FTC Boss Accused of Wasting Taxpayer Money With Xbox Verdict Appeal

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) chair Lina Khan was questioned by the House Judiciary Committee today on why the agency is spending so much taxpayer money on merger trials, such as the ongoing legal fight with Microsoft.

[gold_drake]

.. it was and is a big case.
alot of discovery and lawyers to pay.

what kind of stupid question is that lol.

[Christopher]

***so much taxpayer money on merger trials, such as the ongoing legal fight with Microsoft.***

I mean, regardless of the Microsoft case, it is literally their job to use taxpayer money to actually hold businesses to a litmus test on mergers. With the number of mergers happening every year, there's a lot to ensure and comply with. This is a dangerous thing to question and could result in mergers that are actually bad for consumers to get through. These people are competing against the richest people in the world. You can't compete with that on a pittance of funding. It takes money.

[maniacmayhem]

Yes, but when is enough, enough?

The FTC had nothing, their case was weak, they presented very little and made arguments that they couldn't prove let alone just shined a light on what every gaming developer/publishers in the industry does and they lost.

At this point, with this particular case it does become a waste of Tax payers money.

[Christopher]

***At this point, with this particular case it does become a waste of Tax payers money.***

They're not questioning this case, though. They are questioning all cases in the question asked. Which either tells me they are strong-arming the FTC to back down by threatening to reduce their funding or they want to defund the FTC as a whole, which means so much more will get through and they will have less and less to combat against companies that continue to grow in wealth.

[maniacmayhem]

The FTC if I recall is not only asking for more funding but lost a few cases already due to their flimsy showings. Theyre using the ABK/MS deal as just another example.

Which speaks to the point of this article.why is the FTC wasting tax payers money on arguments they can't seem to win? Especially even more with this appeal.

[Christopher]

***.why is the FTC wasting tax payers money on arguments they can't seem to win?***

Because it's literally their job to do as such. They are a non-political group that is then subject to judges who are politically appointed. Does this mean they shouldn't do their job? It's the job of tons of people to go to court over things even if they end up losing them more often than not. That's how the legal system works.

[maniacmayhem]

*Because it's literally their job to do as such.*

Okay, I get that, but it's definitely not their job to waste tax payers money on frivolous cases they can't prove or win in court! I hope we can agree with that right? The FTC, under Lina Khan, sucks at their job. This is exactly why she is being questioned about her mismanagement and her inability to regulate and enforce anit-trust laws.

[Christopher]

***Okay, I get that, but it's definitely not their job to waste tax payers money on frivolous cases ***

The judge has the ability and power to throw out a frivolous case right away. She didn't do it. It was not deemed frivolous. The FTC didn't strongarm the judge nor do they have such power.

Senators making claims that it is frivolous don't care about that and use such words as a performative means to attack groups.

[Jin_Sakai]

“Yes, but when is enough, enough?“

When mega corporations stop gobbling up the industry piece by piece.

[GhostScholar]

I agree with you to an extent, but bottom line is, this is in no way nor should it be illegal. Sony will be just fine. They are just scared to death to have to keep making innovative games because Jim Ryan has no idea about gaming. Shawn Layden would have taken this on the chin and then kept putting out bangers.

[Prime157]

Maniac's understanding of the FTC's function is certainly special.

I don't know why people who can't answer why or how government systems have come to be always have to assert their... "Special" opinions.

[maniacmayhem]

We seem to be discussing two different things, either that or you're choosing to ignore the actual topic.

No one is arguing what the FTC's actual job is, the issue and topic is the FTC not performing their job and therefore wasting tax payers money, by not only loosing multiple cases but not being prepared in the case of this ABK deal and bringing weak arguments to court that even the judge said was mostly about defending Sony.

So why increase funding for a current group that can't win, not because of lack of funding but because of lack of knowledge, preparation and skills?

[Christopher]

*** the FTC not performing their job and therefore wasting tax payers money***

No, our issue is that we disagree on this. I don't think they aren't performing their job nor do I think they are wasting taxpayer money.

[1Victor]

Without reading the article just the headline it sound like a republican politician complaining about the democrats government
Now to read the article and see if I was right

🤣 Call it just as I thought and btw wasn’t some of those mergers the ftc lost during the previous administration. I’m seriously asking because I’m too lazy to look it up 😢.

