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.
Ghost of Caelid said:
All executives lie, scratch that...all people in power lie. Don't love any of them. They only care about their bottom line...$$$


I'll do some digging and find the FTC head saying "muhahaha, sony will be protected at all cost" since you want a particular source and not the fact that the regulatory bodies are going out of their way to protect competition in a field where one company dominates and no one else has an issue with said acquisition, because only one company would suffer minorly from said purchase.
Click to expand...
So, conjecture. Got it.
 
Topher said:
I don't think the gaming industry as a whole is going to see it that way. And they shouldn't. You say don't love them, but you are willing to give them all a pass so you the result is the same. That doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Thankfully, I personally believe Phil Spencer has more integrity than that and will honor his public committments.
Click to expand...
I'm only content with their production as long as the product they provide is to my liking. Phil obviously is like any other businessman but he does game and uses his learned business skill to provide a product I enjoy. I don't love him or hate him, can only be neutral or dislike when it comes to people in position of power. I'm neutral on him.

Swift_Star said:
Source that Sony is being protected? Do you have any evidence beyond conjecture?
Click to expand...
By definition, if the regulatory is designed to protect competition, it is there to protect sony. In this case for me it seems they are only trying to protect sony.
 
Three said:
The argument was that MS is taking third party IPs away to force people into their ecosystem. They are forcing people to buy their hardware or use their service to access the games. A service that they now say is pretty useless and inefficient so nobody uses it apparently.
Click to expand...
That argument is complete nonsense. There is an almost unlimited number of third party games and MS hardly has a monopoly on access to 3rd or 1st party IP. If you do happen to want to play IP MS owns there are numerous ways to access it without needing to buy their hardware and in some cases that IP is published on platforms they don't own as well. No other platform holder allows that sort of access to their content.
Ghost of Caelid said:
Has a market leader ever been protected like Sony currently is being by the regulation bodies? This is seeming a bit silly at this point.
Click to expand...
It's even worse because MS has to be the only company that is complained about being a monopoly yet being in third place. For the regulators to focus on the last place competitor is pretty funny. Xbox the third place monopolist.
 
DeepEnigma said:
Or Tencent, or even Meta. Careful what you wish for, gamers. This would have a monkey's paw effect.
Click to expand...
I still want the deal to go through, but my reasons are just so all my friends have the same games as me on game pass. (Mainly for diablo 4, what I'm super pumped for)

I don't care for the point scoring that some users do.
 
DeepEnigma said:
Or Tencent, or even Meta. Careful what you wish for, gamers. This would have a monkey's paw effect.
Click to expand...

I was watching Sacred Symbols and it was funny watching Chris who apparently is really more of an Xbox/PC gamer than anything else parrot the idea that a) AB has to be sold (bs) b) MS is the least harmful poison when in fact if you allow MS to buy AB of all companies then you open the floodgates for extreme consolidation because it will be an unbeatable precedent.
 
anthony2690 said:
I still want the deal to go through, but my reasons are just so all my friends have the same games as me on game pass. (Mainly for diablo 4, what I'm super pumped for)

I don't care for the point scoring that some users do.
Click to expand...

But MS could just cough up the money and pay AB to put those games on gamepass. Unfortunately that would only drive subscription numbers up, instead of giving MS control.
 
DeepEnigma said:
This "unamed company" is licking their chops to move in on EA, Ubisoft, Take 2 or the like.

This is the 'ripple effect' I was referring to in the other thread with this race of consolidating the market.
Click to expand...
It must be tencent.
They want this deal to be approved, so they can also buy their big publisher.
Without this deal, they will have issues purchasing those big publishers.
 
Thirty7ven said:
But MS could just cough up the money and pay AB to put those games on gamepass. Unfortunately that would only drive subscription numbers up, instead of giving MS control.
Click to expand...
Any game on Game pass that MS doesn't own gets removed from the service eventually. Owning the content ensures customers that it will always be available as long as they are subscribed. It's a way to keep customers subscribed.
 
Topher said:
I mean.....if folks are ok with Phil Spencer being a blatant liar then I guess that's all there is to it.
Click to expand...
Neither Phil nor MS care if he looks like a liar. You don't take that kind of job without a willingness to take the heat. And just look at some of the silly quotes of the last few months.
 
DarkMage619 said:
Any game on Game pass that MS doesn't own gets removed from the service eventually.
Click to expand...

