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.
feynoob said:
Google, apple, Facebook, Amazon, tencent are eyeing on this deal.
Click to expand...
Yeah they are, and it's why I chuckled when people championed Meta of all corps for backing this, lol. Meta, some political line drawn people who loathe Meta and all they stand for, cheered them on it for a short bit... the brand love is strong.

Meta or Google swallowing one of the big 4 if this goes through.

Ryan Reynolds Want GIF
 
phil_t98 said:
then what's all the stiffen here saying the FTC saying that they went back on an EU agreement? been in work all day so missed most of this
Click to expand...

One of Microsoft's arguments they made to the EU was that they have little incentive to engage in exclusivity. They're not calling them out for breaking any promises or agreements. It's about what they said and what they actually did, irrespective of whether the EU actually cared or not.
 
Last edited:
intheinbetween said:
MS won't be giving away anything, they would include ABK portfolio to the Game Pass library, but Game Pass isn't for free, it's a paid service and it has a cost. You can't expect MS to agree on concessions such as giving away CoD or any other ABK titles for free just because Sony says so, or in order to satisfy them, it makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...

GamePass isn't free for consumers, but how would a new competitor effectively compete with GamePass when COD is included for 'free' every year? That is what the CMA are currently mulling. GamePass is the issue in terms of being anti-competitive.
Microsoft are already making moves to try and dilute Sony's takings from COD by pledging it to be on more platforms.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but GamePass is the issue.
 
MisterXDTV said:
IF it gets approved, a BIG IF now...
Click to expand...
FTC isn't the one who decides it. It's CMA.
FTC argument can be countered.
Their goal is to delay the deal, since MS and Activision have a limited time for their negotiation of this deal. It's why they chose august 2023.
 
Hero of Spielberg said:
I think they're saying although there was no agreement, MS are going against their word.
Click to expand...

THIS

If there was a SIGNED obligation for Microsoft and Microsoft didn't comply then EU would have challenged Microsoft in court for Zenimax as well

Still it's clear their actions were against their word

Starfield became exclusive as soon as the deal passed
 
Last edited:
phil_t98 said:
if the FTC are quoting something then surely there has to be more than he said they said because Microsoft ca just say we didn't say that
Click to expand...
FTC is quoting what MS had said. It just wasn't contingent on the EU's ruling with Zenimax.

FTC is using it to show that MS says one thing, and does another, and they feel the same will happen with Activision. Basically, "their word isn't good enough for us."
 
Last edited:
feynoob said:
Eso and fo76 are ongoing Bethesda games.
Bethesda games that are released on PS won't be pulled away from PS store. They will be available for sale.
Click to expand...
This is not about pulling existing games. I'm not sure why you are reading "Zenimax games" as preexisting bethesda games but you only need to look at the argument being made to realise this isn't what they are talking about. Pulling old games isn't even "implausible" due to profitability at all especially when referring to "the life cycle of the newly released console generation".

The person who contacted the EU regulators (who he calls watchdogs) on behalf of that site seems confused about "the lie". The EU came to the conclusion that the games Zenimax had did not pose an input foreclosure risk and made no concessions for Zenimax games (future and present). It means that MS had the right to not make Zenimax games (future or present) available on PS5 outside of existing contracts. This doesn't mean that there wasn't "a lie" by the notifying party that such a scenario was implausible when it wasn't.
 
Last edited:
DeepEnigma said:
FTC is quoting what MS had said. It just wasn't contingent on the EU's ruling with Zenimax.

FTC is using it to show that MS says one thing, and does another, and they feel the same will happen with Activision. Basically, "their word isn't good enough for us."
Click to expand...

get that totally but surely a court would want some kind of written evidence of such a statement wouldn't they?
 
I just can't get over how bad Phil has performed here.
  • In 2018-2020, T-Mobile was allowed to "merge" with Sprint, using largely the same logic that Microsoft attempted to use here.
    • You can try to say that happened because Trump was pro-biz, but that's a lazy analysis which overlooks the DoJ going after AT&T/Time Warner (despite considerable lobbying efforts).
The difference between Phil Spencer and John Legere (the CEO of T-Mobile who steered that deal to completion) is night and fucking day.

Phil needs to do the Xbox brand a favor and retire.
 
Last edited:
phil_t98 said:
if the FTC are quoting something then surely there has to be more than he said they said because Microsoft ca just say we didn't say that
Click to expand...

Tbh I think if it was important enough then it would have been included as part of the agreement rather than a note in the findings.

But then again, it seems as others have said the FTC suing is more dogmatic / political than genuine concern about the impact this deal would have on the gaming industry.
 
Hero of Spielberg said:
Tbh I think if it was important enough then it would have been included as part of the agreement rather than a note in the findings.

But then again, it seems as others have said the FTC suing is more dogmatic / political than genuine concern about the impact this deal would have on the gaming industry.
Click to expand...
This part I agree with. Especially seeing the career parasite proponents coming out to latch onto it.

Wish it were more genuine of the checks and balances they were supposed to be.
 
Seems weird they are referencing Zenimax when they should be looking to see if the current deal is a monopoly or not. Do these regulators not know why people buy game devs? To make games for their platform.
 
Three said:
This is not about pulling existing games. I'm not sure why you are reading "Zenimax games" as preexisting bethesda games but you only need to look at the argument being made to realise this isn't what they are talking about. Pulling old games isn't even "implausible" due to profitability at all especially when referring to "the life cycle of the newly released console generation".

The person who contacted the EU regulators (who he calls watchdogs) on behalf of that site seems confused about "the lie". The EU came to the conclusion that the games Zenimax had did not pose an input foreclosure risk and made no concessions for Zenimax games (future and present). It means that MS had the right to not make Zenimax games (future or present) available on PS5 outside of existing contracts. This doesn't mean that there wasn't "a lie" by the notifying party that such a scenario was implausible when it wasn't.
Click to expand...
Current games and existing contract games are up for sale, and cant be pulled down from other stores.
Future games are case by case, which is covered by 108 and 109. If they are approved for other stores, 107 would be applied here. If not, 107 would not be applied.

For example, IF MS sees that ES6 cant hit the target for new userbase, and decided to put the game on PS, it has to be the same version as Xbox version. MS cant give PS a degraded content, as that violates the agreement rule with EU.

MS isnt lying here. They are doing what they agreed with EU.
 
Last edited:
Banjo64 said:
This last few pages has been a fantastic case study on people that don't read source material, misinterpret the English language and actively seek out confirmation bias.

Painful reading. Can't wait for this to be over.
Click to expand...

Don't worry. Once the PlayStation Nation has destroyed Xbox we plan to establish mandatory training camps focused on the development of English skills.
 
Last edited:
Warablo said:
Seems weird they are referencing Zenimax when they should be looking to see if the current deal is a monopoly or not. Do these regulators not know why people buy game devs? To make games for their platform.
Click to expand...

FTC's arguments for the lawsuit are flimsy, it will need to be a very favorable judge for them to hold in the courts.
 
Warablo said:
Seems weird they are referencing Zenimax when they should be looking to see if the current deal is a monopoly or not. Do these regulators not know why people buy game devs? To make games for their platform.
Click to expand...
It does not have to be a "monopoly" to be industry shaping and the fallout that goes along with it with other players and remaining big pubs.
 
Warablo said:
Seems weird they are referencing Zenimax when they should be looking to see if the current deal is a monopoly or not. Do these regulators not know why people buy game devs? To make games for their platform.
Click to expand...
Zenimax is a recent purchase. Regulators would need to look for that purchase too.

MS actions depends on how they handled zenimax deal.
 
Banjo64 said:
This last few pages has been a fantastic case study on people that don't read source material, misinterpret the English language and actively seek out confirmation bias.

Painful reading. Can't wait for this to be over.
Click to expand...
Its a case of read more, to get the clear picture.

If you focus on that part, you wont understand the entire situation, and will form your own opinion based on that info. But if you read more, you will understand the whole pcture.

English isnt my first language, so its hard to put it out in clear sentence.
 
feynoob said:
Its a case of read more, to get the clear picture.

If you focus on that part, you wont understand the entire situation, and will form your own opinion based on that info. But if you read more, you will understand the whole pcture.

English isnt my first language, so its hard to put it out in clear sentence.
Click to expand...
I wasn't talking about you.

And I appreciate that English isn't your first language, although I must say you speak it fantastically (y)
 
StealthGoblin said:
GamePass isn't free for consumers, but how would a new competitor effectively compete with GamePass when COD is included for 'free' every year? That is what the CMA are currently mulling. GamePass is the issue in terms of being anti-competitive.
Microsoft are already making moves to try and dilute Sony's takings from COD by pledging it to be on more platforms.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but GamePass is the issue.
Click to expand...

How did MS enter the console industry? With money, any company that wants to succeed in the gaming space needs most of all money, a long-term plan of execution and be ready to eat loses.

MS made the decision to invest heavily on cloud services, and they included gaming as a service. Sony invested some money by acquiring Gaikai but they didn't think cloud services were going to have a significant impact and almost left it to die, on the other hand MS developed Game Pass and today seems to be a key point in this deal.

MS is not the only big company that invested in this typenof service, EA, Ubi, Google and Amazon did, has any of those complained about Game Pass? Not that I recall.
 
Last edited:
adamsapple said:
FTC's arguments for the lawsuit are flimsy, it will need to be a very favorable judge for them to hold in the courts.
Click to expand...

That will be the real deciding factor in the US/UK/EU, not the initial opinions but whether or not those opinions can stand up to the mathematical absolutes of the situation brought forward by the legal process. Will be interesting to see. I really didn't think the FTC would be a party they would be fighting with, I figured they'd be challenging the UK/EU positions. That Lina Khan is a feisty one I guess.
 
Warablo said:
Seems weird they are referencing Zenimax when they should be looking to see if the current deal is a monopoly or not. Do these regulators not know why people buy game devs? To make games for their platform.
Click to expand...
They shouldn't be looking at if the current deal is a monopoly. They rarely do. They look at whether it harms competition to prevent a monopoly in the future.

They are referencing the Zenimax case because MS did not offer them concessions for Activision . MS are suggesting that they have no reason to pull CoD from PS because they would lose money. The FTC do not buy that argument and are referencing the same argument they made during the Zenimax purchase which they turned back on because their argument wasn't true. They are trying to call MS out to show that they can do the same here with Activison. That their argument of pulling that content not being plausible doesn't hold water.
 
DaGwaphics said:
That will be the real deciding factor in the US/UK/EU, not the initial opinions but whether or not those opinions can stand up to the mathematical absolutes of the situation brought forward by the legal process. Will be interesting to see. I really didn't think the FTC would be a party they would be fighting with, I figured they'd be challenging the UK/EU positions. That Lina Khan is a feisty one I guess.
Click to expand...

Hoeg's latest video on this is very long, but he does a good job breaking down a lot of the arguments like FTC completely ignoring Nintendo in their findings, their terrible definition of what an AAA game is etc etc.
 
Banjo64 said:
This last few pages has been a fantastic case study on people that don't read source material, misinterpret the English language and actively seek out confirmation bias.

Painful reading. Can't wait for this to be over.
Click to expand...

I'm just scrolling from top to bottom seeking some articles and Twitter posts as they're usually something meaningful, and the little I saw from some members is honestly worrying. They go above and beyond to defend their claims even when presented with proof. I wish there was some addon to filter these posts. People are writing for 200+ pages. They out more time into this than Spencer and Ryan do.
 
adamsapple said:
Hoeg's latest video on this is very long, but he does a good job breaking down a lot of the arguments like FTC completely ignoring Nintendo in their findings, their terrible definition of what an AAA game is etc etc.
Click to expand...