[LucasRuinedChildhood]

These paid off politicians also said "why are you harassing Twitter"? lol.
https://youtu.be/i_3YNASkNw...

[Prime157]

People who support big business over people make this point as if they're fiscally responsible.

Which is ironic, because they're on support of market consolidation.

It's the same people who think social security is a retirement plan and not what it actually is - insurance.

[AngainorG7X]

That sums it up 💀

Part 1: https://twitter.com/unidase...

Part 2: https://twitter.com/andreap...

[Ashunderfire86]

You should put out Part 3 as well lol!!! That is the final blow!!!

"If your ability to predict the future is so good, how is it you could not predict, that you were going to lose 4 out of 4 cases.?" - Mr. Issa

Wow! He got that woman on a stand still, especially when he said Robocalls lol!!

Part 3: https://twitter.com/AndreaP...

[InUrFoxHole]

Jesus that's beyond a bad day at the office. They never had a case or a chance. Bring on the new Era of xbox. GAME ON!!!!

[Chocoburger]

Of course our corrupt government would question why someone is actually trying to do a good thing. Naturally, politicians don't understand how to do right for anyone but themselves. Crooked worthless bastards.

[itsmebryan]

Please explain the good thing the FTC is doing with the ABK deal and it's not what Sony has been doing for decades?

[VersusDMC]

Sony has been buying publishers for decades?

[Elda]

Name one game publisher Sony PS has bought.

[CrimsonWing69]

@VersusDMC

I think he’s saying where Sony was paying for exclusivity and to completely keep games off Xbox.

Example being Starfield. Sony was in the midst of making that a PS5 exclusive.

There’s also this article:

https://www.protocol.com/bu...

If you think about it, it makes sense with the $70 price increase.

If you can get access to a $70 game upon release for paying only $16/month, I can absolutely see the desperation tactic of trying to block that from happening if you’re a competitor that doesn’t offer that option.

let me ask you this, how is having one company pay for exclusivity for a game not as bad as one company buying a publisher to make games exclusive or in this case still allow the game on a competitor platform, but make it cheaper on their platform?

Is the frustration now that you might have to buy an Xbox to play exclusives? I mean to a Xbox owner isn’t this what they’d have to do if games are exclusive on PlayStation? This has always been the case when choosing a platform. I can only speak for myself, but I typically make a platform my primary platform based solely on the exclusives it provides.

I choose Sony over Nintendo and Xbox because I prefer the exclusives and I’d rather play multiplatform games on a Sony console. I only buy the other platforms to play the exclusive titles on them and nothing else.

[Asplundh]

@Elda
Psygnosis

[gerbintosh]

@Crimsonwing69

"let me ask you this, how is having one company pay for exclusivity for a game not as bad as one company buying a publisher to make games exclusive"

Because there is still competition for the exclusives. Don't like it, pony up more dough or find a better way to make your console/services more appealing

"or in this case still allow the game on a competitor platform, but make it cheaper on their platform?"

MS can't commit past 10 years. If multiplatform makes it that far, doubt it, it will be exclusive at 10 years and 1 day. That's the problem. If it was on gamepass day 1 I would rather buy it on my PS instead of getting an Xbox to play for free. However if the game leaves PS then I would need to get a gaming PC, an Xbox, or give up the game

[mkis007]

Psygnosis is such a stupid argument. They were purchased in 1993, the games industry was still niche. They also put games out on other platforms for 7 years after acquisition. Including wipeout 64 on Nintendo 64.

The industry was young back then, buying them allowed Sony to enter it just as buying bungie and rare allowed MS to enter it; Giving us potential big names in the industry.

[shinoff2183]

Or what ms has done for decades also. Why do you people ignore ms and all the shit they've done, like all their 3rd party exclusives etc. Ms isn't some innocent party , and yall make them out to be. Buy some fking games and maybe bigger third party studios would be open to doing exclusives with ms. Try it. Bet it works

Crimson

If Sony was truly in the midst of making stsrfield exclusives I definitely would of been timed just like desthloop, and ghostwire. Theres no reason to believe otherwise considering those two deals.

