450°

Microsoft & CMA Argue on Appeal Hearing Date for Activision Blizzard Deal; Provisional Dates Set

The British CAT hosted a conference to indicate the calendar of Microsoft's appeal against the CMA's decision to block the acquisition of Activision Blizzard.
Microsoft has been pressing for a quick process, while the CMA has tried to stall.

Read Full Story >>
techraptor.net
KingKionic 367d ago

Looks like Microsoft lawyers were putting in work.

https://twitter.com/FOSSpat...

Microsoft might be eating well before the summers over.

Abriael367d ago (Edited 367d ago )

Having watched the whole 3+ hours, I gotta say, it was actually (and surprisingly) fairly enjoyable. I expected to be bored out of my mind. The Britishness of it all and the dry humor added to the experience.

It certainly felt like a bit of a beatdown by Microsoft and Activision's lawyers, who were extremely confident and felt extremely competent. On the other hand, the CMA's attorney was a bumbling mess, boring, much less competent, and definitely much less confident.

darkrider367d ago

Of course Microsoft great CMA bad lawyers bad. Another victory for Microsoft...

King_Noctis367d ago

@darkerider

So even the lawyers are not immune to this console war nonsense it seems.

Prime157366d ago

@King_Noctis

Right? The difference is they're fanboys of horizontal monopolies

barom366d ago

I'm always shocked how much people support a ~$2.5 trillion dollar company buying up the #1 independent publisher in the industry. Takes some good brainwashing to make that happen. Good job MS

BehindTheRows366d ago

Indeed. It’s the very definition of nose cutting. Even if it hurts their own interests, as long as their team gets a “win”, they’re okay with it.

Then again, that’s many humans in general, but it’s particularly easy to see with fans of industry consolidation.

mudakoshaka366d ago

KingKionic and Abriael be dick-ridin Microsoft! Yes, it is one of the world’s biggest companies against what are basically public employees. What a surprise that they made them look bad.

MrDead367d ago

Watching the fans of this deal is the same as turkeys voting for Christmas, cheering for a CEO's and shareholders payday and more industry consolidation. Industry consolidation, that's always worked out well for the consumer and workforce... oh wait!!!

Abriael367d ago (Edited 367d ago )

What I'm personally cheering for is not to have politicians with absolutely zero knowledge of the gaming industry (of which the CMA is a rather prominent representative.) interfere with the gaming industry more than they already do.

Reading the CMA's documents is a *nightmare* for anyone who wants a relatively independent gaming industry free from the undue influence of complete incompetents and anti-tech activists with a chip on their shoulders.

Politicians grabbing more power on gaming is literally the last thing gaming needs, and it's funny to see people becoming literal fanboys of *regulators* (IE: politicians who have no expertise on this specific industry and flounder around doing more damage than good) just because they indirectly defend the interests of their favorite piece of plastic.

A very visible defeat of the FTC and CMA in this matter would weaken this attempt at an agenda-driven power grab by politics on gaming. It's definitely a desirable outcome regardless of who is specifically involved in the deal.

Fanboys are short-sightedly taking the side that best fits their short-term console war interests, without understanding that a win for regulators will absolutely bite them (and gaming in general) in the backside in the future.

I've seen fanboys of consoles, fanboys of games, but fanboys of a regulator... that I did not expect to see in my lifetime. What a world we live in.

MrDead367d ago (Edited 367d ago )

So you support the CMA!?! that's good so do I.

Your right "Politicians grabbing more power on gaming is literally the last thing gaming needs" thats why I support the CMA, a Non-ministerial government department free from political interference... you get politicians involved you end up with a result like the EU, who MS has spent a lot of money lobbying to weaken the Digital Markets Act so that deals like Activision Blizzard can go through with very little oversight. I mean how do you think Qatar got the world cup?

Abriael367d ago (Edited 367d ago )

@MrDead: You don't seem to have a very clear of what you're talking about. Regulators are *literally* politicians with a very explicit political agenda.

It's hilarious to see how you define the CMA "free from political interference." They have *their own* political agenda exactly like the FTC does, and it's one extremely tainted with partisan activism. They're pretty literally the worst kind of politicians there is.

As I said, it's really funny to see people "supporting" the CMA. Seeing fanboys of a highly-politicized (and highly incompetent) regulator is an extreme incarnation of irrational fanboyism I did not expect to ever see in my life. 😂

367d ago
MrDead367d ago (Edited 367d ago )

The CMA is a Non-ministerial government department.

