Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
Pelta88
Member
You need to take a break from defending Phil.
MasterCornholio
Member
Seems like its normal to me. Not really sure what the difference between Phase 1 and Phase 2 are.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Hoeg has a video on the EU regulators comments about 'his PlayStation'. This type of thing should not happen.
feynoob
Banned
Do you take everything as defending him?
Guy made good business decision for them. They wont kick him out, because a dude in a forum said so.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
He's not a regulator. But keep repeating the false narratives.
MasterCornholio
Member
I don't believe it means the Commission is corrupt which I've seen some people suggest.
Maybe you should stop having personal opinions?
Last edited:
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Bias is not corruption inherently. You should watch the video.
feynoob
Banned
It seems they want more info now.
This time, we might get some spicy news, unlike phase 1 info.
Think of it like epic vs apple spicy news.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
But you're saying the commission is bias.
Hopefully you don't believe they are a bunch of Sony fanboys.
Last edited:
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
They likely are as evidenced. This is Europe we are talking about.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Impartial gamers in here whining about impartiality.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
MasterCornholio
Member
They probably are not Sony fanboys. Seriously doubt the commission is comprised of console warriors based off what one person said.
Pelta88
Member
You really need to stop Defending Phil
CEO's losing their position because of bad/disruptive or failed business moves is pretty much part of business. We're discussing all facets of an acquisition. Your defence of Phil comes across as juvenile and makes it difficult to engage.
Re-read your posts. The "Phil is great" narrative isn't really necessary. Especially in this context.
Kvally
Member
You really need to stop Defending Phil
CEO's losing their position because of bad/disruptive or failed business moves is pretty much part of business. We're discussing all facets of an acquisition. Your defence of Phil comes across as juvenile and makes it difficult to engage.
Re-read your posts. The "Phil is great" narrative isn't really necessary. Especially in this context.
feynoob
Banned
Dude, the guy gave them a business model, in which they are ready to spend $75b, and you think they would fire him?You really need to stop Defending Phil
CEO's losing their position because of bad/disruptive or failed business moves is pretty much part of business. We're discussing all facets of an acquisition. Your defence of Phil comes across as juvenile and makes it difficult to engage.
Re-read your posts. The "Phil is great" narrative isn't really necessary. Especially in this context.
I want some of that smoke you are on man.
Pelta88
Member
Confirmation that you have no idea what you're talking about. Microsoft's pivot to services on all their software is well documented in a business sense. But according to you, GP is Phil's idea
The fact that in your mind, Phil gave them the business model. Shows that our conversation should end here since your posts have nothing to do with the subject at hand and lean more into the elevation/adoration of a CEO.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
Confirmation that you have no idea what you're talking about. Microsoft's pivot to services on all their software is well documented in a business sense. But according to you, GP is Phil's idea
The fact that in your mind, Phil gave them the business model. Shows that our conversation should end here since your posts have nothing to do with the subject at hand and lean more into the elevation/adoration of a CEO.
Right
Last edited:
ReBurn
Gold Member
If it's mostly trash then why would anyone be upset that Microsoft is trying to buy it?
Yeah, it's seems an invitation for comment is pretty standard practice. I need to see if these comments even become public.R reksveks it seems we got new update from EU.
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
Pelta88
Member
When did you start gaming?
Did you miss the XBOX debacle in 2013 and do you remember what that was about? Showing me an article about Phil Spencer as the head of XBOX selling the idea of GP to publishers who, to this day, have barely supported GP in any significant way means what exactly? The pivot to Software As A Service (SASS) is a Microsoft initiative. Not Phil Spencers idea.
I find it difficult to believe you're that ignorant of the facts. And in your mind GAAS is Phil Spencer's initiative. And you're using PR pieces to prove the origin of a service which the stock market knew about years prior.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
I am done here man.
You have your bright idea. And I have facts with me. If you dont like it, its not worth continuing this discussion.
feynoob
Banned
I hope so. I want to know more about those spicy news.
Like is there anything, we have no idea that can help us with deal?
In phase 1, we managed to find out that COD was blocked from gamepass for certain years. Stuff like these could be very spicy.
MasterCornholio
Member
Seems more like Activision wanted that to happen than anything else. Pretty sure there are marketing deals where the games still come to gamepass so it's not something that every third party agrees to.
Thirty7ven
Banned
COD that's all.
feynoob
Banned
Some publishers are still on the fence with gamepass. So it makes sense, why they dont want their product on gamepass.
This was their opinion on early gamepass.
