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.
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...


He's put out similar letters on Business Wire before as well.

This is not new.

www.businesswire.com

A Letter from CEO Bobby Kotick Regarding Activision Blizzard’s Merger With Microsoft

Activision Blizzard, Inc. (Nasdaq: ATVI) CEO Bobby Kotick today sent the following letter to all employees. September 1, 2022 Team, I wanted to provide a bri...
www.businesswire.com
 
Last edited:
Three said:
Well actually they do. The board recently reappointment him so clearly you have no idea what you're talking about

https://thebossmagazine.com/activision-ceo-bobby-kotik-re-elected/
Click to expand...

Uhhh... no, I'm sorry. :messenger_tears_of_joy: Kotick and the existing Board of Directors are ESSENTIAL till the deal is approved. They're the ones who approved the deal at the highest level that is responsible for the very big payouts the biggest shareholders are going to get. Why would you not re-elect the people essential to the $68.7 billion deal you're waiting on to receive regulatory approval? Kotick is not long for the nearest tall cliff the moment the deal gets approved. He lasts at best 1 year after deal close. Why the heck do you think Microsoft's CEO and Phil don't ever criticize him in public?
 
SenjutsuSage said:
Uhhh... no, I'm sorry. :messenger_tears_of_joy: Kotick and the existing Board of Directors are ESSENTIAL till the deal is approved. They're the ones who approved the deal at the highest level that is responsible for the very big payouts the biggest shareholders are going to get. Why would you not re-elect the people essential to the $68.7 billion deal you're waiting on to receive regulatory approval? Kotick is not long for the nearest tall cliff the moment the deal gets approved. He lasts at best 1 year after deal close. Why the heck do you think Microsoft's CEO and Phil don't ever criticize him in public?
Click to expand...
Look, I don't care what you think might happen if/after Phil takes over but your idea that shareholders want Kotick gone is nonsense. For what? Due to the criticism he had for employee treatment? If that were the case 95% of shareholders also wouldn't have voted against adding an employee representative to Activision Blizzard's board of directors.
 
TheGodfather07 said:
What did they say? I haven't been keeping up with it. Thats why I'm asking.
Click to expand...

Phil did an interview and he said as long as playstation consoles exist, they'll keep publishing CoD games on it.

I think internally they intend to keep it Multiplat like Minecraft in perpetuity.
 
Banjo64 said:
You've made some pretty ludicrous posts on this topic.
Click to expand...
None more ludicrous than not considering Nintendo a competitor in this space or that that cloud and subscription gaming is some sort of separate market. I like the one claiming MS has similar cultural issues as Activision or the real doosy thinking that, Sony the market leader, couldn't compete any longer without CoD. People are twisting themselves into knots trying to portray MS as both a 3rd place loser in gaming and a monopolistic tyrant continues to be hilarious. I've hardly making any claims that aren't substantiated with actual evidence. Can't say the same with things you've said.

Someone whose opinion I trust is Hoeg. Here is his latest video on the EU phase 2 comments.



GametimeUK said:
I can't wait for June 2023. It's a wrap at that point, Microsoft will have acquired Activision and we can look back at these threads and laugh at ourselves.
Click to expand...
I can think of a few people who won't be laughing but actual Xbox customers will be pleased.

Three said:
Look, I don't care what you think might happen if/after Phil takes over but your idea that shareholders want Kotick gone is nonsense. For what? Due to the criticism he had for employee treatment? If that were the case 95% of shareholders also wouldn't have voted against adding an employee representative to Activision Blizzard's board of directors.
Click to expand...
The board and shareholders certainly like Kotick. The rank and file employees and gamers do not. The rank and file employees are responsible for game creation and those are the people who should be happy with their work environment. Thankfully this acquisition will remove entities that have no role in game creation and foster an environment where actual creatives can do their best work.

Three said:
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.
Click to expand...
First off it was an analogy. Second the CMA is thinking that Nintendo is both a competitor and also not a competitor which is certainly fantasy land.
 
adamsapple said:
Phil did an interview and he said as long as playstation consoles exist, they'll keep publishing CoD games on it.

