Video: FTC Chair Questioned Over 'Remarkable' Decision To Side With Sony Rather Than Microsoft

And this is from someone who not long ago broke the law 😂

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fourteen-members-of-congress-reportedly-violated-stock-trade-reporting-law

The FTC are the only consumer group who hasn't announced that they're downgrading their issues with the situation. Everyone else is requiring remedies to deal with xCloud being too damn successful, meaning Microsoft is letting everyone get a bite who wants it.

To me, Lina Khan has a major issue with 'big' US corporations and don't want to see 'big' Companies getting 'bigger' - regardless of the market and nature of the competition.

In this case, they see MS as a massive tech giant and have sided with the Company that most aligns with their 'goal' of preventing big companies from 'expanding' - even if that big company isn't the biggest and/or needs to buy to 'compete' in a certain sector.

As we have seen from around the world - inc Japan, they cannot find any 'reason' to block the deal or even insist on any Concessions. South Africa recently passed too - stating clearly that even if MS were to pull A/B games away from Playstation, that wouldn't stop Sony or Nintendo from 'competing' with Xbox to sell Consoles having their 'own' Unique Exclusives themselves to attract consumers. CoD for example would be Competing against Spider-Man, Wolverine, Mario, Zelda - Exclusives that will pull people into that 'ecosystem' and as both Sony and Nintendo have 'many' more USP's than Xbox, they don't 'need' to insist on any Concessions.

However, South Africa also notes that MS has 'no intention' to pull CoD away anyway - therefore its a 'redundant' argument. They assessed the situation on a hypothetical 'what if' situation with Call of Duty, found that it wouldn't affect Sony or Nintendo's ability to 'compete', to sell Hardware and Games, to attract people into their Gaming platform etc so had no legal objections.

The FTC have tried to block other Big Deals - like Meta (Facebook) from buying a VR company but LOST because their argument that Meta could Monopolise VR Fitness Apps was unsubstantiated, ridiculous as Meta wouldn't be the 'only' VR company/developer making VR Fitness Apps and/or prevent Competition - it makes Meta a bit more 'competitive' but not the 'biggest' by a long way in the VR sector.

Point is, the FTC are against big businesses getting 'bigger' even though they need to 'expand' to compete in those sectors - like MS investing in 'Gaming', Meta investing in VR - areas that they were 'weaker' than their Competitors in so 'need' to buy to be more Competitive...

@BAMozzy she’s out to make a name for herself. She’s tried it with other companies and failed, she’ll take them to court, knowing the FTC will lose but with the intention of trying to make a statement and a show of power against the deals. All this is costing US tax payers money too.

It’s purely political at this point with Khan’s personal agenda taking preference over actual law and regulations.

@Fenbops Yeah - and it stems from her hatred of Big Corporations and would rather see them crash and burn than see them 'grow' bigger. Its her 'personal' agenda, her 'personal' opinion her 'Personal' ambition etc and not about the facts, the truth of the situation etc.

It's now at the point where people are questioning 'her' and making a point about 'her' and the FTC - siding with whoever it 'suits' instead of supporting the 'underdog', the company that 'needs' to buy to 'compete' against Sony's Dominant market position. Of course that stance is also costing Tax Payers too which also is likely to irritate.

I don't deny that they need to take Sony's argument seriously - at first - as did the CMA and EU, however, the CMA recently came out and stated that they have 'no concerns' in the Console market. So far, MS has got Global support with no concessions required. The '10yr' deals are no doubt helping, but is only 'legally' binding themselves to offer the Games they intended to 'grow' beyond the current platforms they have an 'established ONLINE Active Community' anyway. They stated from the start that they want to own CoD to bring it to 'more' players than ABK currently supports and bring Parity of Content to the WHOLE CoD Community so these deals are literally backing up their stated intentions. Its not 'forcing' them to make deals they didn't want to make to get the 'deal' passed. That and of course 'King' to get into the Mobile Sector where they have virtually 'no' presence to compete - yet...

