this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2023
363 points (97.4% liked)

Games

31767 readers
1836 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"In a ruling submitted today, Judge Corley said the following:

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. "

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gamer@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Irrelevant. The FTC knew and had no issues so why do you?

[–] gamer@lemm.ee -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Read the linked article for some good potential reasons it's an issue (e.g. Microsoft has been doing a lot of layoffs recently, why is her son still employed?)

But that was written before the ruling. Now that we have it, her ties to Microsoft offer at least one potential explanation to the nonsense of the decision (IMO, obviously).

For an excellent write up on what happened, check out Matt Stoler's recent article.

[–] drcobaltjedi@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago

Microsoft has been doing a lot of layoffs recently, why is her son still employed?

Last article I found said they laid off less than 1% of theor staff. It would be weird if he was layed off.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lol so the only reason he wasn’t laid off is because of his mum? What are you basing that off?

[–] gamer@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I know reading is hard bro, but give it another go.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago

As soon as anyone even brings that up they’ve lost any argument or debate they are in.

[–] sorenant@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I don't think the son of a FTC judge really depends on his Microsoft job to not go hungry.