Well, the results are here. In the USA the FTC was trying to block Microsoft from acquiring Activision Blizzard but Microsoft has won the fight. Now Microsoft are one big step closer to actually properly closing the deal, and a rather big consolidation of the gaming industry given how big Activision Blizzard are.
As per the decision:
Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision has been described as the largest in tech history. It deserves scrutiny. That scrutiny has paid off: Microsoft has committed in writing, in public, and in court to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation for 10 years on parity with Xbox. It made an agreement with Nintendo to bring Call of Duty to Switch. And it entered several agreements to for the first time bring Activision’s content to several cloud gaming services.
This Court’s responsibility in this case is narrow. It is to decide if, notwithstanding these current circumstances, the merger should be halted—perhaps even terminated—pending resolution of the FTC administrative action. For the reasons explained, 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.
This means the temporary restraining order against the acquisition will be removed on July 14th, unless the FTC obtains a "stay pending appeal from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals".
Microsoft still have a fight ahead in the UK though, since the CMA (Competition and Markets Authority) blocked the deal but naturally Microsoft is appealing the decision with a hearing set to begin on July 28th. So they're not completely out of the woods yet but it's probable Microsoft will end up winning there too. Update 16:21 UTC - Brad Smith, Vice Chair and President Microsoft, put a statement on Twitter:
After today's court decision in the U.S., our focus now turns back to the UK. While we ultimately disagree with the CMA’s concerns, we are considering how the transaction might be modified in order to address those concerns in a way that is acceptable to the CMA. In order to prioritize work on these proposals, Microsoft and Activision have agreed with the CMA that a stay of the litigation in the UK would be in the public interest and the parties have made a joint submission to the Competition Appeal Tribunal to this effect.
What do you think to this outcome?
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
Quoting: mr-victoryHmmm . . . how fundamentally incompatible with Wine? Like, what are the chances it could be made to work? Or is it a legal incompatibility?Quoting: Purple Library GuyI don't have a good memory for acronyms; what's a UWP?Universal Windows Platform. The package format used by Microsoft Store and PC Game Pass. UWP is incompatible with Wine, therefore anything in UWP is a no-go on Linux. The problem is that if Actibilzzard games get locked down to Game Pass or MS Store they cannot be played on Linux.
0 Likes
mr-victory Jul 12, 2023
Quoting: Purple Library GuyHmmm . . . how fundamentally incompatible with Wine?AFAIK UWP apps use totally different APIs which aren't implemented in Wine so to get an UWP app running, a lot of functions should be added to Wine. Nobody has bothered to do this yet.
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: HelmetI don't really like the whole monopoly going on, but maybe it'll be some kind of good. I mean, we've got Halo Infinite on Steam deck. Maybe it'll be a boon for Linux gaming in some indirect way. Maybe Activision and Blizzard games will come to Steam instead of needing another launcher.
So, the Activision games are pretty much all available on Steam. The couple CoD games that were BattleNet only for PC were all released on Steam, as well as the latest one. Also, the last couple Crash and Spyro games were on Steam. The only recent one that had a PC release that I can think of that is not on Steam is Tony Hawk 1 + 2, which is on Epic Store. (Crash Team Racing: Nitro-Fueled didn't have a PC release.)
0 Likes
boltronics Jul 13, 2023
Looking into my crystal ball... With all that Blizzard talent, the next Halo Wars game will blow your socks off.
MS will get a small studio to revive Activision's Dark Reign franchise. It gets followed up a year later with a big StarCraft cross-over spin-off.
All coming to Steam too! (And mobile, but whatever.)
EA will now recognise this underserved gap in the market, and fight back hard to compete with new AAA blockbusters of EA's C&C/RA franchises.
Hey I can dream!
MS will get a small studio to revive Activision's Dark Reign franchise. It gets followed up a year later with a big StarCraft cross-over spin-off.
All coming to Steam too! (And mobile, but whatever.)
EA will now recognise this underserved gap in the market, and fight back hard to compete with new AAA blockbusters of EA's C&C/RA franchises.
Hey I can dream!
