Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?

  • Yes, will be approved without changes.

    Votes: 221 24.9%

  • Yes, will be approved but with structural changes to ABK.

    Votes: 102 11.5%

  • Yes, will be approved but only with behavioral concessions.

    Votes: 262 29.6%

  • No, will not be approved.

    Votes: 301 34.0%
  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Darsxx82 said:
So your proposal is that MS stay put and continue to spend much more than what the studios and publishers ask Sony to lose 2:1 in sales?
Click to expand...
No, invest in your game studios, use your engineering chops to create a good consoles and try not to lose that much per unit, sure make deals (like they have done in the past), and why not buy or setup new development studios.
It looks like anything other than buying all the major multiplatform publishers is unfair to the poor little multi trillion dollar corporation ;).

Darsxx82 said:
Doesn't Sony use profits from other divisions of the company to strengthen the PlayStation business when it sees fit?

It's how the current market works. The other would be to create a regulated market.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends how much money is poured in (and there are laws about that too like anti dumping laws) and how it is used (crest something new is one thing and not bad, buying up the competitors' oxygen supply less so…) hence why there is regulation and MS has not closed acquisitions yet. Currently PS is one of the big revenue generators not where other divisions' cash is burned anyways.
 
Panajev2001a said:
No, invest in your game studios, use your engineering chops to create a good consoles and try not to lose that much per unit, sure make deals (like they have done in the past), and why not buy or setup new development studios.
It looks like anything other than buying all the major multiplatform publishers is unfair to the poor little multi trillion dollar corporation ;).
Click to expand...

And when a game publisher wants to be bought by someone, should MS just sit by and let someone else buy them?
Activision wanted to sell, remember. They approached Microsoft, not the other way around. The shareholders voted in favour of the deal by a large majority.

Why should they ignore that just to help their competitors?
 
feynoob said:
Are we done arguing on behalf of corporations?
Click to expand...
John Candy No GIF by Laff
 
Ass of Can Whooping said:
It's on Sony if they can't protect themselves from a tech-giants ability to buy up entire markets?

El oh el. Good luck arguing that case. This is an M&A case. It has fuck all to do with adapting to a changing market lmao
Click to expand...
Well isn't the CMA doing exactly that? They seem to have no problem crystal-balling cloud gaming taking over as a changing market. I don't see why they can't also reason 2:1-Bungie-PSVR Sony adapting.
 
Topher said:
Nintendo proves Nintendo can succeed without CoD. Nothing more. Both Microsoft and Sony depend on third party publishers. Nintendo does not. This is an important distinction that cannot be emphasized enough. Whatever else you want to say about Sony having to adapt or whatever....I have no problem with any supposition anyone wants to make in that regard. But anyone who follows this industry knows that Nintendo's business model is remarkably different to Microsoft's and Sony's. Nintendo has proven Nintendo only needs Nintendo. Neither Sony or Microsoft can say as much. So no, as far as Call of Duty is concerned, Nintendo proves nothing.
Click to expand...

Another irrelevant reply. No one is disagreeing with you that Nintendo is different. The guy you were going back and forth on it literally told you he agrees about all of it. But Sony is different than Nintendo because of Sony. Again, it's on Sony to adapt and be the type of company Sony is. It's not on ABK or MS 😁
 
Bumblebeetuna said:
The only part of this nonsense worth responding to is the part about Minecraft. You complain about a lack of PS5 version, unless something's changed since June there's no native SX version either. And Legends is coming to PS5 next year.

Keep drinking that koolaid.
Click to expand...
Minecraft with exclusive Series X ray tracing features, running on a XsX was witnessed by DF (Richard, John) according to them, and was used at the launch of the XsX to show coming software and to backup Phil's claims of games being first or best on Series. And there is a working pre-releasing version that runs on Xbox series and was "accidentally" made available in the pre-release channel and then withdrawn, that proves it was developed, and a differentiation of features made for Series. I'd have to check the date on IGN article that Reburn linked of it being removed, but it probably ties in with feedback from the CMA.
 
Last edited:
zzill3 said:
And when a game publisher wants to be bought by someone, should MS just sit by and let someone else buy them?
Activision wanted to sell, remember. They approached Microsoft, not the other way around. The shareholders voted in favour of the deal by a large majority.

Why should they ignore that just to help their competitors?
Click to expand...
The point is not what MS would like to do or not (the "we are buying to help everyone against Apple and Google", "we are buying them to bring their games to everyone", "we are buying them to stop sexual misconduct and employee abuse", "… they were asking for it", etc…)… the point is whether they should be allowed to buy all publishers and essentially buy the market competition away.
 
