically earn money on all of them. And chances are, I'm sure the people at Microsoft know that Call of Duty is better on all platforms than on Xbox only. That is, whatever they gain in Xbox marketshare if they make CoD Xbox only, will be smaller than what CoD on Playstation will bring them in income.
What Microsoft might make Xbox only would be all the smaller titles that ABK doesn't currently sell anymore. Their back catalog might be a "Activision Replay" that's Xbox only. But given it's back catalog retro titles, I doubt many people would honestly miss that Atari 2600 title being brought back for only Xbox.
Plus, other interesting developments including bringing Bethesda stuff from their own proprietary launchers back into Steam. Microsoft has their own app store, and yet they constantly release game son both it and Steam.
Sony's concerns are more tactical in nature. First, Sony would have to pay Microsoft for exclusives. That's such a ugly concept to Sony (pay money to competitor?) as a Japanese company, and why 007 Goldeneye never made it to Xbox360. (NoA got a deal of a lifetime - all of Rare's N64 titles - for free - for Virtual Console, in exchange for 007 Goldeneye. NoA Reggie Fils-Aime thought it was a done deal, but NoJ turned it down.). The fact that Nintendo and Microsoft are buddy-buddy now goes to show they see each other less as competitors and more complimentary. The biggest competition Microsoft can bring is through Valve (Steam Deck), but Microsoft and Valve are two separate companies and neither has control of the other.
The second tactical problem for Sony is PS6, because Call of Duty will be on PS6, and Sony would be wary of making Microsoft aware of what the PS6 will bring because hey, Xbox.
Even worse, what if Microsoft were to release a Xbox Dev Kit that could target PS6? Suddenly developers would have a single click deployment from Visual Studio that lets them build Xbox, PS6 (and probably PS5), and PC from the same interface. And most likely debug as well. That would be significantly scary to Sony because it could be the backdoor route to not having exclusives - Microsoft's developer toolset has been considered to be better in the end.
Re: Yet more stupid lawsuits (Score:2)
One other thing Sony is worried about is game pass. Adding CoD to game pass will make it even harder for PlayStation plus to compete.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it wouldn't. It just means Sony has to step up their Playstation Plus game and make it more worth the money.
I don't see that as a negative to anyone but Sony who suddenly has to *gasp* compete. And gamers who subscribe would benefit, which I don't see as a negative of the acquisition.
Microsoft might even go and ask Sony how much would Sony want to pay them to have CoD part
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As it stands now, you only have crybabies who want the games they want on Playstation
You don't even have that since they are currently getting the games on the Playstation and Microsoft has stated on the record they will continue to be available on the Playstation.
Literally no gamers is crying about this. It's a bunch of lawyers who are throwing a frivolous lawsuit in the mix and needed to attach the names of a couple of "gamers" into their lawsuit.
The Whale... (Score:2)
Somebody really wants to keep their pay-for content on Diablo Immortal relevant enough to sue in order to keep it.
Can't anyone make video games? (Score:2)
There are literally hundreds of studios and thousands of indie developers. We should probably sue the publishers and marketplaces that are the gatekeepers.
how? (Score:2)