[DarXyde]

There's false equivalence in these kinds of remarks. Yes, purchasing exclusivity is a problem, but not all exclusivity purchases are equal. There's the Call of Duty stuff which I would say fair enough to any criticisms about that. But in cases like Street Fighter V, Death Stranding, and Bloodborne, I fully disagree. Those are co developed projects. It would be like Scalebound if it ever came out.

But even outside of that, with timed exclusives, I can't really complain about that too much. It still comes to other platforms and developers do benefit from the money made during those deals.

The notion that this is a waste of taxpayer money is such a tired argument Congress uses when they want to advocate for austerity or supporting the activities of their donors. Bottomless well of funding for wars and a global presence on foreign soil, but the moment there's anything that considers the welfare of the population, there's a bottomless well of excuses.

Funny how quickly they send money to Israel or sell weapons to Saudi Arabia for human rights abuses without this kind of deliberation. Your tax dollars also pay their salaries and healthcare, just for them to deny you universal healthcare coverage or a higher federal minimum wage.

You can't be surprised when they say something that has a very clear corporate bent.

[maniacmayhem]

*Psygnosis is such a stupid argument.*

No it isn't a stupid argument, it's just an example of Sony doing the equivalent of what MS is doing today.

@Shinoff

*Why do you people ignore ms and all the shit they've done,*

Who's ignoring it, this site constantly brings it up every chance they can get.

*If Sony was truly in the midst of making stsrfield exclusives I definitely would of been timed just like desthloop, and ghostwire*

Or it could have been an exclusive to the PS system only like the latest FF and SFV. Let's not pretend that couldn't have been the case also.

[DarXyde]

maniacmayhem,

"No it isn't a stupid argument, it's just an example of Sony doing the equivalent of what MS is doing today."

It is an example of Sony purchasing a publisher, and that would have been a reasonable argument right there. But equivalent? No. Don't agree with that at all. If nothing else, it showed that Sony isn't against publisher purchasing (or perhaps, *wasn't* - they might be now).

"Or it could have been an exclusive to the PS system only like the latest FF and SFV. Let's not pretend that couldn't have been the case also."

Doubt that. We're speculating though and I suppose we'll never know. Final Fantasy makes sense given the hints we've gotten about the strained relationship between MS and Square. If they were willing to enter into an exclusivity deal with Sony, I reckon they felt the decision was profitable and worth their time. We also assume it is a lifetime console exclusive, and I don't know about that. It's also not the same as Street Fighter V. Capcom was in dire financial straits. They needed the cash injection to make it happen. And clearly, that support did not require Capcom to have all future entries to be PlayStation/PC exclusives, which is admirable in the long term.

On Starfield, I feel extremely confident in speculating it would have been timed at worst, probably 6 months to a year. I don't really think there's enough evidence to say they would do that.

[Ashunderfire86]

Not good at all and that FTC woman couldn't predict the future lol!!!

"If your ability to predict the future is so good, how is it you could not predict, that you were going to lose 4 out of 4 cases.?" - Mr. Issa

[Soulsborne]

Sony bought the biggest publishers? TIMED EXCLUSIVES????
Brainrot is real, touch gras kid.

[Demetrius]

Politicians need a wakeup call for real, all they do is spread false ass hope

[Chocoburger]

They will never wake up because they will never be held accountable for their actions. Its the main crux of the issue with governments all around the world. They can do or say what they want without repercussions. Endless corruption.

[lodossrage]

The people cheering this Microsoft merger need to understand what kind of pandora's box this opens.

Now what stops Sony or Nintendo from buying or galvanizing the Japaense studios? Sony is already looking to grab Square Enix. What stops Tencent from going after bigger fish instead of the many small ones they keep buying? What stops Apple from flexing their muscle? or what if Google decides to try again and buy up some of the market?

And now, because nobody said a word when Bethesda was bought combined with the fact that Microsoft is given the greenlight on Activision, the FTC won't be able to stop anyone from buying up the industry because NOW you have precident thanks to the MS/Activision merger.

We all get upset about corporations messing up our games, well get ready to be mad for MANY years to come.

Some of you are cheering MS winning this, but you don't realize we're ALL going to lose.

