Summary
An antitrust lawsuit filed by a group of gamers againstMicrosofthas reportedly been dismissed two years after its first filing (thanks,GamesRadar+). The lawsuit was filed in an attempt to block Microsoft’s $69 billion acquisition of Activision-Blizzard on the grounds that the merger would reduce competition in the gaming industry, similar to the argument made by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
The FTC had attempted to block the acquisition, pointing to Xbox’s dominance in cloud gaming and the valuable ownership of the Call of Duty franchise as two reasons why the merger should be disallowed, but ultimately Microsoft was able to convince the judiciary that these concerns were unfounded, and the acquisition was allowed to progress.
A Valiant Attempt By Gamers
A group that remained in conflict with Microsoft was those involved in the so-called ‘Gamers Lawsuit’, legally known as Dante DeMartini v. Microsoft Corporation. However, after two years, the case was dismissed with prejudice. This means that both sides will cover their legal fees and the case can’t be re-filed in the future. The exact terms of the settlement were not revealed (thanks,Hollywood Reporter).
It’s been a year since Microsoft was officially able to close the deal on the merger, bringing together Xbox and Activision-Blizzard. We’ve seen some changes, like a pricing change to Game Pass tiers to reflect the upcoming arrival of Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 on the platform. Yet, we haven’t seen as many developments as people thought. A large portion of Activision-Blizzard’s back catalogue isstill not available on Game Pass, for example.
The FTC isn’t pleased with these Game Pass changes, either, claiming that it’s exactly the type of anti-consumer behaviour that it was trying to protect against by preventing the merger. According to the FTC, the Game Pass price changes represent a degradation in service following the merger.
As for the gamers, their fight has ended. It was a valiant attempt and, thankfully, they won’t have to pay Microsoft’s (presumably exorbitant) legal fees, even if they ultimately failed in their attempt to prevent the acquisition.
