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.
So is this thing approved and when we can expect anything Arcanum?

maxresdefault.jpg
 
Much of the same as the CMA, seemingly dropped the weird argument that MS and ABK would have too much info but other that that rather expected.

What concessions are MS willing to sign remains the 69bn dollar question
 
NickFire said:
Your argument about pricing is a red herring. There was just an interview where the take away was everything might be going up in 2023. And any implication that COD is suitable for cloud gaming on switch is a second red herring IMO.
Click to expand...
Well all we can go on is reality. MS hasn't raised prices. Could they potentially raise prices on something at some point in time in the future sure but all we can go on is what is in front of us. If prices do go up most likely it would only be on Game pass and potentially games to $70 which everyone else had already done. The idea that Xbox would raise prices to unaffordable levels is silly.

Red herring on Switch? There is no precedence of MS putting their IP on Switch? MS has put some of their IP on Switch already. Surprised you didn't know that. CoD is already on mobile now. MS could easily make a Switch version of that title.

tmlDan said:
I think you're on the right track but you're only looking at the "right now" and not thinking of the potential there that MS could increase prices once they own them.

You're right, that currently, they haven't done so. But that is because they are in third place in the console space and have to make those compromises, that could change once ABK closes.

I still think this closes, just later than what people think or want, there isn't much current proof for the EU to make the claims i stated above.
Click to expand...
Well if they raise prices it wouldn't be more than what the competition is already doing. This acquisition still wouldn't put Xbox in first place either so that concern is unfounded. If there are legitimate concerns a reasonable consent decree will address those.
 
Foilz said:
It shouldn't fall through. Acti wants to sell, ms wants to buy, be done with it. Make them put in writing cod won't be exclusive but will be allowed on gamepass. Then everyone wins.

Personally I would dump the acti deal and snatch up Capcom and ubi or Capcom and someone with a large catalogue of titles. They don't even have to be AAAA titles. Just a big catalogue . Like a digital revolver type of pub
Click to expand...
Ubisoft wpuld be one of the worst buys in the industry after EA imo. Bloated and their IP's have become cookie cutter or straight up bad these days, shame as they used to make some great games. I know AC makes bank but they put out a lot of duds lately.
 
clarky said:
Ubisoft wpuld be one of the worst buys in the industry after EA imo. Bloated and their IP's have become cookie cutter or straight up bad these days, shame as they used to make some great games. I know AC makes bank but they put out a lot of duds lately.
Click to expand...
They have almost 20k people.
If someone can manage them, they can produce bangers.
 
Banjo64 said:
FYI it's not in anybody's remit to explore Sony's business practice as part of this process, and the regulatory bodies are exploring Microsoft's potential to do this in the future.
Click to expand...
How could you on one hand focus intently on harm to Sony yet ignore what Sony and the rest of industry is already doing? I highly doubt they will look at these things in a vacuum. What could happen in the future should be based on reality. MS could start packing consoles full of nuclear waste but that isn't really based on reality is it? Prices have already been raised across the board. MS potentially raising prices in the future seems like an odd concern all of a sudden.
 
DarkMage619 said:
How could you on one hand focus intently on harm to Sony yet ignore what Sony and the rest of industry is already doing? I highly doubt they will look at these things in a vacuum. What could happen in the future should be based on reality. MS could start packing consoles full of nuclear waste but that isn't really based on reality is it? Prices have already been raised across the board. MS potentially raising prices in the future seems like an odd concern all of a sudden.
Click to expand...
It's a purchase of a 3rd party, which can impact the industry.

MS can spend their money like Sony. No one stops them from doing that.
 
DarkMage619 said:
How could you on one hand focus intently on harm to Sony yet ignore what Sony and the rest of industry is already doing? I highly doubt they will look at these things in a vacuum. What could happen in the future should be based on reality. MS could start packing consoles full of nuclear waste but that isn't really based on reality is it? Prices have already been raised across the board. MS potentially raising prices in the future seems like an odd concern all of a sudden.
Click to expand...
You've made some pretty ludicrous posts on this topic.
 