I think internally they intend to keep it Multiplat like Minecraft in perpetuity.
Click to expand...

It's possible some of the confusion has occurred due to this:

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/playstation-xboxs-call-of-duty-offer-was-inadequate-on-many-levels

I'm of a mind to just wait and see. It seems like things are routinely shifting and changing behind the scenes. Hopefully, the outcome will be satisfactory for players and companies alike.
 
Three said:
Look, I don't care what you think might happen if/after Phil takes over but your idea that shareholders want Kotick gone is nonsense. For what? Due to the criticism he had for employee treatment? If that were the case 95% of shareholders also wouldn't have voted against adding an employee representative to Activision Blizzard's board of directors.
Click to expand...

They are entertaining him for the purpose of the deal. Same way Microsoft's CEO did. Why do you think shareholders all voted with full confidence at the very height of the scandals? It's cause the deal is more important than everything. They got their eyes on the prize. The overall shareholder vote was just as convincing at the height of the scandals. COD doing as well as it does also involves performance bonuses. They're looking at money on top of money in addition to the deal closing. They will show nothing but unity until it doesn't matter.
 
SlimySnake said:
500 MILLION PLAYERS. WTF!

And people laughed at me when i posted that figure of 55% of console players playing cod.
Click to expand...
Gaf is an echo chamber in this regard.

People in here thinks playstation sells well because of the exclusives when in reality most players play fifa and call of duty and doesn't give a shit about the rest.
 
DarkMage619 said:
None more ludicrous than not considering Nintendo a competitor in this space or that that cloud and subscription gaming is some sort of separate market. I like the one claiming MS has similar cultural issues as Activision or the real doosy thinking that, Sony the market leader, couldn't compete any longer without CoD. People are twisting themselves into knots trying to portray MS as both a 3rd place loser in gaming and a monopolistic tyrant continues to be hilarious. I've hardly making any claims that aren't substantiated with actual evidence. Can't say the same with things you've said.

Someone whose opinion I trust is Hoeg. Here is his latest video on the EU phase 2 comments.




I can think of a few people who won't be laughing but actual Xbox customers will be pleased.


The board and shareholders certainly like Kotick. The rank and file employees and gamers do not. The rank and file employees are responsible for game creation and those are the people who should be happy with their work environment. Thankfully this acquisition will remove entities that have no role in game creation and foster an environment where actual creatives can do their best work.


First off it was an analogy. Second the CMA is thinking that Nintendo is both a competitor and also not a competitor which is certainly fantasy land.
Click to expand...

Never seen someone lose the plot like this. Claiming Microsoft could put nuclear material inside Xboxes is not more ludicrous than saying that Xbox/PlayStation compete for the same mindshare separate to Nintendo. Ok lad. Actually hoping this deal goes through, just for your sanity.
 
DarkMage619 said:
Second the CMA is thinking that Nintendo is both a competitor and also not a competitor which is certainly fantasy land.
Click to expand...
Nintendo isn't a competitor to Xbox and Ps. In term of hardware sales, yes.
But in term of competition, No.

Nintendo has switch, which can't run 3rd party games like COD. Until switch has those game, then it won't be a competitor to those 2.

Cma is right on this one.
 
just because nintendo sells video games like sony and MS do not make them one in the same
one is clearly geared towards casual traveling people who like a low powered console that can transform into a handheld
the other are powerful consoles focused on bringing the biggest AAA experiences to your home

Nintendo have stopped making true powerful consoles since 2006 (a shame really) so i don't see how you can compare them to Sony and MS who have basically been banking off having the most powerful console hardware and biggest AAA titles.
 