And? Didn't you want the Netflix of gaming? That way MS puts money in the market, helps themselves, helps third party, and then you know they gotta create that original content that eventually becomes the defining characteristic of the service.

Your argument doesn't carry any weight. Why do you care if MS has an easy path to subscriber retention? Are you a gamer first or an Xbox gamer first? You want them to go out there and risk making new successful games.
 
Last edited:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antit...emerging-markets-focus?context=search&index=2

The Federal Trade Commission's challenge to Microsoft Corp.'s $68.7 billion bid to acquire Activision Blizzard Inc. will help define the scope of its ability to police over-the-horizon competitive threats.

The agency argues the deal not only would choke off gaming console market competition, but would tilt the playing field in still-developing markets for subscription and cloud-based gaming.

That focus is integral to the FTC's aggressive approach to policing Big Tech under chair Lina Khan. But blocking a merger to head off concentration in emerging markets is tougher than moving against conduct in established ones, attorneys say.

"There are a couple challenges here. One is that judges like to see evidence, and evidence is inherently backward-looking," Barry Nigro, the head of Fried Frank's global antitrust department, said. "Having a good story to tell based on documents and testimony becomes more important in these sorts of cases—otherwise it's one side's vision against the other's."
Click to expand...

The FTC faces a tough battle in proving anticompetitive effects in such markets, said Stephen Calkins, a professor at Wayne State University Law School.

"If you put together enough market share in a single market, there can be a presumption of anticompetitive market effects, and we're well on our way to saying its an anticompetitive market," Calkins said. "If you have a market without any sales yet, it's hard to have market share."
Click to expand...
 
anthony2690 said:
I still want the deal to go through, but my reasons are just so all my friends have the same games as me on game pass. (Mainly for diablo 4, what I'm super pumped for)

I don't care for the point scoring that some users do.
Click to expand...

From a PC or xbox gamer's standpoint, this deal is nothing but beneficial.
 
NickFire said:
Neither Phil nor MS care if he looks like a liar. You don't take that kind of job without a willingness to take the heat. And just look at some of the silly quotes of the last few months.
Click to expand...

But those "silly quotes" are not 100% complete reversals on statements made on numerous occasions. That is what we are talking about here. Not the same thing at all.
 
Swift_Star said:
Nope. Timed and Game exclusivity is not the same as buying a whole publisher. This has been discussed and debunked before.
Nobody buys this argument.
Click to expand...

The point is to play the games if they are exclusive you have to buy the console to play them on. Street fighter V you had to buy a PS console to play it
 
Last edited:
Thirty7ven said:
Street Fighter sold under 7 million units lifetime. You guys really need to get a grip on reality holy shit. Exclusives are not the problem DUH

Guess what would happen if Sony bought EA and suddenly they could make FIFA and Madden exclusive? It would be the end of Xbox and the integrity of the market would be put on blast because suddenly Sony would be able to control the terms in which everyone else does business.
Click to expand...



The series has sold a lot of games. People like it, my point stands and people were bragging about the exclusive rights of the game when it came to PS which is fine but let's not play down sales of street fighter

And it's 7 million just for street fighter V and it's 50 mill for the franchise
 
Last edited:
DarkMage619 said:
Any game on Game pass that MS doesn't own gets removed from the service eventually. Owning the content ensures customers that it will always be available as long as they are subscribed. It's a way to keep customers subscribed.
Click to expand...
At this point it's clear you only care if Microsoft get that content. Were ABK and Sony merging, it's clear you'd be crying your lungs out against it.
 
Last edited:
Ghost of Caelid said:
I'm only content with their production as long as the product they provide is to my liking. Phil obviously is like any other businessman but he does game and uses his learned business skill to provide a product I enjoy. I don't love him or hate him, can only be neutral or dislike when it comes to people in position of power. I'm neutral on him.


By definition, if the regulatory is designed to protect competition, it is there to protect sony. In this case for me it seems they are only trying to protect sony.
Click to expand...
Pure conjecture on your part. Give up, it won't stick.
 
Topher said:
But those "silly quotes" are not 100% complete reversals on statements made on numerous occasions. That is what we are talking about here. Not the same thing at all.
Click to expand...
I stand by what I wrote. There is no chance (Zero, Nada, Nil, None) that they ever say we cannot make this move because Phil will look like a liar after a closing.
 
Thirty7ven said:
And? Didn't you want the Netflix of gaming? That way MS puts money in the market, helps themselves, helps third party, and then you know they gotta create that original content that eventually becomes the defining characteristic of the service.

