MasterCornholio
Member
Last edited:
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
SportsFan581
Member
Sure. But there's a good chance that MS would prefer the PS release be their business decision and not something that is enforced by a government body (devaluing their investment should they decide to divest in the future). Sony would naturally have it the other way around, they would love massive concessions here, no GP, no bonus content, no marketing tie-in, etc.
MasterCornholio
Member
But I'm not talking about that. I'm simply talking about CoD existing on PlayStation. Pretty sure that's the main point behind all this.
Cheezewizz
Banned
Right, and MS has gone to extreme lengths to clarify that they intend to exactly that... multiple times now.
You might not be referring to all those other things, but Sony most certainly are.
feynoob
Banned
Saying on the media vs working with regulators is different
MS would need to reach an agreement with regulators. All their talk in the media means nothing.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Until and such conclusion is reached, mentioning what they have to the media, when asked in interviews and such, is the only thing they can do.
ZehDon
Gold Member
Actually, public declarations - especially in direct response to regulator enquiries - do mean something. Should Microsoft not honour its public declarations once the deal has gone through, then the Government bodies would have irrefutable grounds that Microsoft directly misled regulators about its intentions. There isn't much worming your way out of the statements Microsoft has made, and Government agencies can step in post-closure to break up Microsoft - which they've done before - if they deem its new position anti-competitive. Microsoft can't just say whatever it wants, and they know this rodeo better than virtually anyone else.
Hero of Spielberg
Member
Ideologically I do sit more on the laisse-faire side than what I consider over-regulation. But I definitely see value in preventing genuine monopolistic outcomes.
I would like regulators to be involved when a deal will unequivocally result in monopolistic and anti-consumer outcomes. E.g. I strongly believe the recent purchase of Figma by Adobe for $20bn, a company with a horrendous record of acquisitions, gouging their customers due to their monopolistic position in the creative software industry and providing a substandard product. They have basically purchased their free-to-use online competitor that was firming as their only real competition so they can fold it back under their overpriced subscription, again forcing people back to them as they need to use the software for their livelihoods. I may have missed it, but I'm yet to see a peep from the CMA or EU regarding this large deal which directly results in a monopolistic / anti-consumer outcome.
So in answer, no I am not completely anti-regulation, I very much appreciate it where it is necessary.
I guess that's why I find it bizarre that CMAs/ EU trying to predict the far-distant future of the ActiBlizz acquisition outcome when it has nowhere near the immediate negative outcomes.
feynoob
Banned
Regulators want more than that.
They want an actual concessions, which makes this entire thing a circus.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
You're going in circles here, regulators can demand concessions from MS and if/when they do, MS can respond in kind. Right now they're responding what they can when asked, they're probably not gonna start throwing out concessions willy nilly. We don't know what the status of MS and regulators direct communication is right now.
ZehDon
Gold Member
Can you please link me to the regulator's statements where they have demanded concessions from Microsoft. I must have missed those press releases.
Iced Arcade
Member
I can see MS saying "yes COD is available PlayStation... Requires log in with xbox/Microsoft account and requires mandatory cross play without Sonys crossplay fee etc"
Agree to concessions with conditions.
Agree to concessions with conditions.
Torrent of Pork
Banned
It's amazing the people ITT who can't understand that.
feynoob
Banned
Their concern over cod.
ZehDon
Gold Member
Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear: can you please post a link to the statements released by any of the regulators who are now demanding concessions from Microsoft in relation to the Activision Blizzard acquisition. These will normally be released on their publicly facing Government websites, however, several news outlets will also have likely covered this, as this is pretty headline worthy. I can't seem to find any with a quick Google search. Thank you.
feynoob
Banned
Here is the recent EU report.
This shows that regulators wanted some kind of concession.
At the same time, there is this info.
It explains, why MS didnt go with that. We will get more info in the future.