MasterCornholio
Member
It does make sense for some of them. Which is why I don't believe this will end anytime soon. It really depends on whether or not the publisher wants to focus of day one sales or not.
feynoob
Banned
MS needs to show them more gamepass members, in order for them to jump on board.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
I don't believe its a simple as that. There's still a lot that can be made with physical/digital copies so a large initial lump some will probably be required. Whether or not Microsoft wants to pay that is a different story.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Goes deeper than just that caption. Turns out that dude used to be on the competition department in the EU, the team reviewing this acquisition, as well. So it is completely reasonable that his thoughts could be shared over the entire regulatory body. It is not proof of bias but it certainly makes it hard to argue these people are completely impartial. We'll see what their final verdict is but MS has some ammo if they were going to appeal a negative conclusion.
feynoob
Banned
He won't have that much impact.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Newsflash. No human being is completely impartial.
Bunch of goofy clown shoes in these mental gymnastics.
laynelane
Member
Can you imagine MS using a Tweet as some kind of ammunition in a legal proceeding? We have impartial gamers and now impartial Youtubers weighing in on this travesty of justice.
reinking
Gold Member
Last edited:
freefornow
Member
Would think that your sentiment would be that he should stay given his leadership has led to Sony being the market leader. Why would you want him gone? He's helping you guys.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
How do we know that? It doesn't look good when a member of a regulatory body makes a biased statement on an active investigation. We'll see how it goes.
feynoob
Banned
Because he isnt a member of the board. As such, he wont have classified information.
His impact is 0.
Hero of Spielberg
Member
Again, I preface this by restating I don't think the EU are Sony fanboys or anything like that. But these are just people that work together at the end of the day, not emotionless bureaucratic machines (maybe ...). It's not outside the realms of possibility that those he used to work with go, 'hey, we're looking at this ActiBlizz deal, what's his name is a big gamer, what are his thoughts on it all' ... then he gives his honest opinion.
Now, that doesn't add up to corruption and I don't think it would likely affect the deal overall, however it could be viewed by some as introducing impartiality into the process, which I'd say the EU would be very keen to avoid on all matters.
Also, to say that because someone isn't in a particular department so they can't influence outcomes is just false. There's a reason why lobbying exists and it's to effect departmental decisions. If that weren't the case I'm sure as hell Jim Ryan wouldn't be wasting his time flying over to chat with the CMA over a cup of tea and talk about the weather.
Depends on Microsoft's outlook. If they believe Spencer put them at risk then sure, but if they feel Sony is the reason the deal gets blocked then their frustration will be aimed at Sony, not internally.
I don't think Microsoft would have entered into a $70 billion acquisition just because Phil thinks it is a good idea. Decisions like this do not work that way.
Now if you want to hold him responsible for the not so great first party studio output that is a different story. There is no way Microsoft is happy with their output after spending so much money on new studios. Psychonauts is the one game during the last two years that has stuck with me.
Menzies
Banned
Also not blowing this out of proportion. I am curious though as to how much the 'personal' Twitter disclaimer provides impunity/indemnity for a verified legal representative, making comments representing their place of employment. It's the royal "commission is" and "our to do list" lol - oh Ricardo baby what is you doing?! Stirred up a right old mess.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
He has on his profile his thoughts are his own then proceeds to reference a matter his employer is currently evaluating. He also happens to have previously worked for the specific division that is conducting the evaluation. We know damn well if his statements were about how Xbox will have the Activision deal approved all hell would break loose. It looks horrible and to act like this is completely normal neutral behavior is a bit laughable.
Hero of Spielberg
Member
It's a good point. It's why I've said earlier, regardless of his claims that it's a 'personal' opinion, the language he uses and the fact he has EU in his handle and works for the body (regardless of the department, even though it seems he did work in that department at some point) make it a bad look in general.
pasterpl
Member
Newsflash. If you are working for publicly traded company or government body, during induction you will learn that your opinions stated publicly will impact say company/government body. This is basics. Stating that these are your private views does shit. If you speak in public space and you are affiliated to an organisation your statements can/will be taken as this organisation stance. In this particular case this is very unfortunate as someone in senior position publicly showed their bias, which will harm EU proceedings giving ms ammunition. No mental gymnastics, just common sense and years of experience working in publicly traded companies.
https://pca.st/olfng20o
Phil Spencer, CEO of Microsoft Gaming, is in charge of Xbox and all the game studios that Microsoft has acquired over the years. Phil came to talk to us hours before the European Commission announced an in-depth investigation into Microsoft's proposed 68.7 billion dollar acquisition of Activision Blizzard, which makes the enormous Call of Duty series, as well as Candy Crush on phones.
