This meant that they needed to have a bit more control of what they were doing in the market as opposed to being an also ran that was forever reacting to what the market leader was doing, getting games a year or so later. I am here for it, and I was sick and tired of a behemoth not actually doing everything that it needed to offer a more compelling product to its consumers.
Thus, this generation was always going to be one where they needed to bridge the gap, line their ducks and get to a situation where they can better compete in future. Microsoft knows better than most that they needed to keep investing at a time when Sony was interested in simply denying access.
Console alone is not big enough to satiate these companies, and as such they needed to go out of their comfort zone. Microsoft was never going to get anywhere doing the same things that Sony was doing, and Sony too was never going to simply get by doing what they were doing for the longest time. The industry is changing, and there needs to be a change in how we view market dynamics. There was a time when this topic was essentially people just taking any small development against the deal to mean that it would not go through and some almost drowned any person that had a common sense approach to these things. Microsoft have the motivation (placate regulators and potentially bring in more returns from F2P, grow their reputation as a content channel / publisher / subscription provider) and they have the first party security to bankroll ports, they have the streaming infrastructure to offer games on weaker hardware right away - basically, it's just easier for them to justify than it is for Activision alone.Ĭlick to shrink.Why is this line always put up? Like seriously? You only have to look how quickly they abandon platforms when the going gets tough. Third party publishers are risk averse because they don't have the resources and security that first parties have. He professed regret on the stand about missing the boat on Switch, but I think if anything that means Activision may have taken Nintendo more seriously with their next console, not this one as well. Just on this one, Kotick is answerable to ABK shareholders and the board - which would have had to be sold on buying a whole bunch of dev kits and putting in the R&D to make Switch games this late in the Switch's lifecycle. Especially not while Lina Khan is being grilled in front of Congress this week and they've already seemingly moved onto their next target (Amazon and Prime subscriptions). With CMA now at the negotiating table, I can't see the FTC wasting time with an appeal. Two days to try and make a convincing argument that Corley ignored or misinterpreted law rising to the need of a stay. They basically have two days to craft an appeal because it would need to be on the docket before Friday. Corley closed the door on multiple avenues of appeal and has made it very difficult for them to argue to another judge that her decision was so fundamentally flawed that it needs an appeal, let alone a stay. It's more likely they will end up doing the exact same thing here, especially in reading the entire decision, albeit redacted, available publicly. Not only did they decide NOT to appeal, they ultimately decided to walk away from the entire thing, cancelling the administrative hearing outright. They were denied the PI in the Meta case.
#Oh captain my captain gif full#
In the Meta case, they asked for a PI pending the full administrative hearing ditto the Microsoft case. In this case their only argument was Microsoft buying ABK would make gaming less competitive. In that case their core argument was that Meta buying Within would make VR less competitive. One need only look back at their Meta-Within case which was very similar. The "FTC will appeal" rumor is based off a single source that literally no other outlet is reporting or confirming.
0 kommentar(er)
