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.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...or-call-of-duty-includes-subscription-service (probably already posted)

"In a bid to win regulatory approval for its $69 billion purchase of Activision Blizzard Inc., Microsoft Corp. has offered rival Sony Group Corp. the right to sell Activision blockbuster Call of Duty as part of its gaming subscription service.
Microsoft has publicly stated that it offered Sony a 10-year deal to make Call of Duty available on the Japanese company's PlayStation console. The proposal, which Sony hasn't accepted, also includes rights to sell the title on the PlayStation Plus service, which gives gamers access to a catalog of games for a monthly fee, according to a person familiar with the negotiations who declined to be identified because the talks are confidential."

All I can get for free from Bloomberg, I'm honestly surprised to see Microsoft would be willing to offer call of duty on a competing service to game pass. (Then again, they would get paid for it)

Guess they really want that mobile market and it isn't all about cod like many here believe.
 
anthony2690 said:
All I can get for free from Bloomberg, I'm honestly surprised to see Microsoft would be willing to offer call of duty on a competing service to game pass. (Then again, they would get paid for it)
Click to expand...

Despite what people want to think, COD has been a GaaS for a long time. The boxed copy is nothing, the money comes in skin purchases (like Fortnite) and the seasonal battlepass sales.
 
ManaByte said:
Despite what people want to think, COD has been a GaaS for a long time. The boxed copy is nothing, the money comes in skin purchases (like Fortnite) and the seasonal battlepass sales.
Click to expand...
I honestly thought they wanted COD to bolster game pass subscribers, as it's a yearly release too. (Obviously my line off thinking was wrong too)

& You're right, I never thought about it like that, I guess the same could be said about FIFA too.

But 20 million+ people that are willingly dropping $60/70 for your game is a big chunk to suddenly lose out on.

Then again if your game is free, it is more accessible to millions more people who will probably play it with friends etc
 
Warablo said:
Sony just wanted this to take as long as possible, that is why they didn't accept any deal.
Click to expand...
MS did this to themselves. MS really wanted to see what they can get away with pretending this is all about mobile and offered no concessions or expected none for what they actually wanted this for until the final hour when regulators saw right through them. If you wanted King you could have bought them without a problem. If you didn't want to take CoD away you could have put in proposals even in phase 1, and concessions to FTC much earlier. They only started that when they realised it wasn't going through.
 
Three said:
MS did this to themselves. MS really wanted to see what they can get away with pretending this is all about mobile and offered no concessions or expected none for what they actually wanted this for until the final hour when regulators saw right through them. If you wanted King you could have bought them without a problem. If you didn't want to take CoD away you could have put in proposals even in phase 1, and concessions to FTC much earlier. They only started that when they realised it wasn't going through.
Click to expand...

You don't know if King was suggested as being sold as a separate entity so probably not really viable. ABK isn't selling cause they want to - but because they need to. They're not in a good place so the conclusion if not sold could be splitting things off or cancelling projects/developers. Don't know if bankruptcy is in the cards, but possibly.
 
akimbo009 said:
You don't know if King was suggested as being sold as a separate entity so probably not really viable. ABK isn't selling cause they want to - but because they need to. They're not in a good place so the conclusion if not sold could be splitting things off or cancelling projects/developers. Don't know if bankruptcy is in the cards, but possibly.
Click to expand...

You cannot be serious...
 
akimbo009 said:
Don't know if bankruptcy is in the cards, but possibly.
Click to expand...

dNTdCCc.gif
 
GHG said:
You cannot be serious...
Click to expand...

Not their first time they've been over-indebted. They're rather flat on revenue, and fairly high debt against that. I'm sure they'll be OK, but generally companies don't put themselves up to sale if they aren't dealing with a lot of internal/macro pressures.
 
akimbo009 said:
Not their first time they've been over-indebted. They're rather flat on revenue, and fairly high debt against that. I'm sure they'll be OK, but generally companies don't put themselves up to sale if they aren't dealing with a lot of internal/macro pressures.
Click to expand...