The_Mike said:
People in here thinks playstation sells well because of the exclusives when in reality most players play fifa and call of duty and doesn't give a shit about the rest.
Click to expand...
yep. GOW selling 20 million copies is impressive but that's really only 1/6th of the PS4 userbase. the other 5/6ths are buying the newest cod, fifa and buying all the vbucks

that being said playstation simply excels better at marketing and hype (and also exclusives to keep the brand loyalty they have). Playstation has had multiple showcases on their newest AAA titles and builds up hype for their newest games through careful suspense and dripfeeding. MS showed us a bit of Starfield, and not much else since then. Same for Forza. there's suspense and letting the hype cook, and then there's leaving your fanbase in the dark

And Playstation simply has a higher global mindshare. More europeans, africans and asians recognize playstation than they do Xbox. They're equal in the US but unlike most Americans would want you to think, the USA isn't the only country on earth. Frankly i don't have much of a good clue why, besides maybe exclusives, but that's how it rolls.
 
Last edited:
Banjo64 said:
Never seen someone lose the plot like this. Claiming Microsoft could put nuclear material inside Xboxes is not more ludicrous than saying that Xbox/PlayStation compete for the same mindshare separate to Nintendo. Ok lad. Actually hoping this deal goes through, just for your sanity.
Click to expand...
They are equally as ridiculous and it's pretty damn disrespectful to the 30+ year legacy of gaming Nintendo has fostered over the years. To claim MS is losing to a company that isn't even in competition is pretty humorous though. I guess MS is losing to McDonald's too. I suppose whatever it takes to make MS more threatening than they really are. I hope people actually learn to count to three. There are three video game platforms and Nintendo is absolutely one of them and all are in competition.

64bitmodels said:
just because nintendo sells video games like sony and MS do not make them one in the same
one is clearly geared towards casual traveling people who like a low powered console that can transform into a handheld
the other are powerful consoles focused on bringing the biggest AAA experiences to your home

Nintendo have stopped making true powerful consoles since 2006 (a shame really) so i don't see how you can compare them to Sony and MS who have basically been banking off having the most powerful console hardware and biggest AAA titles.
Click to expand...
This is pretty silly because all three companies are doing different things. You can play all new Xbox games without owning any Xbox hardware at all. You can stream new Xbox games with last generation hardware. You can access Game pass games on your phone and tablets. Does that mean MS is no longer in competition with with Nintendo and Sony? MS has low powered hardware for sale too does that mean Sony is in a market by itself? Come on.

Rather than trying to use mental gymnastics to claim some companies aren't competitors it's probably better to just say all three are competing for your gaming dollars by offering all sorts of different games and services. This is a fact. Nintendo isn't counted on a separate list when NPD runs the numbers. If they aren't competitors why was it a big deal PS5 outsold Switch? Why not just be consistent?
 
DarkMage619 said:
This is pretty silly because all three companies are doing different things. You can play all new Xbox games without owning any Xbox hardware at all. You can stream new Xbox games with last generation hardware. You can access Game pass games on your phone and tablets. Does that mean MS is no longer in competition with with Nintendo and Sony? MS has low powered hardware for sale too does that mean Sony is in a market by itself? Come on.
Click to expand...
what the fuck no
that just means Xbox is offering more ways to play their games. It doesn't change the fact however that their business as of now is currently geared off of selling powerful hardware and AAA titles.
Xbox isn't selling a hybrid handheld like Nintendo is, they're in direct competition with Sony

just because Xbox offers a lower cost way to play their games, it doesnt suddenly change their business model.
 
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo said:
That is not what I am saying.

If phill keeps saying: "CoD on PlayStation"

therefore, he is not going to have any issue signing that condition. when and if such condition is necessary for this deal to be approved.
Click to expand...
When you say Phill you mean MS as in general or just Phill? because once that money comes from Phill's pocket, he can mean what he is saying and sign that condition. Since he is not, all he can do is PR talk to try and convince everyone otherwise. this is like 101 man, cmon. However, I also do not see MS will ever signing a condition where it says it will keep a game on the PlayStation console forever. If one day the PlayStation console sells as much as a PS Vita does in japan, MS will be forced to develop and publish a game on a console that has no user base or maybe keep developing COD for PS4 when PS6 is on out for example. There are so many variables and conditions MS will NOT go through just for the sake of it.
 
