Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?


  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
If we are going to segment the console market by performance and features the FTC need to rewrite gaming history. Clearly the SNES and Mega Drive were not direct competitors, Mario Kart should have been multiplatform. Clearly the N64 and PlayStation were not console competitors either. I mean that audio performance of N64 vs CD-Rom, sheesh.

Farting aside, the Switch is actually unique in the history of gaming. No one ever claimed Game Gear was a direct competitor to SNES that I recall. PSP was pitted against DS, not Xbox 360. Now we have Switch which is a hybrid that bridges the gap between handheld and living room console. I don't think pointing out that uniqueness requires us to redefine the history of video games.
 


The FTC recently filed suit to block Microsoft from acquiring Activision Blizzard.
ATVI is continuing to deal with the fallout from a dysfunctional corporate culture.
ATVI is trading at a substantial discount to the proposed acquisition price.
The Wall Street analyst consensus favors the completion of the deal.

The market-implied outlook (calculated from options prices) indicates a high probability that the deal will close.



The entire article is under the spoiler tags:
The Market Is Betting That The Activision Blizzard Acquisition Will Go Through
Dec. 20, 2022 7:30 AM ETActivision Blizzard, Inc. (ATVI)5 Comments


The FTC recently filed suit to block Microsoft from acquiring Activision Blizzard.
ATVI is continuing to deal with the fallout from a dysfunctional corporate culture.
ATVI is trading at a substantial discount to the proposed acquisition price.
The Wall Street analyst consensus favors the completion of the deal.
The market-implied outlook (calculated from options prices) indicates a high probability that the deal will close.

Activision Presents The Ultimate Fan Experience, Call Of Duty XP 2016

Rich Polk

Activision Blizzard (NASDAQ:ATVI) is in something of a state of limbo as regulators continue to work through concerns about the company's pending acquisition by Microsoft (MSFT). ATVI shareholders overwhelmingly approved the terms of the deal back in April, but the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently filed suit to prevent the purchase because of concerns that the consolidation of the two companies would be anti-competitive. If the deal is approved, Microsoft has agreed to purchase ATVI for $95 a share, 25% above the current share price of $76.08. ATVI spiked upwards following the acquisition announcement on January 19, 2022, maxed out at around $80, and have been trading consistently below $80 since mid August. The shares are currently trading slightly above the level just prior to the FTC lawsuit announcement on December 8th.
price chart

Seeking Alpha

5-Year price history and basic statistics for ATVI (Source: Seeking Alpha)

The company is in the midst of dealing with notable legal challenges, primarily involving serious sexual harassment and discrimination issues. The firm culture, simply put, looks dysfunctional. An acquisition by Microsoft should help to catalyze radical change in the organization.

Interestingly, Berkshire Hathaway has built up its holdings in ATVI since the proposed acquisition was announced. Berkshire owned $4.47 Billion in ATVI shares as of September 30th, according to the most recent Form 13F.

Since enjoying a substantial surge in earnings during COVID, as video game sales soared among people with few entertainment options outside of their homes, this increase was not sustainable. EPS for Q1 and Q2 of 2022 were substantially lower than for the same quarters in 2020 and 2021. The consensus outlook is for an earnings recovery over the next year, with a consensus expected EPS growth rate of 7.4% per year over the next 3 to 5 years. The relevance of these projections depends on the probability of the acquisition closing, of course.
earnings history

ETrade

Trailing (4 years) and estimated future quarterly EPS for ATVI. Green (red) values are amounts by which EPS beat (missed) the consensus estimate for a quarter (Source: ETrade)

I last wrote about ATVI on May 30, 2022, about 6 ½ months ago, at which time I upgraded the stock from a hold to a buy. At that time, the shares were trading at $78.20, as compared to $76.08 today. Since this post, ATVI has reported one quarterly earnings miss (Q2) and one earnings beat (Q3). My upgrade on ATVI was primarily due to the pending acquisition by Microsoft for $95 per share. I formed my view on the likelihood of the deal closing from two sources. The first was the Wall Street analyst consensus outlook and the second was the market-implied outlook, a probabilistic price forecast that reflects the consensus view from the options market. The Wall Street consensus clearly favored the deal going through, with a consensus 12-month price target of $95.56. The highest and lowest analyst price targets were $95 and $100, an incredibly tight range. The market-implied outlook indicated that the buyers and sellers of options were, in aggregate, assigning a substantially higher probability to the deal closing than the alternative.