PaintTinJr said:
Minecraft with exclusive Series X ray tracing features, running on a XsX was witnessed by DF (Richard, John) according to them, and was used at the launch of the XsX to show coming software and to backup Phil's claims of games being first or best on Series. And there is a working pre-releasing version that runs on Xbox series and was "accidentally" made available in the pre-release channel and then withdrawn, that proves it was developed, and a differentiation of features made for Series. I'd have to check the date on IGN article that Reburn linked of it being removed, but it probably ties in with feedback from the CMA.
Click to expand...


So where is this version of Minecraft for the public? Do you know if there was a PS5 version or not?
 
Bumblebeetuna said:
Another irrelevant reply. No one is disagreeing with you that Nintendo is different. The guy you were going back and forth on it literally told you he agrees about all of it. But Sony is different than Nintendo because of Sony. Again, it's on Sony to adapt and be the type of company Sony is. It's not on ABK or MS 😁
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The reasoning I gave about the key difference in user base was called "irrelevant" so no, you didn't read the post entirely. You and others continue to highlight Nintendo as proof of something which makes no sense if you are going to readily admit that Nintendo isn't like Sony in this regard. You want to just say "Nintendo proves it" without any reasoning behind the statement at all. Sorry, but repeating a statement over and over isn't proof of jack shit. If Nintendo is different then stop referencing Nintendo. You can't have it both ways.
 
phil_t98 said:
So where is this version of Minecraft for the public? Do you know if there was a PS5 version or not?
Click to expand...
They used Minecraft raytracing at the beginning of the gen to advertise Series X. Unfortunately they abandoned it I suspect due to Series S not supporting it well.

Minecraft Dungeons is a better example. Got a Series S/X version, no PS5 version. This is what is meant by "enhanced interoperability with the console hardware".
 
Last edited:
feynoob said:
I wasn't. You took it that way.

I have no bone in this anyway.
Click to expand...

Let's be honest:

You were a pot-stirrer before you asked for you old account to be banned. Nothing has changed. You're still doing the same stuff now, but without the ability to make threads (which, by the way, yay!). You are who you are, but don't play dumb when you get called out for behaving the way we all know you're going to behave. This was your previous post:

feynoob said:
A competitive market, is when each provider has a chance to compete.
The current market doesn't show that at all.

  • Xbox is half of PS in term of userbase and console sales.
  • Xbox is nonexistent in certain markets like Europe and Japan.
  • Switch is essentially a weak hardware. Means, current demanded games don't drop on that console.
  • Xbox needs to pay double amounts of what PS is paying, in order to get those exclusives or those marketing rights.
  • Marketing rights and exclusives depend on your market share and userbase. If they are alot lower than your competition, then you have to pay higher premiums.
  • Xbox had to make gamepass, in order to make themselves relevant.
With all these, and you keep saying the market is competitive. I really don't see it that way. Especially, when 1 party is gaining huge advantage.

MS being required to pay huge amounts of money, compared to sony, is prove that this is not a competitive field.
Click to expand...

You made a bunch of points on behalf of Microsoft in a disagreement with another poster. You can call it whatever you want, but anyone with eyes and a brain knows that this is an example of you arguing on behalf of Microsoft.

To be clear, I am not saying you're an Xbox or Microsoft fanboy. You have argued for and against both Sony and Microsoft in this thread. But that still means your question about whether we're done arguing on behalf of corporations is a stupid question.
 
Last edited:
IFireflyl said:
Let's be honest:

You were a pot-stirrer before you asked for you old account to be banned. Nothing has changed. You're still doing the same stuff now, but without the ability to make threads (which, by the way, yay!). You are who you are, but don't play dumb when you get called out for behaving the way we all know you're going to behave. This was your previous post:



You made a bunch of points on behalf of Microsoft in a disagreement with another poster. You can call it whatever you want, but anyone with eyes and a brain knows that this is an example of you arguing on behalf of Microsoft.

To be clear, I am not saying you're an Xbox or Microsoft fanboy. You have argued for and against both Sony and Microsoft in this thread. But that still means your question about whether we're done arguing on behalf of corporations is a stupid question.
Click to expand...
Again, you took it that way.
I was not making a point for them.
I was talking about the current market, between the 3 of them, which are facts.

It's very difficult to make a neutral point here, without people taking it as their own team talk.
 
feynoob said:
Again, you took it that way.
I was not making a point for them.
I was talking about the current market, between the 3 of them, which are facts.

It's very difficult to make a neutral point here, without people taking it as their own team talk.
Click to expand...