With so many Jurisdictions passing the deal, as well as MS clearly not pulling CoD away from ANY consumers, the deal will go through - no Judge will side with the FTC for example because they cannot prove the deal is 'anti-competitive' and MS can site the findings of Japan, South Africa etc. Show Sony is 'dominating' sales of hardware and has by far the most 'exclusives' to attract people in - hence they 'dominate' so 'need' to buy to Compete, to be 'more' competitive before Sony can 'monopolise' High End Console gaming...

@BAMozzy pull away CoD from PS, MS will lose money.

@Moonglow My comment is aimed at the sub header, where she says "Can you explain why that seems to be a good idea?"

I just found it funny as can she explain how it was a good idea to do what she did to break the law. My comment is nothing to do with the deal in general.

@UltimateOtaku91 The article you posted literally says, reportedly violated not found guilty. Even if she broke the law, it's like a $200 fine or the ethics committee can just waive the penalty. Now all that said, I'm all for banning congressional stock trading as I don't see how you avoid conflicts of interest there. But that was suggested to Pelosi while she was still Speaker of the House and she was like, "LOL WUT? No way. How would I pay for these fancy haircuts?"

The tide turned against sony in a hurry, didnt it. You love to see it.

@SplooshDmg why would Pelosi ever agree to that when she and her husband were doing the exact same thing 🤣 She played the usual game of being a media darling while being a crook behind the scenes. There’s corruption everywhere in US politics, on every side, but people like Otaku will turn a blind eye to one side to support their own.

The only facts the current FTC cares for are “big company can’t make acquisitions, period”.

I am actually not against increased scrutiny when the company is larger in size (and that includes Sony, they not a tiny company) but increases scrutiny is not delivered by outright suing to block every single large company that attempts to acquire something else.

Wonder if Sony is financially contributing to campaigns and/or other organizations? Donations open many, many, many doors in politics and government. Especially in the US.

Lol the only law the FTC abides by is its own made up law. They have an agenda to block every single US tech company merger they can. And it's mostly this Khan women's fault, she is playing very dirty political games. I can only hope she is forced out soon.

I do really want to comment on all the stock trading posts here. And how it could affect gaming.

Example, I want to say Pelosi, when she entered politics had net worth maybe $1 million. Today it is $120 million. Her salary is $200,000. I'll allow you to do the math and connect the dots.

@Fenbops I think there's just corruption everywhere there is money flowing. Period. The extreme level of partisanship we have in the US, and the level of attention the US receives on the global stage just makes it a lot more obvious here, I think. Lina Khan just sucks because she's trying push bogus progressive legal theory and is probably actively harming the US economically in a major global industry. I don't think many people over here are actually on her side.

@GuyinPA75 Are you saying Microsoft aren't? I'd be surprised if both weren't contributing in some way.

Approve the merger and get on with life. All the complaints against it are nonsense. Gaming will continue and be just fine.

@Kevw2006 Does Microsoft control 63%+ of the market? No. And that was the argument used for this.

That is basically like watching a murder first hand then telling the police the deceased victim commited the murder.

New sales reports show that Sony is dominating and that MS needs every bit of help that they can get:

“The console’s sales increased 369 per cent throughout the first quarter of 2023 in key European countries like France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Switzerland, and Portugal.”

https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2023/04/ps5-sales-increase-an-outrageous-369percent-in-key-european-countries

@GuyinPA75 So both of them may do it but it's wrong for one to do it but perfectly acceptable for the other to do the exact same thing? Seems fair. It's irrelevant who is the market leader in such instance, and it's not exactly like MS are some small struggling up and comer, they're one of the largest companies in the world.
That murder analogy literally makes no sense, I honestly have no idea what point you are even trying to make there. All I said that I'd be surprised if both weren't engaging in some form of contributions to political campaigns in some way. The only way you could take issue with that is if you believe Microsoft aren't.

