Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Wait
What?
How is he in the minority when both Fallout and Elder Scrolls can outsell any of Sony's FP games
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
Wait
What?
How is he in the minority when both Fallout and Elder Scrolls can outsell any of Sony's FP games
I'd be amazed if this doesn't go through. In the short/medium term Sony will still be dominant after. I'm not a big COD fan, though I may play it if on Game Pass.. the reason I'd like to see this go through is for MS to sort ActiBlizz out.
Struggle to see how it gets its shit together otherwise.
Struggle to see how it gets its shit together otherwise.
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
To be honest I have my doubts that it will.
Sony will lose a chunk of players, which is what CMA want to make sure doesn't happen.
feynoob
Banned
The_Mike
if you are concerned whether this deal would pass or not, dont worry about it. It would pass, but with a concession.We are not close to the blocking area. We are getting in to a concession territory now.
CMA issues highlights a concession, but not blocking it.
- Cloud section: Allow other parties to get activision games on their service (Can be challenged by MS)
- Multi-Subs: Allow other parties to put activision games on their service (MS would have to make a concession on that)
- Call of duty on consoles (Other activision content is still in the air. Sony entire point is on COD). (Allow COD on Sony devices, with a proper contract that CMA would like.
As for FTC, same with others. They need an actual reason to block it, and provide the recipe to the judge.
feynoob
Banned
Last edited:
GHG
Gold Member
She's
SenjutsuSage
on steroids:
https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/insiders/meservey-lulu-cheng-1213028
If it goes through she nets ~$360k.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
It's entertaining honestly.She's
https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/insiders/meservey-lulu-cheng-1213028
If it goes through she nets ~$360k.
This is what I call all or nothing.
The Tourmaline Gorilla
Banned
Which is insane that it seems this way. Their job is to protect consumers, not companies. If MS buying AKB becomes a threat to Sony, then Sony needs to do what it can to become more competitive, which is what MS is doing but trying to buy AKB in the first place.
Tiago Rodrigues
Member
She's making money out of this acquisition. That's all lmao.
feynoob
Banned
Everyone at Activision is going to lose out on those $68b purchase, if this deal is somehow blocked.
Tiago Rodrigues
Member
Exactly. Anyone that works there wants the acquisition to happen.
anthony2690
Member
Isn't ads usually part of your browsing history? As I usually just seem to get games advertised to me that I've looked at online or products that I'd been looking at (like vacuum cleaners etc)Ads for this thread are on point right now.
I think I will.
Someone has been looking for a very hands on massage parlour
enjoy!
Swift_Star
Banned
It will flop, sorry.
feynoob
Banned
He likes boning.Isn't ads usually part of your browsing history? As I usually just seem to get games advertised to me that I've looked at online or products that I'd been looking at (like vacuum cleaners etc)
Someone has been looking for a very hands on massage parlour
Swift_Star
Banned
Bookmarking this.It boils down to simply this.
No matter how much Sony and specific individuals wish it were something it isn't, facts are facts and Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard does not meet the acceptable criteria for a successfully blocked merger. It doesn't even meet the bare minimum requirement. The deal is on solid foundation in every area that you could possibly look at it. Marketshare % on consoles worldwide and specific major markets, multi-game subscription services, PC, overall console software sales share on Xbox or Playstation, on both. Even merged with Xbox Activision Blizzard in total only accounts less than 20-30% worldwide and in the UK combined. These are the thresholds by which they weigh mergers and decisions in which to block them.
The only remotely touchy subject matter is whether Microsoft decides to remove COD from Playstation, which even if they did, it would still not produce the type of substantial damage that Sony is claiming. No amount of cooking of the numbers on their side to make Call of Duty appear more important to the success of all other games on Playstation, including God of War, Uncharted, Destiny, Last of Us, Ghost of Tsushima, Final Fantasy, Elden Ring etc., is going to make a case for Sony that simply is not there. The best argument they have is "hey, they'll take away Call of Duty from us", and all Microsoft need do is commit to just that.
Activision Blizzard games were never going to be a meaningful component of any multi-game subscription service. The mere suggestion from Sony that they would be, contrary to Activision's own internal documents and existing business history, is something that can't be treated as serious.
And the biggest element being overlooked, its immediate benefit to consumers. It doesn't matter if all the same benefits won't be on playstation, because that's what competition is. No matter what Sony says about ps plus now, and it being seen as "lesser" than Game Pass, that is nobody's fault but Sony's own. Sony had PS Now years before Microsoft had Game Pass, and it is Sony's own bad decisions that have made them fall behind Game Pass, a service that came years after Sony's own options. And Microsoft has chosen to go out of their way in their filing to hammer more aggressively on the fact that Sony possesses a very simple means to enhance the competitive nature of PS Plus. 'Day One' releases of more third party and first party titles the way Game Pass does.