For readers who are unfamiliar with the market-implied outlook, a brief explanation is needed. The price of an option on a stock is largely determined by the market's consensus estimate of the probability that the stock price will rise above (call option) or fall below (put option) a specific level (the option strike price) between now and when the option expires. By analyzing the prices of call and put options at a range of strike prices, all with the same expiration date, it is possible to calculate a probabilistic price forecast that reconciles the options prices. This is the market-implied outlook. For a deeper explanation and background, I recommend this monograph published by the CFA Institute.

With more than 6 months since my last analysis and the recently-announced FTC suit, I wanted to revisit my rating. I have calculated updated market-implied outlooks for ATVI and compared these with the Wall Street consensus, as in my previous post.
Wall Street Consensus Outlook for ATVI

ETrade calculates the Wall Street consensus outlook by aggregating the views of 13 ranked analysts who have published price targets and ratings in the past 3 months. The consensus rating is a buy, as it has been for all of the past 12 months and the consensus 12-month price target is $92.50, 21.7% above the current share price but just slightly below the planned acquisition price. The range of the analyst price targets is considerably wider than it was in my previous post, but is low compared to most stocks that I have analyzed. The increased spread reflects a reduced level of confidence that the deal will close.
consensus outlook

ETrade

Wall Street analyst consensus rating and 12-month price target for ATVI (Source: ETrade)

Seeking Alpha's version of the Wall Street consensus outlook for ATVI is based on price targets and ratings from 24 analysts who have published opinions in the past 90 days. The consensus rating is a buy and the consensus 12-month price target is $92.04, 21.1% above the current share price.
consensus outlook

Seeking Alpha

Wall Street analyst consensus rating and 12-month price target for ATVI (Source: Seeking Alpha)

The prevailing view from Wall Street is a buy, with a 12-month price target that is very close to Microsoft's acquisition price. The spread among the individual analyst price targets has increased since my previous post, indicating that some analysts now assign a lower probability to the deal coming to fruition. A secondary issue, of course, is whether an expectation of a 21% - 22% gain justifies the risks, given the firm's embattled management and culture and the uncertainties with regard to the acquisition.
Market-Implied Outlook for ATVI

I have calculated the market-implied outlook for ATVI for the 5.9-month period from now until June 16, 2023 and for the 13-month period from now until January 19, 2024, using the prices of call and put options that expire on each of these dates. I selected these expiration dates to provide a view to the middle of 2023 and for the full year.

The standard presentation of the market-implied outlook is a probability distribution of price return, with probability on the vertical axis and return on the horizontal.
market-implied outlook

Geoff Considine

Market-implied price return probabilities for ATVI for the 5.9-month period from now until June 16, 2023 (Source: Author's calculations using options quotes from ETrade)

The market-implied outlook to the middle of 2023 is qualitatively similar to the results that I calculated in May in that there are 2 distinct peaks in the probability distribution. I interpret this as representing 2 distinct possible outcomes: one in which the acquisition closes and one in which it does not. The higher-probability peak corresponds to a return that takes the share price to $91.50, slightly below the $95 acquisition price. The secondary peak corresponds to a price return of -12.5%. The options prices suggest that ATVI will fall by something in the vicinity of this amount if the deal appears to be in jeopardy or is blocked. This outlook indicates that the overall probabilities favor the deal going through, such that the shares are likely to rise substantially from the current level. I interpret this as a bullish outlook. The expected volatility calculated from this distribution is 29% (annualized), which is quite moderate--especially for a stock facing this level of uncertainty.

Theory indicates that the market-implied outlook is expected to have a negative bias because investors, in aggregate, are risk averse and thus tend to pay more than fair value for downside protection. There is no way to measure the magnitude of this bias, or whether it is even present, however. Considering the higher probabilities of small-magnitude (but high-probability) negative return vs. positive return, the expectation of a negative bias reinforces the bullish interpretation of this outlook.