Ugh, Sony is going to be the reason this deal will drop. Congratulations Sony, you ruined this deal for all of us.

@StrawberryWave The irony is that MS largely doesn't donate money to Republicans, and this particular rep. is a Republican.

"Also a major donor in the 2020 election season, Microsoft’s PACs and employees shelled out a total $17 million to presidential and congressional candidates through individual and PAC donations.

Three quarters of Microsoft’s funds went to Democrats, and 14 percent went to Republicans. Top recipients included the Senate Majority PAC ($2.4 million), Joe Biden ($2 million), the DNC ($1.5 million) and the Democrat super PAC, Unite the Country ($1.5 million)."

https://observer.com/2020/11/big-tech-2020-presidential-election-donation-breakdown-ranking/

The FTC is helmed by a democrat appointed by the very person MS as a corporation overwhelmingly supported in 2020. So, I'm not sure what their money has bought them here.

@Sebatrox I await the US government wanting an investigation raised into Xbox's domination of the Mexican market 😂

@Kevw2006 Not understanding that analogy/comparison is why you fail to understand the entire issue.

Let me try and help you understand in another way. On Xbox can you play as spider-man in the avengers? On Xbox can you play all strikes and collect all weapons in destiny (even before the Sony purchase)? On Xbox can you play all the missions in Hogwarts?

@GuyinPA75 Sorry but you've totally lost me now. What does any of that have to do with companies contributing towards political campaigns? I'm quite deliberately avoiding the wider issue as it's already been discussed to death on many other articles already and it's largely just the same arguments being repeated over and over.

@Belkan Exactly - they have a LARGE Active ONLINE Community to sell CoD to on Playstation - but the POINT was that IF Microsoft CHOOSE to make CoD Exclusive - which is 'possible' if they own it, it would still not be ANTI-COMPETITIVE.

The reason is that if MS were to make it 'exclusive', it wouldn't stop Sony or Nintendo from being able to compete, being able to make and sell their OWN games and Hardware. CoD would just be another IP like Forza or Halo, like Spider-Man or Last of Us, like Mario or Zelda - Games you can 'ONLY' play on one Console and only make MS more 'competitive' as both Nintendo and Sony have far more 'Exclusives' to entice consumers into their ecosystem.

CoD may well be a 'big' IP in Gaming, but its still just a game and it doesn't Stop Sony from having games like Spider-Man, Wolverine, Uncharted, R&C, Returnal, God of War, Horizon etc etc to bring gamers into Playstation and 'competing' against CoD, Forza, Halo, Gears, Fable, Avowed ettc etc.

It doesn't impact on Sony or their ability to 'compete' against Xbox. They still have all those 'Unique' Selling Points that consumers will want to play so will still sell compete for customers. Therefore, if MS wanted to make CoD exclusive, it would only make Xbox 'more' competitive to compete against Sony's Dominant Market position so they cannot block it on the grounds of it being anti-competitive and/or detrimental to consumers.

However that is still a 'hypothetical' situation as MS themselves have stated its not in their 'interest' to make CoD exclusive as financially, its far more beneficial to sell their games to the LARGE Active ONLINE community on PS and try and 'grow' CoD everywhere.

The whole case about whether or not this deal should go through seems centred on MS pulling CoD away from PS and that would then give them so much 'control' of the Market, that Sony and/or Nintendo would 'disappear' giving MS the 'monopoly'. However, as more and more 'Authorities' have assessed, even if MS decided to make CoD exclusive, it doesn't harm Sony or Nintendo's ability to 'compete' for consumers with their OWN IP's and USP's.

Ok. Let's really try and make it simple. Sony is essentially "employing individuals" to say Sony is the victim despite being in high and very favorable position within the industry.

Is that simple enough for comprehension?

