Support NeoGAF

[Three]

You can't take an L over an incorrect statement. It is like asking to take an L because I said that you cannot park under that sign and you still did.

You said that "The law is not based on the idea that something "might" happen" but regulation is solely based on what might happen. It would be futile if it weren't.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

You said that "The law is not based on the idea that something "might" happen" but regulation is solely based on what might happen. It would be futile if it weren't.

The argument was about the nascent markets. Merger laws do not regulator the markets that might or might not exist. Though, the regulators these days are trying to do something like this. Lina Khan is a big proponent of that (though it will ultimately fail).

 

[Three]

The argument was about the nascent markets. Merger laws do not regulator the markets that might or might not exist.

PS and Nvidia have been serving that market since 2014 and 2015 respectively. The market exists already even if it isn't that big and is projected to be bigger.

 

[MarkMe2525]

It is obvious Sony wants to block this deal. I don't think there is anything hypocritical about that. If we are going to call out bullshit then it is just as easy to point to Phil Spencer's public words committing to PlayStation indefinitely and yet behind the scenes there is a 10 year time limit. Plenty of bullshit to go around if you ask me.

I understand where this sentiment comes from, but "indefinitely" means unlimited OR an unspecified amount of time. A ten year deal is better than an agreement without any specifics tied to it.

In saying that, Phil should have kept these conversations behind closed doors to start with. I realize he was attempting to calm the masses of PlayStation players, but sometimes less info is better until a deal is finalized.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

 

[Pelta88]

Put a % on carnage.

Also given that the shit will be priced in long before the official termination of the deal, you may not see a sudden drop. see Nvidia's short price around the official termination of the Arm deal.

You'd have to ask GHG for a more in depth analysis.

That said, in my opinion Microsoft would drop to a stock price not seen since 2019. Activision could do the same. Obviously this isn't stock advice and anyone considering any market position should do their own due diligence.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I wouldn't expect them to just let it go. Wonder if the same could happen in other regions.

 

[ReBurn]

I wouldn't expect them to just let it go. Wonder if the same could happen in other regions.

If they were blocked in other regions they would probably appeal Instead of just letting go of 3 billion.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Just an example from last year as to how high the bar will be for the FTC to successfully get a court order to block the Microsoft acquisition of Activision. If they couldn't successfully find an example of a monopoly from Facebook, who owns Whatsapp and Instagram, how in the hell will they find any such thing from the company that is clearly a distant 3rd place in consoles, a company that's last place as a publisher on PC, that has near no presence whatsoever in mobile. Activision nor Microsoft has anywhere close to the kinds of market shares in publishing games to represent the type of market power that would get the FTC a win in court. Game Pass as a factor will be laughed out of court in the USA, though the FTC may have to try to use that, but it too will prove a weak argument.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/28/judge-dismisses-ftc-antitrust-complaint-against-facebook.html

- In the filing, the court states that the FTC did not prove Facebook maintains a monopoly.

- However, the court ruled Monday that the FTC failed to prove its main contention and the cornerstone of the case: that Facebook holds monopoly power in the U.S. personal social networking market.

- However, the court ruled Monday that the FTC failed to prove its main contention and the cornerstone of the case: that Facebook holds monopoly power in the U.S. personal social networking market.

- "The Complaint is undoubtedly light on specific factual allegations regarding consumer-switching preferences," the court wrote. "These allegations — which do not even provide an estimated actual figure or range for Facebook's market share at any point over the past ten years — ultimately fall short of plausibly establishing that Facebook holds market power."

The court made acknowledgments in the FTC's favor

- The court acknowledged that the FTC may be able to cure the weaknesses in its argument, so it left open the possibility that it could file an amended complaint and continue the litigation.

- The court also disagreed with Facebook's argument that the FTC does not have the power to attack the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, which took place in 2012 and 2014. On the contrary, the court ruled that the FTC can still seek divestiture of these acquisitions — but only if it succeeds in its legal arguments about Facebook's monopoly power.

The Communication Workers of America Union personally back the Microsoft acquisition of Activision, and have personally sent a letter to FTC Chair Lina Khan telling her as such.

https://wccftech.com/activision-blizzard-x-microsoft-deal-backed-by-cwa-in-ftc-letter/

- We now support approval of the transaction before you because Microsoft has entered an agreement with CWA to ensure the workers of Activision Blizzard have a clear path to collective bargaining. Microsoft's binding commitments will give employees a seat at the table and ensure that the acquisition of Activision Blizzard benefits the company's workers and the broader video game labor market.

Lina Khan wrote a letter back to US Senator Elizabeth Warren, stressing the fact that she takes very seriously the impact that the deal would have on the labor market and the workers. She specifically cites monopsony power, a thing many people talking about this deal have dismissed because it doesn't appear nearly as important in other markets outside the US, but it will absolutely be vitally important for an administration, president and party who is all about trying to support labor unions as much as humanely possible.

Lina Khan's letter to Elizabeth warren - pay attention to the focus on workers.

https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Response Letter to FTC Chair Lina M. Khan to Sen. Warren re Microsoft Activision.pdf

I share your concern that monopsony power in labor markets may enable firms to harm workers in a host of ways, including through undermining their rights and dignity. Although antitrust law in recent decades generally has neglected monopsony concerns and harms to workers, I strongly believe that merger investigations must scrutinize the impact on labor markets.

1 Given that Activision disclosed in a March 21, 2022 securities filing that the FTC is conducting a review of the proposed transaction, 2 I am able to confirm that the FTC is investigating the proposed merger. 3 Whenever the FTC initiates a merger review, we are committed to thoroughly examining effects on competition in all relevant markets for potential law enforcement action as appropriate. The FTC and the Department of Justice are redoubling our commitment to ensuring we consider how unlawful mergers and conduct may harm workers.

The agencies recently hosted a joint workshop focused on competition and labor markets,4 and our current joint public inquiry to consider revisions to the merger guidelines includes a request for public comments to inform how to better address a merger's potential labor market effects.5 Additionally, the FTC is scrutinizing whether certain contractual provisions—including non-compete clauses and nondisclosure agreements—may constitute unfair methods of competition, and how unfair or deceptive practices may also harm workers.6

Next up is Lina Khan's letter to David Cicilline and Ranking Republican member Buck: (before the acquisition was announced) The Activision deal is her first big chance to follow through on these commitments.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide my views as part of the Subcommittee's hearing entitled "Reviving Competition Part 4: 21st Century Antitrust Reforms and the American Worker" and for your leadership on this critical issue.

Empirical research today shows that labor markets across the United States have grown highly concentrated, resulting in lower wages and less bargaining power for workers. Dominant firms, meanwhile, exploit current laws to exert significant control over workers even while classifying them as non-employees.2 These asymmetric relationships often enable firms to impose take-it-or-leave-it contract terms that disfavor workers, including, for example, noncompete clauses. Recent lawsuits have also highlighted no-poach agreements among employers, which can further restrict workers and depress wages.

The Federal Trade Commission is charged with rooting out unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive practices in the economy, a mandate that protects all Americans, including workers. In service of this goal, the FTC is taking a series of steps to adjust its approach. First, I have instructed staff to investigate potentially unlawful mergers or conduct that harm workers. Although antitrust law in recent decades generally has neglected monopsony concerns and harms to workers, we must scrutinize mergers that may substantially lessen competition in labor markets. As part of this effort, the FTC will work with the Department of Justice to update the agencies' merger guidelines, looking to provide guidance on how to analyze a merger's impact on labor markets. Illegal restraints on worker pay or opportunity can also significantly harm workers, and employers must not get a free pass. The FTC's complaint earlier this year alleging that Amazon misled its Flex drivers when diverting their tips additionally highlights how deceptive conduct that cheats workers may be unlawful.

Second, the FTC is scrutinizing whether certain contract terms, particularly in take-it-or-leave-it contexts, may violate the law. Workers are at a significant disadvantage when they are unable to negotiate freely over the terms and conditions of their employment. The FTC has heard concerns about noncompete clauses at its open meetings, and the Commission recently opened a docket to solicit public comment on the prevalence and effects of contracts that may harm fair competition. As we pursue this work, I am committed to considering the Commission's full range of tools, including enforcement and rulemaking.

Third, the FTC should be judicious in its use of scarce resources, focusing its antitrust enforcement on tackling monopolization or mergers involving dominant firms. Although Section 6 of the Clayton Act exempts labor organizing from the Act's purview, federal courts have held that these protections apply only to workers formally classified as employees. As a result, collective action and organizing by certain workers—including those who have the terms of their work dictated by a firm yet are classified as non-employees—may be susceptible to prosecution under the antitrust laws. Private plaintiffs can pursue these lawsuits even in the absence of action by the U.S. agencies, and in these instances I will work with the DOJ to consider providing guidance to the courts on how the Clayton Act is designed to exempt worker organizing activities from antitrust.

Congress could also pursue legislative reforms that grant workers greater protections under the antitrust laws. For example, legislation clarifying that labor organizing by workers regarding the terms and conditions of their work is outside the scope of the federal antitrust statutes, regardless of whether the worker is classified as an employee, would remove the threat of antitrust liability resulting from such coordination. This type of clarification could have far-reaching effects, especially given the prevalence and expansion of "gig economy" firms that rely heavily on workers classified as non-employees. As federal lawmakers consider antitrust legislation to better protect labor, state efforts with similar aims could also provide a useful model.

Noticing a trend? Workers, labor market, and there is a major American Labor Union representing workers saying they want the deal approved.

What was the top priority of US Senators who sent a letter about the deal? I think the impact on workers is of far more importance to this deal in the US than in other territories.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/u...deal-to-buy-activision-blizzard/1100-6502066/

The US Senators--including Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, and Sheldon Whitehouse--wrote their letter to Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan. The lawmakers said the FTC ought to find out if Microsoft's proposed buyout of Activision Blizzard could "exacerbate the flurry of sexual-abuse, harassment and retaliation allegations at Activision stemming from recent federal and state investigations."

"We are deeply concerned about consolidation in the tech industry and its impact on workers," the Democratic Senators said in their letter, as reported by The Wall Street Journal.

Another thing that will, I believe, benefit Microsoft in this deal's closing is the recent and rare disagreement between Democrats and Unions regarding the railroad strike.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3757126-rail-strike-bill-is-rare-rift-between-democrats-unions/

Democrats are trying to put in place an agreement to prevent a strike that could harm the larger US economy and hurt supply chains. However, in trying to get a deal through. A rare rift that's already creating unwanted tension with Unions, an opportunity Republicans are already trying to pounce on to their advantage. This railroad strike has large implications on what the FTC does with regards to Microsoft and Activision.

Remember I mentioned Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown earlier in this thread and the importance of Unions to him? Well, we are now in a danger zone where Democrats could end up having a strained relationship with Unions, something no major Democrat politician wants.

Senators predict they will have at least 60 votes to pass legislation approved by the House Wednesday to stop a nationwide railway strike, but a companion proposal to give railway workers more sick leave doesn't have much Republican support.

As a result, the Democratic-controlled Congress is poised to impose a labor deal on railway workers that was rejected by four freight rail unions — a rare rift between Democrats and organized labor.


Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) as of Wednesday afternoon had given colleagues little idea of how he would structure the votes on the two bills approved by the House — one to block the strike and a second to give railway works an additional seven days of sick leave.

But the Democratic leader made clear that he is intent on avoiding a rail strike that would freeze major parts of the supply chain and put more pressure on a national economy already struggling with 40-year-high inflation.


But several prominent liberals, including Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), declined to say whether they would vote to force workers to accept the labor deal brokered by the emergency board President Biden created in July.

Sanders only said he would insist on a vote on additional sick leave but dismissed questions about how that vote needs to be set up as "speculating."

Brown said he's "going to insist that we have an agreement with paid leave days," but added he didn't want to say whether the lack of extra sick days would be a "deal breaker."

It is now largely seen that the Biden Administration and Democrats are at odds with Unions, a position they don't want to be in. With a less favorable Senate map for Democrats in the upcoming 2024 elections, they do NOT want Unions turning against them. The railroad strike matter is literally strike 1 & 2. Should the FTC launch action against the Activision Blizzard deal in court, it will put the Democrat Party, Joe Biden and his administration in another public fight against a major Labor Union - something I'll be stunned to see happen. It could represent a definitive strike 3 that harms them come 2024 with many Democrats up for re-election in important labor union states, where the Democrats were only elected due to their support of unions.

I don't see the FTC suing to try to get a court order to block this one, and will be surprised if they do.

I don't mean to bring too much politics into this, but for the USA and this particular deal, it is absolutely relevant. It was seen as a huge victory for progressive Democrats when Lina Khan was nominated by Joe Biden. Remember earlier in this thread I also mentioned Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota who is up for re-election in 2024 as well? She dropped news that Khan was to be nominated before even the White House did.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/15/khan-confirm-ftc-494609

- Plans for Khan's elevation as chair came to light when Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) announced the news during a Senate Judiciary antitrust hearing Tuesday afternoon, before any announcement from the White House. Khan replaced Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, who has served as acting FTC chair since January and remains a member of the commission.

One party, in particular, was not pleased with Khan's appointment as Chair

- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) praised President Joe Biden's designation of Khan as chair as "tremendous news."

"With Chair Khan at the helm, we have a huge opportunity to make big, structural change by reviving antitrust enforcement and fighting monopolies that threaten our economy, our society, and our democracy," Warren said.