A key component of this deal's evaluation is "will it be pro-consumer?" it will be in a ton of ways right away.
Oh, and check out Microsoft calling out CMA for not even reviewing Amazon's deal to purchase MGM on very similar grounds they seem to be taking exception to with Activision Blizzard's properties.
This piece is important because it lays out exactly what the high standard for a phase 2 blocking of a deal is, "the balance of probabilities."
On the lesser standard of phase 1, CMA can find a "realistic prospect" but on phase 2's higher standard of balance of probabilities no such thing can be found, and this is supported by the raw data.
Sony can't successfully challenge any of the information provided in the chart below. The numbers are simply against them. Feelings will not carry the day in this deal, only real data will. Microsoft is showing real data that even if Call of Duty were to be taken from Playstation, what Sony is claiming is simply not possible. Anyone with an ounce of common sense will get this.
feynoob
Banned
Not really. Ftc would lose this case, without strong case.
MS isnt in Disney position. Pc+console makes it hard to narrow it down.
Not to mention Activision has something, which MS doesn't, which is the mobile section
As long as that exist, there is no problem.
This thing depends on CMA's result, which is going towards concessions.
Swift_Star
Banned
Swift_Star
Banned
You don't even know what we're talking about.
But about the lawsuit? Yeah, MS will also lose that.
Swift_Star
Banned
"Consolidation is beneficial" - Said the person getting the money.
You can't make this shit up.
Hilarious.
feynoob
Banned
MS isnt going to lose on that lawsuit.You don't even know what we're talking about.
But about the lawsuit? Yeah, MS will also lose that.
The timing of this deal favors them.
Plus Activision-Blizzard's business isnt tied to consoles only. Which is the main problem with this deal.
Ftc needs strong arguments, if they want to win the case.
Swift_Star
Banned
Before:
- The deal will go smoothly
- Sony is being childish, the deal will go smootlhy
- Lawsuit? The deal will go through... right, right??????????
Ok explain the FTC's argument in front of a judge that would cause MS to lose.
Before:
Then:
- The deal will go smoothly
Now:
- Sony is being childish, the deal will go smootlhy
- Lawsuit? The deal will go through... right, right??????????
feynoob
Banned
You can write whatever you want to.
Before:
Then:
- The deal will go smoothly
Now:
- Sony is being childish, the deal will go smootlhy
- Lawsuit? The deal will go through... right, right??????????
The deals trajectory is still the same. It's going to pass.
Regulators would have come out easily with any number of reason as to why to they would need to stop this deal. So far there is none.
Which brings us to this point. The ftc needs those reason, and make sure the judge accepts them. Filling them won't make them stop this deal.
Even CMA is asking for concessions, instead of actually trying to stop it. That should tell you something.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
feynoob
Banned
That is not boom
.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
no thank you lol
Kagey K
Banned
How much should the other parties pay for this or should MS be expected to do it for free?
And in what time frame? Day 1 or shortly after the next game releases?
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Get to see SenjutsuSage cry so there's one
feynoob
Banned
It depends on what the other party wants. MS cant ask them for fk off price. They have to ask them the market price, which has to be a fair price for the product.
As for the duration, it depends on what the other party wants. If they can afford day1, MS would have to accept that.
Kagey K
Banned
Yeah I don't see that flying. You can't remove the competitive advantage and dictate the price.
feynoob
Banned
for more info, here is Idas take.
Yes, seeing how everything is unfolding, this deal is very likely to live or die by the CMA, not the FTC.
If the FTC sues, the CMA giving the go ahead (even with remedies) would make everything else manageable (although MS may need an extension for the outside date).
If the FTC doesn't sue but the CMA rejects it or asks for unacceptable remedies, the deal is very likely done.
Besides, I don't think that MS is willing to accept a settlement with the FTC because since October 2021 the Prior Approval and Prior Notice Policy is active again. That means that any parties who settle a merger investigation with the FTC "can expect (at minimum) a ten-year post-settlement period, during which the parties must seek the FTC's prior approval to pursue a transaction in a directly affected market (or even an indirectly affected market) from the transaction covered by the FTC order".
I don't see MS happily accepting for 10 years (or more) that any future acquisition in the gaming side, or any indirectly affected market (cloud, for example), now is going to require prior approval and notice to the FTC. That could be a huge constraint for a Big Tech.
