Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
That's a bit of a zing around here.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
Why do you have such a terrible time reading?
I'm NOT talking about anti-trust complaints. You brought up something about the 90s and I only said I would bring up time exclusive deals.
I can't make this conversation easier for you to understand because you have a hard time comprehending what's going on.
Staying? You can't even say that for sure when they're offering short term deals.
If the game is taken away from PS, then it CLEARLY does harm casual gamers.
Banjo64
cumsessed
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Wait a minute, who passed you a photo of me with my special helmet on....?Speak for yourself, I passed some of my GCSEs.
Menzies
Banned
What? Are we equating antitrust and competition law 'harm' with choosing to be a martyr and masochist because you don't get your trophies on your preferred platform?
Banjo64
cumsessed
I’m giving an example of how mergers and acquisitions can effect normal users - you can interpret that in any way you like
Menzies
Banned
As usual I think we have posters talking over, above, in circles and through each other alternating legal jargon terminology and personal feelings.I’m giving an example of how mergers and acquisitions can effect normal users - you can interpret that in any way you like
Fess
Member
Those are the most sane things that has been said in this clown show. Fanboys here should take notice and stop trying find faults in good things.
"Enough money" now is off the table. Kotick said that he will not give COD games to subscription service. So this question is irrelevant.
After? Of course Microsoft. I would give COD to PS Plus. Give me 500 million dollars per year and you can have it
feynoob
Banned
I am sorry, but this is reality. It is not going to be good relationship after this deal.
COD isn't entire Activision. They also make make money from pc and mobile. So it doesn't matter if they sell more copies on PS.
Bobby and his friends are getting fat check from this deal. Much more than what working with Activision for a long time would generate for them.
At 95 share, that is insane money. If this deal fails, their share would fall round $55 and lower. It's not going to look good for Sony.
He already has given 5 CoD games to PS+. Exactly they can just make the price whatever they want as a competitor so clearly they can make the terms unfavourable."Enough money" now is off the table. Kotick said that he will not give COD games to subscription service. So this question is irrelevant.
After? Of course Microsoft. I would give COD to PS Plus. Give me 500 million dollars per year and you can have it
But we are talking about Day One additions. Not COD in PS Plus Essential 2 years after release...
oldergamer
Member
And bethesda released updates and new content on ps for all thier games. That doesn't mean future games will release on xbox.
Pelta88
Member
Shareholders care about one thing and one thing only, their stock price. It's a harsh but truthful reality.
feynoob
Banned
In recent document, Kotick elaborated that he won't put new titles on sub services.
Those 5 games were the last games for sub services.
So then it won't come to gamepass, or is that being given an anti-competitive advantage after the deal?
Last edited:
jm89
Member
I hold a btec in history of culinary wheres you gcse now?Speak for yourself, I passed some of my GCSEs.
feynoob
Banned
It will come to gamepass, due to being 1st party game.
But it won't come to gamepass, if the deal doesn't go through. Or else MS would have to pay insane fee for that.
That's a silly stance to take then by ABK. You say you won't do something you were doing before without a problem but will happen after an acquisition. You just won't do it in the intermittent regulatory period. I'm not suprised regulators are not buying their arguments.
feynoob
Banned
Bobby kotick is going to receive $375.3m from this deal, due to his shares.
It's also double of what he managed to gain in 2019-2021 due to his performance compensation, which was at $185m.
The documents on the article shows his performance, and how he managed to get those money.
www.tweaktown.com
In essence, this deal is a golden ticket for him. He isn't going to get that much again for a while. So he would try and fight for this deal to be approved, since he has so much to gain from it.
It's also double of what he managed to gain in 2019-2021 due to his performance compensation, which was at $185m.
Why Kotick Earned So Much?
The documents on the article shows his performance, and how he managed to get those money.
Activision CEO Bobby Kotick made $185 million from 2019 - 2021
Activision-Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick made over $185 million in stock awards, salary, incentives, and other pay from 2019 - 2021.
www.tweaktown.com
In essence, this deal is a golden ticket for him. He isn't going to get that much again for a while. So he would try and fight for this deal to be approved, since he has so much to gain from it.
