Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?

  • Yes, will be approved without changes.

    Votes: 221 24.9%

  • Yes, will be approved but with structural changes to ABK.

    Votes: 102 11.5%

  • Yes, will be approved but only with behavioral concessions.

    Votes: 262 29.6%

  • No, will not be approved.

    Votes: 301 34.0%
  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
GHG said:
Not really. The FTC are now powerless to the market power that the likes of Google and Apple have (especially considering how entrenched they are both politically and with the SEC). It's too late and will prove to be more difficult to get a handle on them now than it would have been to prevent them from happening in the first place.



Of course they do, and that's exactly why it's a problem.
Click to expand...
Just end lobbying, and make it illegal. It will solve 70& of problems.
 
GHG said:
SM-Headshot-2.png
Click to expand...

8/10.

Would offer concessions.
 
DeepEnigma said:
I tell you what. What they did, did work on some.
Click to expand...

What worked? You're going in circles.

A/ All storefronts & platforms have contract agreements for products to be placed and sold on them
B/ These contracts are different for call companies - what Steam does is different than others, so it's not transferable.
C/ Nintendo went into an agreement, and the fact it's not contested, measured as 10 year commitment (with revenue agreements in there more than likely that's favorable to both parties and also likely outside standard contract terms).
D/ Sony is in an active agreement with Activision today. We know this because Ryan said so, to quote: ""Microsoft has only offered for Call of Duty to remain on PlayStation for three years after the current agreement between Activision and Sony ends,"
E/ Whether PR or not, it appears the same agreement was sent to Steam & Apple for 10 years (Steam doesn't care since they don't do time based agreements, and in general are OK with MS's approach and trust them). Presumably - in addition to the 3 year contract MS submitted to Sony - they also submitted a 10 year agreement (assuming revenue sharing that's favorable to both parties (in MS's eyes at least)). This agreement was rejected by Sony.
F/ MS made a public statement about the agreements made with Steam & Nintendo - timing aside - it's now public and received praise from Steam and Nintendo has been silent - but silence is support & confirmation a contract has been agreed to.

That's it. Your reductive responses are attempting to craft a narrative of a "so what, it's not binding, it's not real" which really looks like you're just putting your fingers in your ears at this point. Sony clearly cares about contract lengths - from Ryan's own quote - and has objected publicly (PR, amirite?) about those contracts.

MS has found alignment, and agreement, with pretty much everyone now except Sony which definitely impacts Sony but in the broader market has widen the benefits to the consume in terms of access to COD and their commitments behind that.
 
akimbo009 said:
What's "this"?
Click to expand...

The contracts currenty in place between Steam and Microsoft (and all other publishers) do not denote particular games must release on Steam if they release on PC.

And if you actually read Valves response, while they are in agreement, they have not signed the COD contract.
 
GHG said:
The contracts currenty in place between Steam and Microsoft (and all other publishers) do not denote particular games must release on Steam if they release on PC.

And if you actually read Valves response, while they are in agreement, they have not signed the COD contract.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so? That's because Valve operates differently - they say as much. Doesn't mean Sony, Nintendo, etc don't. And we know they do so Steam's position doesn't matter in terms of the contract agreement and Steam imply they accept MS's positioning because they trust them explicitly.
 
1 year is a long time in a the tech industry, let alone 10 years. Also no company signs forever contracts either.
 
Last edited:
akimbo009 said:
Yeah, so? That's because Valve operates differently - they say as much. Doesn't mean Sony, Nintendo, etc don't. And we know they do so Steam's position doesn't matter in terms of the contract agreement and Steam imply they accept MS's positioning because they trust them explicitly.
Click to expand...

No, they don't. Valve opted to not sign a contract that requires Microsoft to publish COD on Steam. They still need to enter into an agreement when the time actually comes to them putting COD on steam.
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised Valve even put out that statement rather than just not signing it and minding their own business as they usually do. Also kind of surprised at MS continued support of Steam when Valve is single handedly trying to push linux gaming on the world and making great strides in doing so. Proton is crazy.
 
Ass of Can Whooping said:
No, they don't. Valve opted to not sign a contract that requires Microsoft to publish COD on Steam. They still need to enter into an agreement when the time actually comes to them putting COD on steam.
Click to expand...

I don't know what your point is? Steam is saying MS already publishes on them, they welcome that COD will also be published through that, and for them nothing changes except they added they endorsed MS's approach.

In all practice they have an agreement with MS on COD, and beyond. Are you saying they don't?
 
CoD is already on Steam and Valve likes the current situation. They had no need to sign a purely PR commitment move for the regulators and press.

store.steampowered.com

Call of Duty® on Steam

The Call of Duty® experience supports Call of Duty®: Black Ops 6, Call of Duty®: Modern Warfare® III, Call of Duty®: Modern Warfare® II and Call of Duty®: Warzone™.
store.steampowered.com store.steampowered.com
 
akimbo009 said:
I don't know what your point is? Steam is saying MS already publishes on them, they welcome that COD will also be published through that, and for them nothing changes except they added they endorsed MS's approach.