[Workshyskiver]

Genuine question, do you believe the gaming industry would have been in a better place at the end of this generation if the overwhelming market leader, Sony, was allowed to continue to use its market position to make Bethesda games timed exclusives against the 3rd place console?

Continue to use its market position to get defacto exclusivity on genre defining titles such as COD exclusivity deals, Final fantasy Exclusivity deals etc

At the end of that generation, you are probably looking at no more xbox and less competition for Sony.

Can you not see a world where the 3rd placed console can compete with the market leader leading to increased competition in the market space to the better of us all, as its always done in the past?

Sony having this large a piece of the market leads to them having the ability to do things like raise prices to $70 unopposed. Having M$ in a strong position will only be good for gamers as it will force Sony to respond in a more consumer friendly fashion to increase their value as a product.

[lodossrage]

First off, EA and Ubisoft both raised their prices to $70 before Sony did, So Sony aren't the ones that started that.

As for their marketshare, that came from actually putting in effort, not buying up things that were already huge and popular.

I'm not saying Sony is some saint, I just know MS is worse.

You incorrectly tagged Sony for starting the $70 price tag when two publishers (EA and Ubisoft) did it months before them.

But I'll tell you what happened when MS is (or when think they believe they have the advantage). We got paying to play online on home systems because of Microsoft being in the driver's seat for the majority of the 360 generation. And when they THOUGHT they had the next generation in the bag, we got always online drm, used game checks, and mandatory kinect.

So if you're asking me do I think things would be better with Sony at the helm, YES, I do.

[Tacoboto]

@lodos - You're incorrect in your first sentence. Ubisoft didn't raise their prices until late 2022. Their first $70 title was supposed to be Skulls and Bones that November but now we're midway through 2023, with Mirage going to release at $50. Fake News bro

Sony charged $70 for PS3 remakes Day One on PS5. It's impossible for EA to have gone before Sony, the platform maker with day one titles lol.

[Workshyskiver]

@Lodossrage

M$ started charging for xbox live in the original Xbox days when it was up against the PS2.

Fair enough but boggles my mind that you'd rather have Sony having a bigger share that they already have by diminishing the offerings on Xbox than Xbox having a larger share and Sony having to offer you more in the name of competition.

[lodossrage]

@Tacoboto

I stand corrected, Take Two were the first.

https://insider-gaming.com/...

@Workshyskiver

When they charged on the original xbox, the fee was optional. You didn't have to pay it to play online.

And during the first year of the Xbox360, online play was still free.

And again, as for marketshare, Who is diminishing whom? Starfield, Redfall, Indiana Jones, etc were going to be multiplatform until Xbox bought Bethesda.

Microsoft is a company with over 2 trillion dollars in value. You mean to tell me they can't do what Sony and Nintendo do are put money into R&D? Instead they have the buy up things that already exist and make them potentially exclusive to grow?

[Christopher]

Do I believe timed exclusives are better than centralizing third parties under hardware company control and turning games into exclusives outright? Yes, I believe timed exclusives are the better solution. I also know that both parties do timed exclusives, only that Microsoft doesn't have as many big hitters because instead of doing timed exclusives they've been outright buying major publishers, publishers with software that makes more money than any Sony first-party game.

[blackblades]

Well maybe MS should do a better job then. They have the money they could easily sit there and strike a deal and do good marketing but instead wanna buy up the joint. They bought exclusives back on 360 era they couldve done the same. Deathloop etc is on Xbox cause they were timed. There's a difference between getting something late and never getting something at all

[Extermin8or3_]

This is fucking nonsense. Bethesda were the one offering games to Sony for them to pay for timed exclusivity. Sony according to reports at rhe time actually DECLINED starfield. Has they not it woukd have been part of the same deal that led to timed exclusivity for deathloop and Tokyo ghostwire.

At any rate its still bolocks because Microsoft has the ability to outbid Sony on each and every 3rd party exclusive. They don't/can't because they are committed to day one on gamespass. That would mean covering all dev costs on anything they want exclusive which literally means through their own actions they just made it so that they have to pay literally 100+ million per 3rd party exclusive vs like 10 million for Sony to secure a few months exclusive.

