Matt, could you sometime put together an article that deal with the notion that "It's my/our company and if we want to sell it and we can find a buyer, why shouldn't that be our right?" Even hostile takeovers seem "hostile" only to the point that the buyer finally finds the right price.
And a second point. While we say that we favor free markets, corporations understand that a monopoly position is good for them, and free markets be damned. (I think) we know that free markets lead to more industry innovation than does monopoly, but competition requires nimbleness, and I am not sure enough managers of today have this nimbleness
This is great, thanks. I'm more worried about Microsoft rolling up the software development space than anything else, but this acquisition is ludicrous. This also feeds their id management & tracking systems. I shudder to think how that fits with AB's honestly pretty predatory games (microtransactions, loot boxes, etc).
It's not just the console space either. PC gaming has had launcher battles for decades, all trying to see who you are & what you're playing, make sure you're playing "legitimate" games, and of course serving ads. Microsoft doesn't have to participate in that as long as it can force that windows xbox service, and every acquisition makes it more tolerated.
2) Yes, Microsoft market cap is much larger than Sony (my, how much Sony has fallen), but right now, Microsoft is estimated the number 3 console, behind well Nintendo (which has a lot more adult fair then you think) and still far behind Sony. Sony has tons of contractual exclusives and captive studios, far more than Microsoft. Not that it forgives Microsoft, but Sony is generally the worse actor here.
3) I think there is grassroots support for the merger in the gaming industry due to how much folks love some Activision-Blizzard games, but hate what has happened to the company, with employees treated horribly, and lots of greedy money grubbing behavior. Activision-Blizzard needs some "Adult Supervision", and maybe Microsoft could give it to them? is the feeling I see. Which basically means a merger, so Microsoft is the least worst option?
I'd rather we can go after Sony for anti-competitive behavior, and clean up A-B with pressure from Wall Street and customers, and keep A-B as an independent company, but honestly, does anyone think that will happen?
Very interesting; know someone who just went to work for Rockstar Games (Take-Two) in the hope that another big tech firm would buy them up and they'd get a windfall in the process. This might puncture that vision.
I was wondering if you could shed any light on the local sports networks and the deals they have with certain providers that limit access to them. I'm specifically referring to YES which is only on cable or DirectTV and is preventing me from cutting the cord with cable, but my brother is in MA and the NESN channel was similar until just recently when they announced a standalone streaming service (at a steep price of $29.99/mo). Is there any provision that could challenge these exclusive relationships between channels and providers? Sorry if this is out of your area, but thought you might have some insight.
Matt, could you sometime put together an article that deal with the notion that "It's my/our company and if we want to sell it and we can find a buyer, why shouldn't that be our right?" Even hostile takeovers seem "hostile" only to the point that the buyer finally finds the right price.
And a second point. While we say that we favor free markets, corporations understand that a monopoly position is good for them, and free markets be damned. (I think) we know that free markets lead to more industry innovation than does monopoly, but competition requires nimbleness, and I am not sure enough managers of today have this nimbleness
This is great, thanks. I'm more worried about Microsoft rolling up the software development space than anything else, but this acquisition is ludicrous. This also feeds their id management & tracking systems. I shudder to think how that fits with AB's honestly pretty predatory games (microtransactions, loot boxes, etc).
It's not just the console space either. PC gaming has had launcher battles for decades, all trying to see who you are & what you're playing, make sure you're playing "legitimate" games, and of course serving ads. Microsoft doesn't have to participate in that as long as it can force that windows xbox service, and every acquisition makes it more tolerated.
Thank for the info, and the Heads-up on the news, Matt, looking forward to revisit this.
Hey, I'm not sure you have your claims / facts quite right about Microsoft. But I am biased (work for Microsoft, but not in gaming).
1) Microsoft said existing games would stay available for other platforms, but called out future games might be exclusive at the time of the merger. Also, MS did not promise any terms at all to EU, and was passed by EU with no conditions: https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/the-eu-has-approved-microsofts-acquisition-of-bethesda-parent-zenimax/ . If regulators fail to require terms, how can you blame a company for not following them?
2) Yes, Microsoft market cap is much larger than Sony (my, how much Sony has fallen), but right now, Microsoft is estimated the number 3 console, behind well Nintendo (which has a lot more adult fair then you think) and still far behind Sony. Sony has tons of contractual exclusives and captive studios, far more than Microsoft. Not that it forgives Microsoft, but Sony is generally the worse actor here.
3) I think there is grassroots support for the merger in the gaming industry due to how much folks love some Activision-Blizzard games, but hate what has happened to the company, with employees treated horribly, and lots of greedy money grubbing behavior. Activision-Blizzard needs some "Adult Supervision", and maybe Microsoft could give it to them? is the feeling I see. Which basically means a merger, so Microsoft is the least worst option?
I'd rather we can go after Sony for anti-competitive behavior, and clean up A-B with pressure from Wall Street and customers, and keep A-B as an independent company, but honestly, does anyone think that will happen?
This world Fiona Scott Morton made up where there's no such thing as monopoly leveraging sounds nice.
Very interesting; know someone who just went to work for Rockstar Games (Take-Two) in the hope that another big tech firm would buy them up and they'd get a windfall in the process. This might puncture that vision.
I was wondering if you could shed any light on the local sports networks and the deals they have with certain providers that limit access to them. I'm specifically referring to YES which is only on cable or DirectTV and is preventing me from cutting the cord with cable, but my brother is in MA and the NESN channel was similar until just recently when they announced a standalone streaming service (at a steep price of $29.99/mo). Is there any provision that could challenge these exclusive relationships between channels and providers? Sorry if this is out of your area, but thought you might have some insight.