In all practice they have an agreement with MS on COD, and beyond. Are you saying they don't?
Click to expand...

The point is the 10 year agreement has nothing to do with publishing conditions. You were talking about revenue sharing and the ability to publish a game to a platform like it's relevant to this 10 year agreement. It's not.
 
Pelta88 said:
"Microsoft's $69 billion acquisition of Activision is an unlawful merger that will undermine the vitality of an important sector of the American economy and consolidate the video game industry into a small group of firms who control walled gardens of content, data, and advertising," said Sarah Miller, Executive Director of the American Economic Liberties Project.

[/URL]

yes-awkward.gif


If there's one word Microsoft doesn't want to hear with regards to this acquisition, it's Monopolize. It tends to get regulators all worked up...
Click to expand...
Except regulators aren't the final approval for deals in America. They can approve or block deals they can only sue to block which goes to court. Good luck proving in court Microsoft has a monopoly on the gaming market. Which is why the FTC is meeting with them cause like Lina said they don't have the resources to be in court battling with big companies who have been handing them loses in court.
 
Ass of Can Whooping said:
The 10-year agreement is about COD staying on PS

Since it's already been established that COD is staying on PS with or without the deal, no, there isn't a penalty
Click to expand...
It's staying on PS, yes but possibly not with as favorable terms as they might get if they sign before the deal gets approved.
 
Pelta88 said:
You would have to butcher COD to make it run on a Nintendo Switch.
Click to expand...
I mean they've managed to scrape together a version of the Witcher and apex on switch. It's have to be a Xbox one version or mobile but doable. Cross play on the other hand...
 
Last edited:
Hero of Spielberg said:
And there's no possible way MS can incentivise the deal in any way for Sony at this point? I doubt that.
Click to expand...
Phil Spencer said publicly that "as long as there's a PlayStation, CoD will be on it…"

People were parroting and hoisting Valve's good words about Phil honoring his word so far, in here. Which is why they didn't sign it either.

So why would Sony handicap themselves, especially in a blatant PR move, from "as long as there is…" to a conceded 10 years PR political lobbying game?
 
Last edited:
Lex Tenebris said:
Sure, without the needs to install windows and done in a collaboration between Ms and Valve. If Valve had something against gamepass, I doubt they would give help for that.
Click to expand...

If Valve had a problem with stuff like Game Pass then they would not have utilized an open platform for Steam Deck.

DeepEnigma said:
Phil Spencer said publicly that "as long as there's a PlayStation, CoD will be on it…"

People were parroting and hoisting Valve's good words about Phil honoring his word so far, in here. Which is why they didn't sign it either.

So why would Sony handicap themselves, especially in a blatant PR move, from "as long as there is…" to a conceded 10 years PR political lobbying game?
Click to expand...

I agree. I don't know why folks are skirting around the commitments Phil Spencer has already made. He was very explicit about it too.
 
Here's the beauty of the offer Sony is now getting. It's exactly what they would have gotten anyway from Microsoft, but because Sony made such a massive deal over Call of Duty and how the deal should be blocked altogether because of how big Call of Duty, Sony has effectively elevated the wrong thing in the eyes of all major regulators, thus making Microsoft's 10-year offer be a much more significant deal closer with regulators than it should be.

As a result, any other concessions are likely to be relatively harmless in Microsoft's eyes because the biggest one is being seen as Call of Duty. Some may think it's COD or ABK games on game pass, but that's a total non-starter as it's the very reason for the deal. Maybe a short delay before COD is on game pass, sure, but not some insane length.
 
DeepEnigma said:
Phil Spencer said publicly that "as long as there's a PlayStation, CoD will be on it…"

People were parroting and hoisting Valve's good words about Phil honoring his word so far, in here. Which is why they didn't sign it either.

So why would Sony handicap themselves, especially in a blatant PR move, from "as long as there is…" to a conceded 10 years PR political lobbying game?
Click to expand...
Because there's more to it than 'will COD be on PS, yes or no'.
 
SenjutsuSage said:
Here's the beauty of the offer Sony is now getting. It's exactly what they would have gotten anyway from Microsoft, but because Sony made such a massive deal over Call of Duty and how the deal should be blocked altogether because of how big Call of Duty, Sony has effectively elevated the wrong thing in the eyes of all major regulators, thus making Microsoft's 10-year offer be a much more significant deal closer with regulators than it should be.

As a result, any other concessions are likely to be relatively harmless in Microsoft's eyes because the biggest one is being seen as Call of Duty. Some may think it's COD or ABK games on game pass, but that's a total non-starter as it's the very reason for the deal. Maybe a short delay before COD is on game pass, sure, but not some insane length.
Click to expand...

Sony was offered a three year deal initially, not 10.
 
Sanepar said:
Ultimate? $30
Click to expand...