The market-implied outlook for the next 13 months, from now until January 19, 2023, also shows the bi-modal probability distribution, but the higher probability of the deal closing is even more elevated. The peak probability corresponds to a price return of 25.5%, which would bring the share price to $95.87. This outlook indicates that the consensus view from the options market strongly favors the acquisition being closed at $95 per share at some point in the next year. The secondary much-lower peak in probability corresponds to a price decline of 17.5%. This is a bullish outlook, based on a high probability that the deal goes through. If it does not, the shares are likely to drop by something in the vicinity of 20%. The expected volatility calculated from this distribution is 26% (annualized).
market-implied outlook

Geoff Considine

Market-implied price return probabilities for ATVI for the 13-month period from now until January 19, 2024 (Source: Author's calculations using options quotes from ETrade)

The market-implied outlooks are tilted to favor the ATVI being purchased by Microsoft within the next 13 months and that the shares are likely to rise substantially in the next 6 months. The expected volatility is quite moderate, suggesting that ATVI will not drop too precipitously even if the deal fails.
Summary

Owning ATVI is a bet that Microsoft's acquisition will go through. The Wall Street analyst consensus is in line with the deal closing, with a buy rating and a consensus 12-month price target that is $2 to $3 below the $95 acquisition price. The spread in the individual analyst price targets has gotten a bit wider in the past 6 months, suggesting that some analysts are assigning a lower probability to the purchase. The market-implied outlooks, by contrast, are assigning a higher relative probability to the deal going through than in my previous analysis. Aside from the acquisition, the good news is that the consensus outlook is for a modest recovery in earnings in the coming year or so. Even with the recent news that the FTC is seeking to block ATVI's acquisition by Microsoft, the consensus views from the Wall Street analysts and the options market favors the deal. As a rule of thumb for a buy rating, I want to see an expected return that is at least ½ the expected volatility. The 20%+ gains expected by the analysts that would bring the share price up to $95 are well above half of the 26%-28% expected volatility. I am maintaining a buy rating on ATVI.


Geoff has worked in quantitative finance for more than twenty years. Before entering finance, Geoff was a research scientist for NASA. Geoff holds a PhD in Atmospheric Science from the University of Colorado - Boulder and a BS in Physics from Georgia Tech. Neither Geoff Considine nor Quantext (Geoff's company) are investment advisors. Nothing in any commentary here on Seeking Alpha or elsewhere shall be regarded as advice.
Show more

Disclosure: I/we have a beneficial long position in the shares of MSFT either through stock ownership, options, or other derivatives. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.
 
Last edited:
I've ascended to the rank of Pony?

R.eb633a2fac76d92f04ace6d52eee1446
You are either with them, or you're a Pony.

It's a cult.
Season 9 Lol GIF by The Office
 
Darkmage always goes on about how "it's a high performance next gen console just at a lower res which doesn't hold anything back" in all other threads then turns around and calls it the same as the Switch here. That should tell you everything about what he's always trying to do.
Never in my life have I said the XSS is a high performance console at low resolution. I said it is a current generation console with the same feature set and games as the XSX. That doesn't change the fact that it is targeting casual gamers and kids. I also never said it is the same as the Switch I said its targeting the same audience. It's clear what you are trying to do though. People like you accused the XSS of holding back the generation yet now are saying it's high performance to align with the FTC. Bad comedy.

The_Mike The_Mike & DarkMage619 DarkMage619 when a fellow xboi is against this acquisition;

ScaredSomberIcelandicsheepdog-size_restricted.gif
Plenty of people are against the acquisition I even support your right to file the current lawsuit against MS to stop them. I just don't think the FTC is the authority on the Switch not being for serious gamers or the XSS being targeted at gamers wanting a high performance console. We both know you don't really believe that.

Farting aside, the Switch is actually unique in the history of gaming. No one ever claimed Game Gear was a direct competitor to SNES that I recall. PSP was pitted against DS, not Xbox 360. Now we have Switch which is a hybrid that bridges the gap between handheld and living room console. I don't think pointing out that uniqueness requires us to redefine the history of video games.
It's just as unique as being the only console supporting VR or the only platform holder that released two different consoles at launch targeting two different audiences. I guess every platform isn't identical. Everyone is a monopoly now!
 
Never in my life have I said the XSS is a high performance console at low resolution. I said it is a current generation console with the same feature set and games as the XSX. That doesn't change the fact that it is targeting casual gamers and kids. I also never said it is the same as the Switch I said its targeting the same audience. It's clear what you are trying to do though. People like you accused the XSS of holding back the generation yet now are saying it's high performance to align with the FTC. Bad comedy.