I think that they would abandon the deal before committing to that (or go straight to court if the odds are in favor).
So, I would sit tight and patiently wait until January 2023, when the CMA will publish the provisional findings and then the real doom and gloom may beginxD
jm89
Member
It boils down to simply this.
No matter how much Sony and specific individuals wish it were something it isn't, facts are facts and Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard does not meet the acceptable criteria for a successfully blocked merger. It doesn't even meet the bare minimum requirement. The deal is on solid foundation in every area that you could possibly look at it. Marketshare % on consoles worldwide and specific major markets, multi-game subscription services, PC, overall console software sales share on Xbox or Playstation, on both. Even merged with Xbox Activision Blizzard in total only accounts less than 20-30% worldwide and in the UK combined. These are the thresholds by which they weigh mergers and decisions in which to block them.
The only remotely touchy subject matter is whether Microsoft decides to remove COD from Playstation, which even if they did, it would still not produce the type of substantial damage that Sony is claiming. No amount of cooking of the numbers on their side to make Call of Duty appear more important to the success of all other games on Playstation, including God of War, Uncharted, Destiny, Last of Us, Ghost of Tsushima, Final Fantasy, Elden Ring etc., is going to make a case for Sony that simply is not there. The best argument they have is "hey, they'll take away Call of Duty from us", and all Microsoft need do is commit to just that.
Activision Blizzard games were never going to be a meaningful component of any multi-game subscription service. The mere suggestion from Sony that they would be, contrary to Activision's own internal documents and existing business history, is something that can't be treated as serious.
And the biggest element being overlooked, its immediate benefit to consumers. It doesn't matter if all the same benefits won't be on playstation, because that's what competition is. No matter what Sony says about ps plus now, and it being seen as "lesser" than Game Pass, that is nobody's fault but Sony's own. Sony had PS Now years before Microsoft had Game Pass, and it is Sony's own bad decisions that have made them fall behind Game Pass, a service that came years after Sony's own options. And Microsoft has chosen to go out of their way in their filing to hammer more aggressively on the fact that Sony possesses a very simple means to enhance the competitive nature of PS Plus. 'Day One' releases of more third party and first party titles the way Game Pass does.
A key component of this deal's evaluation is "will it be pro-consumer?" it will be in a ton of ways right away.
Oh, and check out Microsoft calling out CMA for not even reviewing Amazon's deal to purchase MGM on very similar grounds they seem to be taking exception to with Activision Blizzard's properties.
This piece is important because it lays out exactly what the high standard for a phase 2 blocking of a deal is, "the balance of probabilities."
On the lesser standard of phase 1, CMA can find a "realistic prospect" but on phase 2's higher standard of balance of probabilities no such thing can be found, and this is supported by the raw data.
Sony can't successfully challenge any of the information provided in the chart below. The numbers are simply against them. Feelings will not carry the day in this deal, only real data will. Microsoft is showing real data that even if Call of Duty were to be taken from Playstation, what Sony is claiming is simply not possible. Anyone with an ounce of common sense will get this.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
You are forgetting the "X" factor....or should I say.....the "Jim" factor.It boils down to simply this.
No matter how much Sony and specific individuals wish it were something it isn't, facts are facts and Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard does not meet the acceptable criteria for a successfully blocked merger. It doesn't even meet the bare minimum requirement. The deal is on solid foundation in every area that you could possibly look at it. Marketshare % on consoles worldwide and specific major markets, multi-game subscription services, PC, overall console software sales share on Xbox or Playstation, on both. Even merged with Xbox Activision Blizzard in total only accounts less than 20-30% worldwide and in the UK combined. These are the thresholds by which they weigh mergers and decisions in which to block them.
The only remotely touchy subject matter is whether Microsoft decides to remove COD from Playstation, which even if they did, it would still not produce the type of substantial damage that Sony is claiming. No amount of cooking of the numbers on their side to make Call of Duty appear more important to the success of all other games on Playstation, including God of War, Uncharted, Destiny, Last of Us, Ghost of Tsushima, Final Fantasy, Elden Ring etc., is going to make a case for Sony that simply is not there. The best argument they have is "hey, they'll take away Call of Duty from us", and all Microsoft need do is commit to just that.
Activision Blizzard games were never going to be a meaningful component of any multi-game subscription service. The mere suggestion from Sony that they would be, contrary to Activision's own internal documents and existing business history, is something that can't be treated as serious.