In mean time, there is the FTC findings which is coming soon this month. It should give us more info.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Is it just me or you are going to win the award of most comments in a thread?.ZehDon It seems MS is using funnel approach (From Idas post). So far, they arent interested in concession. Which is why they are using the media to their advantage.
And as a Hoeg said, MS is not going to negotiate against itself. So they are not going to say anything regarding concessions.
feynoob
Banned
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Is not that they are not interested, is that they will be dumb to do so.
feynoob
Banned
They are getting benifits here. Which I can understand. Since no concession means a win for them.
My view point was from regulators side, who would have to approve this deal. Especially with their recent behavior.
If we go by idas, and to some extent Hoeg law, regulators might have give up the concesion part, If MS manages to convince them.
Thirty7ven
Banned
Funniest part is seeing all the mental struggle to justify this deal, trying to convince anybody that this isn't just about bragging rights online. Xbox won't get any games that it wouldn't otherwise get with AB as third party it's hilarious.
ZehDon
Gold Member
Not all, you've misunderstood this information. No regulators have demanded concessions. The information you've posted just means Microsoft didn't voluntarily offer any concessions. And, frankly, why would anyone - why offer to give up something when no one is asking for anything?
This is irrelevant to your claim that regulators are asking for concessions. They're not, as you've already proven.
HoofHearted
Member
That's the entire point of this process.
First rule of business negotiation - give nothing - but ask for information so that you can meet the ask.
MS (or any business that's good at negotiating for that matter) isn't going to give any concessions until there's an ask on the table with reasons behind the ask.
Once the regulators come to the table with their "concerns" - that will kick off the negotiations to address any concerns noted. As part of this process - if groups/regulators from other countries also approve the deal without any concerns or requests for additional concessions - then that adds even further support for the deal to go through (i.e. if FTC passes but CMA/EU don't - then the question is - why the difference?)
So far - it seems as though CMA / EU are the only ones raising any semblance of concerns to the deal - it'll be really interesting to see if FTC approves the deal....
Last edited:
Elder Legend
Banned
I get what your coming from, but truth be told I'd love for that to happen just for the interweb meltdowns and entertainment. Me personally though, I don't care either way, I just want to play good games on either platforms lol.
12Dannu123
Member
A perpetual contact in a practical perspective impossible to enforce in a legal perspective. It's highly unlikely that EU, FTC, CMA will force MS to ensure perpetual releases on Playstation.
Last edited:
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
But the games might come to gamepass, which is a huge gain for many of the Xbox users.
That's the only thing I'm gaining and caring about. I don't care if they are gonna be exclusives or not.
Orbital2060
Member
There is no need to justify anything, its ABK that have been looking for a buyer. Thats all there is to it.
Topher
Identifies as young
Regulators can act after the deal is done, that much we know. Phil Spencer has publicly assured the world that CoD will remain on PlayStation indefinitely. If he reneges then, other making himself a liar and the public fallout that will follow, I imagine Sony could bring the matter back before those regulators. Hard to tell how that would play out. I'm thinking Microsoft does not want to test those waters though.
Typically Regulators don't ask for concessions, and they definitely don't describe them, they say what you can't do (to various level of clarity) and then as a company you have decide whether your actions fall within the acceptable options. Regulators can then look at your actions whenever they want.
If you are into weirdly interesting competition cases and relevant topics, do check out http://www.fosspatents.com/
"THIS BLOG COVERS SOFTWARE PATENT NEWS AND ISSUES WITH A PARTICULAR FOCUS ON WIRELESS, MOBILE DEVICES (SMARTPHONES, TABLET COMPUTERS, CONNECTED CARS) AS WELL AS SELECT ANTITRUST MATTERS SURROUNDING THOSE DEVICES."
Very niche things.
