Microsoft can acquire a Japanese company. They simply need a company based in Japan that they own (which as of now is Tango Gameworks) and would have to go through the process of acquiring a Japanese company which is more money and a bigger pain in the ass but not impossible.
Also, Hoeg Law will be doing a video on this soon as it’s a huge misconception by those who simply don’t want to see Microsoft acquire a Japanese publisher which in turn would take them away from Sony.
Hoeg was also part of FOUR mergers/acquisitions with American based companies buying a Japanese based company so yes, it can be done. It’s more expensive and more of a hassle but if a company like Microsoft wants someone really bad like Capcom (hopefully), they can acquire them.
where does this say the Japanese goverment blocked anything, it looks like people just reading way too much into nothing in my opinion
Saudi basically owns SNK now
Nintendo bought Monolith 4 years after this so I doubt they are connected, and the goverment wouldn’t say “sorry nintendo, but take this studio as a constilation prize” LMFAO
There are even work arounds for the restrictions specifically targetting foreign if I am not mistaken like, 3 that come to mind immediately are
Opening a shell company in Japan e.g. xbox game studios of Japan there and giving them the money to acquire the company based in Japan. The shell company would opporate them day to day but it answers to Microsoft in this specific instance
Just buy the voting shares and then vote on what you want them to do e.g. make games exclusively for your platform or put their games day and date on your service
pay them to become a private agent of your company if you will for a stupid amount of years and its like acquiring them without acquiring them
People remember SNK went entirely bankrupt, right? Their stuff was literally sold off at an auction. Am I too old for this forum? The reason their IP has gone globetrotting is because they kept getting their assets bought up by random companies after the last one was done with them. There was a year or maybe two where they basically were a license Capcom paid to the pachinko company that owned their IP at the time to make games. I’m not entirely sure they would have been on any regulator’s radar. And looking into it the Prince owns it via having his non-profit foundation actually own the shares in SNK and not even his holding company, so there may be some fuckery afoot.
it more shows that Japanese companies can be acquired, I don’t think anyone is implying they are on the same scale, but at least now a days SNK was doing pretty well with stuff like samuri showdown and KoF 15. Hell they even got Terry in super smash bros ultimate
I highly suggest you look at the myriad of actual sources I’ve provided to dispel this bullshit myth. Honestly sick of seeing the same argument pop up ever time an OT rolls around.
Per some earlier discussions, I correctly stated that the general purview of the FTC’s definition of competition does not pertain to end-users, nor is that the primary/most important factor in any of the review of acquisitions/mergers of this type, and here’s an expert reiterating as much. In case the timestamp didn’t come through, it’s around the 6:00 mark.
he stated that they would have to try and change FTC laws and I quote
“at bare minimum, if the FTC were to bring a case against microsoft for a labour complaint or a data protection complaint or something quote on quote holistic. Then we would have expectation if push came to shove and that went to litigation. Every court south of the supreme court in the united states, would effectively have to deny the FTC’s claims, unless they were able to coach them in consumer wellfare language and, at least some what, hide the ball at what they were actually aimmed at.”
this is at 25:07 and tell us that this is how the law opporates and unless the FTC would be able to manipulate the courts while hiding their true intent (that is what I gathered from the part I boldened) it would be be thrown out.
then why would the FTC lawsuit here basically be thrown out, this is coming straight from hoeg with me quoting what he said with an exact time frame, I checked the time frame and all it said from what I saw was the FTC see looking into those areas
“As I said, in my earlier video, those are stakeholders interested in whether Activision-Blizzard continues in the way it has been… it is not the consumer of Activision-Blizzard products…”
You argued repeatedly that consumers are/should be the most important factor in acquisition reviews and that was what Warren was arguing when in fact, yet again as proved by Hoeg, neither is true. Do you even know what you’re arguing anymore or are you just unwilling to admit you’re wrong so we can have good-faith discussions here?
Good choices, however i feel like CC2 would be the most ideal, mostly because the studio are in the mist of creating new IPs(The trilogy of Vengeance) of their own and trying to branch themselves out from the likes of licensed property, even though they know how to draw a specific audience.
Some info in regards to the trilogy of vengeance that i talked about earlier:
I didn’t bring this convo back up, I dropped it for a reason, but if the court would side with Microsoft over the FTC if they filed a lawsuit over this. What do you think that says about the law. Just drop the convo because clearly it isn’t going to lead to some mutual understanding
It would suggest the FTC overstepped it’s purview in its ruling. It’s not suggesting anything about the law itself, just how an organization in that case miss-used their power
And if you ever try Falcom’s Trails series… well, it’s the best JRPG series you’ll ever play in your life if you dig an overarching highly connected storyline… but it’s a 1000+ hour ordeal to catch up (I am still not caught up after 1 and a half year of playing, though I am FINALLY on the latest installment Kuro no Kiseki)
! Seriously, none of them miss!