They are selling the game pass family plan with sharing for up to 4 people for $25! Time to come down from the acid trip. Ultimate alone isn't going to cost no goddamn $30. It's like some people don't realize how game pass works. Millions of monthly subscribers multiplied by 12 months is why it will never need to be as high as $30 per month. They make up for charging so low with many people paying that same price.

To suggest Game Pass Ultimate will cost $30 is trolling at its very finest.
 
DeepEnigma said:
See. "Wasn't necessary for us..."

In short. Businesses like money and this was purely a regulation PR move.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. It was a smart PR move, no doubt, but Valve kind of rendered it meaningless with their response. Either way, I still say it doesn't matter. FTC will approve.
 
Topher said:
Sony was offered a three year deal initially, not 10.
Click to expand...

Because that's the industry standard. Nobody offers a 10 year deal. Sony would have still had COD well after those 3 years. Sony so far is getting absolutely nothing out of this deal potentially closing. The 10 years isn't a win because they were always going to get that from the start. Microsoft is effectively utilizing Sony's own public whining to make them look like the unreasonable party to the whole thing, to get them to look like bad actors before regulators. To me, they looked that way from the start.

You realize how it looks for Sony to go from saying "they only offered us 3 years! after nearly 20 years of COD on playstation" to "but they only offered us 10 years!"

Microsoft has achieved one primary thing: They've painted Sony as being dishonest and self-serving. Regulators will literally approve it on that very basis, though they might not come out and say it in exactly those words, but them approving will obviously mean they've dismissed all of Sony's arguments as not credible.
 
Mark down your tits boys. We got us some juicy dates.

December 7th 2022: meeting between Microsoft and the FTC
- December 8th 2022: FTC meeting to discuss the deal and maybe even vote about it
- Late December 2022/Early January 2023: vote by the FTC Commission (if it doesn't happen on December 8th 2022)
- Early January 2023: the CMA will publish provisional findings (a draft of the final decision) and provisional remedies (if they are required)
- February 3rd 2023: decision by New Zealand
- March 1st 2023: the last day for the CMA to publish its final report
- April 11th 2023: the last day for the European Commission to publish its decision (it could happen sooner if MS offers remedies that solve potential concerns)
 
SenjutsuSage said:
They are selling the game pass family plan with sharing for up to 4 people for $25! Time to come down from the acid trip. Ultimate alone isn't going to cost no goddamn $30. It's like some people don't realize how game pass works. Millions of monthly subscribers multiplied by 12 months is why it will never need to be as high as $30 per month. They make up for charging so low with many people paying that same price.

To suggest Game Pass Ultimate will cost $30 is trolling at its very finest.
Click to expand...

Netflix is $20 a month for a singular video streaming service at it's highest level.

I 100% believe that we could see GPU hit near $30 a month eventually. Since they aren't hitting the numbers they want to see currently I don't expect a price increase anytime soon.
 
Topher said:
Pretty much. It was a smart PR move, no doubt, but Valve kind of rendered it meaningless with their response. Either way, I still say it doesn't matter. FTC will approve.
Click to expand...

Valve said Phil and the games team at Microsoft has always kept their promises, and he trusts they will keep call of duty on the platforms where customers want to play. Those are the very merits by which this is even being challenged, the suggestion Microsoft will not stay true to its words.
 
Pelta88 said:
"Microsoft's $69 billion acquisition of Activision is an unlawful merger that will undermine the vitality of an important sector of the American economy and consolidate the video game industry into a small group of firms who control walled gardens of content, data, and advertising," said Sarah Miller, Executive Director of the American Economic Liberties Project.

www.economicliberties.us

The FTC Must Stop Microsoft’s Aggressive Push to Monopolize Gaming - The FTC Must Stop Microsoft’s Aggressive Push to Monopolize Gaming

www.economicliberties.us www.economicliberties.us

yes-awkward.gif


If there's one word Microsoft doesn't want to hear with regards to this acquisition, it's Monopolize. It tends to get regulators all worked up...
Click to expand...

People here should read that article. It's not car salesman talking points, it's not a mega corp cheese ball, and it's not a fucking sewer rat.
 
HerpDerpstreit said:
Netflix is $20 a month for a singular video streaming service at it's highest level.

I 100% believe that we could see GPU hit near $30 a month eventually. Since they aren't hitting the numbers they want to see currently I don't expect a price increase anytime soon.
Click to expand...

That isn't happening within this decade at least.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MS/ABK is advertising games that don't exist for data collection
46
2K
POKEYCLYDE replied
My apologies to Ubisoft, Sony, Activision, EA, MS etc. for making a big deal out of $70 games
2 3 4
156
6K
MDSLKTR replied
Microsoft, Activision Deny Report Regarding Financial Performance
Business Hardware  2 3
131
11K
Jaybe replied
What happened to all the people that were cheering over that MS Activision acquisition?
Drama  5 6 7 8 9
414
18K
GateofD replied
Microsoft has Closed the Activision Blizzard King Deal
22 23 24 25 26
1K
99K
MasterCornholio replied
Top Bottom