If that was all it was about then they'd make games like starfield timed exclusive not have made all Bethesda games permanent exclusives. Sony were in no danger of paying to keep ABK gsmes as timed exclusives.....

[maniacmayhem]

What's stopping Nintendo and Sony? Money, that's what.

You honestly believe this is something new that is only being practiced now?

* Sony is already looking to grab Square Enix.*

No they're not, but folks sure dont mind Sony paying Square to keep games off Xbox.

Maybe the reason these companies are being bought is because a lot of them cannot sustain themselves in today's market where game development is in the hundreds millions. Would you rather see these studios close their doors or have to depend on Kickstarter funding to get anything off the ground? The gaming industry would be in a lot more trouble if that were the case.

*Some of you are cheering MS winning this, but you don't realize we're ALL going to lose.*

Lose what??? They're still going to be making games, every game is still going to be released. The extreme exaggerations some you on this site come up with is hilarious.

You all wanted competition, this is what it looks like. Not the made up rules a lot on this site want to hold MS to. Maybe that is why people here are cheering

[Christopher]

***but folks sure dont mind Sony paying Square to keep games off Xbox.***

I mind very much, tbh. I'm not a fan of outright third-party exclusives let alone the shrinkage of major publishers within the industry.

[maniacmayhem]

*I mind very much,*

You are definitely the exception to the norm then.

[ChasterMies]

This is the kind of low quality, highly emotional article you see it Reddit. The opposition party always criticizes everything. This isn’t news and never will be. This also isn’t relevant to gaming. Who approved this?

[mastershredder]

Yawn. You know, this is a constant for them to get bitched at when if comes to $. And all the HNC does is play judge judy, with a big dramatic show that is all settled in email anyway.

[Petebloodyonion]

"The court not only rejected your assertion of a likely anti-competitive effect but found just the opposite," Kiley said. "The record evidence points to more consumer access. So why should Americans have faith in your judgment when this Biden-appointed judge says you're so far off the mark?"

And that's in a nutshell what the FTC as to explain
Why does this merger is harmful for the paying consumers?

[Christopher]

***The record evidence points to more consumer access.***

That's a BS statement and not true, though. These are Microsoft statements, not statements of fact.

Regardless of that, it doesn't say it's harmful to the paying consumer, but the record doesn't provide evidence as such, only statements from Microsoft that it would.

[Activemessiah]

She's an op... get rid of her I say. self serving people like this need to be vetted.

[Markdn]

So it's. OK to for the Microsoft to appeal the CMA decision but not OK for the FTC to appeal the courts decision hmm strange isn't it

[Dandizzle]

such spin, is this directly or indirectly paid for by MS

[VariantAEC]

Probably indirectly so they can avoid liability in case something goes wrong.

[anast]

I am 100% certain they are not worried about tax-payers.

[Majin-vegeta]

Someone should look into that Members finances from companies...👀

[Rimeskeem]

Yeah, why are we wasting taxpayer dollars on trying to keep a large corporation from spending more money on our campaigns?

The whole idea of "wasting" money is such a strawman argument, especially when your country is supposedly the wealthiest in the world. If other countries with fractions of the US budget can afford this, the only thing stopping the US is the US.

[COS]

@Elda

"Name One Publisher Sony has Bought?"

Are you serious?
- Since 2000 Sony has purchased over 20 Publishers, Use the "Google Machine" and check for yourself
- They have purchased more video gaming companies that Microsoft, but MS bought some big ones! that have multiples

Just a few Key Aquisitions:
- Naughty Dog
- Psygnosis
- Bend Studio
- Guerrilla Games
- Insomniac Games
- Bungie

Not sure why you were even asking that question unless it was a joke.

[thejigisup]

Define big ones, what made those studios big. Were they big before Sony purchased them, or did Sony build them to that size? I know you're bringing facts and all but you have to be more specific bc to be honest psygnosis was purchased in 1993 they had what like 5 games under their belt at the time. Bend, purchased in 2000 had 7 games developed by then, and I'd say the only game that was big was syphon filter(still not a big studio. Guerrilla games was really not a big studio when they were acquired in 2005 having really only delivered quality on killzone. Naughty dog acquired in 2001 pretty much only had crash bandicoot...leaving bungie....why oh why would bungie leave Microsoft with all the money in the world to become independent, and ultimately get acquired by their competition

Idk I'm rambling but you're right though. Sony acquired over 20 publishers but they also weren't anywhere near the size of Blizzard Activision at the time of acquisition.