Last edited:
//DEVIL// said:
When you say Phill you mean MS as in general or just Phill? because once that money comes from Phill's pocket, he can mean what he is saying and sign that condition. Since he is not, all he can do is PR talk to try and convince everyone otherwise. this is like 101 man, cmon. However, I also do not see MS will ever signing a condition where it says it will keep a game on the PlayStation console forever. If one day the PlayStation console sells as much as a PS Vita does in japan, MS will be forced to develop and publish a game on a console that has no user base or maybe keep developing COD for PS4 when PS6 is on out for example. There is so many variables and conditions MS will NOT go through just for the sake of it.
Click to expand...
Not the point at all of what I am saying
.
 
Ezekiel_ said:
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.
Click to expand...
No company would sign something that ties them in perpetuity. That doesn't mean they are lying.

feynoob said:
Nintendo isn't a competitor to Xbox and Ps. In term of hardware sales, yes.
But in term of competition, No.

Nintendo has switch, which can't run 3rd party games like COD. Until switch has those game, then it won't be a competitor to those 2.

Cma is right on this one.
Click to expand...
Nintendo competes against Xbox, PS for my money and my time
 
64bitmodels said:
what the fuck no
that just means Xbox is offering more ways to play their games. It doesn't change the fact however that their business as of now is currently geared off of selling powerful hardware and AAA titles.
Xbox isn't selling a hybrid handheld like Nintendo is, they're in direct competition with Sony

just because Xbox offers a lower cost way to play their games, it doesnt suddenly change their business model.
Click to expand...
Their business model is to sell as many games, in as many genres, on as many platforms as possible. The power of the console is just a feature like using the Switch on a TV or portable is a feature. MS sells games like Grounded, Ori, Age of Empires, and Pentiment. Hardly games requiring powerful hardware to play. Singling out Nintendo like it isn't a video game hardware competitor like Sony and MS is completely laughable. How can MS be third in consoles if there are only two competitors? Just madness.
onesvenus said:
Nintendo competes against Xbox, PS for my money and my time
Click to expand...
I knew I wasn't crazy! The idea that people argue Nintendo isn't a video game competitor is insane! Just because they make different types of games doesn't change their business. Neither Nintendo or Sony make a flight simulator game. I guess MS is in a market by themselves!
 
Last edited:
feynoob said:
Nintendo isn't a competitor to Xbox and Ps. In term of hardware sales, yes.
But in term of competition, No.

Nintendo has switch, which can't run 3rd party games like COD. Until switch has those game, then it won't be a competitor to those 2.

Cma is right on this one.
Click to expand...
They ain't imo, you don't need to have the same software library to be a competitor, you just need an alternative and switch definitely can be argued to have that.
 
People equating Nintendo to PS or Xbox are wrong.

Is like equating blockbuster Superhero movies to, i dunno horror movies.

They are both movies but expectations are different.

You don't buy Nintendos because of the hardware.
 
ChorizoPicozo said:
People equating Nintendo to PS or Xbox are wrong.

Is like equating blockbuster Superhero movies to, i dunno horror movies.

They are both movies but expectations are different.

You don't buy Nintendos because of the hardware.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between not being equal (just using that term cause you used equating but you can use 'not being similar') and not being competitors and think that's the point that some people are raising.

There is the complicating factor of market definitions.
 
Last edited:
adamsapple said:
Once the deal closes they'll put ink on it like Minecraft's ongoing support. But they're doing the max of what they can at this point in terms of committing fans/players/regulators about their intentions.
Click to expand...
both Activision and MS could have put in proposals (Activision in ink) when the CMA asked for proposals at phase 1. They didn't. As with most companies MS wanted to see what they can get away with instead of committing with their full intentions. Once the true scrutiny starts they see what they have to do to get the deal through.
 
reksveks said:
There is a difference between not being equal (just using that term cause you used equating but you can use 'not being similar') and not being competitors and think that's the point that some people are raising.

