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.
part 4
  • Microsoft has consistently articulated the mobile gaming strategic motivation for the Merger
  • The Merger gives Microsoft a meaningful presence in mobile gaming
  • Microsoft's financial valuation accounts for [] while the existing business provides [
  • Theory of Harm 1 – no prospect of a substantial lessening of competition through input foreclosure of rival console gaming platforms (excluding multi-game subscription services) 3.1 Theory of Harm 1 concerns the potential for a substantial lessening of competition in gaming consoles (together with their digital storefronts) as a result of Microsoft engaging in full or partial input foreclosure strategies
  • Input foreclosure findings in Phase 2 are exceptional
    • The CMA has found a substantial lessening of competition on the basis of input foreclosure in only three Phase 2 cases.29 Such cases are exceptional – accounting for less than 1% of the CMA's merger decisions30 – and have in each case involved the protection of substantial market power. Input foreclose has never been found in a case where one merging party was the smallest player in the downstream market and the other merging party was one of more than a dozen suppliers competing in the upstream market
  • Microsoft does not intend to remove Call of Duty from PlayStation or to degrade access to the franchise – a fact that is supported by a consistent body of evidence.38 However, even if Microsoft were to withdraw Call of Duty from PlayStation (quod non), the Panel would have to believe that Sony would as a result of the loss of one game franchise from the many thousands available on its console go from being the clear market leader for over two decades to being placed at "such a disadvantage that [its] ability to compete is substantially limited
  • As such a conclusion is inherently unlikely, and has never been found in any previous cases, the evidence required to allow the Panel to reach such a conclusion on the balance of probabilities would need to be clear and compelling. As noted by Lord Hoffman in Rehman, "it would need more cogent evidence to satisfy one that the creature seen walking in Regent's Park was more likely than not to have been a lioness than to be satisfied to the same standard of probability that it was an Alsatian".40 As set out below, such a cogent body of evidence does not exist in this case
 
GHG said:
You're clearly not understanding what you're looking at. The document I linked was provided to the SEC from Activision Blizzard to then be passed on to shareholders of ATVI.

LGH0UUT.jpg


It's a 14a which means it is addressed to shareholders in order to provide them with information for them to vote for or against something. In this case its for the sale of ATVI to Microsoft.

aEkI7zs.jpg


If anything in that document is inaccurate or if key information is ommited then that would be securities fraud.

So, if you have some credible information that goes against what is documented with the filing to the SEC then write to the SEC, I'm sure they will be more than interested to hear it.
Click to expand...
It is you who is not understanding, and you do not understand the origin of what is said either. MS didn't go to Activision and make a proposition. Activision had opened the door to a sale, explored several options and decided on MS.

Are you saying that reality is different? No Is not
 
Darsxx82 said:
It is you who is not understanding, and you do not understand the origin of what is said either. MS didn't go to Activision and make a proposition. Activision had opened the door to a sale, explored several options and decided on MS.

Are you saying that reality is different? No Is not
Click to expand...
MS made the first offer, and went to Activision with $80 share.
 
Ass of Can Whooping said:
And this is matters why? M&A regulation doesn't care whether you want to be bought or not.
Click to expand...

Don't you get it? Microsoft is captain save a hoe and you can't save hoes that don't want to be saved.

EnVIHcf.jpg


Just think what would happen to these poor publishers if Microsoft didn't step in and buy them.

Darsxx82 said:
It is you who is not understanding, and you do not understand the origin of what is said either. MS didn't go to Activision and make a proposition. Activision had opened the door to a sale, explored several options and decided on MS.

Are you saying that reality is different? No Is not
Click to expand...

You're insisting on living in cloud cuckoo land because you've built up a narrative in your head that you desperately want to be true. If official documentation which has severe legal implications if falsified isn't enough for you then nothing will be. You are living on nothing but your feelings. Sad.
 
Last edited:
feynoob said:
MS made the first offer, and went to Activision with $80 share.
Click to expand...