But Republicans blasted the White House's decision to wait until after Tuesday's confirmation vote to announce its intent to elevate Khan to chair, with one calling it "very sneaky, deceptive even." Nearly two dozen GOP senators had voted to confirm her as an FTC member, as hopes for the agency to place a check on Silicon Valley overrode traditional Republican aversion to heavy regulations on business.

Long story short, without Democrats (specifically Democrats in the US Senate - many who support Labor Unions) Lina Khan is not the Chairwoman of the FTC.

Here is another important factor, the Senate Majority Leader, the person who brought up Lina Khan's name for a vote in the first place. Absent Chuck Schumer as Senate majority leader, a vote for Lina Khan last year June to make her a commissioner on the FTC, she would not be Chairwoman right now. And Chuck Schumer has remained Senate Majority Leader for the upcoming congress. He's clearly in favor of Microsoft's Activision deal. He also wants Microsoft investing more money in the New York region to support videogame development there. It's something he has been pretty bullish on. This was his view on expanding game development in new york even before the deal was announced.

https://www.schumer.senate.gov/news...pital-regions-footprint-as-a-leading-tech-hub

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer visited Troy's Velan Studios, best known for creating globally famous games, such as Mario Kart Live and Knockout City, to push for federal investment to ramp up video game development and launch the Game On Accelerator Program. The program, which was proposed by the Center for Economic Growth (CEG), in collaboration with the Rensselaer County IDA, Velan Studios, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, seeks to create approximately 350 new, well-paying jobs in the Capital Region game development industry and encourage participants to create their own companies.

Schumer was joined by Guha and Karthik Bala of Velan Studios, Bob Pasinella, Director of the Rensselaer County IDA, Katie Newcombe of the Center for Economic Growth, Mayor Patrick Madden and representatives of the region's gaming cluster.

"The gaming industry generates hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue and shows no signs of slowing down," said Senator Schumer. "Internationally recognized companies, like Velan Studios, have taken root in the Capital Region, setting the area up to be a potential hub for game development and turbocharging the local economy, creating hundreds of new jobs. In order to continue the trend of industry growth, Troy will take no 'console'-ation prize. The EDA should approve federal investment ASAP, help the Capital Region level up, and make Troy a 'knockout city'."

Global game sales in 2020 are estimated at $174.9 billion, with projections that they will top $217 billion by 2023. Even during the pandemic, game sales grew nearly 20%. An estimated 2.7 billion people worldwide spent roughly 7.4 billion hours on game streaming platforms last year alone. Therefore, Schumer says, with industry growth showing no signs of stopping, the EDA must quickly approve the CEG's grant request and help ramp up the game development industry in the Capital Region.

Velan Studios was founded in 2016 by industry veterans Guha and Karthik Bala who are best known for their first company, Vicarious Visions. Velan Studios was the driving force behind the recently-released Knockout City and the extremely popular Mario Kart Live: Home Circuit, which was sold out for months after its October 2020 release date.

Velan Studios is located in Troy's historic downtown district. The increased presence of game development companies in Troy has led to increased occupancy of the city's older Industrial Revolution-era buildings, bringing new life to the downtown area.

In addition to Velan Studios, the Capital Region is currently home to 23 game development companies, including Warner Brother Games, Activision, PUBG, MadGlory, and Agora Games, which collectively employ over 455 people. Games like Candy Crush, Guitar Hero, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater, and Fortnite have all been at least partially developed in the Capital Region.

And after it was announced he specifically met immediately with Microsoft President, Brad Smith. He's clearly in favor of the deal. This is Schumer's official site, for the record.

https://www.schumer.senate.gov/news...gion-level-up-as-leading-tech-and-gaming-hub-

- Microsoft Recently Proposed Acquisition Of Activision Blizzard Inc., Which Employs Over 200 Workers In The Capital Region; Senator Says Time Is Right To Turbocharge Game Development Presence In Upstate New York

Following his continued advocacy to make the Capital Region a global gaming hub, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer personally met with the President of Microsoft, Brad Smith, urging the company to expand in the Capital Region, tapping into the area's emerging game development industry. Schumer urged Microsoft to invest in the rapidly growing tech ecosystem in Upstate New York, and highlighted the game development industry in the Capital Region, which Schumer personally visited last year. Microsoft recently proposed acquiring Activision Blizzard Inc., which employs over 200 workers in the Capital Region.

"The gaming industry generates hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue and shows no signs of slowing down, and some of the most cutting-edge games are being developed right in the Capital Region. I made it clear to Microsoft that if they are looking to level up their gaming biz that the Capital Region has all the components to become the next global gaming hub," said Senator Schumer. "Our world-class workforce fueled by innovative development programs at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and over 20 internationally recognized gaming companies make the Capital Region the ideal spot for investment to turbocharge the next generation of gaming."

Senator Schumer has been leading the charge to grow the Capital Region's gaming industry. Last year, Schumer personally visited Troy's Velan Studios, best known for creating globally famous games, such as Mario Kart Live and Knockout City.


Schumer explained that in New York the video game industry supports nearly 5,000 direct jobs, over 6,000 supplier and support jobs, and had an output of $976.4 million in New York. New York also has over 140 companies centered on the video game industry, nearly 30 higher education programs focused on video game development, and dozens of emerging collegiate e-sports teams. Global game sales in 2021 are estimated at $178.73 billion, with projections that they will top $218.7 billion by 2024. Even during the pandemic, game sales grew nearly 20%. An estimated 2.7 billion people worldwide spent roughly 7.4 billion hours on game streaming platforms last year alone. Schumer said with industry growth showing no signs of stopping investing in the Upstate New York's gaming and tech ecosystem, top-notch universities, and world-class workforce, is the best way for Microsoft to be on the forefront of the next generation of gaming.

This is just a small window into my thinking for why I just can't see the FTC stopping this deal. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I think the political ramifications of challenging this deal are much too high, and no matter what anybody thinks about what the FTC has said, Khan is a political appointee. And political appointees always factor in an administrations political objectives in many situations. There are limits, for example, but this always happens. Sorta like the US Department of Justice having to defend Biden's student debt forgiveness in courts because it's something he and Democrats want. Or having to defend the affordable care act in courts against challenges, stuff like that. Lina Khan is there to take a tougher stance on big tech, sure, but that was largely seen in regards to the social media companies like Facebook and Twitter, or companies like Apple/Google with regards to app stores etc. Google was especially displeased when she was appointed, so I don't see complaints from Google having much weight with her considering the dominance they have in their own respective markets.