Welp. I was hoping this deal will be done by the time Diablo IV will come out so I can play it with GP.
So I guess, I won't be playing Diablo IV at launch :messenger_grinning:
 
EU is moving on to an in-depth (phase 2):
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_22_6578

Interesting little tidbit:
Finally, at this stage of the investigation, the Commission has concerns that the proposed acquisition may reduce competition on the market for PC operating systems. In particular, the Commission is concerned that Microsoft may reduce the ability of rival providers of PC operating systems to compete with Microsoft's operating system Windows, by combining Activision Blizzard's games and Microsoft's distribution of games via cloud game streaming to Windows. This would discourage users to buy non-Windows PCs.
Click to expand...
Sins of the past coming back to haunt MS.
 
Last edited:
feynoob said:
That tidbit isn't making sense.
especially with how much games ignoring those systems.

This is a little bit nitpicking part from EU.
Click to expand...
EU has a long history with Microsoft around OS concerns so it makes sense from that perspective. Europeans have pretty long memories compared to people in the US.
 
TheGodfather07 said:
Would Microsoft still want to make the deal if they ain't allowed to make call of duty an exclusive to xbox? or would they back out?
Click to expand...
It'd be ironic if they backed out lol

They basically went on this PR crusade these past weeks, saying their intent is to keep CoD on PlayStation, forever.

If they pull out because they're told to put their promise on paper, it would prove to all that they were lying all along.
 
Last edited:
TheGodfather07 said:
Would Microsoft still want to make the deal if they ain't allowed to make call of duty an exclusive to xbox? or would they back out?
Click to expand...
Imo yes, there is enough other reasons to go for the deal.

Mobile was larger than console and PC combined last quarter. Console will grow back this quarter
 
gothmog said:
EU has a long history with Microsoft around OS concerns so it makes sense from that perspective. Europeans have pretty long memories compared to people in the US.
Click to expand...
I can understand from the tech side. MS is essentially dominant in PC part.

But from gaming perspective. Those system are like Xbox in Japan. They don't have enough gamers for devs to port their games on their system.
And Activision deal won't change that at all.

How can MS harm them, when not enough devs support those systems.

Here is a graph of steam users.
Windows 10 64 bit69.06%
Windows 11 64 bit23.78%
Windows 7 64 bit2.6%
Mac OS 12.5.0 64 bit0.57%
Other3.99%
 
Last edited:
gothmog said:
Hold your nose and check this response from Kotick out as well. Sounds like he thinks it will still go through.
Click to expand...
This is the best part :
Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

The statements contained herein that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements including, but not limited to statements regarding the proposed transaction between Activision Blizzard, Inc. and Microsoft Corp. (such transaction, "the proposed transaction with Microsoft"), including any statements regarding the expected timetable for completing the proposed transaction with Microsoft, the ability to complete the proposed transaction with Microsoft, and the expected benefits of the proposed transaction with Microsoft. Activision Blizzard, Inc. generally uses words such as "outlook," "forecast," "will," "could," "should," "would," "to be," "plan," "aims," "believes," "may," "might," "expects," "intends," "seeks," "anticipates," "estimate," "future," "positioned," "potential," "project," "remain," "scheduled," "set to," "subject to," "upcoming," and the negative version of these words and other similar words and expressions to help identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are predictions, projections and other statements about future events that are based on current expectations and assumptions and, as a result, are subject to risks and uncertainties. Many factors could cause actual future events to differ materially from the forward-looking statements in this press release, including but not limited to: the risk that the proposed transaction with Microsoft may not be completed in a timely manner or at all, which may adversely affect our business and the price of our common stock; the failure to satisfy the conditions to the consummation of the proposed transaction with Microsoft, including the receipt of certain governmental and regulatory approvals; the occurrence of any event, change, or other circumstance that could give rise to the termination of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of January 18, 2022, by and among Activision Blizzard, Microsoft, and Anchorage Merger Sub Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft (the "Microsoft Merger Agreement"); the effect of the announcement or pendency of the proposed transaction with Microsoft on our business relationships, operating results, and business generally; risks that the proposed transaction with Microsoft disrupts our current plans and operations and potential difficulties in employee retention as a result of the proposed transaction with Microsoft; risks related to diverting management's attention from ongoing business operations; the outcome of any legal proceedings that have been or may be instituted against us related to the Microsoft Merger Agreement or the transactions contemplated thereby; and restrictions during the pendency of the proposed transaction with Microsoft that may impact our ability to pursue certain business opportunities or strategic transactions. The forward-looking statements contained herein are based on information available to Activision Blizzard, Inc. as of the date of this press release, and we assume no obligation to update any such forward-looking statements. Actual events or results may differ from those expressed in forward-looking statements. As such, you should not rely on forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. These statements are not guarantees of our future performance and are subject to risks, uncertainties, and other factors, some of which are beyond our control and may cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations.
Click to expand...
 