"Members must not occupy paid political posts or hold particularly sensitive or high profile unpaid roles in a political party"

Also the CMA is constantly fighting the UK government, hence why MS when straight to the PM and the Tory party (who they lobby) when the CMA blocked the deal. "The CMA has issued a paper warning the Government about any moves to broaden its powers to intervene in mergers on public interest grounds." So if this deal passes it will be through political interference from a lobbied party to overrule the CMA, the very thing that you've been prattling on about.

"tainted with partisan activism."... wow chill out fox news

Geez kid almost everything you said is wrong, even I feel embarrassed for you.

367d ago
Abriael367d ago (Edited 367d ago )

Imagine being either so naive or so disingenuous to argue that an organization "fighting the government" isn't a political entity.

That's the literal definition of politicians. You may have missed the memo but being in favor of the government isn't the only incarnation of politics. Being against it is not one bit less political.

Don't worry about me, MrDead. I have 22 years of experience in the industry to back my position, and I've seen politicians trying to make grabby hands on it throughout that whole time.

You can worry about your own embarrassment. You obviously don't know what you're talking about and you're defending a dreadfully incompetent regulator only because it suits your immediate console war interests without so much as taking a glimpse at the bigger picture 😂

PS: calling people "kid" immediately shows your level of maturity, which really isn't very impressive.

Rikuide367d ago

"A very visible defeat of the FTC and CMA in this matter would weaken this attempt at an agenda-driven power grab by politics on gaming. It's definitely a desirable outcome regardless of who is specifically involved in the deal."

This isn't a deal between small time developer and local publisher. It's a $70B deal between the world's 2nd largest company and the 4th largest gaming company. It's exactly the sort of deal regulators should be scrutinising.

"Fanboys are short-sightedly taking the side that best fits their short-term console war interests, without understanding that a win for regulators will absolutely bite them (and gaming in general) in the backside in the future."

Similarly, other fanboys are short-sightedly cheering further, significant market consolidation because it best first *their* console war interests.

Abriael367d ago (Edited 367d ago )

Rikuide: consolidation is coming, whether you like it or not, and whether regulators like it or not. It's already largely happening and it'll continue to happen.

But it's the industry that needs to decide its terms, not incompetent politicians.

Incidentally, regulators *are* scrutinizing, but scrutinizing doesn't mean try to block in principle with frankly puerile arguments that shows a dreadful level of incompetence. You obviously haven't read the CMA's arguments, because they're obviously concocted by someone who has zero expertise on the gaming industry.

Regulators are scrutinizing, and it isn't at all random that the overwhelming majority of them have ruled in favor of the deal.

vcqgvbqnvzjjuqfqkf: Unlike you, I'm not a throwaway sockpuppet account with 1 post and an incomprehensible nickname, spewing falsehoods. Do you feel like your posts with your main account aren't enough to pretend people agree with you? Why don't you tell us who you really are? 😂

darkrider367d ago (Edited 367d ago )

If they had this deal on never move forward any gamers with half a brain and it's not blind follower knows what Microsoft is doing and what is done.Huge 3rd party games shouldn't be under a company with a track record of Microsoft. Of course not with sony and Nintendo. Leave 3rd party games available for all. Create your own games.

MrDead367d ago

"Imagine being either so naive or so disingenuous to argue that an organization "fighting the government" isn't a political entity.

That's the literal definition of politicians. You may have missed the memo but being in favor of the government isn't the only incarnation of politics. Being against it is not one bit less political."

... just say you have no idea what a Non-ministerial government department is.

Are you a politician, as you seem to have the reasoning of one.

You have a problem with politicians in deciding the future of gaming yet you support the heavily lobbied political bodies that have passed the MS buyout of the industry and are calling one of the only independent body's that's free from politicians, political interference!?!

"I have 22 years of experience in the industry to back my position"

... oh dear, and now you're on N4G making stuff up. Well kid what can I say, sorry for your life choices I guess.

"only because it suits your immediate console war interests without so much as taking a glimpse at the bigger picture"

You mean bigger picture of industry consolidation, the one thing that has been a disaster for the consumer and the workforce in every industry it's happened/happing too but a massive boon for CEO's and shareholders? No, I see the picture very clearly, take off your fanboy specs and you might see it too.

Rikuide367d ago

@Abriael:

Similarly, regulators will scrutinise huge deals whether you like it or not precisely because allowing individual firms within an industry to define their own terms can end poorly for consumers as well as other firms within the same market.

