DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Sekiro is also next on my list.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Right? This is what I asked in this thread (before this news broke) whether it'll affect the acquisition going forward.
I think that's a very good anti-acquisition argument that may come from FTC or even Sony.
It's a losing argument in court though, what % of game devs would MS control? Could those devs work in other industries relatively easily?
The answers will be small single digits, and yes so it's not really a concern. It's why there is no reference to employees in the ftc complaint.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
But my point is: CMA argued that MS hoarding IPs behind a paywall is one of their concerns. If you're acquiring companies and then firing their people, you end up with (1) IPs of the company you just acquired, and (2) Scorched earth behind you.
MS presented that this acquisition will be good for gamers and the studios they're acquiring.
This layoff goes against that, i.e., it does not necessarily bode well for the acquired studios/devs and, if there aren't enough devs, games will be delayed (e.g., Starfield for sure is getting delayed now or launching buggier because of fewer resources), which is bad for gamers.
Again, I'm not sure if it is a valid point or not. Hence, my question earlier. But to me it seems like a valid point that can be brought up and entertained.
Source? I may be reading it wrong but it sounds like you think the CMA argument is that MS is likely to be just hoarding the IP with no plans to use it.
I would say that this is a bit speculative, Starfield equally could have been released early in November in a world that it wasn't a part of MS.
I think we need to remember that a deal like tech and anything else that is a 'net good' can also have some bad elements.
Generally think it's a losing argument but if they cant get the market definitions that they want, they may raise it. Lawyers aren't likely to focus on weaker arguments cause it just dilutes your case.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
No, I wasn't saying that. I was saying acquiring IPs and locking them behind a subscription paywall (Gamepass) for Cloud gaming competitors. It was one of the concerns the CMA raised in the statements they issued.
Yeah, they do raise the concerns about the multi-game subscription market and the cloud streaming market but think it's a separate conversation especially in regards to the recent layoffs.
Pedantically I would also reword
To
I don't think MS is forcing users/companies into the S2P model so the first quote feels a bit off.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
For cloud-only gaming market, this would be implied and the end result.
There are and will be Cloud only competitors that don't offer their customers a way to access games via discs or downloads (for example, Google Stadia and Amazon Luna). Streaming via subscription services would be the only way to access games for those customers.
In that case, if major and previously multiplatform IPs are now owned by a Cloud gaming subscription owner and available exclusively to their service, it is essentially locked away for competitors' customers.
MasterCornholio
Member
For cloud streaming company's, that's true* but not necessarily subscription services.
There is a distinction between payment model and delivery method (obviously still unsure if all regulators would say that it's enough to define a separate market).
*There is the complicating factor of GeForce Now or the Ubitus powered games.
Banjo64
cumsessed
MasterCornholio
Member
We'll be reading about mod PS conspiracy theories upon his return.
Well he was already going in that direction.
ToTTenTranz
Banned
1 - Microsoft is firing ~5% of their workforce. It's bad but it's still less than most of the tech companies out there.
2 - This is a result of the massive over-hiring that happened during COVID (these companies grew like 20-25% in 2 years which is ridiculous), and the market is just auto-correcting.
3 - Like the other tech companies, especially the software teams, a good part of these people were doing nothing (no projects, no tasks, making up problems where there was none) and that's why they're being fired. Twitter is a good case of the bloat these companies have.
4 - There's still a big shortage of engineers in general and software engineers in particular. These people will most probably be fine.
5 - Nonetheless this is still going to hurt Microsoft's case before regulators, as they're apparently firing a bunch of people from their current studios while trying to splurge $70B to acquire whole other studios.
2 - This is a result of the massive over-hiring that happened during COVID (these companies grew like 20-25% in 2 years which is ridiculous), and the market is just auto-correcting.
3 - Like the other tech companies, especially the software teams, a good part of these people were doing nothing (no projects, no tasks, making up problems where there was none) and that's why they're being fired. Twitter is a good case of the bloat these companies have.
4 - There's still a big shortage of engineers in general and software engineers in particular. These people will most probably be fine.
5 - Nonetheless this is still going to hurt Microsoft's case before regulators, as they're apparently firing a bunch of people from their current studios while trying to splurge $70B to acquire whole other studios.
Last edited:
Bonsaibäumchen
Member
Ok so an Association thats consisting of game developers and publishers is publicly stating they approve this merger.
Also this:
- Continue to allow Web3 games on its platforms, as they might be the game changer helping new European platforms to emerge.
Seriously? Web3 is all about scamming people and profiting of community generated stuff.
I would'nt give a shit about their opinion.
ToTTenTranz
Banned
Web3 isn't only about NFTs, it's also about a transition to the 3D Internet and all its protocol and standard developments.
Though at this point I agree that the Web3 name has been hopelessly stained by all the crypto opportunistic movements, so they should start using some other name instead.
That web3 request is a weird one for me personally, web3 and play-to-earn are scams/rugs/ponzi scheme, I am not sure if platform holders or gatekeepers as the EU will defines some of them should be the ones to decide that. Maybe one for the end-users.
It's not a surprising position for an industry full of questionable monetization tactics (thank you EU for looking into it)
I kinda understand the need for digital scarcity for 'culture' or the view but its still shit. The cons outweighs the pros.
Last edited:
Bumblebeetuna
Member
Great post. Especially with regards to the whole "oRgAnIc GrOwTh" nonsense people talk about when Sony buys studios. At the end of the day Sony is paying a third party dev to make their game exclusive and then eventually just buying the studio outright. For consumers on other platforms the results are the exact same, they don't get access to the games. But they talk like it's a more "honorable" way to buy studios or something
Let's also not forget how much bitching there was when MS bought a year of exclusive access to Tomb Raider, and these same people now would rather MS invest that $70,000,000,000 into moneyhatting games
As for SFV, it wasn't a case where it wouldn't have happened without Sony. Capcom said it just would have taken longer to make. Which considering the sorry state it launched in, might have been a good thing. But you're right again there, it was a case of Capcom struggling and being open to the idea of taking a massively successful multiplat franchise and making it console exclusive. Here is a case of ABK openly shopping themselves around and MS won. It's not some hostile takeover.
Web3 was coined by the blockchain gang which is why it always gets associated to crypto/NFTs. Others making improvements to web standards just didn't feel the need to put them into a catchall name.
I don't think their opinions have any weight to the segment you're interested in. Their opinions are sound but mainly come down to combating Apple policy for the SME mobile games and asking for more open/less costly access to xbox. The acquisition will not help them in the latter in the slightest but will help them combat the former.
Last edited:
From you know who at you know where from the og source.
- The Statement of Objections from the EC is coming next week, spelling out the concerns that they have following the investigation.
- Microsoft will have a chance to rebut them, both in writing and at a hearing.
- Issuing the SO will give MS the chance to access its file, including non-confidential versions of submissions by third parties. This will show exactly how much opposition there is to the deal beyond Sony.
- If there is a SO it's rare to get an unconditional approval (not unheard-of, but it's true), but MS hopes that its months of dialogue with EU regulators will have helped to narrow down the concerns, allowing it to target remedies to address them.
- Where the CMA stands now is unclear. They say that "Even Microsoft appears to be in the dark". In Microsoft's favor is that most of the public responses the inquiry group received in the merger review supported the deal.
- The Statement of Objections from the EC is coming next week, spelling out the concerns that they have following the investigation.
- Microsoft will have a chance to rebut them, both in writing and at a hearing.
- Issuing the SO will give MS the chance to access its file, including non-confidential versions of submissions by third parties. This will show exactly how much opposition there is to the deal beyond Sony.
- If there is a SO it's rare to get an unconditional approval (not unheard-of, but it's true), but MS hopes that its months of dialogue with EU regulators will have helped to narrow down the concerns, allowing it to target remedies to address them.
- Where the CMA stands now is unclear. They say that "Even Microsoft appears to be in the dark". In Microsoft's favor is that most of the public responses the inquiry group received in the merger review supported the deal.
gothmog
Gold Member
Microsoft, a company famous for astroturfing, has most of the public responses in their favor. Shocking.
R3claimer117
Member
Lol some of you have to realize by now that this level of being misinformed is comical. No regulator is looking at this from a lay off point of view about a deal that doesn't cover the majority of this. If they're firing a bunch of interns or redundant positions how does that affect abk especially in fields that have nothing to do in gaming. There's more layoffs in the industry than there are at Microsoft as a matter of fact there's layoffs after every gaming project is done people leave people come in. Also they're bringing in more than 10,000 new employees. Activision it self is a giant organization. They probably had to make room for that as well. That's also going to come with redundancies. So you think the EC and cma are going to cancel amazon, Fb and every other big tech deals because Amazon laid of 18,000 people fb and Google also 10,000 a piece. Followed by almost every other tech outlet. Regulators don't make decisions like that. So unless they're from this day banning every deal from every company that has layoffs than there's no more deals. Riot announced layoffs today best believe Sony and other game companies will follow as well.
its not good for the politics, still not sure it makes an impact for the regulators
R3claimer117
Member
Is everything Microsoft a conspiracy theory for you ? lol the evil overlord corporation that you don't like while like other corporations that you deem virtuous?
R3claimer117
Member
You don't think every company has lobbying or people out there working in their favor. I'm pretty sure the CMA is as they themselves said didn't accept a bunch of those and only verified the ones they used. I dont even think they took letters from people not in the uk. So I'm not sure why that matters. The biggest astroturfing we've seen so far is Jim Ryan's opposition of the deal.
M1chl
Currently Gif and Meme Champion
I feel like this is long gone, nowadays Tesla shills reigns supreme and to a degree which even these companies only could wish for. But not saying that like 10 years ago it wasn't a thing it was
gothmog
Gold Member
No, I don't think that every company works like Microsoft does. Each company has different tactics depending on their culture and relative power. But we're talking about Microsoft, not other companies. Microsoft has been caught many times as the one sponsoring "grassroots" campaigns. It's not much of a stretch to think that they could find someone to write a bunch of emails from uk based domains in order to make it look like the public is overwhelmingly for this deal.
I also don't think you know what astroturfing is if you think an executive whose job it is to defend their brand actually does it.
gothmog
Gold Member
The tactics change as technology changes, but the underlying concept is still used. Botnets and other things get more coverage these days, though.
feynoob
Banned
One for sure, is that regulators won't accept fixing workers condition excuse.
feynoob
Banned
Company A tries to buy company B who has 10k people for 68b, while laying off 10k people.
That is a bad outlook. MS is losing public support after this move.
Consider this deal dead. It will be miracle if they approved it after this fiasco.
R3claimer117
Member
Lol
this is ridiculous on so many levels if you really think that's how regulatory approval works. Yeah and they'll lay themselves off afterwards too cause every tech company that has layoffs won't be making deals anymore either. Yea you hit the nail on the head!FTC wasn't going to ever it seems, CMA and EC hasn't raised it yet so its a minor change in the status quo.
feynoob
Banned
You can believe what you want.Lol
feynoob
Banned
Didn't MS had the backing of workers Union?
Would this news affect that relationship?
demigod
Member
Is this your opinion or is it according to one of your 3 stooges in law ida, hoeg, whoever the fuck else?
feynoob
Banned
What does that matter to you?
Topher
Identifies as young
Lol
If the FTC feels that these layoffs work in their favor in making an argument to block this acquisition, then they will absolutely use it.
I don't think this kills the deal at all. I'm still of the mind that it goes through, frankly.
maybe, it may do but not sure it would affect the CWA stance. The calculus would be job losses (don't know how its handle in terms of severance etc) vs big tech company have a neutral stance on unions (relative improvement). In the UK, the calculus is very different cause the unions have so much power already but in the US, maybe they suck it up. I am a pragmatist so it does bias my thought process.
Last edited:
R3claimer117
Member
Dude no worker has a right to a job. They have a right to be treated well while employed. Workers union and layoffs have nothing to do with one another. People at the company that unionized can still do that. It be different if they paid off all the union employees and cancel their rights to unionize they haven't. Again Microsoft literally we're paying people at bathesda and Xbox game studios for the same job no company is going to do that forever. Xbox has many of the components of zenimax as a whole. Also most of the layoff have nothing to do with Gaming so far 343 seems to be one most impacted by this and that's probably because they plan on restructuring. Again the unions are still behind them and for the deal.
R3claimer117
Member
The FTC was against the deal from the beginning as a political show of force they have no case it's just a political stunt. Again you can't single out Microsoft who's voted the best company to work for. Also who's laid of less people than the other tech companies in 5 years. That argument holds no weight. It sucks but you also don't know what severance packages look like. Also the gaming industry has layoffs every project that's a higher frequency than Microsoft how can you apply that logic to them as a Company?
Topher
Identifies as young
What those other tech companies are doing is irrelevant as they are not attempting to make a $69 billion acquisition and thus are not subject to FTC review. Regardless, my point still stands that if FTC sees an opportunity in these layoffs then they will use it. They are lawyers after all.
Last edited:
gothmog
Gold Member
It all comes down to the remedies proposed and if all the sides can agree. Ten years of COD does not seem to be moving the needle in any direction. I imagine they need to at least ensure that one or both of the publishers remains third-party.
Topher
Identifies as young
Possibility of EU's objections next week might give us all a better idea of where this acquisition stands overall. I agree though that the offers made so far hasn't exactly fast-tracked this thing.
R3claimer117
Member
Lol as a few of them also have deals pending approval from EC and cma including Amazon fb and others. Yeah use it how? How are they using it do you even know how us laws are different from state to state? In New York where I live it's an at will state an employer can fire you for any reason doesn't even have to do with job performance as long as it's not discriminatory. Most states are at will states how can the FTC use that legally they're already infront if the Supreme Court for using their own power unconstitutional. You think they want to open themselves up to that ? Lol
stop it this has nothing to do with layoff as bad as they are. Regulators aren't looking at that as a basis for approval.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
R3claimer117
Member
There haven't been any offers made Microsoft didn't offer this to the EC intact they refused to offer any concessions in October when the EC asked them. Citing they'll wait for any objections so again there no gaging how it will affect negotiations till they actually present it to the EC.
feynoob
Banned
I am going in to my bunker if either case happens.
Social media would go crazy with either news.
Topher
Identifies as young
Lol as a few of them also have deals pending approval from EC and cma including Amazon fb and others. Yeah use it how? How are they using it do you even know how us laws are different from state to state? In New York where I live it's an at will state an employer can fire you for any reason doesn't even have to do with job performance as long as it's not discriminatory. Most states are at will states how can the FTC use that legally they're already infront if the Supreme Court for using their own power unconstitutional. You think they want to open themselves up to that ? Lol
The DOJ and the FTC under the current administration have made labor concerns a key point in their renewed focus on "anticompetitive mergers". So yeah, I can see FTC trying to reference the layoffs if (keyword here is IF) they see it as an advantage. Again, I'm not saying they will. The FTC is not subject to state laws when it comes to mergers and acquisitions so whether a state is at will or not is irrelevant.
- Status