A clear difference between the EU statement and the CMA. In this case the EU commission is much more discreet and with less desire for protagonism.

1- EU statement is practically just a phase 2 announcement note.
EU concerns are very general and focused on "what MS could do given its position un the market and economic strength.

2-They have had the legal decency to avoid aligning their concerns with the concerns of a specific party. In this case we do not see Sony and PlayStation mentioned continuously. What's more, unlike the CMA, the EU doesn't seem to put Nintendo in a different category when it comes to console distribution and videogames market.

3- The EU limits itself only to announcing that it will investigate "what could be". EU doesn't go into details and that tells me that phase 2 has more to do with the size of the transaction and his lack of knowledge of the market situation than any other reason.

Keep in mind that MS decided not to respond or propose concessions (not even keeping COD multiplatform). Hopefully MS is hoping to address most or all of the "concerns" in that phase 2. In my opinion most of them are easy to answer and discuss by MS.

Incidentally, the EU recognizes that it is entering the field of speculation and hence its need to go in depth in a phase 2.
"The Commission will now carry out an in-depth investigation into the effects of the transaction to determine whether its initial competition concerns are confirmed."
"The opening of an in-depth inquiry does not prejudge the outcome of the investigation."
 
TheGodfather07 said:
Would Microsoft still want to make the deal if they ain't allowed to make call of duty an exclusive to xbox? or would they back out?
Click to expand...

King could bring in a lot of revenue and profit. Then there's the many IPs associated with ABK that would fall under the MS umbrella going forward. Even if concessions were made with CoD, I could see why they'd go forward with the deal.
 
Last edited:
gothmog said:
EU is moving on to an in-depth (phase 2):
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_22_6578

Interesting little tidbit:

Sins of the past coming back to haunt MS.
Click to expand...
Are they this fucking stupid? What that has anything to do with Activision? Which modern Activision games are available on Linux, Mac, other operating systems or even phones? With streaming they will be at least playable. Playing streamed gamepass games is main usage of mine Steam Deck actually.
 
adamsapple said:
They've already made their stance on this clear, why is this even a question other than stoking inflammatory commentary ?
Click to expand...
They have used carefully selected words to suggest they will never make it exclusive while leaving themselves ample wiggle room for changed plans / intent / etc. Whether they would proceed with a concession (mandate) is a fair question.

I am kind of surprised you don't want people talking about that hypothetical. Do you question whether or not the deal makes sense without Duty becoming exclusive down the road?
 
NickFire said:
They have used carefully selected words to suggest they will never make it exclusive while leaving themselves ample wiggle room for changed plans / intent / etc. Whether they would proceed with a concession (mandate) is a fair question.

I am kind of surprised you don't want people talking about that hypothetical. Do you question whether or not the deal makes sense without Duty becoming exclusive down the road?
Click to expand...

Yes, they've openly said as much that King and mobile gaming is the primary reason for the deal.
 
NickFire said:
Do you question whether or not the deal makes sense without Duty becoming exclusive down the road?
Click to expand...
COD is making billions right now. Making exclusive in the future means, MS would lose alot of revenue.

MS isnt as petty as people are making out to be. They care about profit more than anything. They are even willing to make gamepass and day1 steam/windows store, in order to make more profit.
 
adamsapple said:
Yes, they've openly said as much that King and mobile gaming is the primary reason for the deal.
Click to expand...
I honestly interpreted that as smoke and mirrors. By no means am I dismissing the revenue that King generates. I just think that if short-term revenue was their primary goal (as opposed to getting people in their eco-system door) they wouldn't have made Starfield exclusive. That game is going to do well regardless, but everyone knows they are going to leave a ton of money at the door to try expanding their eco-system with it.

feynoob said:
COD is making billions right now. Making exclusive in the future means, MS would lose alot of revenue.

MS isnt as petty as people are making out to be. They care about profit more than anything. They are even willing to make gamepass and day1 steam/windows store, in order to make more profit.
Click to expand...

1) See above.
2) I agree that profit is the primary goal for MS. I disagree that short-term revenue is their primary goal though. And the facts back me up. All of those $1 deals, Starfield, etc., show they are playing the long game on profits.
 
NickFire said:
I honestly interpreted that as smoke and mirrors. By no means am I dismissing the revenue that King generates. I just think that if short-term revenue was their primary goal (as opposed to getting people in their eco-system door) they wouldn't have made Starfield exclusive. That game is going to do well regardless, but everyone knows they are going to leave a ton of money at the door to try expanding their eco-system with it.
Click to expand...

King is not short term revenue, King and mobile in general is a recurring revenue stream that generates billions annually itself.

As for Starfield, they do still want to have exclusive content, they're not turning into a third party publisher, otherwise why are they making Forza only for Xbox and not a PS or Switch port .. right ? but with CoD, whether it's because of the regulatory pressure or whether they always intended to keep it like Minecraft, they're taking a different approach. Again all the things you're saying have been addressed in multiple interviews already.
 
Last edited:
NickFire said:
I honestly interpreted that as smoke and mirrors. By no means am I dismissing the revenue that King generates. I just think that if short-term revenue was their primary goal (as opposed to getting people in their eco-system door) they wouldn't have made Starfield exclusive. That game is going to do well regardless, but everyone knows they are going to leave a ton of money at the door to try expanding their eco-system with it.
Click to expand...
King is the opposite of short term revenue, candy crush has been like the #1 mobile game in terms of revenue in the US for a stupid amount of time. It also is kinda vital to their mobile app store plan.
 
TGO said:
Gotta admit this is taking longer then I'd thought, while we've been waiting Musk has bought Twitter for 44billion and no one batted an eyelid.
Click to expand...
Musk's deal didn't even require a second look at from the FTC, he announced the deal in April & it got cleared by them in June. It's cause the companies he runs (SpaceX & Tesla) aren't even in the same sector/industry as Twitter, completely different to Microsoft buying ABK.
 
Last edited:
feynoob said:
COD is making billions right now. Making exclusive in the future means, MS would lose alot of revenue.

MS isnt as petty as people are making out to be. They care about profit more than anything. They are even willing to make gamepass and day1 steam/windows store, in order to make more profit.
Click to expand...
I would agree about MS but I think most of these big tech companies can be pretty damn weird depending on the game they are trying to play. Just think about how much money Apple has left on the table to maintain their walled garden. Also how much Meta has risked to make VR/AR a reality.

These recent moves are not really about gaming (or VR or mobile) as much as positioning themselves for some future where their investment yields market dominance. In some ways it seems like the endgame of a Texas Hold'Em tournament given how much some of these companies have lost to get there.
 