Long story short, I believe the Activision Blizzard deal rests more significantly on the labor market and unions in the USA than on the things the EU and CMA are worried about. I would not be surprised if the FTC greenlights it with no conditions of major significance. There are suggestions they aren't interested in remedies, and some are viewing that as a bad thing for Microsoft, but it could just as easily mean they will approve it outright without major concessions also. Approve or fight for a block in the courts. I lean towards straight approval.

 

[MasterCornholio]

If they were blocked in other regions they would probably appeal Instead of just letting go of 3 billion.

I know they will do everything possible to fight this. But in theory if they can't make the acquisition they have to pay 3 billion to Activision. Either way money is going to be spent.

 

[Banjo64]

Just an example from last year as to how high the bar will be for Activision to successfully get a court order to block the Microsoft acquisition of Activision. If they couldn't successfully find an example of a monopoly from Facebook, who owns Whatsapp and Instagram, how in the hell will they find any such thing from the company that is clearly a distant 3rd place in consoles, a company that's last place as a publisher on PC, that has near no presence whatsoever in mobile. Activision nor Microsoft has anywhere close to the kinds of market shares in publishing games to represent the type of market power that would get the FTC a win in court. Game Pass as a factor will be laughed out of court in the USA, though the FTC may have to try to use that, but it too will prove a weak argument.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/28/judge-dismisses-ftc-antitrust-complaint-against-facebook.html




The court made acknowledgments in the FTC's favor




The Communication Workers of America Union personally back the Microsoft acquisition of Activision, and have personally sent a letter to FTC Chair Lina Khan telling her as such.

https://wccftech.com/activision-blizzard-x-microsoft-deal-backed-by-cwa-in-ftc-letter/



Lina Khan wrote a letter back to US Senator Elizabeth Warren, stressing the fact that she takes very seriously the impact that the deal would have on the labor market and the workers. She specifically cites monopsony power, a thing many people talking about this deal have dismissed because it doesn't appear nearly as important in other markets outside the US, but it will absolutely be vitally important for an administration, president and party who is all about trying to support labor unions as much as humanely possible.

Lina Khan's letter to Elizabeth warren - pay attention to the focus on workers.

https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Response Letter to FTC Chair Lina M. Khan to Sen. Warren re Microsoft Activision.pdf



Next up is Lina Khan's letter to David Cicilline and Ranking Republican member Buck: (before the acquisition was announced) The Activision deal is her first big chance to follow through on these commitments.



Noticing a trend? Workers, labor market, and there is a major American Labor Union representing workers saying they want the deal approved.

What was the top priority of US Senators who sent a letter about the deal? I think the impact on workers is of far more importance to this deal in the US than in other territories.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/u...deal-to-buy-activision-blizzard/1100-6502066/



Another thing that will, I believe, benefit Microsoft in this deal's closing is the recent and rare disagreement between Democrats and Unions regarding the railroad strike.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3757126-rail-strike-bill-is-rare-rift-between-democrats-unions/

Democrats are trying to put in place an agreement to prevent a strike that could harm the larger US economy and hurt supply chains. However, in trying to get a deal through. A rare rift that's already creating unwanted tension with Unions, an opportunity Republicans are already trying to pounce on to their advantage. This railroad strike has large implications on what the FTC does with regards to Microsoft and Activision.

Remember I mentioned Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown earlier in this thread and the importance of Unions to him? Well, we are now in a danger zone where Democrats could end up having a strained relationship with Unions, something no major Democrat politician wants.




It is now largely seen that the Biden Administration and Democrats are at odds with Unions, a position they don't want to be in. With a less favorable Senate map for Democrats in the upcoming 2024 elections, they do NOT want Unions turning against them. The railroad strike matter is literally strike 1 & 2. Should the FTC launch action against the Activision Blizzard deal in court, it will put the Democrat Party, Joe Biden and his administration in another public fight against a major Labor Union - something I'll be stunned to see happen. It could represent a definitive strike 3 that harms them come 2024 with many Democrats up for re-election in important labor union states, where the Democrats were only elected due to their support of unions.

I don't see the FTC suing to try to get a court order to block this one, and will be surprised if they do.

I don't mean to bring too much politics into this, but for the USA and this particular deal, it is absolutely relevant. It was seen as a huge victory for progressive Democrats when Lina Khan was nominated by Joe Biden. Remember earlier in this thread I also mentioned Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota who is up for re-election in 2024 as well? She dropped news that Khan was to be nominated before even the White House did.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/15/khan-confirm-ftc-494609

- Plans for Khan's elevation as chair came to light when Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) announced the news during a Senate Judiciary antitrust hearing Tuesday afternoon, before any announcement from the White House. Khan replaced Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, who has served as acting FTC chair since January and remains a member of the commission.

One party, in particular, was not pleased with Khan's appointment as Chair




Long story short, without Democrats (specifically Democrats in the US Senate - many who support Labor Unions) Lina Khan is not the Chairwoman of the FTC.

Here is another important factor, the Senate Majority Leader, the person who brought up Lina Khan's name for a vote in the first place. Absent Chuck Schumer as Senate majority leader, a vote for Lina Khan last year June to make her a commissioner on the FTC, she would not be Chairwoman right now. And Chuck Schumer has remained Senate Majority Leader for the upcoming congress. He's clearly in favor of Microsoft's Activision deal. He also wants Microsoft investing more money in the New York region to support videogame development there. It's something he has been pretty bullish on. This was his view on expanding game development in new york even before the deal was announced.

https://www.schumer.senate.gov/news...pital-regions-footprint-as-a-leading-tech-hub




And after it was announced he specifically met immediately with Microsoft President, Brad Smith. He's clearly in favor of the deal. This is Schumer's official site, for the record.

https://www.schumer.senate.gov/news...gion-level-up-as-leading-tech-and-gaming-hub-



This is just a small window into my thinking for why I just can't see the FTC stopping this deal. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I think the political ramifications of challenging this deal are much too high, and no matter what anybody thinks about what the FTC has said, Khan is a political appointee. And political appointees always factor in an administrations political objectives in many situations. There are limits, for example, but this always happens. Sorta like the US Department of Justice having to defend Biden's student debt forgiveness in courts because it's something he and Democrats want. Or having to defend the affordable care act in courts against challenges, stuff like that. Lina Khan is there to take a tougher stance on big tech, sure, but that was largely seen in regards to the social media companies like Facebook and Twitter, or companies like Apple/Google with regards to app stores etc. Google was especially displeased when she was appointed, so I don't see complaints from Google having much weight with her considering the dominance they have in their own respective markets.

Long story short, I believe the Activision Blizzard deal rests more significantly on the labor market and unions in the USA than on the things the EU and CMA are worried about. I would not be surprised if the FTC greenlights it with no conditions of major significance. There are suggestions they aren't interested in remedies, and some are viewing that as a bad thing for Microsoft, but it could just as easily mean they will approve it outright without major concessions also. Approve or fight for a block in the courts. I lean towards straight approval.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

I always find it difficult to have a conversation with you. I think it's your Avatar.