They didn't ignore them. They recognized they cater to a different market of games even if Hoeg doesn't want to accept such an obvious fact
 
Warablo said:
Seems weird they are referencing Zenimax when they should be looking to see if the current deal is a monopoly or not. Do these regulators not know why people buy game devs? To make games for their platform.
Click to expand...

I think many people are missing the point.

Microsoft is saying they have no plans to remove Call of Duty from PlayStation. So if you tell EU regulators you have no plans to remove Redfall and Starfield from rival consoles and then they suddenly end up "Exclusive" after the deal is complete, then what is the FTC going to think about what MS is saying about Call of Duty remaining on PlayStation?

Microsoft was never obligated to release those games on other platforms, but if Microsoft goes to the media and tells everyone they want all gamers to play COD and have no plans to remove it from PlayStation, then what do you think the FTC is going to feel?
 
adamsapple said:
Hoeg's latest video on this is very long, but he does a good job breaking down a lot of the arguments like FTC completely ignoring Nintendo in their findings, their terrible definition of what an AAA game is etc etc.
Click to expand...
I only made it an hour into this video, this "lawyer" is extremely biased/opinionated and tends to fit the law to his point of view. Wouldn't use his opinions as legal fact if I were searching for a honest assessment of the legality on this one.

Edited to add: Also that Watchdog statement is just that. It is not official at this point in time.
 
Last edited:
DForce said:
I think many people are missing the point.

Microsoft is saying they have no plans to remove Call of Duty from PlayStation. So if you tell EU regulators you have no plans to remove Redfall and Starfield from rival consoles and then they suddenly end up "Exclusive" after the deal is complete, then what is the FTC going to think about what MS is saying about Call of Duty remaining on PlayStation?

Microsoft was never obligated to release those games on other platforms, but if Microsoft goes to the media and tells everyone they want all gamers to play COD and have no plans to remove it from PlayStation, then what do you think the FTC is going to feel?
Click to expand...

The middle part of your post is made up of a complete hypothetical that never happened. The EU responded that no such commitment was made or required.

This is a completely different case now where preemptive guaranteed are being made.

Not wise to correlate the two at all.
 
Ass of Can Whooping said:
They didn't ignore them. They recognized they cater to a different market of games even if Hoeg doesn't want to accept such an obvious fact
Click to expand...

By using an arbitrary " high quality console " label they have effectively excluded Nintendo.

That's an argument that shouldn't hold in any court at all. Nintendo's consoles are arguably more high quality than the competition as they always have some of the best reviewed and selling games.

OsirisBlack said:
I only made it an hour into this video, this "lawyer" is extremely biased/opinionated and tends to fit the law to his point of view. Wouldn't use his opinions as legal fact if I were searching for a honest assessment of the legality on this one.

Edited to add: Also that Watchdog statement is just that. It is not official at this point in time.
Click to expand...

The statement is as official, until they respond to someone else, as it gets for now.

Other sources have asked them for further comment so we may know more soon enough.
 
adamsapple said:
The middle part of your post is made up of a complete hypothetical that never happened. The EU responded that no such commitment was made or required.

This is a completely different case now where preemptive guaranteed are being made.

Not wise to correlate the two at all.
Click to expand...

I said they were NEVER obligated to release those games on other platforms, thus no commitment.

DForce said:
Microsoft was never obligated to release those games on other platforms, but if Microsoft goes to the media and tells everyone they want all gamers to play COD and have no plans to remove it from PlayStation, then what do you think the FTC is going to feel
Click to expand...

Do you think the FTC (or anyone for that matter) is going to take Microsoft seriously when they say, "we have no plans to remove Call of Duty from PlayStation?"

The answer is no.
 
Is the source for the lying accusation from era? Cause that dude who said it is looking like a hit and run expert stirring the pot.
 
adamsapple said:
By using an arbitrary " high quality console " label they have effectively excluded Nintendo.

That's an argument that shouldn't hold in any court at all. Nintendo's consoles are arguably more high quality than the competition as they always have some of the best reviewed and selling games.
Click to expand...

That's all fine except not what the FTC said at all. Is that what Hoeg said?
 
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