Last edited:
skit_data
Member
Looks like a fund owned by the swedish government is suing MS and ActiBlizz according to this article.
gagadget.com
Looking forward to Jez Corden and Tom Warren officially start hating on my country, saying things like ”Jävla såssar” and alike.
New threat to game industry's biggest deal: Swedish company accuses Bobby Kotick and Phil Spencer of collusion and has sued Microsoft and Activision Blizzard
Swedes believe that the scandal at Activision Blizzard 2021 was strikingly beneficial to the deal that followed
gagadget.com
Looking forward to Jez Corden and Tom Warren officially start hating on my country, saying things like ”Jävla såssar” and alike.
feynoob
Banned
Good luck to that guy. Activision sale was going to happen regardless.Looks like a fund owned by the swedish government is suing MS and ActiBlizz according to this article.
New threat to game industry's biggest deal: Swedish company accuses Bobby Kotick and Phil Spencer of collusion and has sued Microsoft and Activision Blizzard
Swedes believe that the scandal at Activision Blizzard 2021 was strikingly beneficial to the deal that followed
Looking forward to Jez Corden and Tom Warren officially start hating on my country, saying things like ”Jävla såssar” and alike.
The main issue for him is this. I might have to get a real lawyer for this.
R reksveks do you have a input on this?
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
Last game on ps+ was black ops 4. Which was a 2018 game. After that, all their recent CoD was a huge success for them.
So kotick point still stands.
Not to mention other services didn't even get those COD games on their service. Even gamepass never got any COD game.
skit_data
Member
I was looking for swedish articles on this and actually found a similar case from May, also a pension fund owned by NYC:
New York City sues Activision, targeting CEO Bobby Kotick
The suit alleges a rushed takeover deal with Microsoft to escape liability
Last edited:
Cheezewizz
Banned
It looks to be legit.
But what they're not telling you is that the source is a 13F-HR filing from BH, and while it does show an 8 million share difference... The filing is for the period ending on Sept 30 2022. So those shares were sold between June and September. BH still holds some 60 million shares of A/B.
There's nothing there that even remotely suggests they believe the deal is likely to fail.
C Cheezewizz already answered it, it's correct and Buffett still has a shit tonne of ABK shares left.
This isn't the first lawsuit based on a similar complaint, skit_data already posted re the NYC pension fund case. I don't think it will have a major impact personally but that's just cause there was overwhelming support by shareholders for the deal. Unless they are able to surface some incredibly explicit communications then it feels hard to win.
bxrz
Member
If Sony allowed GP on Playstation, than I believe Microsoft would allow PS+ on Xbox.Yes, according to a document sent to the CMA but they said no. I don't see a lot of anger from the green rats and journalists about this. But Sony has to bow down and allow GP or they are the devil.
So much hypocrisy. Phil will get his award
Pelta88
Member
Looks like a fund owned by the swedish government is suing MS and ActiBlizz according to this article.
New threat to game industry's biggest deal: Swedish company accuses Bobby Kotick and Phil Spencer of collusion and has sued Microsoft and Activision Blizzard
Swedes believe that the scandal at Activision Blizzard 2021 was strikingly beneficial to the deal that followed
Fess
Member
Lol yeah this isn’t going to be some Disney movie with a happy ending. Activision Blizzard and their stock owners want to sell, Microsoft and their stock owners want to buy. Both stocks would drop. It’s obviously highly unlikely that Sony is going to come out on any type of positive side of things at the end of this shit show if they would be seen as the cause of the deal breaking apart.
ToTTenTranz
Banned
Kotick is out the moment the sale happens (if ever).
He's in no position to promise which color the toilet paper will be at ATVI's headquarters, let alone what games of theirs may or may not go into subscription services on the long term.