At first I thought you were trying to have a conversation about the implications if the deal fell through. But then...


I'm not suggesting Microsoft would cease to exist...

It's difficult to even address real world implications if the deal falls through because the stance of many, here, has little to do with business. It's more so about who wins. Even trying to apply real world negative stock movement due to the potential failure of one of the most expensive deals in living memory could happen, has some of you like

For the record people made fortunes short selling MSFT this year. And that's on the back of a missed earnings and some negative news. Can you imagine... Well obviously some of you can't... But an obligated payout to ATVI of 3 Billion would make MSFT "share price" nose dive.

To be clear, that does not mean that Microsoft would cease to exist. Which again, is how some of you seem to take it. But there would be a run on MSFT share price. That's just a market fact.

My primary focus on this deal has been on the business elements of it. I'm a big Xbox fan, so naturally, I want it to go through, but the entire time I've been looking at the business aspects of it, and everything about it just look like a "steal" at the perfect time whereas otherwise there would be no chance in hell of getting Activision Blizzard.

 

[reksveks]

That said, in my opinion Microsoft would drop to a stock price not seen since 2019. Activision could do the same. Obviously this isn't stock advice and anyone considering any market position should do their own due diligence.

Highest in 2019 was around 159/160, so you think 40% cut in share price?

 

[freefornow]

Fortunately for us you're not a financial advisor and the stock market doesn't find resetera analysis (parroted as your own) as viable.

There have been 7 big short runs on shorting Microsoft's stock price in 2022. Taking the price from $350 per share to a low of $213 in 2022.

So you have evidence that the downturn in MS share price is the result of 7 short selling events?
Hmmm. Guess there may be some at the DOJ who would love your input on this. They are keen for this evidence https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-probe-eyes-bets-on-amazon-microsoft-jpmorgan

Also from the article:
"But activist short sellers don't typically target the world's most valuable companies -- which makes the latest requests all the more puzzling.

Giants like retailer Amazon, software powerhouse Microsoft and JPMorgan, the largest US bank, are closely scrutinized. Their share prices are anchored by legions of index-tracking funds that have to own them, as well as institutional buyers such as pensions with long investment horizons. This leaves little room for short sellers proffering bearish forecasts to move stock prices more than, say, the underlying economy does."

It has been an interesting year for tech stocks. MS included.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2022...own market,other companies have suffered more.

It will have a direct effect on the entire markets and be carnage for ATVI and MSFT share price. Absolute carnage.

Hyperbole.

However, I believe you may have uncovered an unnanounced new IP from Activision:
Absolute Carnage!

Jimbo srambling for 10 year deal as we speak.

 

[feynoob]

Just an example from last year as to how high the bar will be for the FTC to successfully get a court order to block the Microsoft acquisition of Activision. If they couldn't successfully find an example of a monopoly from Facebook, who owns Whatsapp and Instagram, how in the hell will they find any such thing from the company that is clearly a distant 3rd place in consoles, a company that's last place as a publisher on PC, that has near no presence whatsoever in mobile. Activision nor Microsoft has anywhere close to the kinds of market shares in publishing games to represent the type of market power that would get the FTC a win in court. Game Pass as a factor will be laughed out of court in the USA, though the FTC may have to try to use that, but it too will prove a weak argument.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/28/judge-dismisses-ftc-antitrust-complaint-against-facebook.html




The court made acknowledgments in the FTC's favor




The Communication Workers of America Union personally back the Microsoft acquisition of Activision, and have personally sent a letter to FTC Chair Lina Khan telling her as such.

https://wccftech.com/activision-blizzard-x-microsoft-deal-backed-by-cwa-in-ftc-letter/



Lina Khan wrote a letter back to US Senator Elizabeth Warren, stressing the fact that she takes very seriously the impact that the deal would have on the labor market and the workers. She specifically cites monopsony power, a thing many people talking about this deal have dismissed because it doesn't appear nearly as important in other markets outside the US, but it will absolutely be vitally important for an administration, president and party who is all about trying to support labor unions as much as humanely possible.

Lina Khan's letter to Elizabeth warren - pay attention to the focus on workers.

https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Response Letter to FTC Chair Lina M. Khan to Sen. Warren re Microsoft Activision.pdf



Next up is Lina Khan's letter to David Cicilline and Ranking Republican member Buck: (before the acquisition was announced) The Activision deal is her first big chance to follow through on these commitments.



Noticing a trend? Workers, labor market, and there is a major American Labor Union representing workers saying they want the deal approved.

What was the top priority of US Senators who sent a letter about the deal? I think the impact on workers is of far more importance to this deal in the US than in other territories.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/u...deal-to-buy-activision-blizzard/1100-6502066/



Another thing that will, I believe, benefit Microsoft in this deal's closing is the recent and rare disagreement between Democrats and Unions regarding the railroad strike.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3757126-rail-strike-bill-is-rare-rift-between-democrats-unions/

Democrats are trying to put in place an agreement to prevent a strike that could harm the larger US economy and hurt supply chains. However, in trying to get a deal through. A rare rift that's already creating unwanted tension with Unions, an opportunity Republicans are already trying to pounce on to their advantage. This railroad strike has large implications on what the FTC does with regards to Microsoft and Activision.

Remember I mentioned Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown earlier in this thread and the importance of Unions to him? Well, we are now in a danger zone where Democrats could end up having a strained relationship with Unions, something no major Democrat politician wants.




It is now largely seen that the Biden Administration and Democrats are at odds with Unions, a position they don't want to be in. With a less favorable Senate map for Democrats in the upcoming 2024 elections, they do NOT want Unions turning against them. The railroad strike matter is literally strike 1 & 2. Should the FTC launch action against the Activision Blizzard deal in court, it will put the Democrat Party, Joe Biden and his administration in another public fight against a major Labor Union - something I'll be stunned to see happen. It could represent a definitive strike 3 that harms them come 2024 with many Democrats up for re-election in important labor union states, where the Democrats were only elected due to their support of unions.

I don't see the FTC suing to try to get a court order to block this one, and will be surprised if they do.

I don't mean to bring too much politics into this, but for the USA and this particular deal, it is absolutely relevant. It was seen as a huge victory for progressive Democrats when Lina Khan was nominated by Joe Biden. Remember earlier in this thread I also mentioned Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota who is up for re-election in 2024 as well? She dropped news that Khan was to be nominated before even the White House did.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/15/khan-confirm-ftc-494609

- Plans for Khan's elevation as chair came to light when Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) announced the news during a Senate Judiciary antitrust hearing Tuesday afternoon, before any announcement from the White House. Khan replaced Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, who has served as acting FTC chair since January and remains a member of the commission.