And the biggest element being overlooked, its immediate benefit to consumers. It doesn't matter if all the same benefits won't be on playstation, because that's what competition is. No matter what Sony says about ps plus now, and it being seen as "lesser" than Game Pass, that is nobody's fault but Sony's own. Sony had PS Now years before Microsoft had Game Pass, and it is Sony's own bad decisions that have made them fall behind Game Pass, a service that came years after Sony's own options. And Microsoft has chosen to go out of their way in their filing to hammer more aggressively on the fact that Sony possesses a very simple means to enhance the competitive nature of PS Plus. 'Day One' releases of more third party and first party titles the way Game Pass does.
A key component of this deal's evaluation is "will it be pro-consumer?" it will be in a ton of ways right away.
Oh, and check out Microsoft calling out CMA for not even reviewing Amazon's deal to purchase MGM on very similar grounds they seem to be taking exception to with Activision Blizzard's properties.
This piece is important because it lays out exactly what the high standard for a phase 2 blocking of a deal is, "the balance of probabilities."
On the lesser standard of phase 1, CMA can find a "realistic prospect" but on phase 2's higher standard of balance of probabilities no such thing can be found, and this is supported by the raw data.
Sony can't successfully challenge any of the information provided in the chart below. The numbers are simply against them. Feelings will not carry the day in this deal, only real data will. Microsoft is showing real data that even if Call of Duty were to be taken from Playstation, what Sony is claiming is simply not possible. Anyone with an ounce of common sense will get this.
analog_future
Resident Crybaby
I've been saying this for months, but I just want this shit to be over with one way or the other. So sick of the public back-and-forth drama between two mega corporations and the FTC.
Thirty7ven
Banned
ToTTenTranz
Banned
Hey guys, remember when Satya Nadella said Microsoft wouldn't need to do any concessions whatsoever to buy Activision?
And he was so confident... I thought Sony was all alone in opposing this and the FTC was all in on this because of Microsoft having constant communications with them.
Also, please clarify: wasn't CMA the bad guys? Is FTC the bad guys instead? Are all regulators in western countries the bad guys / Sony fanboys / monopoly promoters? It's hard to keep up with these accusations lately.
And he was so confident... I thought Sony was all alone in opposing this and the FTC was all in on this because of Microsoft having constant communications with them.
Also, please clarify: wasn't CMA the bad guys? Is FTC the bad guys instead? Are all regulators in western countries the bad guys / Sony fanboys / monopoly promoters? It's hard to keep up with these accusations lately.
Last edited:
thismeinteil
Member
And that is the key part, and why people aren't trusting MS's PR about the purchase. If MS wanted this to go quickly, they could simply do what Sony is doing with Bungie. Treat it like a separate part of its company, to work independently and publish on multiple systems. I also don't think the regulators liked MS thumbing their nose at them, not even bothering to respond to Phase 1 and their concerns.
Personally, I think it's obvious that MS has no problem continuing multiplatform COD for the rest of a gen they know they are losing. But their actions show that next gen they intend to go all in on trying to crush Sony and PlayStation, hence the failed backdoor 3 year deal.
jm89
Member
People laughed at jim calling the 3 year deal inadequate. One of the biggest chess moves of this acquisition battle.
Swift_Star
Banned
Not my job, but the fact that meltdowns are happening here and on twitter is enough evidence you're all desperate and that the deal won't go smoothly. Hell a lawsuit is the contrary of smoothly. Good luck to MS.
TheGodfather07
Member
Can somebody tell me how this acquisition benefits gamers and the industry? I'm starting to hear it alot but how exactly? Its like people read shit on twitter and regurgitate it without even knowing or understanding what they are saying. It only benefits Microsoft. That's it!
Swift_Star
Banned
Cope.
feynoob
Banned
Please seperate MS vs Sony fanboys crowd from the rest.
Everyone who had a brain knew there would be a challenge for $68b purchase.
Swift_Star
Banned
It doesn't. Consolidation is NEVER good.
feynoob
Banned
It doesnt. It benifits them only. Its PR tactic to gain sympathy.
feynoob
Banned
That is coming from you.
Swift_Star
Banned
Before:
Then:
- The deal will go smoothly
Now:
- Sony is being childish, the deal will go smootlhy
- Lawsuit? The deal will go through... right, right??????????
splattered
Member
Since everyone at Activision seems to want this to go through I wonder if Sony has ever stopped to think about what they could be doing to their relationship with them? If I were Activision and Sony jumped in the middle of something like this kicking and screaming like a toddler I'd probably hesitate to ever work with them again beyond any currently existing contracts.
- Status