Plenty of people are against the acquisition I even support your right to file the current lawsuit against MS to stop them. I just don't think the FTC is the authority on the Switch not being for serious gamers or the XSS being targeted at gamers wanting a high performance console. We both know you don't really believe that.


It's just as unique as being the only console supporting VR or the only platform holder that released two different consoles at launch targeting two different audiences. I guess every platform isn't identical. Everyone is a monopoly now!
didnt make this bruce lee GIF
 
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://assets.publishing.service.g...sponses_to_Issues_Statement_MS_Activision.pdf
MICROSOFT/ACTIVISION BLIZZARD PHASE 2 MERGER INQUIRY
Summary of responses from members of the public to the issues statement
Introduction
1:On 14 October 2022, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) published an issues statement on its case page concerning the anticipated acquisition by Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft) of Activision Blizzard, Inc. (Activision) (the Merger).
2. We invited responses from the public to the CMA's issues statement with a deadline of 28 October 2022. We received over 2,100 emails during this period.
3. This document provides a high-level summary of the views that we received from the public. It is not an exhaustive summary, and we have not included any material received that was unrelated to our merger investigation.1 The publication of this summary does not in any way represent an endorsement by the CMA of these views

Summary of views from members of the public
4. Of the 2,100 emails that we reviewed, around three quarters were broadly in favour of the Merger and around a quarter were broadly against the Merger. No clear view was expressed for or against the merger by a small number of respondents.
5. The following views were expressed in favour of the Merger:
  • (a) Sony and Nintendo are stronger than Microsoft in console gaming, and the Merger will help Microsoft to compete more closely against them;
  • (b) the Merger will not harm rival consoles because Microsoft has made public and private commitments to keep Activision content, including Call of Duty, non-exclusive. The availability of Minecraft on rival consoles shows that Microsoft's commercial strategy is not to make games exclusive;
  • (c) it is unlikely that Microsoft would make Call of Duty exclusive due to its multiplayer nature. Making Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox would only create a gap in the market that could be filled by a rival cross-platform shooter game;
  • (d) Call of Duty has competition from a number of other games including Battlefield (Electronic Arts), Grand Theft Auto (Take Two) and FIFA (Electronic Arts); (e) the Merger will push Sony to innovate, such as by improving its subscription service or creating more games to compete with Call of Duty;
  • (f) the Merger is a reaction to Sony's business model for PlayStation, which has historically involved securing exclusive content or early access to popular cross-platform gaming franchises, such as Final Fantasy and Silent Hill;
  • (g) Microsoft's plans to add Call of Duty to Game Pass are pro-competitive and will lower the price of accessing games for consumers; (h) Microsoft would not make Activision's content exclusive to Xbox postMerger because it would lose significant potential revenue from rival platforms;
  • (i) consumers could revert to buying games on a buy-to-play basis if Microsoft were to raise the price of Game Pass post-Merger;
  • (j) the Merger will lead to more funding and higher-quality games in the industry; (k) the Merger will allow Microsoft to provide Activision with better guidance and leadership, and to encourage it to invest more in games other than Call of Duty;
  • (l) the Merger is pro-competitive in the mobile segment because it will create new options for mobile gamers and allow Microsoft to compete against Google and Apple, which are the two dominant mobile platforms; (m)the Merger will not create competition concerns in cloud gaming services because there are other potential competitors, such as Netflix; and (n) some industry participants have said they are not opposed to the Merger.

6. The following views were expressed against the Merger:
  • (a) Microsoft is already dominant in PC operating systems, and this Merger is an attempt to gain a similar position in gaming;
  • (b) Microsoft has the resources to create an offering that competes with PlayStation exclusives without acquiring Activision;
  • (c) the Merger would lead to consolidation and would set a harmful precedent in the gaming industry of acquiring large publishers rather than encouraging organic growth;
  • (d) this would be the largest merger in gaming history, paving the way for a potential string of future acquisitions of publishers such as Take Two, EA, Ubisoft, thereby increasing concentration in the market;
  • (e) Microsoft will make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox, just as it did with Bethesda after it acquired ZeniMax Media;
  • (f) Microsoft will have the incentive to make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox post-Merger. This will adversely affect gamers who cannot afford an additional console and they would therefore switch to Xbox at the launch of the next console generation;
  • (g) Microsoft would be able to deteriorate the quality of Call of Duty games on PlayStation post-Merger, which could cause consumers to switch to Xbox;
  • (h) Microsoft can capture the multi-game subscription market after the Merger because it can afford to add games to Game Pass at a loss;
  • (i) Microsoft is already dominant in cloud gaming, and the Merger could affect the future of new entrants into that space;
  • (j) the Merger will raise barriers to entry for smaller studios and independent developers; and (k) the Merger will lead to an increase in Microsoft's bargaining power in relation to game publishers.
 