One party, in particular, was not pleased with Khan's appointment as Chair




Long story short, without Democrats (specifically Democrats in the US Senate - many who support Labor Unions) Lina Khan is not the Chairwoman of the FTC.

Here is another important factor, the Senate Majority Leader, the person who brought up Lina Khan's name for a vote in the first place. Absent Chuck Schumer as Senate majority leader, a vote for Lina Khan last year June to make her a commissioner on the FTC, she would not be Chairwoman right now. And Chuck Schumer has remained Senate Majority Leader for the upcoming congress. He's clearly in favor of Microsoft's Activision deal. He also wants Microsoft investing more money in the New York region to support videogame development there. It's something he has been pretty bullish on. This was his view on expanding game development in new york even before the deal was announced.

https://www.schumer.senate.gov/news...pital-regions-footprint-as-a-leading-tech-hub




And after it was announced he specifically met immediately with Microsoft President, Brad Smith. He's clearly in favor of the deal. This is Schumer's official site, for the record.

https://www.schumer.senate.gov/news...gion-level-up-as-leading-tech-and-gaming-hub-



This is just a small window into my thinking for why I just can't see the FTC stopping this deal. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I think the political ramifications of challenging this deal are much too high, and no matter what anybody thinks about what the FTC has said, Khan is a political appointee. And political appointees always factor in an administrations political objectives in many situations. There are limits, for example, but this always happens. Sorta like the US Department of Justice having to defend Biden's student debt forgiveness in courts because it's something he and Democrats want. Or having to defend the affordable care act in courts against challenges, stuff like that. Lina Khan is there to take a tougher stance on big tech, sure, but that was largely seen in regards to the social media companies like Facebook and Twitter, or companies like Apple/Google with regards to app stores etc. Google was especially displeased when she was appointed, so I don't see complaints from Google having much weight with her considering the dominance they have in their own respective markets.

Long story short, I believe the Activision Blizzard deal rests more significantly on the labor market and unions in the USA than on the things the EU and CMA are worried about. I would not be surprised if the FTC greenlights it with no conditions of major significance. There are suggestions they aren't interested in remedies, and some are viewing that as a bad thing for Microsoft, but it could just as easily mean they will approve it outright without major concessions also. Approve or fight for a block in the courts. I lean towards straight approval.

What is with you and your long words?

 

[Iced Arcade]

You say this with so such confidence that you must be completely unaware of what will happen to the stock price of both companies. The bleak ramifications if the deal falls through would be uncanny.

It will have a direct effect on the entire markets and be carnage for ATVI and MSFT share price. Absolute carnage. Every hedge fund and retail investor would short sell those companies into oblivion.

I love the comedy here. Wish I could leave tips

 

[feynoob]

I love the comedy here. Wish I could leave tips

You will have a blast, just make sure you don't leave dead fish's around.
We don't want penguins here.

 

[Pelta88]

So you have evidence that the downturn in MS share price is the result of 7 short selling events?

I stopped here because the chart shows the decline in MSFT stock price... But you're asking for evidence that the stock price has fallen.

You clearly don't understand what you're talking about so I just can't continue.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

I love the comedy here. Wish I could leave tips

Oh but you can

 

[ReBurn]

I know they will do everything possible to fight this. But in theory if they can't make the acquisition they have to pay 3 billion to Activision. Either way money is going to be spent.

No doubt. But if you were forced to set money on fire you're probably going to want to set the least amount of money on fire as possible.

 

[Topher]

I understand where this sentiment comes from, but "indefinitely" means unlimited OR an unspecified amount of time. A ten year deal is better than an agreement without any specifics tied to it.

In saying that, Phil should have kept these conversations behind closed doors to start with. I realize he was attempting to calm the masses of PlayStation players, but sometimes less info is better until a deal is finalized.

I agree. He isn't doing himself any favors in talking so liberally about it to YouTubers and the media. Let it all hash out with the deal makers first and then he can figure out the best way to present what comes next to gamers.

What is with you and your long words?

I hate sesquipedalian posters.

 

[adamsapple]

I hate sesquipedalian posters.

There is a certain antidisestablishmentarianism about it.

Spoiler

I have absolutely no idea of the context of that word

 

[feynoob]

There is a certain antidisestablishmentarianism about it.

Spoiler

I have absolutely no idea of the context of that word

 

[R3claimer117]

Jesus this needs to wrap up if anything just for the bad takes in here to stop so we can move on to the next things that are going to happen in a post Microsoft activision world. That's more interesting then this boring slow walk to the finish line.

 

[feynoob]

Idas.

It's important to remember that this is what Sony seems to be asking MS in their parallel negotiation. But not what regulators are requesting (as far as we know). In fact, it looks like the FTC doesn't even care about those type of concessions.

And from the perspective of Sony, it may sound excessive, but it makes sense: 1) they have been against the deal since day one; 2) they want the transaction rejected; 3) they have invested a lot with that objective; 4) and they have a good chance of succeeding.

As I mentioned a few weeks ago, it's unlikely that Sony will accept any offer from MS. In the short - medium term there is almost no scenario where they don't "win". Even if all regulators approve the deal without concessions, they will still get COD and some other games from ABK (for example, Overwatch or Diablo) thanks to the original agreements and that for MS it doesn't make economic sense to remove COD from PlayStation.

From that perspective, the only agreement that would make sense for Sony would be to ask for the same benefits that MS would be getting with the acquisition. Obviously, from MS perspective it makes sense to say no.

When this is finally done, we'll see if what regulators decide makes that strategy a smart move or a missed opportunity.

 

[R3claimer117]

Idas.

Microsoft will never agree to spend 69 billion and have no competitive advantage to owing a company. Sony getting call of duty sure but everything parity ever yeah lol that's a good joke.

 

[feynoob]

Microsoft will never agree to spend 69 billion and have no competitive advantage to owing a company. Sony getting call of duty sure but everything parity ever yeah lol that's a good joke.

I would trust this lawyer, until we find a new documents from all regulators.

 

[R3claimer117]

I would trust this lawyer, until we find a new documents from all regulators.

You can trust who you ever you want the idea that Microsoft is buying a company for 69 billion and will be sharing the company equally with Sony is never going to happen or even a sound thought.

 

[ReBurn]

I would trust this lawyer, until we find a new documents from all regulators.

This lawyer is guessing as much as every other lawyer

 

[bender]

I would trust this lawyer, until we find a new documents from all regulators.

 

[Cheezewizz]

Microsoft will never agree to spend 69 billion and have no competitive advantage to owing a company. Sony getting call of duty sure but everything parity ever yeah lol that's a good joke.

Exactly. To assume that MS would be willing or forced to just basically split everything they're paying $69b for with Sony is just completely ridiculous. Takes like his shows just how out of touch, and poorly versed they are on this subject.