Yep

Bloomberg(opens in new tab) reports that "Kotick and the board weren't sold on Microsoft as the acquirer" and initially pursued deals with at least two other companies, one of them being Meta Platforms, according to sources privy to private conversations. As we now know, these talks didn't bear fruit, so Activision came back to the table with Microsoft, with the two companies apparently working over the 2021 holiday season to draft up the deal.
Click to expand...

www.gamesradar.com

Activision pursued a Facebook buyout before selling to Microsoft, report claims

The publisher reportedly spoke to at least one other company as well
www.gamesradar.com www.gamesradar.com

However ABK were open to be acquired by another company, otherwise they would've simply rejected the offer and didn't care about testing the waters with other parties.

Funny thing is they didn't reach Sony, did they?
 
Sony's response reads like a primary school student's argument.

They basically said that Microsoft may do what Sony have been doing for ages and say "that's bad" because we're now on the receiving end of things.
 
pasterpl said:
That's interesting, we know that ms presented deals to Sony already. Also none of the previous cod games were on any sub service.
Click to expand...
Old COD games were on ps+.

gamerant.com

All the Call of Duty Games That Have Been Free on PS Plus

Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 is joining the lineup of free PS Plus games for July 2021, but it's not the only Call of Duty game to hit the service.
gamerant.com gamerant.com

  • Call of Duty: Black Ops 3

  • Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered

  • Call of Duty: WW2

  • Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Campaign Remastered

  • Call of Duty: Black Ops 4

 
twilo99 said:
Sony worried that Microsoft could start behaving like Sony.
Click to expand...

"We're worried that if MS gets Activision, they will increase hardware and game prices"
"Like you ?"
"Oh that was different.gif"

Sony reps should just stay quiet and let CMA do their job. They're not doing themselves any favors by releasing these contradictory statements.
 
Last edited:
intheinbetween said:
Yep



[/URL]

However ABK were open to be acquired by another company, otherwise they would've simply rejected the offer and didn't care about testing the waters with other parties.

Funny thing is they didn't reach Sony, did they?
Click to expand...

If they didn't even bother with Sony I can imagine its because they wanted a lot for it. Makes me think they probably went to other really large companies to discuss this.

I'm not really sure which company would have been capable of paying 80 billion for them though.
 
MasterCornholio said:
Thought they still did marketing deals. Like with The Medium for example.

No idea where this idea that Microsoft doesn't engage in them comes from.
Click to expand...
From its fanboys and fangirls changing their mind, that Google and Amazon is no longer the boogeyman but Sony is. All so that their trillion dollar conglomerate seems like a david fighting a goliath rather than the other way round.
 
MasterCornholio said:
If they didn't even bother with Sony I can imagine its because they wanted a lot for it. Makes me think they probably went to other really large companies to discuss this.

I'm not really sure which company would have been capable of paying 80 billion for them though.
Click to expand...
Google.
 
adamsapple said:
"We're worried that if MS gets Activision, they will increase hardware and game prices"
"Like you ?"
"Oh that was different.gif"

Sony reps should just stay quiet and let CMA do their job. They're not doing themselves any favors by releasing these contradictory statements.
Click to expand...

It's not exactly a contradiction though. I mean I understand the argument and I know it isn't the same as what Sony did with the PS5s price.

Not saying I agree with it but it just isn't the same.
 
adamsapple said:
"We're worried that if MS gets Activision, they will increase hardware and game prices"
"Like you ?"
"Oh that was different.gif"

Sony reps should just stay quiet and let CMA do their job. They're not doing themselves any favors by releasing these contradictory statements.
Click to expand...
Activision already raised their game prices. This is talking about when there is no competition. Not inflation or currency markets.
 
adamsapple said:
"We're worried that if MS gets Activision, they will increase hardware and game prices"
"Like you ?"
"Oh that was different.gif"

Sony reps should just stay quiet and let CMA do their job. They're not doing themselves any favors by releasing these contradictory statements.
Click to expand...
They managed to get a 10 year deal for now instead of the 3 years earlier this year, so it seems to be working for them.
 