0 Likes
wvstolzing Jul 13, 2023
Quoting: GroganThere's no way they'd have chosen that mickey mouse operating system on its own merits. DOS (well, CP/M at the time) was utter garbage, it was sold for a song
CP/M wasn't garbage (http://www.digitalresearch.biz/CPM.HTM); it was doing very well at the time (all the beefier micros capable of doing any sort of serious work had a port of it; it was a serious breakthrough in making micros useful for office work. Even the C64 got a cartridge extension eventually). Digital Research & Gary Kildall almost made the deal with IBM; as to why it fell through, there are many legends -- though I wouldn't rule out secret MS interference.
MS then paid a small company in Seattle to put together a shitty clone of CP/M; I believe they had some sort of distribution agreement with Digital Research; so essentially they breached whatever agreement was in place, & then plagiarized the software into DOS. Then they convinced (?!) IBM to license it per machine -- a trick that Bill Gates had tried on Commodore earlier w/ respect to BASIC, only to get rejected by Commodore's founder & then-CEO Jack Tramiel. Tramiel told Gates, "I'm already married."
Last edited by wvstolzing on 13 July 2023 at 3:55 pm UTC
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: wvstolzingHa!Quoting: GroganThere's no way they'd have chosen that mickey mouse operating system on its own merits. DOS (well, CP/M at the time) was utter garbage, it was sold for a song
CP/M wasn't garbage (http://www.digitalresearch.biz/CPM.HTM); it was doing very well at the time (all the beefier micros capable of doing any sort of serious work had a port of it; it was a serious breakthrough in making micros useful for office work. Even the C64 got a cartridge extension eventually). Digital Research & Gary Kildall almost made the deal with IBM; as to why it fell through, there are many legends -- though I wouldn't rule out secret MS interference.
MS then paid a small company in Seattle to put together a shitty clone of CP/M; I believe they had some sort of distribution agreement with Digital Research; so essentially they breached whatever agreement was in place, & then plagiarized the software into DOS. Then they convinced (?!) IBM to license it per machine -- a trick that Bill Gates had tried on Commodore earlier w/ respect to BASIC, only to get rejected by Commodore's founder & then-CEO Jack Tramiel. Tramiel told Gates, "I'm already married."
Wasn't it called "QDOS" for "Quick and Dirty OS"?
1 Likes, Who?
wvstolzing Jul 13, 2023
Quoting: Purple Library GuyQuoting: wvstolzingHa!Quoting: GroganThere's no way they'd have chosen that mickey mouse operating system on its own merits. DOS (well, CP/M at the time) was utter garbage, it was sold for a song
CP/M wasn't garbage (http://www.digitalresearch.biz/CPM.HTM); it was doing very well at the time (all the beefier micros capable of doing any sort of serious work had a port of it; it was a serious breakthrough in making micros useful for office work. Even the C64 got a cartridge extension eventually). Digital Research & Gary Kildall almost made the deal with IBM; as to why it fell through, there are many legends -- though I wouldn't rule out secret MS interference.
MS then paid a small company in Seattle to put together a shitty clone of CP/M; I believe they had some sort of distribution agreement with Digital Research; so essentially they breached whatever agreement was in place, & then plagiarized the software into DOS. Then they convinced (?!) IBM to license it per machine -- a trick that Bill Gates had tried on Commodore earlier w/ respect to BASIC, only to get rejected by Commodore's founder & then-CEO Jack Tramiel. Tramiel told Gates, "I'm already married."
Wasn't it called "QDOS" for "Quick and Dirty OS"?
Yeah that's what the 'clone' was initially called.
Also I shouldn't have said '... all the beefier micros had it ...' -- more precisely, CP/M was written for the 8080 processor, so it worked on micros that had an Intel 8080 or a Zilog-80 clone of the intel. C64, The Apple II, etc. were 6502 based to they got expansion cartridges or cards. Digital Research later released a 'multitasking' DOS, a Mac-clone GUI layer for the Atari 16 bits, etc. The company got sold off, though; & Gary Kildall met an untimely death. He was reportedly very bitter that the 'micro' revolution of the late 70s-early 80s got hijacked by scum like Gates, or the a$$hole salesman Jobs. He had a lot of respect for Steve Wozniak though.
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: RaabenI can't see the UK staying their ground being the lone opposition now. In a way I guess I am glad I have my huge backlog and emulation to last me years and years to come; I hate the way the gaming industry is going lately. I have no confidence in everything being devoured by corporate entities too big for entire nations to touch.
