Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
IFireflyl
Gold Member
nikolino840
Member
What happened?? When and why i have made a reply to my self?
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Remember my posts earlier about Google and nVidia, but people are falling into the binary console war trap?
I 'memba
GHG
Gold Member
Those of us who knew, knew. It's not like the public documents didn't make that clear either, all it took was 5 minutes of reading.
Sony must be delighted seeing how distracted and obsessed with them Microsoft have been throughout this whole ordeal.
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
That's a lot of lawyers and hourly fees.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
GHG
Gold Member
Nope, if you actually bothered to read their responses to the CMA then you'd see that's exactly how things have transpired thus far. If you are yet to read the documents then I'd suggest you read them.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
GHG
Gold Member
They locked them down because they are easy targets for PR victories, they see neither as competition. Unfortunately for them the regulators have seen straight through that stunt.
Come talk to me when they throw Nvidia a bone and allow current and customers who have purchased their games to play them via GeForce Now instead of attempting to railroad everyone through xcloud.
That's something that would be seen as a significant development for regulators but they won't do it. I wonder why.
Last edited:
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
I like how posters with an "against" stance, such as yourself, post that sort of rebuttal like it means anything in the face of all things Xbox has done in recent years e.g. PC/Steam/GP/Console/xCloud day one and cross platform for the majority of releases. Turn that same looking glass at Sony or Ninty or Apple....yeah Xbox are a far more open platform thanks. Your point is moot. If regulators and "against" posters on GAF want it one way the same objective facts don't get a free pass for the rest of the market being far behind what MS/Xbox are doing these days. Literally a flawed argument you have.
EDIT: I don't see nVidia tech being open source or licensed released for consoles, why is it expected in return?
Last edited:
GHG
Gold Member
I like how posters with an "against" stance, such as yourself, post that sort of rebuttal like it means anything in the face of all things Xbox has done in recent years e.g. PC/GP/Console/xCloud day one and cross platform for the majority of releases. Turn that same looking glass at Sony or Ninty or Apple....yeah Xbox are a far more open platform thanks. Your point is moot. If regulators and posters on GAF want it one way you don't get a free pass for the rest of the market being far behind what MS/Xbox are doing these days. Literally a flawed argument you have.
Don't kid yourself. It's very much a closed platform. All of that stuff is meaningless unless you're balls deep in their ecosystem.
- Can I purchase a game of their on Steam and play it without having to sign in to and remain signed into an Xbox account for the duration of my play session? No.
- Can I take a PC game that I've purchased from them and play it via cloud anywhere other their xcloud service? No.
- Can I do "play anywhere" without purchasing through their store? No (so it's not really "play anywhere is it")
All you see is cows because you're a sheep.
Last edited:
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
How am I a sheep? You've seen me post my gaming history, over 4 decades of it mate. I'm not an xBot so you don't get to name call me a sheep. I trash Halo because it's been shit for a decade or more. I praise Sea of Thieves or Ori or Grounded or GP etc. I love Ninty first party, so happy to see them doing great. I really don't like Sony last generation or this generation. I have no interest in their games or hardware or VR. I foolishly upgraded my PC years ago thinking Star Citizen would launch soon enough, I'll upgrade to play SC if it ever gets across the finish line. I've owned Playstations 1 and 2, really fell off in the PS3 era for me though.
I game on phones, Xbox, PC, Nintendo, mini-SNES/NES, I have 2 arcade cabinets at home. I've coded games myself on and off over my life for fun projects. I own CAD/MAX/Unreal just to learn it on a student or free licence etc. Hardly a sheep mate.
At any rate you're trying to rebut with some utopian end product perfect model for Xbox and completely ignoring the shite state of Sony or Ninty or Apple by direct comparison. Xbox is the only player even remotely close or heading in the right direction to that lofty goal of yours. They're working on it, I doubt any industry player gets there 100% but I'd take MS/Xbox pushing for years now down that road over say Sony or Ninty or Apple's walled gardens and hardware. In terms of progress to your stated rebuttal open goal all players with the exception of Xbox are flatly stagnant with zero interest in opening the gaming segments up to each other. Perhaps your nVidia statement flies in the face of that but MS/Xbox are hardly the only ones to withdraw from what nVidia tried to execute on all the other publishers/devs/platforms etc.