DarkMage619 said:
How could you on one hand focus intently on harm to Sony yet ignore what Sony and the rest of industry is already doing? I highly doubt they will look at these things in a vacuum. What could happen in the future should be based on reality. MS could start packing consoles full of nuclear waste but that isn't really based on reality is it? Prices have already been raised across the board. MS potentially raising prices in the future seems like an odd concern all of a sudden.
Click to expand...
The CMA have internal documents from both parties which has more information about their business strategy. They are not looking at fantasy land and nuclear waste console bundles. That's just you.
 
gothmog said:
I would agree about MS but I think most of these big tech companies can be pretty damn weird depending on the game they are trying to play. Just think about how much money Apple has left on the table to maintain their walled garden. Also how much Meta has risked to make VR/AR a reality.

These recent moves are not really about gaming (or VR or mobile) as much as positioning themselves for some future where their investment yields market dominance. In some ways it seems like the endgame of a Texas Hold'Em tournament given how much some of these companies have lost to get there.
Click to expand...
Some techs are losing their primary money making products, and are now forced to make some drastic changes.

Facebook is an ancient fossil right now, so Zuckerberg is risking on VR section. MS discovered that their old practices isnt bringing enough money, so they moved to a subscription based products. And now they are focusing on AR section, because of the impact it would have in the future.

As for Apple, their wallet garden pretty much protects them. Making it open, would be like PC. MS isnt taking any cut from steam sales, or any system that is selling products on their windows. Apple would lose alot of money, if they do that.

Market is changing rabidly, and these companies are forced to take a leap on the next hit product. Just like how Sony and MS cemented themselves in the gaming section. If MS didnt make any counter to PS2 dominance, Xbox wouldnt exist, and MS would have had a hard time getting in to gaming world. Just like how google, and amazon are.
 
500 MILLION PLAYERS. WTF!

And people laughed at me when i posted that figure of 55% of console players playing cod.
 
https://www.reuters.com/markets/dea...-microsofts-69-bln-activision-bid-2022-11-08/

@Idas breaks down
Microsoft said it would work with the EU antitrust watchdog to address valid marketplace concerns.

"Sony, as the industry leader, says it is worried about Call of Duty, but we've said we are committed to making the same game available on the same day on both Xbox and PlayStation. We want people to have more access to games, not less," a Microsoft spokesperson said.

I think that's a quote from Brad Smith :p xD

There is also a letter from Bobby Kotick:
Click to expand...
Plus the kotick letter for those who cant read the twitter
As we said when we announced our merger, this is a long process. We have already received approvals from countries including Brazil. After a close review of the transaction, the Brazilian authority arrived at the understanding that we operate in a highly dynamic and competitive industry, and that the merger will not harm competition in any way.

We continue to work cooperatively with regulators in other jurisdictions, and the process is moving along as we expected. Because so many large global companies across the world are now competing in the nearly $200 billion dollar games industry, it's understandable that regulators are trying to better understand the games business. This week the European Commission announced that we have entered the second phase of our review in the region. We will continue to cooperate with the European Commission where, in the countries they represent, we have many employees. We have been working closely with Microsoft to actively engage regulators in other key countries to answer their questions and provide them with information to assist with their review. People from across our business units and functions have been involved in this regulatory work, and I want to thank each of you for your tireless work and commitment to completing this merger, which we continue to expect to close in Microsoft's current fiscal year ending June 2023.
Click to expand...

For those who also interested in take2 boss reponse about this deal. Look at post #6,420.
 
Last edited:
Topher said:
I don't recall Kotick responding to regulator announcements before now. Suddenly Activision taking the driver's seat?

Interested Thinking GIF by reactionseditor
Click to expand...
The heat is starting to apply.
Before it was just a preview for a play.

Now we would watch the real play start. Prepare your popcorn. The real play would play soon.
 
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