[Elda]

Those are game developers/studios. Sony owned studios are not publishers. Sony are the publishers of Naughty Dog,GG, Bungie, Insomniac. Those Sony owned studios are not game publishers like Bethesda,Take-Two, Activision,Ubisoft, EA, Bandai-Namco or Square-Enix. Again what game publishers have Sony acquired.

[Lightning77]

Who cares why does it matter so much? You buy a publisher for a packaged deal of studios vs one by one?

Doesn't matter they're both buying regardless.

[COS]

@Elda again you are wrong, please check your facts have a wonderful day

[Lightning77]

And Sucker Punch.

[Elda]

Sucker Punch was never a publisher, they are & always been a video game studio/developer.

[VersusDMC]

Can you list the IP taken off the competion that was there previously with those purchases? They bought developers that were mainly making exclusive playstation games.

All i can think of is Fuse and Sunset Overdrive. Bungie is stil multiplatform.

And what ever you manage to list out will be 10% of the IP's taken off playstation with just the Bethesda purchase. Not even counting Rare, Double Fine,Ninja theory and Obsidian.

[Elda]

Again..name publishers that Sony acquired. All you named in your comment are studios that Sony acquired.

[VariantAEC]

@COS
"Are you serious?
- Since 2000 Sony has purchased over 20 Publishers, Use the "Google Machine" and check for yourself
- They have purchased more video gaming companies that Microsoft, but MS bought some big ones! that have multiples

Just a few Key Aquisitions:"

The only publisher in that entire list is Psygnosis. And what happened with them? Well in 2001 Psygnosis was still releasing their games on PC (where I was playing them not even aware they were making the same games for PlayStation as well). Psygnosis only stopped making PC Nintendo and games for other platform after being rebranded to Studio Liverpool some time in 2001 so 7 years after being aquired with the bulk of their games being Windows and PS games with a smattering of Sega Saturn, N64 and GameBoy titles released even though they were technically under PS' ownership.

It's in fact only proof that PS are the good guys not canceling other projects when they do buy a PUBLISHER of which only Psygnosis was. This was an early acquisition for Sony Computer Entertainment (now Sony Interactive Entertainment) around a whole year before the first PS console was even released in Japan. 7 years later, their teams were still cranking out games for every platform under the sun.

Knowing it's been less than 2 years after MS acquired Bethesda Softworks and they've already canceled several games set to release for their competition... it should feel like there's a major difference between how PlayStation handled their first and only publisher acquisition and how MS is handling their first publisher acquisition with news about their second (ABK set to close soon) now poised to revoke many newer IP from the competition.

[Aaroncls7]

sonybois have no chill

[jjb1981]

Just let it go through. Why waste money on this?

[GhostScholar]

Everyone knows ponies not getting their way supersedes tax payers money.

[Hereandthere]

Funny to say that when xbox players are the cheapest in the industry. All games sells less on xbox than anywhere else.

[SPEAKxTHExTRUTH]

They destroyed her today…

[frostypants]

I mean...it's their job. We could question whether most Congress people and their offices actually aren't a waste of money too.

[Crows90]

What should they be using taxpayer money on?
Cookouts?

[MIDGETonSTILTS17]

0% wins sounds awful when you don’t acknowledge the sample size of “4”.

[jznrpg]

Especially when it’s a small underfunded entity vs massive corporations with billions of dollars to blow

[EvertonFC]

Whatever happened to IGN

[jznrpg]

It’s their job so yeah.

[babadivad]

It is a waste...

[z2g]

well now the CMA and the FTC both look pretty foolish. and that's not me rooting for Xbox, this is coming from career legal professionals both involved with and watching from the sidelines.

[Binarycode]

So much money spent of fake accusations about Trump, Trump, Trump. FBI being used as weapon. Yet all the polices Trump did helped America. Biden has destroyed them all while sniffing children's hair, while kamala harris laughs at everything is as dumb asf.

Trump 2024 and i'm from the UK.

That's wasting taxpayers money.

Mergers need to be looked at.