Your name calling doesn't absolve that you think MS is closed, even if I concede that argument it just makes Sony/Ninty/Apple that much worse by your own argument. Will you soon rage quit too?
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
Purchasing on steam makes it open, not the login.
Don't know why you are bringing the login.
You can play xcloud anywhere. Currently xcloud doesn't purchased games, so this point is meaningless.
Play anywhere includes both their store.
Let's not try straw argument here. They are pretty much open with how you want to play their games. They aren't restricting you on certain platforms.
You can play Xbox games on windows store, Xbox console, steam and xcloud. That is pretty much open platform.
'Their store' or 'not restricting'. Pick one.
When they don't offer it on other streaming platforms that means it's restricted to their ecosystem. When "play anywhere" only applies to their store it's restricted to their ecosystem.
You can play xbox games and use play anywhere as long as it's on a MS platform. whether that's xcloud, windows, xbox, their store, doesn't matter. In the end they restrict things to their platforms is the point. Having a lot of established platforms isn't the same as being open.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
reinking
Gold Member
The problem comes from what you are comparing. A lot of platforms they own doesn't mean "they're open therefore regulators shouldn't worry" .
Their games = windows+xbox+xcloud+possibly steam
Not their games= windows+macOSx+xbox+PS+GFN+xcloud+PS+ Premium+steam.
Now how does it apply to this situation do you think?
He was asking do you think MS are likely to throw nvidia a bone with their games and the answer is a very probable no. The fact that MS have several established platforms for you to use their ecosystem doesn't make them "open".
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
The issue with Nvidia is that they are benefiting from other people's work.
People here are expecting companies to be charitable and be able to play their games for free without Nvidia paying any money.
Luna would be a better example. Amazon is ready to pay the fees, and if MS refuses their offer, then MS doesn't like sharing their games with others.
The people who have bought their games would like to play it through a service like GFN. The companies want to get platform holder moneyhats. This is irrelevant though. The point is that under MS they would prefer to get those xCloud subs so are likely to not throw nvidia a bone.
And that's why regulators would be looking at if it's allowed to become "their games".
Last edited:
bentanchorbolt
Banned
Thread getting spicy lol.
Cheezewizz
Banned
Actually the problem comes from what you're comparing. 3rd parties lacking a proper or popular platform get almost all their revenue from the games themselves. Therefore, they need their games on as many platforms as possible.
Xbox is not like that. It is a platform owner, and as such the only apt comparisons are to other proper platform owners such as Playstation, Ninty, and to a lesser degree Steam.
So with that being the case, your claim of "Not their games= windows+macOSx+xbox+PS+GFN+xcloud+PS+ Premium+steam." is false. Unless others such as Playstation, Ninty, or Steam are putting their own games on all those platforms.
Topher
Identifies as young
Not sure how we got on this, but what you are talking about is cross-platform support rather than an "open platform". Open platform means anyone can create software for that platform and openly distribute/sell that software without needing permission, licenses, fees, etc. Windows is an example of that. So is Linux and Mac. Consoles are not. Cross platform has been around a while, but only Microsoft has made much use of it, obviously because of Windows.
Last edited:
1) the regulators major concerns have been around the console market, it's rather natural that MS will deal with that first. It does not mean that MS isn't talking with Nvidia.
2) MS should work to get a deal for Nvidia and other cloud streaming services, aka Gamepass/MS store support on those services. I have always said this is the bigger concern.
3) in EC news via Idas
New report from MLex:
- According to MLex, Microsoft today received formal EU objections to the acquisition (no wonder that there were no leaks, there was nothing to leak
)
- MS declined to confirm receiving the charge-sheet, but said that it's determined to resolve any issues.
- MS says that "We are committed to solutions and finding a path forward for this deal. We are listening carefully to the commission's concerns and are confident we can address them."
- The CMA is expected to release its provisional findings in the coming days (early February).
I guess that now it's more likely to get press reports during the week about the SO.
2) MS should work to get a deal for Nvidia and other cloud streaming services, aka Gamepass/MS store support on those services. I have always said this is the bigger concern.