I do envy you for having a backlog I have long ago finished all the games I wanted to play now waiting for the next elder scrolls game and hoping the graphics card needed to play it won't require selling organs or my first born to buy but knowing Nvidia grees it's possible
1 Likes, Who?
I don't hate companies for being successful. But I don't like this. It's simply too much market control. I am baffled that Bell (telephone company) was broken up but not this. What the hell.
Last edited by 14 on 15 July 2023 at 4:25 am UTC
Last edited by 14 on 15 July 2023 at 4:25 am UTC
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: 14I don't hate companies for being successful. But I don't like this. It's simply too much market control. I am baffled that Bell (telephone company) was broken up but not this. What the hell.Bell was broken up back in the day when antitrust law was taken seriously. Things are different now, although even in the US there are signs of change back towards a more aggressive approach.
2 Likes, Who?
boltronics Jul 15, 2023
Isn't it the case in the US that telephone companies basically have an automatic monopoly over the specific region they operate in? I remember reading something about it being a very anticompetitive industry over there. Not a US citizen myself.
Mergers are often positive for the consumer too. eg. Those of us using AMD GPUs/APUs today (perhaps most people here that don't dual-boot with Windows) are probably quite happy with how that worked out, with all the free software driver support, hardware features the merger made possible, etc. I remember Nvidia kicking up a big stink at the time to the press, but there's a good case to be made that in many ways, it has helped competition overall.
MS have done some very anticompetitive things in the past, we all know how unethical their behaviour has been previously, but I've paid a lot of attention to this case and do think any concerns are quite unjustified. The evidence did demonstrate this. After all, the gaming landscape is extremely vast. Even Nintendo would not have worried about the merger, even without the COD promise.
A merger does not automatically == bad.
Last edited by boltronics on 15 July 2023 at 2:23 pm UTC
Mergers are often positive for the consumer too. eg. Those of us using AMD GPUs/APUs today (perhaps most people here that don't dual-boot with Windows) are probably quite happy with how that worked out, with all the free software driver support, hardware features the merger made possible, etc. I remember Nvidia kicking up a big stink at the time to the press, but there's a good case to be made that in many ways, it has helped competition overall.
MS have done some very anticompetitive things in the past, we all know how unethical their behaviour has been previously, but I've paid a lot of attention to this case and do think any concerns are quite unjustified. The evidence did demonstrate this. After all, the gaming landscape is extremely vast. Even Nintendo would not have worried about the merger, even without the COD promise.
A merger does not automatically == bad.
Last edited by boltronics on 15 July 2023 at 2:23 pm UTC
0 Likes
Sorry can't remember who said Nintendo is not kicking up a stink well thing is with Nintendo most people going back to the Wii but a Nintendo as a second console. Because nobody makes games like them. Now I am not a fan because despite thier willingness to think outside the box when it comes to design in hardware. The fact they are now on the 13th version of mario kart which is in essence the same as the suoernintendon game just 30 years later get praise for innovation in games is a bit are you high or do you just have amnesia.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: boltronicsMergers are often positive for the consumer too. eg. Those of us using AMD GPUs/APUs today (perhaps most people here that don't dual-boot with Windows) are probably quite happy with how that worked out, with all the free software driver support, hardware features the merger made possible, etc. I remember Nvidia kicking up a big stink at the time to the press, but there's a good case to be made that in many ways, it has helped competition overall.What you say is plausible if I liked what Microsoft has done to the video gaming experience, but I haven't.
MS have done some very anticompetitive things in the past, we all know how unethical their behaviour has been previously, but I've paid a lot of attention to this case and do think any concerns are quite unjustified. The evidence did demonstrate this. After all, the gaming landscape is extremely vast. Even Nintendo would not have worried about the merger, even without the COD promise.
A merger does not automatically == bad.
I haven't purchased anything from Activision-Blizzard since Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3, so maybe I should just say I don't care because it doesn't affect me and move on. It can help make video game shopping decisions easier, too, if I can rule out a bunch of studios. Is that how it becomes beneficial to the consumer?
1 Likes, Who?
boltronics Jul 16, 2023
Quoting: 14What you say is plausible if I liked what Microsoft has done to the video gaming experience, but I haven't.Do you mean DirectX and Xbox DRM (eg. from the Don Mattrick/Xbox One era), or you think GamePass will destroy the industry or something?