If you are into weirdly interesting competition cases and relevant topics, do check out http://www.fosspatents.com/
"THIS BLOG COVERS SOFTWARE PATENT NEWS AND ISSUES WITH A PARTICULAR FOCUS ON WIRELESS, MOBILE DEVICES (SMARTPHONES, TABLET COMPUTERS, CONNECTED CARS) AS WELL AS SELECT ANTITRUST MATTERS SURROUNDING THOSE DEVICES."
Very niche things.
Iced Arcade
Member
Oh oh comedy! I got one... Thinking the AB library and day 1 releases on gamepass not being a thing for Xbox owners to be excited about.
Last edited:
Thirty7ven
Banned
Lowered expectations I see, it's mostly trash.
feynoob
Banned
Why do people see every game as a trash?
Just because you aren't a fan, doesn't mean it's a trash.
Iced Arcade
Member
My reply was solely on your statement of "Funniest part is seeing all the mental struggle to justify this deal, trying to convince anybody that this isn't just about bragging rights online. Xbox won't get any games that it wouldn't otherwise get with AB as third party it's hilarious."
Labeling a community with "lower expectations" and calling some biggest selling game "mostly trash" doesn't change the fact that your statement is wrong.
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4
Member
Comes down to it Gamepass might be the biggest sticking point as it seems Sony wants to be ensured no new CODs ever hit Gamepass day 1
NickFire
Member
I wouldn't blame then for enforcing any contractual rights, but once those are done then I don't think that would be a fair reason to deny approval. I would support blocking it if there's any chance they make COD exclusive, but not if the only risk is day 1 on GP. Protecting consumers and Sony may have some overlap, but protecting consumers is the primary goal.
HeisenbergFX4
Member
I personally would like the deal to go through if I could replay a lot of the old COD campaigns on Gamepass but totally against making it exclusive to the MS ecosystem
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Just having acti bliz's past catalog and future gameson the service day 1 is a tremendous win for gamers ™
SportsFan581
Member
Very true. The only reason to start giving things away now would be if there was some kind of time restriction that made it important to end things before an in-depth review took place. The reality was that MS knew this deal was getting an in-depth look from everyone regardless of anything they did (it is a $70b deal), and didn't bother trying to avoid that process as a result.
The whole idea that anything has happened so far that is putting the deal in jeopardy simply isn't true. This was always getting a close look from everyone and there were always going to be reasons/concerns to look provided to justify that closer look. Most of these agencies are relatively quiet about the work they are doing which can make the CMA twitter account doing Sony PR look out of place, but it is what it is.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
Yup. Consumers are first.
pasterpl
Member
Just a reminder, since day 1, ms set completion date to June 2023 so they were prepared for some extra grilling by regulators.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Impartial gamers in here whining about impartiality.
Gudji
Member
He should have been long gone by now he's shit at his job.
feynoob
Banned
He will survive. Activision is extra, plus this deal is for MS.
They want to expand their PC market, and have access to mobile.
COD is extra cake for gamepass. Not to mention, they are going to acquire small studios.
However, if this deal fails for some reason (Slim chance), MS would have chance to buy take2, or other publishers. Even regulators wont stop them there, since those purchases are small, unless its 2 massive publishers at the same time.
As for Phil, he cemented his place, when he bough them minecraft. They are making tons of money from that IP alone. And gave them gamepass idea. He is going to be here for a long time.
feynoob
Banned
R
reksveks
it seems we got new update from EU.
eur-lex.europa.eu
Initiation of proceedings
(Case M.10646 – MICROSOFT / ACTIVISION BLIZZARD)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 431/03)
On 8 November 2022, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference No. M.10646 – MICROSOFT / ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, to the following address:
EUR-Lex - 52022M10646(01) - EN - EUR-Lex
eur-lex.europa.eu
Initiation of proceedings
(Case M.10646 – MICROSOFT / ACTIVISION BLIZZARD)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 431/03)
On 8 November 2022, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference No. M.10646 – MICROSOFT / ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, to the following address:
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
So, another round of letters?
- Status