Of course the CMA, FTC and EC - representing crucial ABK markets - each outlined concerns over the deal. The CMA has blocked the deal at present, whilst the FTC seeks to do the same. The EC conditionally approved the deal, but only after MS offered significant remedies. The EC believes the EU can enforce said remedies in the short-medium term; the CMA does not believe the UK can. Time will tell if the EC is right.

Abriael367d ago (Edited 367d ago )

Rikuide: if the CMA is so insecure, then they have absolutely no business deciding over global-level deals. Mind you, they already don't because they lack something even more important, and it's called expertise. I invite you to read their documents and challenge you not to roll your eyes several times per paragraph. It's the translation into legalese of a level of expertise comparable to an infant.

MrDead: your idea that a "Non-ministerial government department" isn't a bunch of politicians is hilariously naive, or simply disingenuous, your pick.

Again, don't worry about me and my "life choices." I'm perfectly fine and secure in my life position. I'm actually remarkably fortunate. Have a well-paid job that I love, I'm about to move permanently to Japan to enhance that job even further, and everything is going fantastic.

Industry consolidation is happening, and the whole industry knows. The CMA won't stop it, nor will any other regulator. The only distinguishing factor is if it'll be on the industry's terms or on the politicians' and bureaucrats' terms.

This deal going through represents the former. It being blocked (but it likely won't as the CMA has made several mistakes in its ruling that will bite them in the back) represents the latter.

TOTSUKO367d ago (Edited 367d ago )

So we both can agree that the system is corruptible if Microsoft and Sony or any corporation is lobbying regulators for their sides of political agenda just so they can get what they want? Call people short sighted but you are also blind to an even larger problem lol

Abriael367d ago (Edited 367d ago )

@TOTSUKO: the industry SHOULD get what it wants.

The gaming industry should be governed by the gaming industry, not by external politicians and bureaucrats who know *nothing* about the gaming industry.

People wanting politicians and bureaucrats to have even more agency on what happens in the gaming industry is absolutely mindboggling.

meanmallard367d ago

Abreil I recommend more emojis when you tell people what a professional you are. It really lets people know you're as smart are you think you are.

MrDead367d ago (Edited 367d ago )

@Abri

"your idea that a "Non-ministerial government department" isn't a bunch of politicians is hilariously naive, or simply disingenuous, your pick"

...why pick one of them when they don't reflect reality, or is it to make your very obvious damaged feel ego better?

"Again, don't worry about me and my "life choices." I'm perfectly fine and secure in my life position. I'm actually remarkably fortunate. Have a well-paid job that I love, I'm about to move permanently to Japan to enhance that job even further, and everything is going fantastic."

Yes my life as an rocket engineer is great too and I'm about to move to New Japan+, but what makes you come onto a gaming site and start spouting nonsense about "tainted with partisan activism.", then talk about how you don't want politicians deciding the future of gaming but side with the lobbied politicians that are deciding the future of gaming against an independent body where "Members must not occupy paid political posts or hold particularly sensitive or high profile unpaid roles in a political party" and then you accuse the non-political body as being political... your arguments make no sense!

Then you say "Industry consolidation is happening, and the whole industry knows." like it's a good thing!?!.. and by the way, we all know its happening that's why so many of us are against it . The very reason why countries like the UK and the US have high profit economies and low income workers is because of industry consolidation, the only ones to benefit are CEO's and shareholders and you want this on an even bigger scale than what's already in gaming.
So what you want is less choice, more expensive games, a lower pay for the game makers but higher payouts for CEO's and shareholders and a poorer quality end product... that's what you get when you have large industrial consolidation on one market, just look at every industry this has happened to if you want proof.

The short-sightedness of fanboys never fails to amaze, like I said in my first comment "turkeys voting for Christmas".

TOTSUKO367d ago

Abriael

You been in the industry for many years as a journalist yet you are arguing with kids on N4G

Industry should get what they want. These are people working hard to make a living. You have convinced me you don’t care about the people who makes the video games. You have not even made a stance for the developers who have no governing control of where their future lies.

It actually boggles my mind you somehow speak for the industry like you worked countless hours away from family just to make a video game.

You act like you deserve a job at Bloomberg

You don’t you are a hack. An overpaid keyboard warrior where your opinions should stay on your websites editorial

Christopher367d ago (Edited 367d ago )

Sorry Abriael, but it's obvious you ain't understand what's happening.