Senators are funded by donations from their Supporters. Its a bit like a portion of your Taxes going to your Local MP because you 'support' that party as an individual, but as the individual remains 'nameless', the Company they are employed by is 'credited' instead.

As MS has a 'lot' of employees in the US, there is 'large' percentage of employees that donate to their Senator compared to Sony - who doesn't employ as many in the US as Microsoft does. It's not Microsoft themselves who are paying Senators to ask questions.

Its like me asking my Local MP to discuss something at their next PMQ's in London and as a donating/member of their party - its not the Company I work for asking, but the company is 'listed' as donating because I work for them not me as an individual - not directly 'me' as I remain anonymous and it seems like the Company I work for paid the Local MP to ask...

The way people are going on, its a bit like focusing on who made the 'bullet' and they are 'guilty', not who pulled the trigger and the reasons why? Its a Fair comment when the FTC were set up to protect the market, promote 'competition' and NOT side with the 'Dominant' market leader and protect them from increased 'competition' that only benefits consumers long term..

It really doesn't matter who may have 'pushed' the Senator to question Lina Khan, what is important is that it got asked and made very Public. Its clear Sony is dominating this gen too so MS 'needs' IP's, Studios etc to be stronger, to be more competitive...

Do we really have to listen to any word coming out of Lina Kahns mouth. FTC is a joke and their word really rings hollow. Lina Kahn needs to have some SHAME and step down. FTC siding with SONY,THE MARKET LEADER AND A FOREIGN COMPANY NO LESS, GREAT JOB!!!

I knew this would happen, the FTC taking Sony's side would eventually backfire on everyone at the FTC and put their employment and careers into question. They are doing the opposite of what they should do, and this is the kind of high profile case that gets a lot of high profile people asking big questions.

Funny how this is the hill they are willing to die on and destroy their reputation and careers over. Makes you wonder what Sony has on them.

@YourNameHere I actually love this! By remaining behind Sony, MS will continue to work to gain ground, which means continued investment as long as there is growth (which there is just not as much as Sony). The we get deals like A-B which is great!

The FTC, no matter which political party they are currently affiliated with, is constantly trying to make itself seem relevant.

@BAMozzy merger goes through, CoD became xbox exclusive, PS players will rally at MS's front door. Sony is afraid of MS taking the dominant in gaming industry. That's why Sony's desperate on blocking the merger.

@BAMozzy Corporations contribute directly via PACs and the dreaded super PACs and bundlers. It's not just employees, it's companies that buy the politicians directly but slightly laundered.

But the irony here is that most of the politicians defending Ms are the ones they contributed AGAINST! And the ones they did support are the ones out for their blood. Honor among thieves and all that.

@JayJ Sony has nothing on them and if look at their arguments, they're not even correctly using Sony's arguments. They didn't really side with Sony at all. They're pursuing their own anti big tech agenda because it's a party political promise and it's the ftc chairs political career builder agenda. They're hamfistedly shoehorning Sonys arguments, poorly, into their arguments without even understanding them. Their case isn't about helping Sony, it's about making an example of hindering Microsoft growth (not Xbox, just Microsoft as a single entity) and Sonys arguments are convenient plausible cover. They're just using Sony for their own ends. Which is backfiring because Sonys arguments are garbage and they didn't care to know enough to know that.

@GuyinPA75 theyre both doing it. MS just played the game better(assuming it all goes through).

This have/is all too much of a fan debate - Microsoft vs. Sony when in the end the deal will benefit all players. Market dominance does not encourage the best possible games to a resonable price. Ony fierce competition does that!

@BAMozzy the issue is all the Playstation exclusives you mentioned were made by Sony devs. Sony bought a small dev, invested in it, produced new, GOTY contending games. Uncharted, TLOU, Spiderman, Ghost of Tsushima, etc. All created by Sony devs. Microsoft simply want to buy up the biggest selling 3rd party games an make them exclusive. Since MS bought Bethesda how many new games av been announced? None at all!! Redfall an Starfield which were already well in to production for both Series S/X and PS5, MS buy then an make 3rd party games exclusive.