3) in EC news via Idas
New report from MLex:
- According to MLex, Microsoft today received formal EU objections to the acquisition (no wonder that there were no leaks, there was nothing to leak
)- MS declined to confirm receiving the charge-sheet, but said that it's determined to resolve any issues.
- MS says that "We are committed to solutions and finding a path forward for this deal. We are listening carefully to the commission's concerns and are confident we can address them."
- The CMA is expected to release its provisional findings in the coming days (early February).
I guess that now it's more likely to get press reports during the week about the SO.
Last edited:
Topher
Identifies as young
1) the regulators major concerns have been around the console market, it's rather natural that MS will deal with that first. It does not mean that MS is talking with Nvidia.
2) MS should work to get a deal for Nvidia and other cloud streaming services, aka Gamepass/MS store support on those services. I have always said this is the bigger concern.
3) in EC news via Idas
New report from MLex:
- According to MLex, Microsoft today received formal EU objections to the acquisition (no wonder that there were no leaks, there was nothing to leak
- MS declined to confirm receiving the charge-sheet, but said that it's determined to resolve any issues.
- MS says that "We are committed to solutions and finding a path forward for this deal. We are listening carefully to the commission's concerns and are confident we can address them."
- The CMA is expected to release its provisional findings in the coming days (early February).
I guess that now it's more likely to get press reports during the week about the SO.
Actual news incoming??
POKEYCLYDE
Member
Looks like the Lulu tweets were just a jab at the FTC and not connected to the SO like some people thought. Same with Frank Shaw's tweet accusing Sony of lying to regulators.
Not saying the SO won't be negative, but sometimes PR is just PR. It doesn't have to be followed by or motivated by bad news incoming.
Not saying the SO won't be negative, but sometimes PR is just PR. It doesn't have to be followed by or motivated by bad news incoming.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Might add to arguments in favor of FTC, CMA, and Sony.
Especially because Microsoft kept mentioning games like Battlefield and Apex in their response to CMA, defending the acquisition and reiterating that COD isn't that big of a deal and that there are other competitors.
pasterpl
Member
Not sure if shared already.
Not directly related but might show how political the process is currently in the USA
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4573121-amazon-and-irobot-dominating-the-world-seems-farfetched
SEN. Warren letter
Not directly related but might show how political the process is currently in the USA
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4573121-amazon-and-irobot-dominating-the-world-seems-farfetched
Summary
- Amazon is acquiring iRobot Corporation at $61 per share.
- The deal is subject to a second request by the FTC.
- Senator Warren has voiced her objections as well.
- Amazon buying robots sounds scary.
- At the end of the day, this is a $1 trillion juggernaut buying a tiny company that produces vacuum cleaners for the consumer market.
Amazon is trying to acquire iRobot Corporation (NASDAQ:IRBT) at $61 per share. Meanwhile, iRobot is trading at $46.02, as the market doesn't seem to believe regulators will allow the deal. The FTC has made a 2nd request, and Senator Warren is urging the FTC to stop the deal. Senator Warren's position appears very weak to me. You can read her letter to the FTC here.
The best arguments she has (in my opinion) are that Amazon had a competing product but shut it down. Subsequently, Amazon is:
If we assume it's true that iRobot dominates the market as she says, which is debatable as well, it is iRobot that dominates that market. The dominance isn't really increasing/decreasing through this merger.
Buying out your competition can be great/terrible, depending on the price you pay. Given iRobot shareholders seem enthusiastic to sell out, the price may not be that great, and its dominance may not be the final chapter in that market.
She also makes the point it gives Amazon increased surveillance power within the homes of consumers. Big tech having eyes and ears within our homes is a creepy image for sure. However, these eyes and ears were already there. The government is apparently allowing companies to access this kind of data. I can see how it is debatable but not really how it should play a role in deciding whether the merger is anticompetitive.
These anticompetition concerns and objections by politicians always get very top of mind in the moment. However, not that many mergers are ultimately blocked by agencies. Just some examples where I made some good returns are in Alphabet (GOOG, GOOGL) acquiring Mandiant and with Alphabet acquiring Fitbit (FIT). Especially the latter transaction happened in a time that could be considered a bit different in terms of the regulatory regime, but they are just two examples of big tech acquiring other small tech companies.