1. They specifically outline their issue and it's based on the past actions if Microsoft to ensure anti -competitive power within other tech arenas (software, networking, cloud, etc.).

2. CMA isn't political. It's the opposite of political and politics are actually being used against it to get it to overturn their decision.

3. The decision the CMA made didn't give anyone political power, it still leaves the entirety of the industry within the industry. It just prevents one entity from acquiring another. For all intents and purposes as consumers, we will see no difference at all.

4. Without regulators do you know how little competition there would be? How much companies would do to pass costs into consumers and limit there right to repair? How trillion dollar companies would ensure smaller ones would have to pay them a premium just for existing in the same arena?

***highly-politicized (and highly incompetent) ***

Can't respect your opinion on this one.

Abriael367d ago (Edited 367d ago )

Sorry Christopher, but you're the one who doesn't know what they're talking about here.

The CMA and the FTC have *absolutely* a political agenda, and it's a militant political agenda against big tech that has been happening among some of the most politicized regulators for a while.

They're also highly incompetent, and anyone who has actually read their documentation would agree. They have *no* idea of how the industry works. They decided to block the deal first for ideological reasons, and then they scrambled to concoct a somewhat plausible (but extremely weak) excuse to support it. And their incompetence will make them lose on appeal almost surely.

Again, it is not random that the overwhelming majority of regulators around the world ruled in favor of the deal, simply because there's absolutely nothing wrong with it from a competition point of view, and preserving competition should be the *only* duty of antitrust regulators. That's what antitrust means.

It's also not random that multiple regulators mentioned explicitly that the deal has the potential to *boost* competition, because it will.

Christopher366d ago (Edited 366d ago )

***The CMA and the FTC have *absolutely* a political agenda, and it's a militant political agenda against big tech that has been happening among some of the most politicized regulators for a while. ***

You're getting lied to by big tech. The mass majority of regulation findings allow sales to go through. It's over 95% showed transitions but you're so hyper fixed on the less than 5%, like big tech wants you to be, that you don't see they're leading you to think of the regulators as some sort of gestapo. But, hey, you keep supporting those most valuable companies out there because without your support they won't be able to reach the next trillion dollars in value as they continue their market dominance upon which the smaller tech companies rely.

And know, EU aren't regulators. That's political. Reach country has their own regulation board. EU is not a regulation board per se.

366d ago
+ Show (18) more repliesLast reply 366d ago
CantThinkOfAUsername367d ago

Good. Let's get this crap over with and observe how long it'd take Microsoft to run Activision into the ground with their incompetence.

gold_drake367d ago

agreed.
sick and tired of hearing about this and the desperation of ms.

Aloymetal367d ago (Edited 367d ago )

We should be ready to hear more of this and there is absolutely no doubt, MS/xbox will continue the desperation and fight this til there's no tomorrow, what else can they do, they know xbox can't go back to the ''regular business model'' of selling hardware/software like PlayStation and Nintendo do because they will continue to be an afterthought in the market like they have been for the past 20 yrs. Gamepass, which is 6 yrs old already didn't help them either so all is left is to buy everything they can and HOPE for the best. Lobbying and monopoly is the name of their game.

darthv72367d ago

Im thinking MS may go the 3rd party route after this deal closes. So then the Sony fans wont have anything to worry about since PS wil still get the CoD games after all. MS wants to push their cloud and likely will let the console side of things dwindle even further. By going 3rd party, MS can get their game pass service on other platforms now without incident.

RedDevils366d ago

Why would Sony help MS selling COD if they get nothing in return? What moron business corporation would allow that to happen?

rob-GP366d ago

"By going 3rd party, MS can get their game pass service on other platforms now without incident." - If you think the only reason they can't get GP on other competing platforms is because of the CMA apposing the cloud aspect, then you're very ignorant and clueless.

Sony and Nintendo will NEVER allow Game Pass on their devices as it means you'll be paying 100% to MS to bypass buying 3rd party games on their stores - potentially losing out on hundreds of millions of dollars a year. So no, don't expect it to EVER be on anything but PC, mobile and Xbox.

The streaming platforms and Steam don't even want Game Pass as, once again, it'll eat into their profits.

Show all comments (50)
190°

Former Activision studio Toys for Bob partners with Xbox to publish its first game as an indie

Former Activision studio Toys for Bob partners with Xbox to publish its first game as an indie. This is something of a homecoming, as Microsoft owns Activision.