Last edited:
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://assets.publishing.service.g...sponses_to_Issues_Statement_MS_Activision.pdf
MICROSOFT/ACTIVISION BLIZZARD PHASE 2 MERGER INQUIRY
Summary of responses from members of the public to the issues statement
Introduction


Summary of views from members of the public
4. Of the 2,100 emails that we reviewed, around three quarters were broadly in favour of the Merger and around a quarter were broadly against the Merger. No clear view was expressed for or against the merger by a small number of respondents.
5. The following views were expressed in favour of the Merger:
  • (a) Sony and Nintendo are stronger than Microsoft in console gaming, and the Merger will help Microsoft to compete more closely against them;
  • (b) the Merger will not harm rival consoles because Microsoft has made public and private commitments to keep Activision content, including Call of Duty, non-exclusive. The availability of Minecraft on rival consoles shows that Microsoft's commercial strategy is not to make games exclusive;
  • (c) it is unlikely that Microsoft would make Call of Duty exclusive due to its multiplayer nature. Making Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox would only create a gap in the market that could be filled by a rival cross-platform shooter game;
  • (d) Call of Duty has competition from a number of other games including Battlefield (Electronic Arts), Grand Theft Auto (Take Two) and FIFA (Electronic Arts); (e) the Merger will push Sony to innovate, such as by improving its subscription service or creating more games to compete with Call of Duty;
  • (f) the Merger is a reaction to Sony's business model for PlayStation, which has historically involved securing exclusive content or early access to popular cross-platform gaming franchises, such as Final Fantasy and Silent Hill;
  • (g) Microsoft's plans to add Call of Duty to Game Pass are pro-competitive and will lower the price of accessing games for consumers; (h) Microsoft would not make Activision's content exclusive to Xbox postMerger because it would lose significant potential revenue from rival platforms;
  • (i) consumers could revert to buying games on a buy-to-play basis if Microsoft were to raise the price of Game Pass post-Merger;
  • (j) the Merger will lead to more funding and higher-quality games in the industry; (k) the Merger will allow Microsoft to provide Activision with better guidance and leadership, and to encourage it to invest more in games other than Call of Duty;
  • (l) the Merger is pro-competitive in the mobile segment because it will create new options for mobile gamers and allow Microsoft to compete against Google and Apple, which are the two dominant mobile platforms; (m)the Merger will not create competition concerns in cloud gaming services because there are other potential competitors, such as Netflix; and (n) some industry participants have said they are not opposed to the Merger.

6. The following views were expressed against the Merger:
  • (a) Microsoft is already dominant in PC operating systems, and this Merger is an attempt to gain a similar position in gaming;
  • (b) Microsoft has the resources to create an offering that competes with PlayStation exclusives without acquiring Activision;
  • (c) the Merger would lead to consolidation and would set a harmful precedent in the gaming industry of acquiring large publishers rather than encouraging organic growth;
  • (d) this would be the largest merger in gaming history, paving the way for a potential string of future acquisitions of publishers such as Take Two, EA, Ubisoft, thereby increasing concentration in the market;
  • (e) Microsoft will make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox, just as it did with Bethesda after it acquired ZeniMax Media;
  • (f) Microsoft will have the incentive to make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox post-Merger. This will adversely affect gamers who cannot afford an additional console and they would therefore switch to Xbox at the launch of the next console generation;
  • (g) Microsoft would be able to deteriorate the quality of Call of Duty games on PlayStation post-Merger, which could cause consumers to switch to Xbox;
  • (h) Microsoft can capture the multi-game subscription market after the Merger because it can afford to add games to Game Pass at a loss;
  • (i) Microsoft is already dominant in cloud gaming, and the Merger could affect the future of new entrants into that space;
  • (j) the Merger will raise barriers to entry for smaller studios and independent developers; and (k) the Merger will lead to an increase in Microsoft's bargaining power in relation to game publishers.

Reasons not to are snipped... Reading be pdf has more.

Really interesting - a lot of the same debates here. That said, 75-25 split in support is overwhelming.
 
Interesting part about these emails.
The CMA received approximately 2,600 emails, but some of these were excluded from our review because they contained abusive content (with no other substantive content), or were blank, unintelligible, stated to be from non-UK consumers, or not in English.
GHG GHG Topher Topher it seems there was a big war there.
 
Last edited:
Microsoft will have the incentive to make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox post-Merger. This will adversely affect gamers who cannot afford an additional console and they would therefore switch to Xbox at the launch of the next console generation

So when gamers have to buy a PlayStation to play Sony games or play the complete versions of thirdparty games it's all fine and dandy. What a dumb point.
 
So when gamers have to buy a PlayStation to play Sony games or play the complete versions of thirdparty games it's all fine and dandy. What a dumb point.
If they can't afford an additional console then they can't afford the next generation and therefore not play either way 🤷🏻‍♂️

They sound like owning a PlayStation is mandatory if you are a gamer, and the need to buy another console to play other games are bad for business I mean consumers.

I do get their intentions, it's just very poor and stupidly worded.
 
I finally clicked on a hong law video and realized we're poorly informed if this guy

q3CX3Ow.png


is directing our talking points. Putting faith in Honeg law, is like putting faith in one of those blog sites that pop up right before E3, saying that they've they got inside sources. And release a list of announcement that turn out to 100% false.
 
Last edited:
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://assets.publishing.service.g...sponses_to_Issues_Statement_MS_Activision.pdf
MICROSOFT/ACTIVISION BLIZZARD PHASE 2 MERGER INQUIRY
Summary of responses from members of the public to the issues statement
Introduction


Summary of views from members of the public
4. Of the 2,100 emails that we reviewed, around three quarters were broadly in favour of the Merger and around a quarter were broadly against the Merger. No clear view was expressed for or against the merger by a small number of respondents.
5. The following views were expressed in favour of the Merger:
  • (a) Sony and Nintendo are stronger than Microsoft in console gaming, and the Merger will help Microsoft to compete more closely against them;
  • (b) the Merger will not harm rival consoles because Microsoft has made public and private commitments to keep Activision content, including Call of Duty, non-exclusive. The availability of Minecraft on rival consoles shows that Microsoft's commercial strategy is not to make games exclusive;
  • (c) it is unlikely that Microsoft would make Call of Duty exclusive due to its multiplayer nature. Making Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox would only create a gap in the market that could be filled by a rival cross-platform shooter game;
  • (d) Call of Duty has competition from a number of other games including Battlefield (Electronic Arts), Grand Theft Auto (Take Two) and FIFA (Electronic Arts); (e) the Merger will push Sony to innovate, such as by improving its subscription service or creating more games to compete with Call of Duty;
  • (f) the Merger is a reaction to Sony's business model for PlayStation, which has historically involved securing exclusive content or early access to popular cross-platform gaming franchises, such as Final Fantasy and Silent Hill;
  • (g) Microsoft's plans to add Call of Duty to Game Pass are pro-competitive and will lower the price of accessing games for consumers; (h) Microsoft would not make Activision's content exclusive to Xbox postMerger because it would lose significant potential revenue from rival platforms;
  • (i) consumers could revert to buying games on a buy-to-play basis if Microsoft were to raise the price of Game Pass post-Merger;
  • (j) the Merger will lead to more funding and higher-quality games in the industry; (k) the Merger will allow Microsoft to provide Activision with better guidance and leadership, and to encourage it to invest more in games other than Call of Duty;
  • (l) the Merger is pro-competitive in the mobile segment because it will create new options for mobile gamers and allow Microsoft to compete against Google and Apple, which are the two dominant mobile platforms; (m)the Merger will not create competition concerns in cloud gaming services because there are other potential competitors, such as Netflix; and (n) some industry participants have said they are not opposed to the Merger.