Your argument doesn't carry any weight. Why do you care if MS has an easy path to subscriber retention? Are you a gamer first or an Xbox gamer first? You want them to go out there and risk making new successful games.
Click to expand...
I like value and a service that can't guarantee certain content is less valuable to customers than a service that has rotating titles that may not be there when you sub. It's not rocket science.

Judging by titles like Grounded, Sea of Thieves, and Pentiment, MS has little trouble making risky creative titles too so these things aren't mutually exclusive.

Swift_Star said:
At this point it's clear you only care if Microsoft get that content. Were ABK and Sony merging, it's clear you'd be crying your lungs out against it.
Click to expand...
If Sony as the market leader could make the case to regulators that the merger is LEGAL I would accept it. It's not like I don't have a PlayStation and haven't had every PlayStation since the first one.

I have major issues from Nintendo suddenly not counting, to Game pass being a separate market, to allegations of MS 'lying' to regulators that ring as political over a true concern of MS bring a monopoly in gaming. Still waiting for a coherent, legal reason why this acquisition can't happen. Any objective review shows the reasons against the deal are bunk.
 
DarkMage619 said:
I like value and a service that can't guarantee certain content is less valuable to customers than a service that has rotating titles that may not be there when you sub. It's not rocket science.
Click to expand...


What's not rocket science is that you just decided to draw a set of specific rules that are neither here nor there in order for you to defend your pro bono shilling work.
 
Last edited:
feynoob said:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antit...emerging-markets-focus?context=search&index=2
Click to expand...

"There are a couple challenges here. One is that judges like to see evidence, and evidence is inherently backward-looking," Barry Nigro, the head of Fried Frank's global antitrust department, said. "Having a good story to tell based on documents and testimony becomes more important in these sorts of cases—otherwise it's one side's vision against the other's."
Click to expand...

Yep, FTC isn't winning this one in the court. They only win if MS pulls out of the deal voluntarily.
 
adamsapple said:
Yep, FTC isn't winning this one in the court. They only win if MS pulls out of the deal voluntarily.
Click to expand...
Yeah which is why they never sued to block the deal in the first place. They know it's a political stunt and stalling tactic. It's a gamble on their end if the EC or CMA blocks as well then they win regardless. If the they lose to meta in 2 weeks and lost their supreme case in June as well they'll be powerless regardless. But Microsoft has to get the cma and EC on board to make this happen at this point.
 
DarkMage619 said:
I like value and a service that can't guarantee certain content is less valuable to customers than a service that has rotating titles that may not be there when you sub. It's not rocket science.

Judging by titles like Grounded, Sea of Thieves, and Pentiment, MS has little trouble making risky creative titles too so these things aren't mutually exclusive.


If Sony as the market leader could make the case to regulators that the merger is LEGAL I would accept it. It's not like I don't have a PlayStation and haven't had every PlayStation since the first one.

I have major issues from Nintendo suddenly not counting, to Game pass being a separate market, to allegations of MS 'lying' to regulators that ring as political over a true concern of MS bring a monopoly in gaming. Still waiting for a coherent, legal reason why this acquisition can't happen. Any objective review shows the reasons against the deal are bunk.
Click to expand...
You wouldn't and you know it.
 
DarkMage619 said:
That argument is complete nonsense. There is an almost unlimited number of third party games and MS hardly has a monopoly on access to 3rd or 1st party IP. If you do happen to want to play IP MS owns there are numerous ways to access it without needing to buy their hardware
Click to expand...
Feels like just yesterday xbox fans were using a REVIII contract to suggest Sony were starving xbox of third party content for their lackluster year. Now there is an unlimited supply of third party games and IPs when two of the biggest third party publishers with THE biggest IPs get bought up indefinitely? You guys are insane.
 
Thirty7ven said:
What's not rocket science is that you just decided to draw a set of specific rules that are neither here nor there in order for you to defend your pro bono shilling work.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes any Xbox fan is a shill blah blah.

The basics of the video game market (console, PC, mobile) were established long before this acquisition. It's only now that it's being carved up in ways that it never has before. Of course it's not like anyone accused you of being fair or balanced on any of these matters.

feynoob said:
DarkMage619 DarkMage619 take a break.
You don't need to defend MS here.

Arguing here won't do you any favor.