I would trust this lawyer, until we find a new documents from all regulators.

I haven't read all of their takes on this, but if your beliefs on the matter are a reflection of his... Then Idas take on the matter is just as unrealistic as yours. Lawyer or not.

In fact, as far as the opinions of lawyers that is easily accessible. It would appear as though Idas view is in the minority. So while you say that you "would trust this lawyer". I would say why not trust one the others.

 

[gothmog]

Idas.

Should probably stay in his lane. His takes have gotten worse and worse over the past few weeks. He went on and on about Sony even when there were plenty of indications that it had little to do with what the regulators we're concerned about. It was just one example of the concern.

 

[feynoob]

You can trust who you ever you want the idea that Microsoft is buying a company for 69 billion and will be sharing the company equally with Sony is never going to happen or even a sound thought.

I haven't read all of their takes on this, but if your beliefs on the matter are a reflection of his... Then Idas take on the matter is just as unrealistic as yours. Lawyer or not.

In fact, as far as the opinions of lawyers that is easily accessible. It would appear as though Idas view is in the minority. So while you say that you "would trust this lawyer". I would say why not trust one the others.

Should probably stay in his lane. His takes have gotten worse and worse over the past few weeks. He went on and on about Sony even when there were plenty on indications that it had little to do with what the regulators we're concerned about. It was just one example of the concern.

There is Lawyer take, and their is logic take.

This deal needs a lawyer take, as they have understanding on how this deal is playing now. Its lawyers talk, which none of us normies have any clue about it. Especially the way MS and Sony are behaving right now.

Us regular folks, just use our limit knowledge here.

Lawyers are snake. Its take another snake to combat another snake.

 

[R3claimer117]

There is Lawyer take, and their is logic take.

This deal needs a lawyer take, as they have understanding on how this deal is playing now. Its lawyers talk, which none of us normies have any clue about it. Especially the way MS and Sony are behaving right now.

Us regular folks, just use our limit knowledge here.


Lawyers are snake. Its take another snake to combat another snake.

Lol regulators can't tell Microsoft what to do with a company they own. Can they ask them to make concessions to keep the market balanced for a few years while Sony comes up with a suitable replacement sure. But Microsoft was never taking call of duty off PlayStation anyways until majority of that user base migrated over to the Xbox ecosystem. Which is why they're fine with given them a decade. Also Microsoft can change the release cadence of call of duty in that decade that can me 3 maybe 4 games as opposed to 10. But they're not going to be doing overall parity with everything with Sony that's not even realistic for all that they don't need to buy activision just for Sony to dictate how they run their business? lol some of theses takes are ludicrous.

 

[3liteDragon]

Lol regulators can't tell Microsoft what to do with a company they own. Can they ask them to make concessions to keep the market balanced for a few years while Sony comes up with a suitable replacement sure. But Microsoft was never taking call of duty off PlayStation anyways until majority of that user base migrated over to the Xbox ecosystem. Which is why they're fine with given them a decade. Also Microsoft can change the release cadence of call of duty in that decade that can me 3 maybe 4 games as opposed to 10. But they're not going to be doing overall parity with everything with Sony that's not even realistic for all that they don't need to buy activision just for Sony to dictate how they run their business? lol some of theses takes are ludicrous.

They don't own Activision.

 

[feynoob]

Lol regulators can't tell Microsoft what to do with a company they own. Can they ask them to make concessions to keep the market balanced for a few years while Sony comes up with a suitable replacement sure. But Microsoft was never taking call of duty off PlayStation anyways until majority of that user base migrated over to the Xbox ecosystem. Which is why they're fine with given them a decade. Also Microsoft can change the release cadence of call of duty in that decade that can me 3 maybe 4 games as opposed to 10. But they're not going to be doing overall parity with everything with Sony that's not even realistic for all that they don't need to buy activision just for Sony to dictate how they run their business? lol some of theses takes are ludicrous.

MS doesn't OWN Activision.

Regulators are the ones who need to approve this deal, not MS.

This is why I trust lawyers, compared to people like you. You have no idea what is going on with this deal, aside of assumptions.

 

[gothmog]

MS doesn't OWN Activision.

Regulators are the ones who need to approve this deal, not MS.

This is why I trust lawyers, compared to people like you. You have no idea what is going on with this deal, aside of assumptions.

I wouldn't trust a lawyer that's making opinions on this. There is too much baggage on this merger to pretend you know how it is going to go. The fact that the FTC has an agenda to get tough on big tech in the US and in Europe there's a history of anti-competitive litigation against MIcrosoft that seems to be raising concerns shows that it is going to be a bit of a crap shoot.

 

[feynoob]

I wouldn't trust a lawyer that's making opinions on this. There is too much baggage on this merger to pretend you know how it is going to go. The fact that the FTC has an agenda to get tough on big tech in the US and in Europe there's a history of anti-competitive litigation against MIcrosoft that seems to be raising concerns shows that it is going to be a bit of a crap shoot.

That is MS. And this is gaming market.

FTC one is pure political against big techs. Europe and UK cant view this deal as MS whole, due to the market share of gaming.

Which is why new markets like Sub services and Cloud gaming exist as arguments right now.
Any other argument wont hold water in the court.

 

[gothmog]

That is MS. And this is gaming market.

FTC one is pure political against big techs. Europe and UK cant view this deal as MS whole, due to the market share of gaming.

Which is why new markets like Sub services and Cloud gaming exist as arguments right now.
Any other argument wont hold water in the court.

I'm curious what argument you think won't hold water in court if it does go there? The definition of anti-competetive behavior is highly subjective based on the market. There are cases where they sued even though the combined entity would have owned less than 30% of the market because of how much power that relatively small consolidation would have.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

So you have evidence that the downturn in MS share price is the result of 7 short selling events?
Hmmm. Guess there may be some at the DOJ who would love your input on this. They are keen for this evidence https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-probe-eyes-bets-on-amazon-microsoft-jpmorgan

Also from the article:
"But activist short sellers don't typically target the world's most valuable companies -- which makes the latest requests all the more puzzling.

Giants like retailer Amazon, software powerhouse Microsoft and JPMorgan, the largest US bank, are closely scrutinized. Their share prices are anchored by legions of index-tracking funds that have to own them, as well as institutional buyers such as pensions with long investment horizons. This leaves little room for short sellers proffering bearish forecasts to move stock prices more than, say, the underlying economy does."

It has been an interesting year for tech stocks. MS included.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/10/18/why-microsoft-is-down-29-this-year/#:~:text=A beaten-down market,other companies have suffered more.


Hyperbole.

However, I believe you may have uncovered an unnanounced new IP from Activision:
Absolute Carnage!

Jimbo srambling for 10 year deal as we speak.