Not to mention Amazon was also allowed to acquire Whole Foods. Ok, that was 2017 and a different M&A world, but still... An acquisition that seems much more anti-competitive to me did ultimately go through.
The current M&A regime seems to have gotten a lot stricter, and it could be extensively challenged and even blocked.
However, there is 32% upside to the deal price of $61 per share.
The outside date for this deal is August 4, 2023. The merger can be extended a few more times which seems to indicate the companies are determined to get it across the finish line even if it takes a long time. This suggests to me it won't be easy to convince to just let it go because of delaying tactics by regulators.
The best arguments she has (in my opinion) are that Amazon had a competing product but shut it down. Subsequently, Amazon is:
If we assume it's true that iRobot dominates the market as she says, which is debatable as well, it is iRobot that dominates that market. The dominance isn't really increasing/decreasing through this merger.
Buying out your competition can be great/terrible, depending on the price you pay. Given iRobot shareholders seem enthusiastic to sell out, the price may not be that great, and its dominance may not be the final chapter in that market.
She also makes the point it gives Amazon increased surveillance power within the homes of consumers. Big tech having eyes and ears within our homes is a creepy image for sure. However, these eyes and ears were already there. The government is apparently allowing companies to access this kind of data. I can see how it is debatable but not really how it should play a role in deciding whether the merger is anticompetitive.
These anticompetition concerns and objections by politicians always get very top of mind in the moment. However, not that many mergers are ultimately blocked by agencies. Just some examples where I made some good returns are in Alphabet (GOOG, GOOGL) acquiring Mandiant and with Alphabet acquiring Fitbit (FIT). Especially the latter transaction happened in a time that could be considered a bit different in terms of the regulatory regime, but they are just two examples of big tech acquiring other small tech companies.
Not to mention Amazon was also allowed to acquire Whole Foods. Ok, that was 2017 and a different M&A world, but still... An acquisition that seems much more anti-competitive to me did ultimately go through.
The current M&A regime seems to have gotten a lot stricter, and it could be extensively challenged and even blocked.
However, there is 32% upside to the deal price of $61 per share.
The outside date for this deal is August 4, 2023. The merger can be extended a few more times which seems to indicate the companies are determined to get it across the finish line even if it takes a long time. This suggests to me it won't be easy to convince to just let it go because of delaying tactics by regulators.
SEN. Warren letter
Mobile is a different market for most/all regulators so imo probably wouldn't be a good argument.[/URL]
Might add to arguments in favor of FTC, CMA, and Sony.
Especially because Microsoft kept mentioning games like Battlefield and Apex in their response to CMA, defending the acquisition and reiterating that COD isn't that big of a deal and that there are other competitors.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
But the acquisition is also about mobile-cum-cloud market. Microsoft was name-dropping IPs here. I think it's relevant.
Regulators haven't flagged any/many concerns about mobile though.
The acquisition from MS pov is about all of gaming but regulators are primarily concerned about a couple of area's. (Consoles, streaming and game subscriptions services)
It may be relevant but not a huge deal. Also MS buying ABK isn't really going to prevent EA from making a mobile hit or having a profitable mobile business.
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
That is and will always be a theoretical possibility, yes, but as of now EA's two high-profile games are shutting down, while COD mobile continues to thrive.
That lends credence to Sony and CMA's idea that COD is indeed a juggernaut IP that's not as easy to compete with as Microsoft downplayed and implied in its documents.
POKEYCLYDE
Member
Microsoft has next to no mobile presence, Call of Duty is not an unstoppable juggernaut in the mobile space. Genshin Impact does better numbers than Call of Duty on mobile.
If the FTC were to use the competitors mobile games shutting down to say this deal shouldn't go through, Microsoft would easily rebut with the myriad of games that are more successful than Call of Duty on mobile.
Hero of Spielberg
Member
So it's the mobile market that Sony are concerned about now?
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Different genres though. COD is arguably the biggest FPS IP across platforms. It's pretty much its own genre now.
Battlefield Mobile never came out of beta. Need to make sure that we are defining markets when we have these conversations.
No one is arguing it is 'easy' to make a COD competitor, they are just saying that it is possible and it's possibility doesn't change due to this deal.
Think we may just have to agree to disagree about the relevance of this news story, it's probably too late for the CMA but maybe the FTC will bring it up.
p.s. think only the Chileans mentioned genre in their investigation, double checking, CMA definitely didn't in the issues statement, can't see it in the FTC complaint as well, EC said the following in the Zenimax deal (obviously may change):
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Not Sony, but the CMA is evaluating that market segment separately. However, Sony is also expanding in the mobile market, so they will be a party to this eventually.
Tto avoid scrutiny of anti-competitiveness in console market, Microsoft clearly took a position that the ABK acquisition is for increasing mobile share. With developments like these, and CMA treating mobile as a separate market, it can affect the acquisition process imo.
R reksveks just saw your comment; the CMA did. See the above docs. Also the following:
Last edited:
That's the starting point of what MS/ABK do and the potential impacts: but then they dismissed it when they came to the TOH (theories of harm) as stated in phase 1 (https://assets.publishing.service.g...s_Statement_-_Microsoft_Activision__final.pdf).Not Sony, but the CMA is evaluating that market segment separately. However, Sony is also expanding in the mobile market, so they will be a party to this eventually.
Tto avoid scrutiny of anti-competitiveness in console market, Microsoft clearly took a position that the ABK acquisition is for increasing mobile share. With developments like these, and CMA treating mobile as a separate market, it can affect the acquisition process imo.
R reksveks just saw your comment; the CMA did. See the above docs. Also the following:
- TOH1a Input foreclosure of rival console gaming platforms (excluding multi-game subscription services)
- TOH1b Input foreclosure of rival multi-game subscription services
- TOH3: Foreclosure of cloud-gaming service providers through leveraging Microsoft's ecosystem
Last edited:
Hero of Spielberg
Member
Then the mobile market doesn't include Sony until they join it? Anyway MS acquiring COD mobile would have very little consequence on the mobile gaming market competition I would have thought?Not Sony, but the CMA is evaluating that market segment separately. However, Sony is also expanding in the mobile market, so they will be a party to this eventually.
Tto avoid scrutiny of anti-competitiveness in console market, Microsoft clearly took a position that the ABK acquisition is for increasing mobile share. With developments like these, and CMA treating mobile as a separate market, it can affect the acquisition process imo.
R reksveks just saw your comment; the CMA did. See the above docs. Also the following:
feynoob
Banned
Sony mobile has no bearing to this deal.
Sony would need to have their own store and piece of the pie to have an affect to that.
POKEYCLYDE
Member
PUBG mobile does even better than Genshin Impact and Call of Duty mobile combined. And I would say PUBG is a direct competitor to Call of Duty.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Who had iRobot on their bingo card?
Also I am adding cum-cloud to my bingo card.
Also I am adding cum-cloud to my bingo card.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
If this deal was purely mobile, and didn't include consoles then Sony would have been 100% behind MS.
Google and Apple mobile domination is huge.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple
Google and Apple mobile domination is huge.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
That's why my sentence literally starts with "Not Sony, but the CMA."
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
That is what happens when you are checking this thread from work.
Time to go back to work then.
Which is what's great.
How does that make sense given the conversation about somebody being against the acquisition and games becoming" their game" and subsequently channeling people through xCloud instead of throwing other platforms like nvidia's a bone?
Ozzys comparison to others seems more like just console warring about their established platforms.
Say Playstation was buying Capcom. Would this be a sound thing to say? :
Yet that's exactly what was said. And the reply was that those things are still their ecosystem.
Then somebody else saying
Their game = windows later+ stream on PS+ Premium + PS5 + Steam later
so you shouldn't be against them buying Capcom and channeling people through PS+ Premium because in comparison to Nintendo they are "open".
Having more established platforms doesn't mean the company is open to throwing competitors a bone. It doesn't mean you can't rebut PS ownership of Capcom IP or be against an acquisition. As you said if they are independent they would release on as many platforms as possible.
Last edited:
- Status