There is the complicating factor of market definitions.
Click to expand...
reksveks said:
They ain't imo, you don't need to have the same software library to be a competitor, you just need an alternative and switch definitely can be argued to have that.
Click to expand...
This thread is about Activision and Nintendo don't get their big games like COD and Diablo 4. Playstation is Activision's biggest customer, Nintendo is the smallest. The CMA and EU are smart enough to know it doesn't really affect them whatever happens.

This is why they are not competition in this (Activision) case.

It's not confusing, don't go full Darkmage.
 
GhostOfTsu said:
This thread is about Activision and Nintendo don't get their big games like COD and Diablo 4. Playstation is Activision's biggest customer, Nintendo is the smallest. The CMA and EU are smart enough to know it doesn't really affect them whatever happens.
Click to expand...

Because Nintendo decided to not fight that battle. Something that Sony in theory could do. I agree that Nintendo is less impacted by this deal but also so is MacOS/Linux.

GhostOfTsu said:
This is why they are not competition in this (Activision) case.

It's not confusing, don't go full Darkmage.
Click to expand...
Again competition isn't down to the library.
 
Trying to act like Nintendo isn't a key competitor is peak gaming we have seen for generations. When they are doing insanely we'll everyone acts like they aren't competition and talks about how they are great entry points for kids into gaming etc even though every one of us man babies around the world still buys them and spends hard earned money on their products. When they aren't doing as well everyone talks about how they need to up their output or improve to be competitive.

The fact is, Nintendo sell video games....video games are what we enjoy....we decide where we spend our money and more importantly where we spend our finite time playing video games....am I purchasing and playing bayonetta 3 over god of war this weekend? They are competing for sure.

If you can't see this you are crackers imo.
 
ChorizoPicozo said:
People equating Nintendo to PS or Xbox are wrong.

Is like equating blockbuster Superhero movies to, i dunno horror movies.

They are both movies but expectations are different.

You don't buy Nintendos because of the hardware.
Click to expand...
Aren't Marvel movies competing with horror movies on the box office? And on viewer times?
They absolutely are.
That expectations are different doesn't mean they don't compete
 
reksveks said:
They ain't imo, you don't need to have the same software library to be a competitor, you just need an alternative and switch definitely can be argued to have that.
Click to expand...
onesvenus said:
Nintendo competes against Xbox, PS for my money and my time
Click to expand...
Content wise, it isn't.
The most demanded 3rd party contents are shared between Xbox, PC and PS.

Switch hardware being inferior allows devs to skip the console.
 
onesvenus said:
Aren't Marvel movies competing with horror movies on the box office? And on viewer times?
They absolutely are.
That expectations are different doesn't mean they don't compete
Click to expand...
????
Why does a horror fan, wants to watch a marvel movie, instead of horror movie?
 
feynoob said:
Switch hardware being inferior allows devs to skip the console.
Click to expand...
Until the install base/possible audience becomes interesting to try and target like Fifa/Apex.

feynoob said:
Why does a horror fan, wants to watch a marvel movie, instead of horror movie?
Click to expand...
onesvenus said:
Because there might be viewers who like both Marvel and horror movies?
Click to expand...
Yeah, users don't have fixed taste and don't generally consume content just within a single genre. Genre/type is just one aspect of thier decisions.

Could get back into the Reed Hasting comments about Netflix's competition years ago.
 
ChorizoPicozo said:
People equating Nintendo to PS or Xbox are wrong.

Is like equating blockbuster Superhero movies to, i dunno horror movies.

They are both movies but expectations are different.

You don't buy Nintendos because of the hardware.
Click to expand...
Most people don't buy PlayStation or Xbox because of hardware, either. Most people buy them to be able to play games. Most people don't have separate budgets for Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft. People choose whether they are going to use some of their finite financial resources to buy games regardless of which platform the games are on. For a lot of people a sale to Nintendo means a sale lost for Sony and Microsoft.

You have virtually no control over how to use the power in console hardware aside from presets if developers choose to give them to you. If people were after power they wouldn't buy boxes locked to an outdated spec for 6+ years. They would invest in PC where they have control.

The consoles all fight for a share of the same pie. Always have, always will.
 
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