Last edited:
onesvenus
Member
I wouldn't say that "normal" people would stop playing one of their preferred games due to not having trophies.I’m giving an example of how mergers and acquisitions can effect normal users - you can interpret that in any way you like
But it's not. It might not make sense to put your games on Gamepass while you are a third party but it might make sense when you are first party. It's not that hard to see
GHG
Gold Member
I see people who claim to own multiple platforms always complaining about exclusivity so it's not as cut and dry as you think.
MasterCornholio
Member
Unless they try to buy another big publisher I don't see why they would hold anything back due to the investigation that's going on.
Topher
Identifies as young
I don't see anything abnormal about consumers who decide not to invest another $300 to $500 into hardware because the game they have played for years is suddenly no longer on their platform of choice. Nothing abnormal about consumers deciding to sell their PlayStation and buying Xbox to continue playing either. Consumers will have a number of reactions which is why generalizing specific reactions as "normal" doesn't make any sense..
I'm guessing because Microsoft's lawyers have painted an elaborate picture of Xbox as massive underdog in the gaming industry and promoting their upcoming games would undermine that narrative.
Last edited:
But that would only show their intention is not to expand CoD availability or its income but to leverage it for their subscription at the cost of competition on other competing services. The fact that this stance is contrary to what was actually happening before with CoDs coming to other services puts them in a bad light because they have only took this "we no longer will release on subs now" stance in this regulatory period and will reneg it after too.
Last edited:
Pelta88
Member
As usual, Jez is talking out of his ass. Lets not promote his podcast or pretend that Phil Spencer wont go to a PR heavy show so he can spout more PR.
feynoob
Banned
This is pre purchase.
Because their fanboys/fangirls have adopted the strategy that exclusive content is bad.
I'm not sure I believe Jez on this one but the argument seems to be that making self deprecating arguments that you have no games and that exclusives like Bloodborne are bad in legal documents then showing a bunch of exclusive games at the awards would somehow be contradictory. Somebody made the same argument about Death Stranding, Silent Hill and Sony but it was bullshit. They showed Silent Hill and the ARG for Death Stranding was made on purpose and all but confirmed.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
Unless its something like Elder Scrolls becoming an exclusive I don't see what harm it would do.
feynoob
Banned
Regulators wants fair sub service.
Activision didn't want to put their newer titles on the service.
Regulators can't achieve that, when Activision didn't want to do that before the purchase.
After the purchase Activision would be a 1st party. And 1st party games from MS are going to be available on gamepass.
If Activision were willing to do that before the purchase for their newer titles, then the Regulators would enforce MS to do the same after the purchase.
Topher
Identifies as young
Yeah, not sure. That's the only reasoning I can come up with.
"We have no games in comparison, we need to buy Activison for games also here is a whole bunch of games we have in the works without Activision". That's the harm Jez thinks it will do.
MasterCornholio
Member
They already have a lot of studios. I don't think anyone would be surprised if they had games in development.
ToTTenTranz
Banned
Then it's a useless statement.
Regulators want fair competition they don't care how old a title is. If regulators come to the conclusion that they were on a subscription services before (and they were) and after they would be limited to one or that MS can lower competition with unfavourable terms then that is all that matters. Activision saying "we did this before but no longer will do it now anyway then after the acquisition will do it for one competitor" would surely ring hollow to regulators.
R3claimer117
Member
lol Jesus at some of these takes in here. Can’t wait for this deal to close so we can move on to better debates after the landscape changes. Which means Sony would be forced now to put its first party games in ps plus in order to compete. Something it’s desperately trying to avoid. Because they know if activision catalog becomes available in gamepass it’s going to be an uphill battle trying to tell people that plus subscription with no day and date first party games.
Exactly, do you think MS have listed them to regulators though? They are listing Sony games from 2015 in their legal documents. MS have not mentioned the list of games they have in development and would rather keep it that way.
Last edited:
R3claimer117
Member
What activision title appeared on a subscription service per this merger?
Topher
Identifies as young
That's a bizarre take in itself. Sony isn't going to be forced to do anything as far as their first party games and PS+. Microsoft buying AB isn't going to negate Sony's first party sales.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked