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.
36ea97e087eb3423ab50f04d99ef26ba.png


Man if only there was enough demand for TES6 to be on Playstation.

Full pdf:
 
I have no fucking clue what's going on, but I do know one thing fellow gaffers...you could all be right, or you could all be wrong.

I'm just here with my popcorn.
 
Topher said:
No, you don't. You file an injunction to ensure nothing changes before a ruling can be made. Isn't about "expressing your seriousness".



Which "professionals"?
Click to expand...


I'll make this very simple for some to understand just what the FTC is up against.

Not only will they end up losing the ability to stop the deal from closing.

That's #1.

But they're authority in these very proceedings they've just setup could very well about to be severely undermined by a current case that was already argued before the US Supreme Court. Challenging the Microsoft deal in this fashion quite literally makes it a very easy (and petty target) for conservative justices on that supreme court.

So the FTC already has a very weak case as is, but now they very administrative judge proceeding they just announced is in danger from a currently pending Supreme Court case where Conservative judges hold a 6-3 majority? I would personally be surprised if those conservative judges ruled in a favor favorable to the Biden administration...



Now I'm not a believer of stripping the FTC of this power. But if those conservative judges wanted to wield that 6-3 advantage on the highest court to deal a major blow to the Biden Administration come next june (when they're expected to rule on this), it would seem Lina Khan has given them a nice fat target in order to do so.

I guess we shall see then. The lone conservative judge who sounded remotely favorable to the government's argument was Brett Kavanaugh. Meanwhile, Alito seemed.. well very Alito. Is this case setup to be "lost" not because they lost on the merits, but so they can blame it on the Supreme Court's ruling? It means nothing to Microsoft one way or the other, just an annoying delay, but we shall see.

The true purpose of this is to embolden CMA and the EU to block the deal in their territories.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...al&utm_source=twitter&leadSource=uverify wall

The US Supreme Court signaled it may open a new avenue for companies and people to fight off complaints by the Securities and Exchange Commission and Federal Trade Commission, hearing arguments in cases that could undercut the clout of two powerful market regulators.

The justices are considering whether those facing agency claims can go straight to federal court with constitutional challenges -- including attacks on the use of in-house judges to handle cases. Critics say the system gives agencies an unfair home-field advantage.


"What sense does it make for a claim that goes to the very structure of the agency having to go through the administrative process?" Justice Samuel Alito asked.

SEC, FTC Risk New Curbs as Supreme Court Eyes Regulators' Reach


A ruling against the government could undercut two of the most powerful federal regulators. The SEC filed more than 700 enforcement actions in the last fiscal year and won judgments and orders worth $6.4 billion, including from investment banks. The FTC, which is seeking to break up Meta Platforms Inc. and is investigating Amazon.com Inc., among other initiatives under Chair Lina Khan's aggressive antitrust enforcement agenda, returned $2.4 billion to consumers last year.


Agency critics are seeking to extend a line of Supreme Court decisions that are chipping away at the federal administrative state.

The challengers -- accountant Michelle Cochran in the SEC case and body-camera manufacturer Axon Enterprise Inc. in the FTC case -- say the agencies' in-house systems violate the Constitution.

Cochran and Axon say the job protections afforded to agency administrative law judges, known as ALJs, insulate them too much from presidential control. The challengers point to a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that invalidated similar protections for members of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.

Most lower courts have said that type of challenge must wait for the administrative proceedings to finish, something that can take years.
Click to expand...
 
Kagey K said:
It's been posted 1000 times. Ppl are just choosing to ignore it and celebrate the death of the deal instead.
Click to expand...

Yeh good luck jumping the gun and closing it without regulatory approval in the EU and UK, especially when it has become clear today that all of the agencies are working in close collaboration on this deal.

Kagey K said:
They can still close before June. There's no injunction preventing it. Scroll up a couple posts.
Click to expand...

We are about to go back to "just cut the UK and EU off" aren't we?
 
Last edited:
DenchDeckard said:
I have no fucking clue what's going on, but I do know one thing fellow gaffers...you could all be right, or you could all be wrong.

I'm just here with my popcorn.
Click to expand...
TLDR; FTC actually had a real argument around MS not being honest about what they were going to do with ZeniMax to the EU. Honestly I really don't understand the fanboy reactions on this. It's a really good argument and hopefully one Microsoft addresses in a meaningful way rather than whataboutism or "oh, that was different".
 
3liteDragon said:
That's way past their expected June 2023 closing date...
Click to expand...

It is, but there's a Supreme Court decision expected in June that concerns the FTC's very process they're using to challenge this deal. Could be significant. Could not be. I'm just curious as to why they make zero attempt to stop the deal from closing. Sounds almost like some sort of negotiated secondary option lol.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-07/us-supreme-court-signals-it-may-allow-court-challenges-to-sec-ftc?utm_content=business&cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&leadSource=uverify wall
 
SenjutsuSage said:
There's no injunction attempt because they must feel they have a weak case. Either way, I hope they try that injunction, it can only help Microsoft.
Click to expand...
They still might file the injunction. They only just finished voting today.

What has a weak case got to do with filing an injunction or not though? If they knew they had a weak case they just wouldn't file either or file both knowning that neither would be successful. What do they lose with an ungranted preliminary injunction?

it will only help the FTC seem fair with what they want. Even if it closes and then they win the lawsuit what do the FTC lose in terms of upholding competition? MS has more to lose here. Make MS do what they said they would after closing and get all the benefits MS are trying to suggest they will do, MS end up paying above too, then possibly win divestitures or whatever concessions regulators/courts deem necessary to improve competition after the filed lawsuit. What do they lose without the preliminary injunction? In that time MS can't really do much of the harm the FTC has concerns with, especially with current contracts in place.

ChiefDada said:
They are essentially requiring them to step in the shoes of Activision and provide not even an ounce of ownership benefit for xbox players/gamepass subscribers. The deal isn't worth $69b if they have to concede to all of this. They may go to court but imo the deal will ultimately fall through.
Click to expand...
This is where MS' initial bluff of this being about King and a mobile store competitor will fall. Whether they are willing to do this or not will be the smoking gun. I'm not much of a betting man but I'm pretty sure they won't accept it.

I think the precedent that MS and Activison are leaning on is Time warner and AT&T but I wouldn't want to be MS in that precedent, and not just because of the EU and UK having more to say about Activison/MS, but because that acquisition turned out to be a shit show for the acquirer.
 
SlimySnake said:
WTF is she talking about? How does this benefit gamers?

  • 55% of PS5 gamers play COD. They wont be able to play CoD anymore. If not today then in 3 years or in 10 years. How does this benefit them?
  • How does this benefit Xbox owners? They lose access to a gigantic PS userbase for crossplay.
  • MS just signed a 10 year contract with Nintendo which means CoD will be tied to last gen hardware for at least the next 10 years. Fucking switch cant run COD. Thats why Nintendo hasnt bothered porting CoD on there since Blops 2 in 2012. Even if they target Switch 2 specs, thats a 1.3 tflops handheld version, which is basically an xbox one. So PS5 and XSX owners will benefit from a COD franchise thats tied to last gen hardware? How?

Absolute nonsense. Getting the game for free on gamepass is the only benefit to Xbox owners and MS can make that happen as soon as Sonys current marketing deal expires. you dont need to spend $75 billion to get games on gamepass a few hundred million a year would do. CoD made a billion in the first week right? lets assume 55% is PS, 10% PC and 35% Xbox. Thats $350 million. Sign them that check. Activision will take it an a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

This is cherry picking to support your own argument, and completely useless.
  • Sony did the same shit with Deathloop and many many other timed exclusives. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too while crying about the other guy getting some cake for themselves. It benefits the wider gaming audience, not just Sony, you have blinders on and a lack of the wider gaming community at heart. Nintendo, while rivalling PS numbers, combined with Steam or Samsung etc are giving a larger audience total than just Sony, they're also expanding to more devices or streaming formats as well.
  • They do not. MS isn't pulling COD, Sony/fans are the ones creating this messaging. Even if true you're still wrong in terms of other partners and platforms MS support with COD, they still have cross play with phones, tablets, Nintendo, PC, Xbox, cloud streaming etc. If 9 out of 10 people are voting majority rules, you don't get to overrule 9 people with your 1 vote.
  • Incorrect about tied to 10-year-old hardware, it already was and continues to be with other devices e.g. aging PCs, old phones, old tablets, old laptops, old consoles from Xbox One days etc. Facts are that's just an incorrect statement, period. Irrespective of Switch 1 hardware in the mix.

ChiefDada said:
Click to expand...


This is what the FTC is championing? Fucking LOL. MS are going to shit on the FTC publicly, concessions or not this is going to be funny now. So, we probably have some FTC middle/old age sabre rattler pushing this whole thing from the old MS days with very little clue about the current gaming conditions. Hint: they're the most diverse they've ever been; from game genres to platforms to the people playing them and the number of competitors too. These FTC nuts would fit right in with some of the posters on GAF and their MS mentality around this deal.

The current market conditions could show up and be MS's winning lawyer here. FTC launched a court case for what? To power mve some leverage for concessons and negotiations in place of the regulatory process being finished with Nintendo/Steam contract agreements. MS are going to turn the corner shortly if the FTC don't approach this with an unbiased view. Regulation is great in moderation, over regulation like we have here is going to be met with some fierce corporate opposition.

Ass of Can Whooping said:
Hey Topher Topher

Would you look at this

HI0HT0l.png
Click to expand...

65. Won't hold up in court at all. What a stupid conjecture for your own argument support, talk about bias. Pathetic, even I'd slam dunk that shit in open court. Switch blurs the line between console and mobile/phone games, interestingly the recent contracts from MS to Ninty/Steam enable them to directly combat bullshit like this.
 
Last edited:
Three said:
They still might file the injunction. They only just finished voting today.

What has a weak case got to do with filing an injunction or not though? If they knew they had a weak case they just wouldn't file either or file both knowning that neither would be successful. What do they lose with an ungranted preliminary injunction?

it will only help the FTC seem fair with what they want. Even if it closes and then they win the lawsuit what do the FTC lose in terms of upholding competition? MS has more to lose here. Make MS do what they said they would after closing and get all the benefits MS are trying to suggest they will do, MS end up paying above too, then possibly win divestitures or whatever concessions regulators/courts deem necessary to improve competition after the filed lawsuit. What do they lose without the preliminary injunction? In that time MS can't really do much of the harm the FTC has concerns with, especially with current contracts in place.


This is where MS' initial bluff of this being about King and a mobile store competitor will fall. Whether they are willing to do this or not will be the smoking gun. I'm not much of a betting man but I'm pretty sure they won't accept it.

I think the precedent that MS and Activison are leaning on is Time warner and AT&T but I wouldn't want to be MS in that precedent, and not just because of the EU and UK having more to say about Activison/MS, but because that acquisition turned out to be a shit show for the acquirer.
Click to expand...


Fair point. There's not exactly a rule that says they have to do it right away. So I definitely concede that point. Though an immediate injunction is usually the rule. I honestly suspect they fear going to DC court with this case, and that's why the delay. Guess we will see.

Topher said:
You really should stop with the condescending bullshit dude. You are no expert on this. Congrats on being able to google.......like the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Alright. Let's wait and watch what happens then. We shall have it play out. I'll be quiet until then. Then come back once it's all decided.
 
Ozzy Onya A2Z said:
65. Won't hold up in court at all. What a stupid conjecture for your own argument support, talk about bias. Pathetic, even I'd slam dunk that shit in open court. Switch blurs the line between console and mobile/phone games, interestingly the recent contracts from MS to Ninty/Steam enable them to directly combat bullshit like this.
Click to expand...

Compare the NPD charts of PS, Xbox and Switch and tell me why two are similar and one is not then
 
SlimySnake said:
If MS wants to own Activision and Zenimax and Ubisoft, they should just go third party. Get out of the console business, and just make games like a third party publisher. If that is indeed their end game. We all know its not. It's to dominate the console market, but the solution here is so simple. Promise CoD for life. Release Starfield day one on PS5. Same with Elder Scrolls. Stop trying to pretend you are for gamers, and actually show it.

MS is basically a software company. I dont know why they keep trying to mess with hardware only to push subscriptions.
Click to expand...
I am sure Microsoft would be happy to do that if they allow Game Pass.

You really expect Microsoft to promise CoD for life?
 
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping said:
Compare the NPD charts of PS, Xbox and Switch and tell me why two are similar and one is not then
Click to expand...

The entire industry report the big 3 against each other; Xbox, Nintendo and Sony. You are litelly looking at the same NPD chart to compare those 3, LOL. If you or the FTC want to fight commonly accepted knowledge from suppliers and consumers just for the benefit of your own argument then MS will be happy to put that stupid tactic to bed in court, as would I. What a shit idea, and MS' recent contracts with Nintendo/Steam ensure this is exactly how it plays out in court too. It's called bias and it will be shit on in court for it.
 
Ozzy Onya A2Z said:
The entire industry report the big 3 against each other; Xbox, Nintendo and Sony. You are litelly looking at the same NPD chart to compare those 3, LOL. If you or the FTC want to fight commonly accepted knowledge from suppliers and consumers just for the benefit of your own argument then MS will be happy to put that stupid tactic to bed in court, as would I. What a shit idea, and MS' recent contracts with Nintendo/Steam ensure this is exactly how it plays out in court too. It's called bias and it will be shit on in court for it.
Click to expand...

Again, look at the yearly NPD charts and explain to me why PS and Xbox are similar while the Switch's looks completely different

Since you can slam dunk this, should be easy
 
R3claimer117 said:
No they won't approve it they're hoping that the eu and cma block it now so they don't have to go to court. Cause they'll lose.
Click to expand...

What? The FTC is suing Microsoft, dude. That means this is going to court.

Ozzy Onya A2Z said:
The entire industry report the big 3 against each other; Xbox, Nintendo and Sony. You are litelly looking at the same NPD chart to compare those 3, LOL. If you or the FTC want to fight commonly accepted knowledge from suppliers and consumers just for the benefit of your own argument then MS will be happy to put that stupid tactic to bed in court, as would I. What a shit idea, and MS' recent contracts with Nintendo/Steam ensure this is exactly how it plays out in court too. It's called bias and it will be shit on in court for it.
Click to expand...

The FTC is making pretty much the same argument Ass of Can Whooping Ass of Can Whooping and I have been making for weeks. Nintendo gamers do not play the same game as Xbox/PS gamers so using Nintendo as evidence of anything in that regards doesn't make any sense.. FTC is calling bullshit on that entire analogy. As they should.
 
Last edited:
akimbo009 said:
Not for those who would likely be fired in the process - and probably a large number of games/projects getting shuttered/cancelled. Dunno how that's ideal unless you just have an axe to grind. Which makes the FTC ruling a little odd. It's counter intuitive, and states MS has already used it's market power to "make games exclusive", when they aren't in the market power position - and then the advocacy for ABK to remain independent when the natural conclusion is that they won't be independent - they'll get picked up by Tencent or Embracer Group, etc. Which may be ok, but the conclusion is 'if not MS, then it'll be someone' (and neither of the last two examples are small and in the case of Tencent gives them even more market power in Mobile which they already dominate).
Click to expand...
To be honest I'm okay they be picked up by another company that isn't part of the big 3. At least those other alternatives won't be locking the IPs away from platforms like MS most certainly has plans to do.

Why make 10 year deals when you could just keep everything multiplatform? 👀 Releasing cod on steam and on Nintendo platforms did not require MS to make a 10 year deal.
 
CatLady said:
Sony is not part of the lawsuit; the case will be between the FTC and Microsoft. Sony has nothing to do with and NO say in the court proceedings.
Click to expand...
Where did I ever say Sony was part of MS getting sued? I'm talking about Sony's making their claim to the regulators that this deal is bad for the industry. Which Sony HAS been doing way before the FTC sued MS.

There is still the EU regulators too.....
 
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