Quoting: 14I haven't purchased anything from Activision-Blizzard since Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3, so maybe I should just say I don't care because it doesn't affect me and move on. It can help make video game shopping decisions easier, too, if I can rule out a bunch of studios. Is that how it becomes beneficial to the consumer?But that's just saying that you refuse to touch anything MS, so you'll also refuse to touch anything else related from the merger (which you were already doing anyway), no?
The fact that you hate the merger but still acknowledge that it doesn't affect you speaks volumes to my point.
0 Likes
Quoting: boltronicsThe fact that you hate the merger but still acknowledge that it doesn't affect you speaks volumes to my point.Your point being that this merger could be positive for me? How many volumes did I write to that point?
0 Likes
boltronics Jul 17, 2023
Quoting: 14No, my point being that this merger, specifically, shouldn't be a problem for consumers, and what you wrote underscores this.Quoting: boltronicsThe fact that you hate the merger but still acknowledge that it doesn't affect you speaks volumes to my point.Your point being that this merger could be positive for me? How many volumes did I write to that point?
Obviously if you are not interested in those companies, what they do should not impact you to any degree. If there was strong evidence of it negatively impacting your decision to go elsewhere, then that would be a clear case of there being a problem.
There have already been positives listed in this thread for those who *are* interested. eg. the potential for more games coming to Steam. The potential for more games coming to GamePass. The increased potential for games to be released that have characters or settings combined from multiple franchises. etc.
0 Likes
Quoting: boltronicsObviously if you are not interested in those companies, what they do should not impact you to any degree. If there was strong evidence of it negatively impacting your decision to go elsewhere, then that would be a clear case of there being a problem.
On the phone, so I'll keep it short. Think about *why* microsoft is buying all these companies. It's *not* to make money from their games, the price of the company is so high, and the income is so small compared to everything else that makes money for microsoft.
So why go through the trouble? Because it's *users* microsoft is buying. And with users microsoft can keep its other businesses alive. More users on microsoft platforms == fewer users on other platforms == worse software support for other platforms. That's how the merger negatively affects all of us here, even if we never buy activision, blizzard or microsoft games.
Last edited by ShabbyX on 18 July 2023 at 5:44 am UTC
3 Likes, Who?
boltronics Jul 19, 2023
Quoting: ShabbyXSo why go through the trouble? Because it's *users* microsoft is buying.A agree, at least to a point. It's not the only reason, since Activition gave them a very strong incentive.
Activision was threatening to pull CoD from Xbox unless they were cut a better deal. MS would have been getting a worse deal than Sony for the same rights because they have a worse bargaining position, being 3rd place in the console war. By buying Activision, they no longer need to worry about competing on uneven ground, and turn a great disadvantage into an advantage going forward.
Anyway, that's just another aspect to it, although a smaller point in the grand scheme of things (as I'll point out in a moment).
Quoting: ShabbyXAnd with users microsoft can keep its other businesses alive. More users on microsoft platforms == fewer users on other platforms == worse software support for other platforms.This is incorrect.
In the end, the primary reason Microsoft purchased Activision was not because of CoD. It wasn't even about cloud gaming.
It was primarily about King.
Microsoft is desperate to compete in the mobile space, which dwarfs all of console gaming in potential revenue. These mobile games will not be on fewer platforms. Definitely not. If anything, they'll be on more platforms than ever.
As for CoD, it's is still going to be on PlayStation. It's going to end up being basically everywhere. Sure, this and the other games in the Blizzard/Activision catalogue will help GamePass (and many of the smaller console/PC games will likely remain exclusive to MS and Steam, no argument there), but it hardly means that there will be fewer users on other platforms.
Why is this? Did you watch the Kinda Funny interview? Phil Spencer himself said that Microsoft could release the best games possible on Xbox today, and it still won't stop people buying a PlayStation. At best, people might play games from both ecosystems. PlayStation is too far ahead when it comes to the average gamer's digital library, and unless Sony make some really anti-consumer moves that drive people away (similar to what MS tried to do in the previous console generation), it's going to take a long time before we see that change.