So I had the chance to ask Phil: Will he make the concessions that regulators want in order to close this deal? And is the deal really just about Call of Duty, or something else? Is Microsoft committed to keep Call of Duty available on Playstation?
Phil's a candid guy. He's been on Decoder before. I always enjoy talking to him, and this was a fun one.
My summary (not saying that I agree with the comments):
- EVP of MS Gaming to CEO of MS Gaming; no difference in terms of day-to-day role. Got their own P&L. Satya pushed for MS Gaming CEO role. Jokes about role isn't related to the completion of the ABK deal.
- Largest consumer business within MS. Feel gaming is more aligned to MS than others gaming divisions. Marketing team has moved in the MS Gaming division instead of the central marketing team.
- Talking about delaying the 'hits' (Starfield/Redfall) and how that works in an industry where you are less reliant on 'hits' and more so about recurring revenue. Talks about shipping game too early, the decision to delay Starfield was the right to do. Has a financial impact, wanted Bethesda to feel the support of being a part of MS.
- Again don't have a vision of everyone paying 15 usd a month, buying and owning will still be a big part (talks about Steve Job saying the same for music). MTX/DLC will be the majority of revenue. (Don't see exclusive games in the subscription).
- Games have a business model onto themselves, Song's and movies don't. Thats why there is massive F2P.
- Talks about the 'anomaly' between F2P and subscriptions and says that there will be some perks but its still two different models.
- Series S is available, X is harder to find.
- Natural for the recession to impact entertainment but gaming is still good value so may weather it better. Not seeing an impact yet. Another GP and Series 'ad'.
- Still selling faster than previous consoles. Supply ease up, should hopefully see Series X on the shelf in 2023.
- Trials and tribulation of Xbox work on PC is 'well documented'
- MS wants to find relevancy on mobile, becomes it thinks console will become a niche. Mobile has been growing, PC and Console has been generally flat. How does one remain competitive with the likes of Tencent if they are constantly growing (due to mobile) and acquiring talent.
- ABK (touches on King being bigger than AB). "You are buying Candy Crush, absolutely". "The idea that Activision is all about COD on consoles is created by console competition" . Buying King is the same reason that Take-two looked/bought Zynga.
- Not sat down with regulations around concessions. Open to sitting down with Sony/regulators about COD on PS.
- There is no deal re: Minecraft being on Sony/Switch.
- Regulators should be looking at harm on players and not marketshare.
- Have you made the promise to Sony re: always being on PS as long to a PS exists? No, the idea of a contract for a deal forever doesn't make sense for lawyers seems silly. You got have some ability to be flexible. "We think COD will be on PS as long as there is COD players on PS"
- Native streaming/non-linked to GP will be on PS. Sony doesn't need to take Gamepass for COD access.
- Talks about the death of the streaming console. Keystone was more expensive than they wanted it to be so switch the team onto the partnerships with Samsung.
- A streaming only box needs to have a decent price delta to the Series S. Should be in the range of 99-129 range including the control. Keystone was made in 9 months. It was a standalone device with its own power supply.
- Re: building an app for the different tv oems; decided to switch to a PWA to get flexibility re: getting on as many platforms as possible instead of a native app.
- Complained about both Google not allowing Microsoft to them to monetize via the xcloud/xbox app; not just Apple.
- LOL @ his comments re: Apple. Really quite spicy about "Apple chucking out Fortnite"
- Think Stadia did a good job with hardware/tech but was missing the content subscription element.
- Re: whiltelabeling the tech, think there is a real use to enabling creators for streaming tech re: demo's and other uses for the tech aka jumping into the game after watching a video
Will update as it plays.
Phil Spencer, CEO of Microsoft Gaming, is in charge of Xbox and all the game studios that Microsoft has acquired over the years. Phil came to talk to us hours before the European Commission announced an in-depth investigation into Microsoft's proposed 68.7 billion dollar acquisition of Activision Blizzard, which makes the enormous Call of Duty series, as well as Candy Crush on phones.
So I had the chance to ask Phil: Will he make the concessions that regulators want in order to close this deal? And is the deal really just about Call of Duty, or something else? Is Microsoft committed to keep Call of Duty available on Playstation?
Phil's a candid guy. He's been on Decoder before. I always enjoy talking to him, and this was a fun one.