@TheArtfulDodger Sony bought up the talent behind numerous franchises. Its their own fault they don't 'own' IP's like Crash Bandicoot or Spyro because the Studio's they purchased that created those were 'owned' by another Company who 'owned' the IP's that ended up being bought by Activision.

Spider-Man wasn't created by a Sony Dev at all as Insomniac were NOT owned by Sony when that game released - even games like Spyro, R&C & Resistance were not made by a 'First' Party and they teamed up with Xbox on Sunset Overdrive 'exclusively' - although now Sony owns that IP. Spider-Man isn't a Sony owned IP either and 'bigger' than CoD.

It's 'cheaper' to buy a Studio with little/no IP's than buying a Publisher with IP's and Publishing Rights. Sony paid more than 10x the amount for Bungie than Insomniac because Bungie own Publishing rights to Destiny so start making 'money' back instantly as every 'sale' goes to the Publisher which is now owned by Sony so a lot more expensive than buying a Studio as you need to invest time and money (unless they have games in development you can make 'exclusive' and/or Publish to bring in income.

It doesn't matter whether a Studio has a 'history' of great AAA games and those IP's are theirs or not. The point is that its still taken Talent behind great games and locking them now to a Single Platform. It doesn't matter if its a Studio like Playground or Sucker Punch that pretty much only worked on 'Exclusives' before joining or a Studio like Bungie or Bethesda who have a LONG history and created some of the biggest IP's in gaming (Halo, Elder Scrolls etc) its still buying 'talent'.

Games in 'Development' are built on PC's and as Redfall was certainly not 'nearly' finished over 2yrs ago when MS officially took over, I doubt very much that they had even 'ported' anything to a PS5 devkit. Its no surprise that a 'third' party Publisher would insist on releasing games to ALL platforms so 'plan' to 'release' on PS5, doesn't mean ANY development on PS5 had occurred. The game was in 'development' on PCs and the ONLY change was that now they wouldn't need to waste time, money and resources on porting, optimising, releasing and supporting their Rival platform.

I bet Deathloop was 'in development' for Xbox too but didn't bother porting, optimising and ensuring its 'ready' to release until after PS5 had been released because that version was 'delayed' thanks to Sony. Gotham Knights wasn't 'pulled' from last gen hardware and was in 'development' for those but was Cancelled. Star Wars 1313, Scalebound etc wasn't pulled away from gamers, they got 'cancelled' before they were 'finished', before they were a 'Product'.

You don't complain that Square Enix no longer owns Tomb Raider, having bought Eidos to acquire that, selling it to Embracer who then sold it to Amazon. Would you only Complain if Amazon decide to make Tomb Raider Exclusive to Amazon Luna now? Codemasters bought by EA and own their IP's now.

I bet Final Fantasy - not OWNED by Sony, Published by Sony or developed by a Sony Owned Studio was in development for Xbox, until Sony stepped in an paid them money to 'delay/cancel' any further development on Xbox versions. When MS bought Zenimax, they buy the Talent, own the Studio, the IP's, the Publishing rights. Zenimax STOPPED being a 'third-party' multi-platform Publisher and all their Studio's, IP's and Publishing Rights are MS owned. Redfall is a Microsoft owned IP, just like Elder Scrolls or Forza or Halo or Gears. Its their money paying their employees to make games and have been for over 2yrs now - hence Redfall and Starfield are 'exclusive'.

Redfall and Starfield are made by MS owned Devs and own those IP's, own the Publishing Rights - no different from Sony owning Naughty Dog, owning The Last of Us and owning the Publishing rights to decide where they want to 'release' their game. Maybe Haven were planning to make multi-platform games until Sony acquired them, Bungie were supposed to be working on something new - maybe will be multi-platform - but maybe not now.