6. The following views were expressed against the Merger:
  • (a) Microsoft is already dominant in PC operating systems, and this Merger is an attempt to gain a similar position in gaming;
  • (b) Microsoft has the resources to create an offering that competes with PlayStation exclusives without acquiring Activision;
  • (c) the Merger would lead to consolidation and would set a harmful precedent in the gaming industry of acquiring large publishers rather than encouraging organic growth;
  • (d) this would be the largest merger in gaming history, paving the way for a potential string of future acquisitions of publishers such as Take Two, EA, Ubisoft, thereby increasing concentration in the market;
  • (e) Microsoft will make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox, just as it did with Bethesda after it acquired ZeniMax Media;
  • (f) Microsoft will have the incentive to make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox post-Merger. This will adversely affect gamers who cannot afford an additional console and they would therefore switch to Xbox at the launch of the next console generation;
  • (g) Microsoft would be able to deteriorate the quality of Call of Duty games on PlayStation post-Merger, which could cause consumers to switch to Xbox;
  • (h) Microsoft can capture the multi-game subscription market after the Merger because it can afford to add games to Game Pass at a loss;
  • (i) Microsoft is already dominant in cloud gaming, and the Merger could affect the future of new entrants into that space;
  • (j) the Merger will raise barriers to entry for smaller studios and independent developers; and (k) the Merger will lead to an increase in Microsoft's bargaining power in relation to game publishers.
Yeah. Those views against are pretty bad tbh.
A: Yup, Microsoft is dominating PC OS marketing but they are miniscule on PC in terms of gaming. Steam is king
B: Yeah. Same as Sony could make live service offerings through organic growth and they did not needed Bungie, right? But you can save several years by buying that shit up.
C: What precedent? There is no other company outside of Apple/Google that could make that kind of purchase. And if they choosed to buy EA/Take-Two etc. nobody could say a thing because Apple and Google don't have presence in gaming.
D: see C
E: Nope. They literally offered 10 years deal to Nintendo, Sony and Valve
F: see E
G: Nope. Because Microsoft contractually promised content parity.
H: It is not Microsoft's problem that Sony don't want to compete in multi-game subscription market
K: You mean, like Sony has now? Yeah. That would be so bad
 
I finally clicked on a hong law video and realized we're poorly informed if this guy

q3CX3Ow.png


is directing our talking points. Putting faith in Honeg law, is like putting faith in one of those blog sites that pop up right before E3, that they've they got inside sources. And release a list of announcement that turn out to 100% false.
Do you know anyone with law expertice?
Because all of us are shit, and dont know shit about legality of this deal.
Aside of Idas and him, we are in the dark of this deal.

You saw what happened here. We are arguing on useless stuff, that is not even the point of this merger.
 
Do you know anyone with law expertice?
Because all of us are shit, and dont know shit about legality of this deal.
Aside of Idas and him, we are in the dark of this deal.

You saw what happened here. We are arguing on useless stuff, that is not even the point of this merger.

Yes. I do know a few people with Law experience. Secondly, no we're not all "shit" about the legality of this deal. Some of us just refuse to read and instead rely on others ie era / hoe law / and idas. to give them talking points. I read most of the submissions, and form my own opinion.

Lastly, people arguing about useless stuff on a gaming forum in pretty much the norm. It's up to you to choose who you engage with.
 
Last edited:
Yes. I do know a few people with Law experience. Secondly, no we're not all "shit" about the legality of this deal. Some of us just refuse to read and instead rely on others ie era / hoe law / and idas. I read most of the submissions, and form my own opinion.

Lastly, people arguing about useless stuff on a gaming forum in pretty much the norm. It's up to you to choose who you engage with.

What's this Era, you speak of?
 
Nope. Xss is targeting people who can't afford expensive consoles, or can't spend a lot of money on video games. It's why it's great deal with gamepass.
Switch is aimed at people who like hand held devices like mobile. It's why it's hybrid of console and handheld. Its not targeting the same people as xss.
Look at switch's games prices. That is not for poor people.


High performance isnt the correct analogy. I don't know why FTC went with that route, as XSS isn't high performance device.

But nevertheless, switch isn't in the same level as Xbox or PS.
The library between them is like day and night.
While some 3rd party exist on switch, it doesn't have the full list of 3rd party games.

This article demonstrates why that is the case.
https://www.vgchartz.com/article/449937/the-switchs-growing-third-party-problem/


The system isn't that profitable for them.