My summary (not saying that I agree with the comments):
- EVP of MS Gaming to CEO of MS Gaming; no difference in terms of day-to-day role. Got their own P&L. Satya pushed for MS Gaming CEO role. Jokes about role isn't related to the completion of the ABK deal.
- Largest consumer business within MS. Feel gaming is more aligned to MS than others gaming divisions. Marketing team has moved in the MS Gaming division instead of the central marketing team.
- Talking about delaying the 'hits' (Starfield/Redfall) and how that works in an industry where you are less reliant on 'hits' and more so about recurring revenue. Talks about shipping game too early, the decision to delay Starfield was the right to do. Has a financial impact, wanted Bethesda to feel the support of being a part of MS.
- Again don't have a vision of everyone paying 15 usd a month, buying and owning will still be a big part (talks about Steve Job saying the same for music). MTX/DLC will be the majority of revenue. (Don't see exclusive games in the subscription).
- Games have a business model onto themselves, Song's and movies don't. Thats why there is massive F2P.
- Talks about the 'anomaly' between F2P and subscriptions and says that there will be some perks but its still two different models.
- Series S is available, X is harder to find.
- Natural for the recession to impact entertainment but gaming is still good value so may weather it better. Not seeing an impact yet. Another GP and Series 'ad'.
- Still selling faster than previous consoles. Supply ease up, should hopefully see Series X on the shelf in 2023.
- Trials and tribulation of Xbox work on PC is 'well documented'
- MS wants to find relevancy on mobile, becomes it thinks console will become a niche. Mobile has been growing, PC and Console has been generally flat. How does one remain competitive with the likes of Tencent if they are constantly growing (due to mobile) and acquiring talent.
- ABK (touches on King being bigger than AB). "You are buying Candy Crush, absolutely". "The idea that Activision is all about COD on consoles is created by console competition" . Buying King is the same reason that Take-two looked/bought Zynga.
- Not sat down with regulations around concessions. Open to sitting down with Sony/regulators about COD on PS.
- There is no deal re: Minecraft being on Sony/Switch.
- Regulators should be looking at harm on players and not marketshare.
- Have you made the promise to Sony re: always being on PS as long to a PS exists? No, the idea of a contract for a deal forever doesn't make sense for lawyers seems silly. You got have some ability to be flexible. "We think COD will be on PS as long as there is COD players on PS"
- Native streaming/non-linked to GP will be on PS. Sony doesn't need to take Gamepass for COD access.
- Talks about the death of the streaming console. Keystone was more expensive than they wanted it to be so switch the team onto the partnerships with Samsung.
- A streaming only box needs to have a decent price delta to the Series S. Should be in the range of 99-129 range including the control. Keystone was made in 9 months. It was a standalone device with its own power supply.
- Re: building an app for the different tv oems; decided to switch to a PWA to get flexibility re: getting on as many platforms as possible instead of a native app.
- Complained about both Google not allowing Microsoft to them to monetize via the xcloud/xbox app; not just Apple.
- LOL @ his comments re: Apple. Really quite spicy about "Apple chucking out Fortnite"
- Think Stadia did a good job with hardware/tech but was missing the content subscription element.
- Re: whiltelabeling the tech, think there is a real use to enabling creators for streaming tech re: demo's and other uses for the tech aka jumping into the game after watching a video
Will update as it plays.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
"Phil Spencer, CEO of Microsoft Gaming, is in charge of Xbox and all the game studios that Microsoft has acquired over the years. Phil came to talk to us hours before the European Commission announced an in-depth investigation into Microsoft's proposed 68.7 billion dollar acquisition of Activision Blizzard, which makes the enormous Call of Duty series, as well as Candy Crush on phones.
So I had the chance to ask Phil: Will he make the concessions that regulators want in order to close this deal? And is the deal really just about Call of Duty, or something else? Is Microsoft committed to keep Call of Duty available on Playstation?"
So I had the chance to ask Phil: Will he make the concessions that regulators want in order to close this deal? And is the deal really just about Call of Duty, or something else? Is Microsoft committed to keep Call of Duty available on Playstation?"
HeisenbergFX4
Member
Damn an hour long? I will let others listen and decipher the talk and highlight the good parts here
In Cold Blood
Banned
So when the deal goes through, while MS won't be the biggest gaming company in the world, would they be the biggest publisher in the world?
Would they have the biggest value of IPs in the world?
How will MS compare with the rest of the landscape just on the game software front?
Would they have the biggest value of IPs in the world?
How will MS compare with the rest of the landscape just on the game software front?
feynoob
Banned
They won't. They will be in good position. But not at top.
- Status