• KuroJ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I agree. This is going on way too long.

    From what I understand of the merger it seems like it would benefit gamers as a whole. It seems initially the main reason to stop this was to block Microsoft from exclusive rights over Call of Duty, which doesn’t seem what Microsoft is intending to do.

    Microsoft has even agreed to bring call of duty to Sony’s Playstation for 10 years, and also to bring call of duty to the Nintendo switch.

    Maybe I’m missing something here, but I really don’t see how this would hurt the gaming market, which is what is being argued here.

    • QHC@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Microsoft could be lying, or could change their mind in the future.

      • KuroJ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/12/microsoft-activision-blizzard-deal-ftc-regulators

        According to this article, Microsoft has agreed to sign a legally binding agreement with the FTC.

        “Microsoft has said the deal would benefit gamers and gaming companies alike, and offered to sign a legally binding consent decree with the FTC to provide Call of Duty games to rivals including Sony for a decade.”

        Now for the future, that I couldn’t tell you what Microsoft would do, but I believe the Microsoft of today is all about bringing these types of services and games to all. I think if they were to end support and only keep call of duty exclusive to Xbox it would actually do more harm to them than good.

        • QHC@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          That is good news. Thanks for clarifying (and for deservedly shaming me for not reading the article, haha).