MICROSOFT IS BUYING BLIZZARD! Noooooooooo! :(

[Sharpe]

Actually Asher I didn't say it was illegal, just that there will likely be legal action because it will be interpreted by some parties as illegal.

I think though that you will admit that acquiring all of Vivendi's gaming companies will make them the dominant PC game producer by far. That won't sit well with EA and others for sure - and result in more legal action.

Now course, if Microsoft didn't have any restrictions - they would probably buy EA and most of Vivendi...

[Asher]

EA & Co wouldn't have a case that'd even make it into court...

It's a non-issue.

They can feel free to waste their time trying to get a case but they know nothing will come of it.

And in the process they'd piss MS off. Pissing off MS when you're trying to do something even remotely related to computers isn't a very bright idea.

[Skanky Burns]

Sounds good - MS buying Blizzard, provided that they continue to release games for the PC. I refuse to buy a console.

[Sharpe]

EA & Co wouldn't have a case that'd even make it into court...

Actually they could have or at the very least they could try.

Asher, you are a very good computer expert not a legal expert, but you are entitled to your opinion
as am I - except it isn't my opinion firsthand of course.

After I read about it here I called a lawyer friend of mine who worked in the US and has been following the MS case closely. His response was "Are they nuts? This will result in legal action for sure!", though admittedly he hadn't read about it yet.

And in the process they'd piss MS off. Pissing off MS when you're trying to do something even remotely related to computers isn't a very bright idea.

Not likely that MS would do anything. The moment they did anything that seemed predatory MS could be broken up into several pieces.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Sharpe
Actually they could have or at the very least they could try.

Oh come on.

EA and Sony are more monopolistic in their industries than MS is in the industry this is dealing with.

If EA or Sony brought antitrust problems up with MS' purchase, they'd be laughed out of the courtroom so fast...

After I read about it here I called a lawyer friend of mine who worked in the US and has been following the MS case closely. His response was "Are they nuts? This will result in legal action for sure!", though admittedly he hadn't read about it yet.

Yeah, of course...

Not likely that MS would do anything. The moment they did anything that seemed predatory MS could be broken up into several pieces.

Not while George W. is in charge.

EA is the world's largest games publisher, and still will be after MS buys Vivendi's game division, why on Earth do you think they'll be stupid enough to try some antitrust case on MS buying Vivendi? Why on Earth do you think Sony, who has an effective monopoly on the game console industry, would have some antitrust case on buying Vivendi?

All three companies can purchase Vivendi's division and have been offered the division, MS gave the best offer. Simple, 100% legal.

There is absolutely nothing illegal about this.

[Sharpe]

Interesting debate, but some counterpoints:

EA and Sony are more monopolistic in their industries than MS is in the industry this is dealing with.

You make it sound like they are different types of industries - by that logic MS has many monopolies in many industries (Operating software, Office suites, internet browsers)- in which many of them they illegally maintained their monopolies.

So what is an "industry"?

I can easily see a judge thinking that the videogame "industry" and the PC gaming "industry" are in fact one industry which MS is either dominating or is seeking to gain dominance in - or the judge could view games as part of the software industry - and it is well known that MS has a near monopoly on that industry.

Perhaps EA and Co would try to convince a judge that MS should not be allowed to buy all of Vivendi's gaming companies - they should only be allowed to buy Sierra but not Blizzard or vice versa. Since Blizzard is the crown jewel of the Vivendi gaming companies, I suspect that they might not want it in MS's hands.

By the way, since I own many Sierra and Blizzard games, MS buying them might be good - lots of money and all (especially compared to near bankrupt Vivendi - thanks a lot J6M ) - as long as they continue to produce PC games and not move them all to their Xbox system - especially as I don't have one and don't intend to buy one !!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Sharpe
You make it sound like they are different types of industries - by that logic MS has many monopolies in many industries (Operating software, Office suites, internet browsers)- in which many of them they illegally maintained their monopolies.