I'm done going rounds with you. Your willful ignorance is astonishing.


never-associate-with-idiots-on-their-own-level-because.jpg
 
IFireflyl said:
I'm done going rounds with you. Your willful ignorance is astonishing.


never-associate-with-idiots-on-their-own-level-because.jpg
Click to expand...
Because you are jumping on something you are not understanding it.

The main argument, which led to that was, "is this a field a competitive field".

That was the findings. And you are taking it as defending another company.

It was never about Sony vs MS.
 
Darsxx82 said:
So your proposal is that MS stay put and continue to spend much more than what the studios and publishers ask Sony to lose 2:1 in sales?
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing for or against your point, but can we not forget Microsoft have been addressing this since 2017 by buying;

Bethesda Game Studios
Arkane Studios
Id Software
Machine Games
Tango Gameworks
Zenimax Online Studios
Double Fine
Obsidian Entertainment
Compulsion Games
InXile
Ninja Theory
Playground Games
Undead Labs

It's not like they have a paltry collection of first party of studios any more and need ABK to compete.

I think with the price of the ABK deal it gets forgotten about just what a megaton purchase Zenimax was/is.
 
Last edited:
PaintTinJr said:
Minecraft with exclusive Series X ray tracing features, running on a XsX was witnessed by DF (Richard, John) according to them, and was used at the launch of the XsX to show coming software and to backup Phil's claims of games being first or best on Series. And there is a working pre-releasing version that runs on Xbox series and was "accidentally" made available in the pre-release channel and then withdrawn, that proves it was developed, and a differentiation of features made for Series. I'd have to check the date on IGN article that Reburn linked of it being removed, but it probably ties in with feedback from the CMA.
Click to expand...

tl;dr version - Nope, no native Series X version. Thanks for confirming.
 
Three said:
They used Minecraft raytracing at the beginning of the gen to advertise Series X. Unfortunately they abandoned it I suspect due to Series S not supporting it well.

Minecraft Dungeons is a better example. Got a Series S/X version, no PS5 version. This is what is meant by "enhanced interoperability with the console hardware".
Click to expand...


The only difference is 120fps mode. Maybe because Sony made it harder to upgrade backwards comparable games rather than Microsoft not wanting to do it

Edit: will also
Add that to back up my claim the next Minecraft game Minecraft:legends is getting a ps5 version
 
Last edited:
Banjo64 said:
I'm not arguing for or against your point, but can we not forget Microsoft have been addressing this since 2017 by buying;

Bethesda Game Studios
Arkane Studios
Id Software
Machine Games
Tango Gameworks
Zenimax Online Studios
Double Fine
Compulsion Games
InXile
Ninja Theory
Playground Games
Undead Labs

It's not like they have a paltry collection of first party of studios any more and need ABK to compete.

I think with the price of the ABK deal it gets forgotten about just what a megaton purchase Zenimax was/is.
Click to expand...
7.5b was considered to be the biggest purchase. Then zynga happened. And now 70b Megatron happened.

It is less than Disney/fox deal by 2 billion.
 
MasterCornholio said:
Thats what this thread is for. Without it we would have many threads on this topic.
Click to expand...
Because it got little bit aggressive here. Its like I am watching twitter, but little bit inteligent.

By the way, I did your advice. I dont have post thread ability anymore. Thank you for that.
 
Last edited:
feynoob said:
Because it got little bit aggressive here. Its like I am watching twitter, but little bit inteligent.

By the way, I did your advice. I dont have post thread ability anymore. Thank you for that.
Click to expand...

This type of thread will have arguments and people disagreeing with you. It's pretty normal go have this in a forum. Anyways if you don't enjoy the environment in this particular thread there's always a thread ignore option if you didn't know. I use it with some threads that I don't want to participate in.

I'm glad my advice helped you. I know sometimes people spam threads a lot but I'm happy you chose to stop that from happening again. I know the mods didn't like it when you posted so many threads so quickly. I had issues with reports so i asked the mods to remove that function. I actually have discussions now instead of hunting down people to report.
 
Banjo64 said:
It's not like they have a paltry collection of first party of studios any more and need ABK to compete.
Click to expand...

Not that it was MS who went to buy Activision. It was Activision who approached MS to be bought and MS saw an opportunity.

From there, we will agree that with Activision MS has a better position to compete against PlayStation than without Actvision....
 