They can pay off all their debt within 2 years (if that) with their current FCF. Over-indebted :messenger_tears_of_joy:

When a publicly traded company get offered more money than they're actually worth, yes they're going to sell
 
Last edited:
feynoob said:
It was part of the 10 year deal.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a bad deal to me. For MS, not Sony, unless the ABK deal really was about King all along. Allowing CoD to stay multiplat post-merger is a great thing for the consumer but allowing it on PS+ as well as Game Pass kind of shoots GP in the foot. CoD on Game Pass would be an enormous system seller.
 
Three said:
MS did this to themselves. MS really wanted to see what they can get away with pretending this is all about mobile and offered no concessions or expected none for what they actually wanted this for until the final hour when regulators saw right through them. If you wanted King you could have bought them without a problem. If you didn't want to take CoD away you could have put in proposals even in phase 1, and concessions to FTC much earlier. They only started that when they realised it wasn't going through.
Click to expand...
Why would they offer concessions at the beginning? Isn't this a capitalist society? If they have a position of strength, why wouldn't they use it? Would Sony have done the same? Give me a break. People act as though MS (or ANY company) shouldn't buy anything that they can profit off, or use to bolster their own unique offerings? That's the entire point of acquiring almost anything. And if they see a point in changing that direction, to sustain profitability or user growth, they're entirely free to do so.

People like you and these regulators seem to think MS owes you something. They owe you nothing; no company does. They give you a service/product, and in exchange, you give them your money for it. That's called commerce, and it's not a unique expectation to MS. Guess who's extremely good at practicing that model, especially as it concerns exclusivity? SONY! And they've done this for decades. The ENTIRE console industry is built on exclusivity. That's how it started. You wanted Atari games? Buy an Atari. You want Sega games? Buy a Sega console! You want PS games? Get a PlayStation. There is NO way to play Sony games without a PS, up until recently. That was the case for decades... Same goes for Nintendo. In fact, until late, MS was the only console manufacturer who you could get their games on other platforms, mostly PC. Whether they had to do that to survive, or chose to do that, doesn't matter. The point is, they do it...and they're the only ones who did it, until Sony RECENTLY stepped foot into that market.

I truly wonder if these regulators know this? They know that the console business is built on exclusivity, right? From inception! That's always been the case. Sure, there are independent companies that are multiplatform, but that's because they're their own companies - they don't belong to Sony, or Nintendo, or MS. As such, they're privy to some flexibility and can negotiate or determine the points of sale that they want/desire. And even then, exclusivity is still purchased through various deals, from both Sony and MS, which is nothing new.

All this blowback MS is getting, for something that has been video game culture, for years, is absolutely absurd to me... Over some freaking video games. This industry is one of the most competitive in the consumer market. Even with market leaders like Sony and Nintendo, there is so much room for competition and growth. Hit games can come out of nowhere, from small teams, to a single person in a basement, to large corporations like Sony/MS/Nintendo/Capcom/Epic/Take Two, etc.

Yes, large buyouts like this need to be scrutinized. I'm not saying it shouldn't. However, it cannot be scrutinized in a vacuum, disregarding the business/industry's culture, market, consumer demand, options for growth and through a biased lens, or ANY lens that seeks to protect a corporations interests, much less the market leader. You're (Sony) is the market leader for a reason. It does what it does well. It does it extremely well. Sony doesn't need protection from anyone, at this point. You want to compete, then compete and Sony are more than equipped to do so, even if Activision/Blizzard were to fall under the MS umbrella.
 
Three said:
Geforce Now, PS+ Premium. That was easy.
Click to expand...
If those services allow you to play their games without purchasing their hardware good. Even less complaining about MS being a monopoly with Game pass then.

Three said:
Yes you can buy games to play the games that run on the windows PCs that make 95% of the market for games, how great and altruistic.
Click to expand...
The argument was MS was forcing customers to buy their hardware to play their games. Glad you realize that is nonsense.

bentanchorbolt said:
Sounds like a bad deal to me. For MS, not Sony, unless the ABK deal really was about King all along. Allowing CoD to stay multiplat post-merger is a great thing for the consumer but allowing it on PS+ as well as Game Pass kind of shoots GP in the foot. CoD on Game Pass would be an enormous system seller.
Click to expand...
Sony won't get this for free though. MS certainly isn' t.
 
Last edited:
Thirty7ven said:
Netflix remains a really bad comparison. They got where they are by licensing and then hard investment on original content.

They did not purchase big movie studios. Netflix is a poster child for innovation not consolidation.
Click to expand...

What about Disney plus?

One of the biggest and lateest to gain considerable subs ina a short time frame. Probably the number 1 competitor to Netflix.
 
Last edited:
I know it was/is small money ($70b) to MSFT going by their earnings and market cap at the time they went forward with this deal, and I suspect the few billion in penalty they would have to pay Activision was equally nothing to them too, but as the world economic situation continues to unfold, I do wonder at what market cap drop their bigger shareholders would decide to voice their opinion about that $70b, and maybe suggest they cancel the deal and buy back shares with the billions, if that cash in relative terms presumably becomes more valuable to MSFT- than it was - as their market cap declines.

I always felt from the start that the CMA would want to block this deal, but the longer it is drawn out in an economic downturn the more I think MSFT might just walk away from it,
 
bentanchorbolt said:
Sounds like a bad deal to me. For MS, not Sony, unless the ABK deal really was about King all along. Allowing CoD to stay multiplat post-merger is a great thing for the consumer but allowing it on PS+ as well as Game Pass kind of shoots GP in the foot. CoD on Game Pass would be an enormous system seller.
Click to expand...
Well if mobile is the main motivator for the purchase, i'm sure they will be ok with it right?
AnimatedYearlyHornbill-size_restricted.gif
 
PaintTinJr said:
I know it was/is small money ($70b) to MSFT going by their earnings and market cap at the time they went forward with this deal, and I suspect the few billion in penalty they would have to pay Activision was equally nothing to them too, but as the world economic situation continues to unfold, I do wonder at what market cap drop their bigger shareholders would decide to voice their opinion about that $70b, and maybe suggest they cancel the deal and buy back shares with the billions, if that cash in relative terms presumably becomes more valuable to MSFT- than it was - as their market cap declines.

I always felt from the start that the CMA would want to block this deal, but the longer it is drawn out in an economic downturn the more I think MSFT might just walk away from it,
Click to expand...
they won't walk away from it
 
The talent and creativity they have could of invested in way earlier with not even half that amount even before Xbox One arrived that could of helped avoid the first party criticism they get these days, it saddens me.

And people saying all this has played a part in their no show at the game awards then proceed to discuss the possibility of a January showcase. FFS.

This shit is just going to drag on and on.
 
Topher said:
Nope. I'm just reading the words exactly as they said in their entirety. Seems pretty simple to understand and if you got to write a book to make it say what you want it to say then that's a problem.
Click to expand...

As I said, ignoring what is written exactly 2 pages later in the same decision. Now I know I can add you the ignore list. There's conversation and then there's trolling.
 
jm89 said:
Well if mobile is the main motivator for the purchase, i'm sure they will be ok with it right?
AnimatedYearlyHornbill-size_restricted.gif
Click to expand...
No idea. Either way MS will make good money in the long run but I would think a deal like this would to growing Game Pass, but I don't know. As long as the deal goes through and I can get more games through sub, it makes no mind to me.
 
bentanchorbolt said:
No idea. Either way MS will make good money in the long run but I would think a deal like this would to growing Game Pass, but I don't know. As long as the deal goes through and I can get more games through sub, it makes no mind to me.
Click to expand...

It's not COD that animates GP alone. If it was - yeah - it would be weird but I actually think MS would be smart to come to terms with COD on PS+ or anywhere. Thing is a monster, and picks up DLC/micro-transactions like crazy along with whatever licensing terms they'd get paid. But that agreement doesn't seem to apply to the other ABK games - including Blizzard which - yeah - do make needle moving games (entire Blizzard back catalog on GP...? That's pretty huge.)
 
oldergamer said:
they won't walk away from it
Click to expand...
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but IIRC the deal has to be approved in the UK, EU and US by next year some time from the offer they made to Activision, else the deal won't conclude and they will pay a penalty for it, which going by the FTC lawsuit and phase 1 noises from the CMA and EC that deadline will not be met, as they are now fighting for the deal on three fronts.

At the point the offer date passes, I assume MSFT would need to reconfirm the offer and another penalty offered for a new time table. If that is the scenario doubling down, verse walking away with most of the cash offer - where that money relative to MSFT's market cap has doubled - I'm not convinced they would just keep going. I suspect if their market cap falls below $1trillion they will withdraw to buy back shares, just because of the stature of being able to say they are $1trillion company
 
Last edited:
akimbo009 said:
It's not COD that animates GP alone. If it was - yeah - it would be weird but I actually think MS would be smart to come to terms with COD on PS+ or anywhere. Thing is a monster, and picks up DLC/micro-transactions like crazy along with whatever licensing terms they'd get paid. But that agreement doesn't seem to apply to the other ABK games - including Blizzard which - yeah - do make needle moving games (entire Blizzard back catalog on GP...? That's pretty huge.)
Click to expand...
Those are good points. Blizzard catalogue on PC Game Pass would 100% drive subs through the roof.
 
SenjutsuSage said:
As I said, ignoring what is written exactly 2 pages later in the same decision. Now I know I can add you the ignore list. There's conversation and then there's trolling.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You are conflating the EU decision with Microsoft's submission. You want to pretend this is all in one document, but it is not.

This.....

(107) The Notifying Party submits that Microsoft has strong incentives to continue making ZeniMax games available for rival consoles (and their related storefronts).105

is in here:

The rest of the stuff you are drawing out is from here:
 
anthony2690 said:
What/who are they? I assumed it would be a gaming company?


Whatever happened to Mr Layden? I also thought he was a fairly likable representative for playstation, he seemed like someone who played their games too, was pretty cool when he talked about vib ribbon :)
Click to expand...
He's a strategic advisor for Tencent currently.
 
anthony2690 said:
What/who are they? I assumed it would be a gaming company?


Whatever happened to Mr Layden? I also thought he was a fairly likable representative for playstation, he seemed like someone who played their games too, was pretty cool when he talked about vib ribbon :)
Click to expand...

I'm not the biggest Sony guy but I quite liked him. Certainly knew how to cater to the core players of the platform .
 
Last edited:
anthony2690 said:
I'm honestly surprised to see Microsoft would be willing to offer call of duty on a competing service to game pass
Click to expand...
I mean, they did for Deathloop and Skyrim.
anthony2690 said:
Whatever happened to Mr Layden? I also thought he was a fairly likable representative for playstation, he seemed like someone who played their games too, was pretty cool when he talked about vib ribbon :)
Click to expand...
he promised vib-ribbon for PS4 8 years ago, but that never came to fruition, so fuck him.
 
nial said:
I mean, they did for Deathloop and Skyrim.

he promised vib-ribbon for PS4 8 years ago, but that never came to fruition, so fuck him.
Click to expand...
But Skyrim and deathloop are not really service pushing games.

Where as cod is huge even to a very casual audience.

& That is disappointing that Vib Ribbon never came to fruition, I remember it quite fondly, wonder how it holds up now though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Microsoft wins FTC appeal challenging $69 billion Activision Blizzard deal
News Business  2 3
125
659
Unknown? replied
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
7K
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
19K
GateofD replied
Top Bottom