Total hyperbole, I agree. He isn't factoring just how profitable a company Microsoft is. Even should the deal fail, Microsoft's stock will be totally fine. To suggest otherwise demonstrates a lack of understanding of how strong Microsoft's various segments are, especially cloud.

 

[Fess]

Total hyperbole, I agree. He isn't factoring just how profitable a company Microsoft is. Even should the deal fail, Microsoft's stock will be totally fine. To suggest otherwise demonstrates a lack of understanding of how strong Microsoft's various segments are, especially cloud.

There will be an initial reaction on the market, there always is, perfect opportunity to buy. Long term the MS stock is fine.

 

[Three]

That is MS. And this is gaming market.

FTC one is pure political against big techs. Europe and UK cant view this deal as MS whole, due to the market share of gaming.

Which is why new markets like Sub services and Cloud gaming exist as arguments right now.
Any other argument wont hold water in the court.

If it goes to court and the process is stretched out beyond 2023 it would hold even more water I think.
All three of the areas raised by the CMA and EU already do. Console, multigame subs, cloud gaming. Just calling it "market share of gaming" would be like trying to say "market share of computing" and lumping market shares of phones, PC/laptops, cloud into one.

 

[Cheezewizz]

That is MS. And this is gaming market.

At the end of the day, it's MS.

FTC one is pure political against big techs. Europe and UK cant view this deal as MS whole, due to the market share of gaming.

There's several angles that definitely have a political angle to it. Moreso than in the UK/EU for sure.

Which is why new markets like Sub services and Cloud gaming exist as arguments right now.
Any other argument wont hold water in the court.

While the political aspect is bigger in the US. It's not as if there's no outside motivating factors in the UK or EU as well. MS is (last I checked) both of those region's biggest software and cloud provider. Microsoft is what both the UK and EU intelligence agencies use for their day to day operations. Does that mean that Microsoft gets a free pass to do what they want? Absolutely not. Does that mean that either of them is free to block a deal without a solid case, or to do so without perhaps getting a call from one of those intelligence agencies? Absolutely not.

If the CMA were to decide to wage war on MS regarding this deal, it ultimately results in the UK government stifling MS's growth potential. There's a case to be made that governments should be careful who they get in bed with, along with the repercussions for doing so, but make no mistake. They have indeed gotten in bed with MS, and those repercussions are very real. Blocking an acquisition such as this is one of the very few ways to turn a company against you.

 

[Banjo64]

Does that mean that either of them is free to block a deal without a solid case, or to do so without perhaps getting a call from one of those intelligence agencies? Absolutely not.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Does that mean that either of them is free to block a deal without a solid case, or to do so without perhaps getting a call from one of those intelligence agencies? Absolutely not.

 

[Godot25]

It would be glorious if after all these takes FTC would choose to not sue and by then let this acquisition pass without any concessions

I'm in the camp that this buyout will be ultimately aprooved after Microsoft will offer 10 year deal directly to FTC/CMA /EU

 

[feynoob]

I'm curious what argument you think won't hold water in court if it does go there? The definition of anti-competetive behavior is highly subjective based on the market. There are cases where they sued even though the combined entity would have owned less than 30% of the market because of how much power that relatively small consolidation would have.

Microsoft doesn't have any advantage in pc market, despite owning windows. Activision sale won't change that. Steam, epic and GOG have more market share than windows store.

Consoles only change would be COD, which MS already said they won't make it exclusive.

The deal is for mobile market (no presence aside of Bethesda). They have a very strong case here.

And most importantly, the deal can't be blocked on ground of anti-competitive, as MS doesn't have the market share, and won't gain the market share with Activision. Gaming is more than just Activision games. And so far, Xbox hasn't cracked 100m sold consoles, unlike it's competitors.

It's why CMA and EU are focusing on cloud gaming and Sub services. These are the 2 markets which MS leads so far, and have advantage. They have a chance to make a concession with these two arguments.

 

[feynoob]

If it goes to court and the process is stretched out beyond 2023 it would hold even more water I think.
All three of the areas raised by the CMA and EU already do. Console, multigame subs, cloud gaming. Just calling it "market share of gaming" would be like trying to say "market share of computing" and lumping market shares of phones, PC/laptops, cloud into one.

But the problem is Activision won't change that.

COD is the only outline here, which can be fixed by a concession.

Consoles = COD staying on PS.

Sub services = tricky part here. Need more info.

Cloud gaming = Microsoft doesn't got money from cloud gaming by using Azure services. So MS is already losing money by providing this market.

Pc market= MS doesn't have a strong launcher, as their launcher is the worst of the 3, even GOG offers more.

Mobile = no presence.

This is all the data we have now

 

[feynoob]

There's several angles that definitely have a political angle to it. Moreso than in the UK/EU for sure.

Only FTC. Both EU and CMA wants to have normal discussion in their own way. They didn't outright refused them, like FTC.

While the political aspect is bigger in the US. It's not as if there's no outside motivating factors in the UK or EU as well. MS is (last I checked) both of those region's biggest software and cloud provider. Microsoft is what both the UK and EU intelligence agencies use for their day to day operations. Does that mean that Microsoft gets a free pass to do what they want? Absolutely not. Does that mean that either of them is free to block a deal without a solid case, or to do so without perhaps getting a call from one of those intelligence agencies? Absolutely not.

This has nothing to do with gaming.

If the CMA were to decide to wage war on MS regarding this deal, it ultimately results in the UK government stifling MS's growth potential. There's a case to be made that governments should be careful who they get in bed with, along with the repercussions for doing so, but make no mistake. They have indeed gotten in bed with MS, and those repercussions are very real. Blocking an acquisition such as this is one of the very few ways to turn a company against you.

 

[Three]

But the problem is Activision won't change that.

COD is the only outline here, which can be fixed by a concession.

Consoles = COD staying on PS.

Sub services = tricky part here. Need more info.

Cloud gaming = Microsoft doesn't got money from cloud gaming by using Azure services. So MS is already losing money by providing this market.

Pc market= MS doesn't have a strong launcher, as their launcher is the worst of the 3, even GOG offers more.

Mobile = no presence.

This is all the data we have now

I'm not sure what you mean by Activision won't change that when it is a stated aim for MS with the purchase.

What I mean is as time goes on the courts will see that some of the arguments MS have given regulators will fall apart if it's stretched beyond 2023. The biggest ones being loss of marketshare in the UK, subscriptions being small in comparison, cloud being a non-profitable non-existent market, and COD possibly being in decline.

Marketshare hasn't fallen in the UK. Cloud At the moment required investment and MS believed in it enough to the point where they were sending silicon to server blades instead of consoles. They are absolutely using azure centres for housing and maintaining that hardware and the non profitable nature of it would all but disappear once that initial investment phase is over.