Read Full Story >>
engadget.com
Obscure_Observer10h ago

Very very early in development. Still, fantastic news!

Let´s GO!!!

Lightning778h ago

I guess.

How come they didnt either let them go or sell Tango and others to another publisher? Not saying Ubisoft, EA would be any better. (Capcome would of treated them right )

At least it wouldn't be MS of all ppl destroying them.

MS really should let go Tango go like they did TFB here.

darthv728h ago(Edited 8h ago)

one was under Bethesda (Tango) the other under Activision (TFB). Clearly each one handled the separations of their subordinates differently.

Obscure_Observer7h ago(Edited 7h ago)

"How come they didnt either let them go or sell Tango and others to another publisher? Not saying Ubisoft, EA would be any better. (Capcome would of treated them right )"

Perhaps because Zenimax and ABK handles such matters differently based on their own internal policies as "independent" publishers.

Whoever, chances are it´s simply because MS didn´t wanted Tango or Austin to be acquired by competitors and develop new bangers for them, giving MS a bad rep in a possible future. Which could also be the reason why they ensured an exclusive partnership with TFB and its new game, before anyone else.

Sad and disgusting. But it is what it is.

Lightning773h ago(Edited 3h ago)

"Whoever, chances are it´s simply because MS didn´t wanted Tango or Austin to be acquired by competitors and develop new bangers for them, giving MS a bad rep in a possible future."

MS has a bad rep now because those studios are no more. I rather them sell the studio continue to make multiplatform releases, while MS continues to focus on whatever they're doing. If they didn't want Tango around they should separated from them or sell them to, like they did TFB.

It's inexcusable, they have options on how to handle studios they don't want anymore with killing jobs. Not just MS but the rest of the industry also.

Sad and disgusting sure how many will get shut down next year or this year even?

I don't trust MS decisions and motivations at this point. You have to admit they make one dumb move after another.

-Foxtrot10h ago

Manages to buy their freedom especially after all the shit Microsoft has been doing with its studios lately

...

Goes right back to them as partners.

Okaaaaaay...

darthv728h ago

Id venture a guess that TFB working directly with MS was a better outcome than working through Activision to get to MS.

VersusDMC6h ago

From the article...

"Toys for Bob spun out as an indie back in February after Microsoft instituted sweeping layoffs that impacted 86 employees, which was more than half of the staff"

I doubt those 86 employees enjoyed the Microsoft experience over Activisions.

Inverno5h ago

MS shuts down studios because of lack of resources and then helps these guys by giving em resources. Also MS is what forced them to buy their freedom in the first place? What kind of logic 😂

Chevalier2h ago

The best thing is that the company that is worth $3 trillion and owns the company instead of Xbox lacks resources. How the hell does a company worth $3 trillion making a measly $70 billion purchase they 'can't' support. Lol

Sciurus_vulgaris8h ago(Edited 8h ago)

Xbox’s gaming division seems to still function as 3 semi-autonomous sub-divisions, Xbox Studios, Bethesda and ABK. The three main sub-divisions can seemingly shut down or build studios and set up partnerships independently. This would explain why Bethesda can recently shutdown studios, while ABK spins off one studio, while building a new one. Plus, Toys for Bob could be spun off by ABK, only to immediately re-partner with Microsoft.

Chevalier2h ago

That's absolutely 💯 BS. Any sane 'autonomous' company would NOT put their games on Gamepass day 1 like COD will lose probably billions.

Also they're all under Xbox game studios so any autonomy is an illusion.

Elda2h ago

Either a kiddie game or something uninteresting.

Show all comments (15)
180°

Sony shares big new PS Plus stat, but not the one we want to see

PlayStation Plus has improved the split of PS4 and PS5 players on its priciest tiers, but Sony continues to hide total subscriber numbers.

Read Full Story >>
theloadout.com
mandf13h ago

lol acting like it’s equivalent to ms numbers

Mr Logic13h ago

Uh...They're definitely not equivalent.

"Microsoft’s Xbox Game Pass service now has 34 million subscribers."

"the total number of PS Plus subscribers across all tiers was 47.4 million"

darthv7213h ago(Edited 12h ago)

That PSN number seems like it should be much higher... especially when you consider that PS4 alone has a sell through of over 117m. To not even be at least half that is rather interesting.