I read through Sony's entire argument, and I'm literally in tears as to how weak the arguments are. Many of the claims aren't supported by any real data at all. And where data is provided, much of it is weak and suspect when weighed against more fundamentally objective numbers that demonstrate that not even all of Activision Blizzard's games published worldwide and in the UK combined amount to a percentage of the games industry large enough to do the type of damage Sony claims to Playstation, Independent developers and to multi-game subscriptions or cloud.

All of Activision Blizzard's share of the game publishing market (including once you factor in Xbox's own content) has a market share of less than 20-30% worldwide and in the UK combined. I don't care what Sony says after this, the numbers simply don't lie. As to Activision Blizzard's games on multi-game subscription services, internal documents by Activision themselves make clear it was NEVER going to happen and it's against the way they would want to do business. The only way brand new Activision Blizzard titles appear on a game pass or ps plus like multi-game subscription service (especially day one) is if the current acquisition by Microsoft is allowed to proceed.

How can COD possess the power Sony claims if not even 100% of Activision Blizzard's own games collectively rise to the threat level Sony wants regulators to believe Call of Duty alone does? In short, Sony is relying largely on blatant falsehoods (telling lies) to bring about their wildest desire of killing the deal. Sony's statements about independent developers being harmed fly in the face of what actual independent developers/publishers have said about the deal, which is that they see it as a good thing. Sony is trying to dishonestly use its own self-interest centered on its profits to make the claim that its reasons to be against the deal somehow have more to do with being concerned about the larger industry rather than itself.

Sony can't stop the deal, and when it becomes obvious upon its approval that Sony's efforts have failed, I hope to see enough signs that Microsoft moving forward is treating Sony accordingly in light of their mostly dishonest attacks on the deal.
 
Last edited:
GHG said:
Thank you for this.

D Darsxx82 do you have anything credible to back up your claims? And no, Xbox twitter personalities don't count.
Click to expand...
LOL. What is supposed to be understood there??? Confirmation that Activision wanted to be bought? Are you telling me that MS made its proposal without knowing that Activision wanted to be bought? It is clear that you still did not understand what was being talked about and you continue creating a story that only you know 🤣

It's simple:

Activision wanted to be bought? YES MS made a proposal? YES

Did Activision explore other options before MS? YES

Did Activision end up accepting MS's proposal? YES

MS buys what it wants and when it wants? NO, MS buys what is offered and what is interesting to it.

I don't know why it's so difficult for you to understand. I don't know how relevant it is that MS was the first to make an official proposal. What is relevant is that Activision wanted to be bought, not that MS wanted to buy it.

From here on, I am not going to waste time repeating what I have said countless times just because you do not want to understand.
 
SenjutsuSage said:
I read through Sony's entire argument, and I'm literally in tears as to how weak the arguments are. Many of the claims aren't supported by any real data at all. And where data is provided, much of it is weak and suspect when weighed against more fundamentally objective numbers that demonstrate that not even all of Activision Blizzard's games published worldwide and in the UK combined amount to a percentage of the games industry large enough to do the type of damage Sony claims to Playstation, Independent developers and to multi-game subscriptions or cloud.

All of Activision Blizzard's share of the game publishing market (including once you factor in Xbox's own content) has a market share of less than 20-30% worldwide and in the UK combined. I don't care what Sony says after this, the numbers simply don't lie. As to Activision Blizzard's games on multi-game subscription services, internal documents by Activision themselves make clear it was NEVER going to happen and it's against the way they would want to do business. The only way brand new Activision Blizzard titles appear on a game pass or ps plus like multi-game subscription service (especially day one) is if the current acquisition by Microsoft is allowed to proceed.

How can COD possess the power Sony claims if not even 100% of Activision Blizzard's own games collectively rise to the threat level Sony wants regulators to believe Call of Duty alone does? In short, Sony is relying largely on blatant falsehoods (telling lies) to bring about their wildest desire of killing the deal. Sony's statements about independent developers being harmed fly in the face of what actual independent developers/publishers have said about the deal, which is that they see it as a good thing. Sony is trying to dishonestly use its own self-interest centered on its profits to make the claim that its reasons to be against the deal somehow have more to do with being concerned about the larger industry rather than itself.