Last edited:
Calverz said:
seekingalpha.com

Activision Blizzard: 80% Deal Approval Chance, 30% Discount (NASDAQ:ATVI)

Antitrust investigations are unfolding as the regulators are now gathering the evidence, but I think there is no legal reason to block the deal. Click here to read more.
seekingalpha.com seekingalpha.com
Apologies if this has already been shared.
Click to expand...

Seeking alpha used to be a discord. Secondly, this is their opinion. No reputable analyst has leaned either way as yet.

And I've been looking since the share price is currently in the low $70s and Microsoft's offer is $95.
 
phil_t98 said:
Do a search on who had marketing rights for advanced warfare. It was Sony, that was the first game in the deal.
Click to expand...
How is that possible if I have an article here that says the final DLC pack for Advanced Warfare was first on Xbox like all the others? That's the thing when you have to go back in history, people get things wrong. My article is from 2015 so it should be more accurate. I also have a COD website that says all the DLC will be Xbox exclusive for 30 days. It's impossible Sony had the marketing.

me.pcmag.com

Final 'CoD: Advanced Warfare' DLC Arrives Aug. 4

Available first on Xbox, the DLC features new maps with the Exo Grapple mechanic for fast-paced multiplayer combat.
me.pcmag.com me.pcmag.com

Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare | AW - Multiplayer Maps | DLC - Black Ops 3

www.theadvancedwarfare.com www.theadvancedwarfare.com
iePkdiI.jpg
 
Last edited:
GhostOfTsu said:
How is that possible if I have an article here that says the final DLC pack for Advanced Warfare was first on Xbox like all the others? That's the thing when you have to go back in history, people get things wrong. My article is from 2015 so it should be more accurate. I also have a COD website that says all the DLC will be Xbox exclusive for 30 days. It's impossible Sony had the marketing.

[/URL]

[/URL]
iePkdiI.jpg
Click to expand...
His confusion will be coming from when the deal was signed and when the deal terms actually kicked in - which will no doubt have been 12months early than when the marketing shifted from Xbox One to PS4.
 
Calverz said:
[/URL]
Apologies if this has already been shared.
Click to expand...

  • Reason 1: Good luck finding a reason

    Reason 2: Sony is the only one who has problems with it

Click to expand...
I think that there is rather a low chance of acquisition failure. Regulators will likely just look at all the evidence, shrug their shoulders, and give the deal the green light. I rate this scenario's chances at 70-75% as public pressure may come into play. But if the deal is blocked, then Microsoft has every right to go to court. I estimate the corporation's chances of winning at 80%, given that it will be much easier for it to prove that the acquisition will likely not affect the competitiveness of the gaming market than it is for the regulator to prove otherwise.

All in all, I continue to believe that ATVI is a bet on the common sense of the regulators. However, this deal might easily be closed without their approval as Microsoft will likely win in a legal battle in my opinion. The deal should then close sometime in 2024.
Click to expand...

Sorry Calverz Calverz but this is just an opinion piece. Dont take it for a fact. Considering the way the article is written.

I would wait for EU and US regulators, before making a judgement. Usually those 2 would give you an idea, whether the deal would be approved or not.
 
Little bit recap, to the people who wants to know if the deal would pass or not, and those who want to know anything about the deal.

Why does Microsoft need approval to buy Activision Blizzard?

This deal is -- to use a professional business term -- massive. It's a potentially game-changing deal that could not just transform things for Microsoft and Xbox, but the entire games industry. It has the potential to impact everyone, from the smallest indie developer to the biggest names in the business, and, of course, consumers.

Regulatory bodies exist to try and make sure such deals don't result in any antitrust issues, where one company can become overly dominant, or competition is harmed in such a way that it could lead to fewer choices, higher prices and/or less innovation.

Considering the scale and size of the deal, Microsoft would have to obtain antitrust approval before taking ownership of Activision Blizzard.
Click to expand...

Who are the regulators?

There are regulatory bodies all over the world, but there are three main ones that Microsoft will want approval from to complete the buy-out. The first is the US regulator the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This review process has started and has already entered a second phase.

The next regulator who is currently looking at this is the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Phase one of its investigation began in July, and on September 1 it recommended that it move into a second phase, with Microsoft and Activision given one week to provide evidence convincing the regulator that this deal will not cause a "substantial lessening of competition."

The third main regulator for Microsoft to overcome is the European Commission. Antitrust regulators here are first surveying developers about their concerns over the deal, and are expected to make a preliminary decision by November 8, 2022. After this, it is expected a four-month investigation will begin.
Click to expand...

What are these 'phases'?

The first phase is a relatively short period where the regulators will request information and send questionnaires to competitors. Most mergers and acquisitions are approved during this phase.