To the XB side, having 34m to an install base of roughly 50m (XBO sell through) or even 85m (360 sell through) is a greater percentage of unit to member ratio than PSN.

bloop9h ago

That's not the "gotcha" you think it is Darth.

darthv728h ago

^^it's not supposed to be bloop.... it's just an interesting observation.

Einhander19727h ago

darthv72

"That PSN number seems like it should be much higher... especially when you consider that PS4 alone has a sell through of over 117m. To not even be at least half that is rather interesting.

To the XB side, having 34m to an install base of roughly 50m (XBO sell through) or even 85m (360 sell through) is a greater percentage of unit to member ratio than PSN."

Have you ever heard of a PC before? I hear they are pretty popular.

fr0sty1h ago

MS started lumping gold subscribers in with those GP numbers... keep in mind.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1h ago
shinoff218312h ago(Edited 12h ago)

What. Definitely more os plus subscribers but that makes sense due to actual console sales

Darth the difference between the bases are huge your right but you gotta think. Ps players buy more games, where as the Xbox base relies on gamepass for their gaming. So it makes perfect sense

darthv7212h ago(Edited 11h ago)

What makes perfect sense though? You say PS players buy more games... so then logically there should be more PS+ subscribers given the increased number of online multiplayer games in the PS4 generation alone. The PS4 was the first time that + was required for online play much like Gold was for 360 users.

Keep in mind we are talking subscribers, not simply XB/PS users. I assume you meant to say offline single player games, which is most likely true as well. That gen also saw a significant increase in games with an online component comparted to the previous gen.

victorMaje11h ago

I for one will be going back to essential at the next renewal. When I feel a game is good & right up my alley, I’ll check trusted reviews & just buy it.

jznrpg10h ago(Edited 10h ago)

I have the top tier until 2028 as they gave me a massive discount for all the years I had left but I’ll most likely go to essential as well. I buy my games but my kids do use the service occasionally. They do prefer to own their games as well since any game can leave the rental service at some point and they don’t like that idea. They mostly use it to demo games then ask me to buy games if they really like it.

RedDevils5h ago

For me, I will cancel it all together but unfortunately I still have it till 2030 lol

meganick9h ago

I would like to see Sony add a fourth tier of PS Plus for people who just want to be able to play games online without any of the perks like monthly games, store discounts, or anything like that, and it should cost $20 annually, $30 maximum. There’s no way I’m paying $80 just to play games online. Even the original $60 fee was too much, and I would often wait for sales to re-up my subscription.

P_Bomb5h ago(Edited 5h ago)

Essential is too expensive, I agree. We’ve got one Essential and one Premium sub. Dropping the Premium when it expires.

gamerz2h ago

Just let my subscription lapse for the first time since 2010. Will sub again every now and then for a month or so to access my old ps+ games but for me it's the end of an era.

DivineHand1252h ago

Let those numbers continue to drop because it is now too expensive. $80 per year just to play online. I noticed they didn't offer any discounts on the subscription or controllers during this year's days of play for the first time in many years and they will feel it when people choose not to renew.

My subscription will lapse next month and it will stay that way until further notice.

130°

What Happens to Your Steam Account When You Die?

The Outerhaven writes: While Steam has come out recently, stating that Steam accounts can't be transferred, we need to think about it since we all will eventually kick the bucket. But if Valve is denying transferring accounts, what can be done? Plenty, actually.

Read Full Story >>
theouterhaven.net
thorstein1d 11h ago

It goes to my kids because I gave them the passwords.

To Steam: Missio has a song that conveys my feelings about you stealing my purchase after I die. It's called "Middle Fingers"

shinoff218316h ago

Pretty much. My son knows my info.

Abear2116h ago

Yeah worrying about digital ownership when you’re on the other side of the grass seems a little strange, but also on brand for these millennial journalists to worry about.

qalpha1h ago

I'm sure Keith will be happy to hear he's a millennial journalist.

Goodguy0120h ago

I suppose if I have kids, I'd just give em my account details by retirement age. If I die young then...idk lol.

CrimsonWing6917h ago

Yea, I mean just give someone the password to your account. Is that difficult to do or something? Like, I’m legit asking because I don’t know.

anast15h ago(Edited 15h ago)

It's not difficult but It's against the policy. If they find out, they will lock the account permanently.

CrimsonWing6914h ago

Ah ok, I had a feeling there was something like that. It seems kind of weird that you can’t just hand your account over to a family member or friend and let them take over the account.

Show all comments (15)