Sony can't stop the deal, and when it becomes obvious upon its approval that Sony's efforts have failed, I hope to see enough signs that Microsoft moving forward is treating Sony accordingly in light of their mostly dishonest attacks on the deal.
Click to expand...
Theirs is legally right. It might not be for you, but its for regulators.
These are lawyer point of view, which you as consumer cant see. Its what gives you a point with regulators.
 
Last edited:
Three said:
Activision already raised their game prices. This is talking about when there is no competition. Not inflation or currency markets.
Click to expand...
Microsoft already highlighted in its comments that Sony was able to use its market leader position to increase the cost of its games, hardware (post launch), and services without fear of losing sales.
Sony claiming that Microsoft would harm consumers if it did what Sony already did is pretty funny, you'd have to agree?
 
SenjutsuSage said:
I read through Sony's entire argument, and I'm literally in tears as to how weak the arguments are. Many of the claims aren't supported by any real data at all. And where data is provided, much of it is weak and suspect when weighed against more fundamentally objective numbers that demonstrate that not even all of Activision Blizzard's games published worldwide and in the UK combined amount to a percentage of the games industry large enough to do the type of damage Sony claims to Playstation, Independent developers and to multi-game subscriptions or cloud.

All of Activision Blizzard's share of the game publishing market (including once you factor in Xbox's own content) has a market share of less than 20-30% worldwide and in the UK combined. I don't care what Sony says after this, the numbers simply don't lie. As to Activision Blizzard's games on multi-game subscription services, internal documents by Activision themselves make clear it was NEVER going to happen and it's against the way they would want to do business. The only way brand new Activision Blizzard titles appear on a game pass or ps plus like multi-game subscription service (especially day one) is if the current acquisition by Microsoft is allowed to proceed.

How can COD possess the power Sony claims if not even 100% of Activision Blizzard's own games collectively rise to the threat level Sony wants regulators to believe Call of Duty alone does? In short, Sony is relying largely on blatant falsehoods (telling lies) to bring about their wildest desire of killing the deal. Sony's statements about independent developers being harmed fly in the face of what actual independent developers/publishers have said about the deal, which is that they see it as a good thing. Sony is trying to dishonestly use its own self-interest centered on its profits to make the claim that its reasons to be against the deal somehow have more to do with being concerned about the larger industry rather than itself.

Sony can't stop the deal, and when it becomes obvious upon its approval that Sony's efforts have failed, I hope to see enough signs that Microsoft moving forward is treating Sony accordingly in light of their mostly dishonest attacks on the deal.
Click to expand...
Hey brother. Based on your advice I've sold one of my kidneys on the black market and lumped on ABK stock. These normie plebs might mock us, but we'll be laughing in the end. She who laughs last laughs fairly loudly, as my dad used to say.
 
Topher said:
Sony's entire position seems to be from the position that if AB is acquired then Call of Duty will no longer be on PlayStation. Basically, they don't believe a word Microsoft is saying about the game not being exclusive.
Click to expand...

Sony telling slick MS to stop trying to shine them, they ain't got the time nor the skills.

Honestly you gotta be a moron to not see this for what it is.
 
Darsxx82 said:
LOL. MS made that proposal because he knew that Activision wanted to be bought. Or are you insinuating that it was a hostile takeover?
Click to expand...
The process of being the first one puts you in trouble.
MS made the approach. They approached activision, in the intent of buying them. Its very simple.
This is what regulators are looking at. The intent for MS to try and buy activision, when they just bought bethesda not that long ago.
 
xHunter said:
They managed to get a 10 year deal for now instead of the 3 years earlier this year, so it seems to be working for them.
Click to expand...

Of course, them getting the acquisition axed or tweaked in their favor is par for course, but the kind of statements they put out elicit "fuck outta here" responses at best.
 
Last edited:
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