The Series S is a high-performance device relative most gaming devices on the market, and it's designed to play all of the same games as its more powerful sibling, Series X, just at lower resolution. This was Microsoft's own sales pitch for the system at release and continued to be it until they pivoted more towards it as a value sale.

Even if it's a weaker console than Series X & PS5, if it's designed to effectively run all of the same games a Series X can run just at lower resolution, then it likely meets the criteria of a high-performance game device. Compared to a Switch, PS4, XBO, the majority of iGPUs used for PC gaming, and most smartphones, the Series S is a high-performance gaming device.
You guys keep underestimating the thoroughness of these regulators, it's not a good look.
 
(f) Microsoft will have the incentive to make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox post-Merger. This will adversely affect gamers who cannot afford an additional console and they would therefore switch to Xbox at the launch of the next console generation;

If this is the caliber of feedback from 'users' against the merger, it's a real poor showing.

🤔
 
Yes. I do know a few people with Law experience. Secondly, no we're not all "shit" about the legality of this deal. Some of us just refuse to read and instead rely on others ie era / hoe law / and idas. to give them talking points. I read most of the submissions, and form my own opinion.
There are 2 languages on those submission.
General language, which you, me and the rest here can read. Then there is the lawyer angle which actually tells us the real meaning behind them.
Even though we can use logic on those document, its better to get people with actual expertise in this field.

This is arguments between big lawyers, and regulators lawyers.
 
Do you know anyone with law expertice?
Because all of us are shit, and dont know shit about legality of this deal.
Aside of Idas and him, we are in the dark of this deal.

You saw what happened here. We are arguing on useless stuff, that is not even the point of this merger.

He is useful in that he has knowledge of the antitrust process and he can cut through a lot of the technical minutiae. But I said before, I think most lawyers are biased towards the side they would most likely represent. His opinion is still just an opinion though.
 
He is useful in that he has knowledge of the antitrust process and he can cut through a lot of the technical minutiae. But I said before, I think most lawyers are biased towards the side they would most likely represent. His opinion is still just an opinion though.
He also found his audience. ;)
 
He is useful in that he has knowledge of the antitrust process and he can cut through a lot of the technical minutiae. But I said before, I think most lawyers are biased towards the side they would most likely represent. His opinion is still just an opinion though.
Everyone has their opinion about this deal. But I wont let that affect the knowledge he has.
Sometimes its useful to hear someone with knowledge on that field, even though we might not agree with each other.
 
It's not that different that what folks are arguing about here... There's really not a good argument against it (even if you want to deny it).

Actually it is a bit different than what folks here are arguing. Or rather, I've not seen the argument that folks will have to buy another console as the crux of the argument against the deal here anyway. Some here are against it simple because they believe it will be bad for the industry. That's a perfectly valid reason regardless of whether it meets any legal requirements or not.

Everyone has their opinion about this deal. But I wont let that affect the knowledge he has.
Sometimes its useful to hear someone with knowledge on that field, even though we might not agree with each other.

No, I agree. But it is like when I see lawyers on CNN or other news shows. For example, if a labor lawyer is discussing a labor issue then he is going to back the labor side. Prosecutors are going to typically favor the prosecution in most cases. Even those not even involved in the cases.
 
Last edited:
Actually it is a bit different than what folks here are arguing. Or rather, I've not seen the argument that folks will have to buy another console as the crux of the argument against the deal here anyway. Some here are against it simple because they believe it will be bad for the industry. That's a perfectly valid reason regardless of whether it meets any legal requirements or not.

Like I was saying, even if you are against there hasn't been a really cogent argument against it. The one we're focused on by the FTC is contrived, and publishers and public sentiment in these summaries generally have been supportive of it as well.

I know we go back and forth, but generally speaking, those who are against haven't clearly made a case and spend more time snarking than stating anything.
 
Do you know anyone with law expertice?
Because all of us are shit, and dont know shit about legality of this deal.
Aside of Idas and him, we are in the dark of this deal.

You saw what happened here. We are arguing on useless stuff, that is not even the point of this merger.
They are just as in the dark as anyone else.
 
They are just as in the dark as anyone else.
cant disagree with you here.
There are more documents that we have no idea that are redacted from us.

Then you have to account phase 2 findings, which can change the course of this deal.

MS 111 document alone had more redacted info.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom