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.
Topher said:
Who is MLex? Where's the link?
Click to expand...

It's a paywalled website

mlexmarketinsight.com

Microsoft agrees to make Call of Duty available on Nintendo for a decade | MLex | Specialist news and analysis on legal risk and regulation

Microsoft has struck a deal with Nintendo to make Call of Duty available on its console if Microsoft’s $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard is approved by regulators.
mlexmarketinsight.com mlexmarketinsight.com


But this is the part in question:

Microsoft's Call of Duty deal with Nintendo is misleading, Sony argues Sony has criticized Microsoft's deal to make the game Call of Duty available on Nintendo — should its $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard be approved by regulators — as smoke and mirrors, MLex has learned. Activision Blizzard could supply Call of Duty to Nintendo today, but doesn't, because Nintendo's younger audience is not interested in the first-person shooter
Click to expand...
 
adamsapple said:
It's a paywalled website

mlexmarketinsight.com

Microsoft agrees to make Call of Duty available on Nintendo for a decade | MLex | Specialist news and analysis on legal risk and regulation

Microsoft has struck a deal with Nintendo to make Call of Duty available on its console if Microsoft’s $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard is approved by regulators.
mlexmarketinsight.com mlexmarketinsight.com


But this is the part in question:
Click to expand...

I don't agree with characterizing Nintendo's audience as "younger" as plenty of older gamers play on Switch. But other than that, I agree with what is said about . I've been making similar arguments for a while.

Of course, I have no idea who is actually saying this. Someone paraphrasing something someone allegedly said internally at Sony matters......why?
 
Topher said:
I don't agree with characterizing Nintendo's audience as "younger" as plenty of older gamers play on Switch. But other than that, I agree with what is said about . I've been making similar arguments for a while.

Of course, I have no idea who is actually saying this. Someone paraphrasing something someone allegedly said internally at Sony matters......why?
Click to expand...
Younger as in : immature old folks.
 
twilo99 said:
Click to expand...


who.gif
 
twilo99 said:
Not on gamepass which I already pay for.

Microsoft is trying to give me more for my money, and instead I gotta pay $70 for CoD because Sony needs to be protected.
Click to expand...

You don't have to pay 70$ for COD. And COD isn't being taken away from MS.

There's really no further point to this conversation, MS are not entitled to buying the market just because you feel entitled to having more games on gamepass. MS can go out there and strike a deal for the game to come out on GP without it meaning they own AB.

You saving a couple of dollars isn't more important than the integrity of the market.
 
Thirty7ven said:
I understand you're upset but yes MS helping third parties with risky projects is great for the industry.

Look at what happened to From Software, they are huge now exactly because Sony was there help them.

You know at one time Square was in the gutter and Sony went out there and invested a bunch of money on them. They didn't buy them. In fact they sold the shares back to Square Enix later.

When MS, Nintendo and Sony go out there and finance third party either through exclusives or timed exclusives they are effectively helping them get bigger and hopefully helping them make better games.

MS has a problem with that process because they don't like fair competition which is stupid because Gears of War for example was an incredible success. It's a culture thing.

Xbox fans think they need MS buying the market, but you don't. That's not how you became a Xbox fan, don't you get it?
Click to expand...
I'm sure you actually believe what you wrote but Sony isn't a charitable organization going around helping risky projects for the good of the industry. MS was not 'buying the industry'. It is cold hard business.

Sony uses their stronger market position, that they have had since before MS even got in to the console gaming industry, to secure favorable deals to hurt other console makers. They did it to Nintendo first and after Nintendo adapted to the current conditions they did it to MS.

MS because of their superior financial resources was able to also adapt to the market with moves like Game pass. Now Game pass is being used against them and they are also being told they cannot make major non-monopolistic purchases.

In the end Sony has provided a blueprint where they can use money to secure 3rd party content. MS should clearly do the same thing. As long as they don't own the company they can use money to get content. It's business after all.
 
twilo99 said:
Not on gamepass which I already pay for.

Microsoft is trying to give me more for my money, and instead I gotta pay $70 for CoD because Sony needs to be protected.
Click to expand...
That's not entirely accurate. You don't have to pay $70 for CoD because Sony needs to be protected. You have to pay $70 for CoD because you need to be protected.

CoD wasn't going to come to game pass for at least a few years anyway, so either way you were going to pay $70.
 
If Bernie only knew who raised the prices first because of market position.

Also how is Microsoft suppose to get games on Game Pass if Sony is now actively paying devs not to.
 
Last edited:
DarkMage619 said:
I'm sure you actually believe what you wrote but Sony isn't a charitable organization going around helping risky projects for the good of the industry. MS was not 'buying the industry'. It is cold hard business.
Click to expand...

Not even going to bother with the rest, Sony got their rewards but they still committed to a risk. Your constant conflation with third party deals and buying publishers wholesale is also just myopic as fuck so I'm done arguing with you.

The only reason you're a Xbox fan is because of the 360.
 
ChorizoPicozo said:
He was asked about that. It seems he has no idea what a Game Pass is.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt he even knows or fully understands what the FTC is suing Microsoft about here... or even owns a console or gaming PC.

Pretty sure it went like this -> "FTC is suing big bad company? Holy Batshit! - Quick! to the political bandwagon Batman!"
 
Thirty7ven said:
You don't have to pay 70$ for COD. And COD isn't being taken away from MS.

There's really no further point to this conversation, MS are not entitled to buying the market just because you feel entitled to having more games on gamepass. MS can go out there and strike a deal for the game to come out on GP without it meaning they own AB.

You saving a couple of dollars isn't more important than the integrity of the market.
Click to expand...
Neither you nor the FTC has demonstrated how the birth of the 3rd biggest player in an industry threatens the industry of the market. It's a catchy virtue signalling punchline I do admit but it's harder to find an actual consumer that says "I don't want to pay 10 bucks and not need a console or a gaming PC to play COD, I want to pay 70 bucks and also buy a machine". Except on GAF of course.
 
Some tidbits from user Idas on the other site..........




FUTURE SCENARIOS AND RELEVANT DATES:

Early January 2023

Provisional findings from the CMA, it's like a draft of the final decision. That should give us a pretty good idea of what the CMA believes right now. The arguments from the FTC in December 2022 are very similar to the arguments from the CMA in September 2022 at the end of Phase 1.

Does that mean that the CMA is still following that line of thinking? Maybe or maybe not, the CMA is full of surprises :p

We'll have to wait.

January 18th 2023 (termination fee $2,000,000,000)

Original outside date (when the parties expected the merger to be done). If MS quits before that date, they "only" have to pay 2 billion. If the provisional findings from the CMA are really negative, that's a serious possibility.

If the decision is positive and the remedies reasonable, I think that MS will extend the outside date to April 18th 2023.

March 1st 2023

This is when the CMA has to publish the final report (final version of the draft from January after the feedback from the parties). If the decision is negative for MS, I think that the deal is done. If it's positive and they can close the deal there, even with concessions, they'll keep going on.

April 11th 2023

This is when the European Commission has to publish a decision about the case. But it could happen sooner if the remedies offered by MS solve all the concerns that the EC may have. In fact, I think that MS is going to push really hard to close the EC before the end of 2022.

If MS doesn't accelerate the process, and the decision from the CMA is positive in March, I think that they'll wait until this moment to get the deal approved in Europe.

April 18th 2023 (termination fee $2,500,000,000)

The end of the first extension of the original outside date.

By then they should know the outcomes from the CMA and EC. If the CMA has been negative and they expect something similar from the EC, I think that they'll quit before that date.

If by then both the EC and CMA have approved the deal, from then the FTC is going to be the main goal.

April - May 2023

The decision from China should happen around those dates. If MS is still pushing and both the CMA and EC went ahead with the deal, the most likely scenario is that SAMR goes ahead too.

July 18th 2023 (termination fee $3,000,000,000)

The end of the second extension and final outside date in the merger agreement. If by then the CMA, EC and SMAR have approved the deal, I think that the parties will renegotiate the outside date to have enough time to go against the FTC. That should add at least an extra year.

August 2nd 2023

This is when the FTC has scheduled its in-house trial to begin, but if MS can close the deal in Europe or UK before that date, this is likely to change and it could happen earlier and maybe in federal court because then the parties could close the deal.

It could also change depending on the outcome from two cases in the Supreme Court and even the outcome from the Meta - Within case.

Lots of IFs in this case.