This is the best advice that I can give you.just enjoy your life.
Click to expand...
I'm defending the rule of law. There is a a reason the FTC is being sued in court about the arbitrary way they bring cases. Their internal review they can overrule is a joke. They should always have to bring their complaints to a federal judge and prove there is an illegal transaction in court. This is universal point not just about MS.

Three said:
Feels like just yesterday xbox fans were using a REVIII contract to suggest Sony were starving xbox of third party content for their lackluster year. Now there is an unlimited supply of third party games and IPs when two of the biggest third party publishers with THE biggest IPs get bought up indefinitely? You guys are insane.
Click to expand...
Feels like just yesterday PlayStation fans were arguing Nintendo didn't count because of their game library then it's shifted to high performance market which includes the XSS for some reason. Game pass is going to kill the industry yet its a separate market too? People arging that Xbox is both in last place and a monopoly at the same time and you are accusing others of insanity? Bad comedy.

Yes. There is an unlimited number of 3rd party titles. Any game can be the next big hit. No one saw Fortnite or Apex Legends coming. PUBG was huge till it wasn't. Halo was huge until it wasn't. There is no guarantee CoD or any IP will be big forever because the market is dynamic and MS purchasing Activision doesn't change that at all especially when they are in last place. On top of that MS has repeatedly pledged to keep CoD on PlayStation and Nintendo platforms AND Steam. MS taking things from people is nonsense. Insanity indeed.
 
DarkMage619 said:
I'm defending the rule of law. There is a a reason the FTC is being sued in court about the arbitrary way they bring cases. Their internal review they can overrule is a joke. They should always have to bring their complaints to a federal judge and prove there is an illegal transaction in court. This is universal point not just about MS.
Click to expand...
Take a break.
You are not a lawyer, but some dude on a forum.
MS or the law doesn't need your defending.
 
Topher said:
You've said this before. What do you mean they never sued to block the deal?
Click to expand...
They've made a complaint intent to sue pending Microsoft answer in the next two weeks. Which will then begin immediately in their own internal process but they haven't sued to actually block the merger from happening. Microsoft can still continue on doing its merger. The FTC didn't seek to stop it outright meaning they would have actually had to go to court to defend their position they opted to not do so. Instead they're using thier internal process to delay and hope Microsoft just stops or that the other regulators throw them a lob.
 
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-13/microsoft-says-it-offered-ftc-consent-decree-on-call-of-duty?leadSource=uverify wall

Microsoft Corp. President Brad Smith said the software giant told the US Federal Trade Commission that it would sign a "legally binding consent decree" guaranteeing it provide Call of Duty to gaming rivals including Sony Corp. as it seeks approval for its $69 billion purchase of Activision Blizzard Inc.

The company made the offer last week before meeting with FTC commissioners and before the agency voted to sue to block the deal.


"The thing that probably disappoints me is not that we will have to present this case to a judge in a court because this is a case in which I have great confidence," Smith said. "I'm disappointed that the FTC didn't give us the opportunity to even sit down with the staff to even talk about our proposal to even see if there was a solution there."

Smith made the comments at Microsoft's annual shareholder meeting on Tuesday.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
bxrz said:


FTC refused to meet with Microsoft
Click to expand...

Insane to think they'll win in court without even the appearance of due diligence. How do you not even sit and talk with them even if your intent is still to block it for optics sake when all the cases against you are you abusing your authority. Yeah it's all about how much extra money and time Microsoft wants to spend at this point. Given brad smith said this in a shareholder meeting I'm guessing g they're going all the way.
 
R3claimer117 said:
Insane to think they'll win in court without even the appearance of due diligence. How do you not even sit and talk with them even if your intent is still to block it for optics sake when all the cases against you are you abusing your authority. Yeah it's all about how much extra money and time Microsoft wants to spend at this point. Given brad smith said this in a shareholder meeting I'm guessing g they're going all the way.
Click to expand...

"Political Posturing"
 
Last edited:
Thirty7ven said:


Knew it, FTC is just going to play the appeal game.

Big corp likes to use loopholes in the law, well there you have it bitch.
Click to expand...

Man, this guy is trying to make it political but come on, is it really that surprising that a $2.5 trillion company isnt being allowed to acquire THE biggest console publisher worth $75 billion?

If anything we should be breaking up Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft and other trillion dollar companies. If MS is allowed to buy a $75 billion company, whats stopping Alphabet from swooping in and buying Sony which is currently worth just $100 billion for the ENTIRE company.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Microsoft wins FTC appeal challenging $69 billion Activision Blizzard deal
News Business  2 3
125
631
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