The court ruled that they were indeed a monopoly, and that they did engage in some anticompetitive behavior that abused that monopoly. They certainly did not say the monopolies were illegally maintained, just they did some naughty things with it.

Which is why the punishment was a joke, really.

So what is an "industry"?

I was using the word as you were, you tell me...

I can easily see a judge thinking that the videogame "industry" and the PC gaming "industry" are in fact one industry which MS is either dominating or is seeking to gain dominance in - or the judge could view games as part of the software industry - and it is well known that MS has a near monopoly on that industry.

If the judge viewed it all as a simple software industry, he'd be stupid as all hell.

MS doesn't dominate the PC gaming industry. Unlike console games, MS doesn't see a dime for every PC game sold. Sure, 99% of PC games run on MS' OS, but it's a very different market than a video game console. For one, the sales are far lower and it's a market in a state of decline. Two, MS doesn't receive royalties for software released on its platform. Three, MS doesn't control what can and can't be released on the PC.

MS has a monopoly, as you said, in the OS, internet browser, and office suite market. It certainly does NOT have a monopoly in the games market.

The people closest to having a monopoly are Sony and EA, which is why I find it ridiculous that they'd even consider legal action for MS' perfectly legal move...

Which would explain why no articles, analysts, or legal people have actually publically objected to it.

There's simply nothing illegal about it.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
And competition doesn't cause people to innovate, it causes people to clone eachother's games.

Oh my side hurts! Where's that rolling laughing smilie?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Oh my side hurts! Where's that rolling laughing smilie?

What? It's true.

Have you seen all the GTA3 clones coming out? Driver 3, Mafia, True Crime: Streets in LA, etc. It's ridiculous.

Innovation comes from creativity, from new ideas and good developers implementing them. Consumers are the type to buy what's proven to be good, in general -- they HARDLY encourage innovation.

Corporate competition in the game market tends to lead to a bunch of games that are indistinguishable from eachother. They all see a market for a specific type of game and plunge head-first into it creating their own clones.

Competition has no effect on innovation, but rather how many games are simply clones of competitor's products.

[Urban Ranger]

Yeah there are lots of clones, but clones don't sell, only the innovators do. If you look at Black and White, which is pretty stupid, but at least it got something new. Ditto with The Sims. Even SimGolf is a bit innovate.

Clearly, not everyday you get the sort of XCOM innovation, but clones don't sell. Not for long.

[Sharpe]

Competition has no effect on innovation

- oh boy - don't take any business studies Asher - you would be laughed out of the class for a statement like that...

As far as what is an industry - there is no easy answer to that - it is subject to interpretation and I could quote from several business case studies but they are SO boring that you would fall asleep reading them (or at least I nearly did )

Rockefeller (sp?) tried to say in Standard Oil that oil was a different industry than refining - well that didn't really work now did it - neither did the other robber barons in arguing that steel and railroads weren't connected - didn't work either...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Sharpe
- oh boy - don't take any business studies Asher - you would be laughed out of the class for a statement like that...

I'm not talking about a business model, I'm talking about a game design model.

It's like saying the more major label record companies there are, the more innovative music we're going to get.

There's zero correlation between innovation and competition in fields like music and games...

They wait until something becomes a fad, then clone it, then wait till the next fad...

Innovation takes place regardless of how many game companies there are directly competing with eachother.

[Sharpe]

Well maybe not zero correlation but admittedly much less than usual as cloning is common in entertainment fads.

Gee have to keep editing due to my poor English - must be getting tired...

[tinyp3nis]

This really sucks, if SC 2 will ever be created it might be "dumbed down" for the "Americans" (in this case console players) like the hollywood movies are. Good bye balance and Longevity. I guess SC will remain the best rts in history forever, since blizzard is giving in for the money too. Well the Warcraft 3 wearing down of the skill factor did happen before this, but now they have even more excuses to make something that just sells well. It is business like Asher said. Oh well this is the worst scenario maybe it turns out fine...

[Asher]

I don't get the dumbed down comment.

Most MS games are far more deep than Blizzard's games...

Compare Age of Mythology to Warcraft III...