Early 2024

If the deal is approved in UK and Europe, but MS has to wait until the finish line in every case and for some reason the beginning of the FTC in-house trial hasn't changed, early 2024 is when the FTC Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell would likely put a decision :s

After that, Microsoft or the FTC could appeal his ruling to the agency's commissioners. And after that MS or the FTC could go to federal court. :p That could be around the end of 2024, early 2025.

I don't think that MS/ABK would wait until then, but it's a possibility right now.

---

So, now I think that MS will try to fast track the decision from the EU while they finish the review process with the CMA until provisional findings in January 2023.

If both outcomes are positive (specially the CMA), they'll go ahead and the FTC scenario will probably accelerate. If both outcomes are negative (specially the CMA), the deal will be abandoned as soon as January 2023 or as late as April 2023.
 
Last edited:
twilo99 said:
Not on gamepass which I already pay for.

Microsoft is trying to give me more for my money, and instead I gotta pay $70 for CoD because Sony needs to be protected.
Click to expand...

You can't seriously think MS is trying to "give you more for your money" on the long run. That's so naive and short-sighted.

Every monopoly, every corporation getting a huge share of the market has always ended with higher prices and / or lower quality for the consumers. We should all fight concentration, not praise it.

They're here to make money like every corp ever. They're not your friend.
 
Thirty7ven said:
Your constant conflation with third party deals and buying publishers wholesale is also just myopic as fuck so I'm done arguing with you.
Click to expand...

Me when someone conflates a marketing deal for timed content, a practice Microsoft introduced with GTA, with buying a publisher outright

E80jnY.gif


There are people who are genuinely interested in this merger and others who just came to cheerlead their favourite piece of plastic. Which is why you'll find people trying to qualify false equivalencies.
 
Warablo said:
If Bernie only knew who raised the prices first because of market position.

Also how is Microsoft suppose to get games on Game Pass if Sony is now actively paying devs not to.
Click to expand...
He's not aware of the dynamics of this industry and is defaulting to typical progressive anti-monopolistic practices that I often agree with. In this case though he's wrong. Sony is so dominant that almost no one can enter the gaming industry successfully as a console provider besides someone as rich as MS. There will not be other companies able to compete; even Apple and Google. Sub services like GP are even more difficult to enter into and require even more capital. Nintendo still fluctuates between dominant and on the ropes from generation to generation as well. Add to that, Series S and GP both being cost-saving measures for consumers, let alone the ability to play cloud without a console at all if you choose. He's just way off. I agree with him on a lot, but not this one.
 
Pelta88 said:
Looks like someone isn't aware of how current marketing deals in the console space began. But that's ok lol.
Click to expand...

Does it matter? It has been a thing for so long that I see no merit to the whole "who started it" argument regardless of who it was.
 
Thirty7ven said:
Not even going to bother with the rest, Sony got their rewards but they still committed to a risk. Your constant conflation with third party deals and buying publishers wholesale is also just myopic as fuck so I'm done arguing with you.

The only reason you're a Xbox fan is because of the 360.
Click to expand...
Respectfully sir, Sony just bought a publisher this year to absolutely no contest in the industry. Nintendo did not come out and said "We will never be able to catch up with Sony because they already have third party deals on games that don't even come to our devices and now they're buying publishers". Neither did YOU make that argument but correct me if I'm wrong.
Your reasoning basically amounts to the following:
Sony gives the measure of the size of what's an acceptable deal in this industry. Only Sony. Sony bought Bungie, so Microsoft is allowed to buy a publisher the size of Bungie because it's "comparable". MS cannot buy ABK because it's bigger than anything Sony ever bought. We have to ask Sony if it's fair first. But Sony is allowed to buy whatever they can afford.
Then you go on about how people who disagree with that are fanboys because of the 360. Get some self awareness please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
‘Microsoft’ said they were streamlining 9000 people across XGS/ABK/ZM
Rumor 
19
533
Topher replied
Microsoft wins FTC appeal challenging $69 billion Activision Blizzard deal
News Business  2 3
125
4K
Unknown? replied
MS/ABK is advertising games that don't exist for data collection
46
3K
POKEYCLYDE replied
My apologies to Ubisoft, Sony, Activision, EA, MS etc. for making a big deal out of $70 games
2 3 4
156
8K
MDSLKTR replied
Battlefield 6 Beta |OT| Open Beta/Closed Weapons.
|OT|  63 64 65 66 67
3K
9K
bighugeguns replied
Top Bottom