For anything more complex where there's a risk to competition, the regulators will request a second phase. This is where a more in-depth analysis of the merger's effects on the market will be analysed. This is typically a far more detailed research phase designed to make sure the transaction doesn't restrict competition in the regulators' markets.

Both the FTC and CMA have entered a second phase of their investigations.
Click to expand...

What if it gets US approval but not UK or EU approval?

The reason these three regulators are so important is that they all have the power to block the deal or impose conditions. In other words, if the CMA say no, then that ruling may be applied globally.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by 'impose conditions'?

The regulators could approve the deal, reject the deal, or approve the deal under certain conditions designed to preserve competition.

A condition could be that Microsoft can complete the deal if Activision Blizzard games remain multiplatform, for instance. They could stipulate that Activision Blizzard must remain as its own independent organisation (although analysts believe this is unlikely). All sorts of conditions could be placed on the deal that might make an unacceptable acquisition acceptable.

However, conditions can be hard to enforce, and require teams to make sure that business is being conducted fairly.
Click to expand...

What might regulators be concerned about specifically?

As you may have seen in the press, the main concern around the Activision Blizzard acquisition is focused on one franchise: Call of Duty.

Call of Duty is one of the biggest and most popular games in the world, and the regulators will need to decide whether Microsoft owning this franchise has the potential to make the company dominant in the video games space, and therefore create an antitrust situation that might impact consumers negatively.
Click to expand...

Why is it a problem if Microsoft becomes dominant in games?

One company being dominant in a space can stifle competition, limit growth and reduce innovation, which potentially harms consumers. If there was one business that had the dominant console, or subscription service, or distribution channel, it would mean all game developers -- of all sizes -- would be overly dependent on that one company.

Competition is a good thing. It means there is increased choice and can ensure prices remain low. It forces companies to innovate and adapt. It means they must be competitive and work harder to look after its audience and partners.

Right now the games space is very competitive, with various companies pushing each other to try new things, improve their services and create better products.
Click to expand...

The rest is here.
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/micro...blizzard-whats-going-on-and-what-happens-next
 
Last edited:
Darsxx82 said:
To blame? LOL. I was just arguing with your reasoning.

The reality is that if anything shows that generation of PS3 is the power of the brand and position of dominance of PlayStation. For another brand, this type of serious errors would have even cost them the disappearance and yet it only cost Sony to win by less difference.

The reality is that there is no healthy competition in today's market. It is impossible to compete on equal terms with PlayStation.
Entering the console market today against Playstation would only be possible for Amazon, Google or Apple and if they did, rest assured that they would do so with the formula of buying Studios, publishers and large Ips because there would be no other way.

What this reality reflects is anything but a market with healthy competition.
Click to expand...
The PS3 nearly did break them, but it was the money that PS1 and PS2 had made Sony previously - and had been invested in other areas of the business earlier - that allowed them to survive that generation through working hard building an unbelievable roster of first party IPs we'll unlikely see again, which cushioned the third-party revenue losses to xbox and PC. and even to Wii.

You have a flawed view of it being a closed, non-competitive market because you are only looking at companies with vast amounts of money to drop, like Microsoft were, that don't offer anything in-house to compete. Intel, Nvidia, AMD, Samsung - even IBM -could compete straight away in console hardware because their core business functions offer them a competitive advantage directly relevant to console hardware - like Sony's did - and at lower cost than an Amazon or Microsoft could buy in. Good compelling hardware at a great price and at least one or two new IP bangers to sell the hardware to the first 10m and a lower software cut would be enough to get big publishers to support the system with multi-platform games at the beginning without the 100m Tomb raider money deals needed IMO.

It wouldn't be easy to make two must have new IP games, along with a set of new entry efforts in every genre. like Racing, Fighting, etc, to go with great hardware, but it is far from the impossible - like you claim - for the right entrant that focuses on great hardware and bringing fresh innovative games, rather than just dropping cash on others to provide the hardware and compelling software.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MS/ABK is advertising games that don't exist for data collection
46
2K
POKEYCLYDE replied
My apologies to Ubisoft, Sony, Activision, EA, MS etc. for making a big deal out of $70 games
2 3 4
156
6K
MDSLKTR replied
Microsoft, Activision Deny Report Regarding Financial Performance
Business Hardware  2 3
131
11K
Jaybe replied
What happened to all the people that were cheering over that MS Activision acquisition?
Drama  5 6 7 8 9
414
18K
GateofD replied
Microsoft has Closed the Activision Blizzard King Deal
22 23 24 25 26
1K
99K
MasterCornholio replied
Top Bottom