0 Likes
slaapliedje Jul 19, 2023
Quoting: boltronicsYou mention mobile gaming being so huge... ha, the only way I could ever see myself getting into mobile gaming is if Valve makes a phone that runs SteamOS that can physically morph into a Z Fold style phone. We may need Nanites or something... granted, then we'll probably have to go to war with them like in Stargate SG-1...Quoting: ShabbyXSo why go through the trouble? Because it's *users* microsoft is buying.A agree, at least to a point. It's not the only reason, since Activition gave them a very strong incentive.
Activision was threatening to pull CoD from Xbox unless they were cut a better deal. MS would have been getting a worse deal than Sony for the same rights because they have a worse bargaining position, being 3rd place in the console war. By buying Activision, they no longer need to worry about competing on uneven ground, and turn a great disadvantage into an advantage going forward.
Anyway, that's just another aspect to it, although a smaller point in the grand scheme of things (as I'll point out in a moment).
Quoting: ShabbyXAnd with users microsoft can keep its other businesses alive. More users on microsoft platforms == fewer users on other platforms == worse software support for other platforms.This is incorrect.
In the end, the primary reason Microsoft purchased Activision was not because of CoD. It wasn't even about cloud gaming.
It was primarily about King.
Microsoft is desperate to compete in the mobile space, which dwarfs all of console gaming in potential revenue. These mobile games will not be on fewer platforms. Definitely not. If anything, they'll be on more platforms than ever.
As for CoD, it's is still going to be on PlayStation. It's going to end up being basically everywhere. Sure, this and the other games in the Blizzard/Activision catalogue will help GamePass (and many of the smaller console/PC games will likely remain exclusive to MS and Steam, no argument there), but it hardly means that there will be fewer users on other platforms.
Why is this? Did you watch the Kinda Funny interview? Phil Spencer himself said that Microsoft could release the best games possible on Xbox today, and it still won't stop people buying a PlayStation. At best, people might play games from both ecosystems. PlayStation is too far ahead when it comes to the average gamer's digital library, and unless Sony make some really anti-consumer moves that drive people away (similar to what MS tried to do in the previous console generation), it's going to take a long time before we see that change.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: slaapliedjeQuoting: boltronicsYou mention mobile gaming being so huge... ha, the only way I could ever see myself getting into mobile gaming is if Valve makes a phone that runs SteamOS that can physically morph into a Z Fold style phone. We may need Nanites or something... granted, then we'll probably have to go to war with them like in Stargate SG-1...Quoting: ShabbyXSo why go through the trouble? Because it's *users* microsoft is buying.A agree, at least to a point. It's not the only reason, since Activition gave them a very strong incentive.
Activision was threatening to pull CoD from Xbox unless they were cut a better deal. MS would have been getting a worse deal than Sony for the same rights because they have a worse bargaining position, being 3rd place in the console war. By buying Activision, they no longer need to worry about competing on uneven ground, and turn a great disadvantage into an advantage going forward.
Anyway, that's just another aspect to it, although a smaller point in the grand scheme of things (as I'll point out in a moment).
Quoting: ShabbyXAnd with users microsoft can keep its other businesses alive. More users on microsoft platforms == fewer users on other platforms == worse software support for other platforms.This is incorrect.
In the end, the primary reason Microsoft purchased Activision was not because of CoD. It wasn't even about cloud gaming.
It was primarily about King.
Microsoft is desperate to compete in the mobile space, which dwarfs all of console gaming in potential revenue. These mobile games will not be on fewer platforms. Definitely not. If anything, they'll be on more platforms than ever.
As for CoD, it's is still going to be on PlayStation. It's going to end up being basically everywhere. Sure, this and the other games in the Blizzard/Activision catalogue will help GamePass (and many of the smaller console/PC games will likely remain exclusive to MS and Steam, no argument there), but it hardly means that there will be fewer users on other platforms.
Why is this? Did you watch the Kinda Funny interview? Phil Spencer himself said that Microsoft could release the best games possible on Xbox today, and it still won't stop people buying a PlayStation. At best, people might play games from both ecosystems. PlayStation is too far ahead when it comes to the average gamer's digital library, and unless Sony make some really anti-consumer moves that drive people away (similar to what MS tried to do in the previous console generation), it's going to take a long time before we see that change.
You and I may not like it, and mobile games may generally be garbage, but mobile gaming *is* huge, much bigger than desktop and console gaming (in terms of revenue).
Not saying I'm agreeing with boltronics on it being the reason though.
1 Likes, Who?
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me