Point is Sony bought Talent to make Great games exclusively for Playstation and MS has done the same too - just like EVERY Publisher. You don't expect Sony to make Final Fantasy multi-platform or any 'new' IP's their Studio's could have been making planned for Xbox (at some point) to ever release on Xbox if Sony bought Square Enix. You don't expect another Sunset Overdrive on Xbox - even if MS own the Publishing rights to that specific game. If Insomniac made SO2, it would ONLY be on Playstation - like Hellblade 2 or Outer Worlds 2...

@BAMozzy my simple point is Sony buy devs and make new, incredible games. Wen Sony bought Naughty Dog Naughty Dog were making games for Apple 2. Since then we’ve had Uncharted 1-4, Uncharted Lost Legacy an The Last of Us 1 an 2 and Left Behind. An Spiderman was originally offered to Xbox, Xbox said no. Sony said yes. Playstation gets the biggest selling console exclusive ever!!

@BAMozzy an the Final Fantasy thing is nothing to do with Sony. Square Enix simply don’t wanna release on Xbox. They say the player base doesn’t warrant the extra work.

@TheArtfulDodger you sure do love your interactive movies bro

@nomither6 Playstation exclusives are my fav type of games. Big, single player, story driven games with amazing stories an characters. The Last of Us 1 an 2 being my absolute fav games. I really wish Xbox would start making such games!! I’m hoping Starfield lives up to the hype!! It needs a good story, not just good game play.

@TheArtfulDodger They STILL BOUGHT Studio's and the TALENT behind great IP's to make them FIRST PARTY and ensure everything else they create thereafter is EXCLUSIVE. Whether they spent money for 'years' beforehand, ensuring that they ONLY made games from that point onwards for Playstation.

Those games 'could' have been Multi-platform too if Sony hadn't bought those Studios but they 'stopped' having that potential as SOON as SONY BOUGHT THEM. It doesn't matter how 'big' or 'small' they were, what they had made before etc from that point, they 'became' a First Party Studio so EVERY game from that point on was developed FOR Playstation.

Its NO different - its cheaper buying just a Studio with little/no experience or IP's or much history as Xbox have acquired Studios like Undead Labs, Playground Games and even Bethesda worked with MS to bring games like Elder Scrolls, Doom (new - not old PC games finally ported to console like Doom and Doom 2) etc as they were 'PC' developers and Xbox had the easiest platform to port to.

At the end of the day, its NO different - Sony, MS and all the other 'big' publishers have bought Studios, bought Talent and even if they don't by an 'IP', they still buy the Talent behind those and thus 'improve' their ability to 'compete' for consumers. Just because MS has a 'Platform' too makes NO difference. Amazon or Google could have purchased A/B and made ALL their IP's exclusive.

The ONLY bit your 'concerned' about is the fact that Redfall, Starfield and any other game that comes out of Zenimax Group will NOT be on Playstation because MS OWNS these Studios, OWN the IP's, OWN the Publishing Rights and Arkane, Bethesda, Machine Games, id Software etc are ALL First Party Studio's and their games are ALL owned by Xbox - that includes Doom 1, Doom 2, Wolfenstein, Elder Scrolls (inc those that 'released' on Playstation and those that didn't as they didn't get the first 3) because MS OWNS them. Sony bought Naughty Dog, but not their IP's or Publishing Rights, bought Sucker Punch, Insomniac, Guerilla etc etc - in fact Sony have bought the majority of their Studios, bought the 'talent' behind 'Xbox' owned IP's (like Halo, Crash and Spyro - when the ABK deal closes), and from the minute they became First Party, became SONY employees expected to work ONLY on Sony products - no different to MS, EA, Embracer etc etc...

@BAMozzy those games wouldn’t have come along had it not been for Sony! The new games coming fom Microsoft acquired devs are the same games as before, only exclusive. You kinda get the point but without realising the point.