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.
NickFire said:
Didn't Phil take over in 2014, which would be 8-9 years ago depending on month?

No dispute that MS botched the good will from OG Xbox and 360 before Phil took over. But its been 8-9 years. Building blocks are not the issue at this point. Management is the issue IMO.
Click to expand...
They are the issue, considering Phil started buying first party studios in 2018.
If he had them bought like 2015, then Xbox would have seen a lot of output from these studios by now.
Timeline is the key, considering the length of production.
 
feynoob said:
They are the issue, considering Phil started buying first party studios in 2018.
If he had them bought like 2015, then Xbox would have seen a lot of output from these studios by now.
Timeline is the key, considering the length of production.
Click to expand...
He definitely deserves some credit for pushing them towards a steady stream of content. And those investments should start paying off pretty soon now, as long as they've been managing these studios properly.
 
NickFire said:
He definitely deserves some credit for pushing them towards a steady stream of content. And those investments should start paying off pretty soon now, as long as they've been managing these studios properly.
Click to expand...
Hopefully a new CEO can take care of Xbox now.
That dude is getting old now.
They need a leader with experience who can make these studios push those content faster.
He did a good job, but it's time for him to put the mantle down.
 
DarkMage619 said:
We can blame Phil or Don but the fact remains that the X360, Xbox's most successful generation had them in 3rd place at the end of it. MS has never won any generation of console since Xbox has existed. This happens when they had lots of games and when they have had none.

It is complete nonsense to think this acquisition will suddenly keep Nintendo and Sony from being able to successfully compete in the games industry. What it will do is expand Xbox's first party offerings and improve working conditions for Activision employees. Both of those things are good overall.
Click to expand...
All that crock just to justify more games on gamepass.
 
bitbydeath said:
Just showing how many play COD on PlayStation platforms and how much money they make from it is enough, their own games aren't relevant as its about the potential loss of sale that could impact their future.

Let's say someone is a hardcore COD player and buys GoW, TLOU etc as well, there is a chance if the deal goes through that, that player will leave and not buy future Sony games. Their own games aren't relevant to this equation.

That's all they need to prove.
Click to expand...
That is hard to prove and not only do they have to prove that, but they have to say this will happen in such great numbers that it will substantially lessen competition and put Sony in danger of foreclosure.

There are a litany of arguments to counter "what if Call of Duty players abandoned the Playstation for Xbox." Not everyone who plays Call of Duty would switch consoles in the event of an exclusivity strategy by Microsoft centered around Call of Duty. Players can find alternative games to play. Players can multi-home consoles, especially since the XSS is a cheaper option. How entrenched is a player in their platform of choice? Does 1 must have title outweigh all console exclusives Playstation releases?

For some Call of Duty players, no matter what, they will switch in the event of exclusivity. But are those numbers great enough to say Sony is in danger of foreclosure? Will they be unable to compete when they lose a % of Call of Duty players?

Do the number of players willing to abandon the Playstation completely; get exponentially smaller when Call of Duty is guaranteed on Playstation? Probably.
 
POKEYCLYDE said:
That is hard to prove and not only do they have to prove that, but they have to say this will happen in such great numbers that it will substantially lessen competition and put Sony in danger of foreclosure.

There are a litany of arguments to counter "what if Call of Duty players abandoned the Playstation for Xbox." Not everyone who plays Call of Duty would switch consoles in the event of an exclusivity strategy by Microsoft centered around Call of Duty. Players can find alternative games to play. Players can multi-home consoles, especially since the XSS is a cheaper option. How entrenched is a player in their platform of choice? Does 1 must have title outweigh all console exclusives Playstation releases?

For some Call of Duty players, no matter what, they will switch in the event of exclusivity. But are those numbers great enough to say Sony is in danger of foreclosure? Will they be unable to compete when they lose a % of Call of Duty players?

Do the number of players willing to abandon the Playstation completely; get exponentially smaller when Call of Duty is guaranteed on Playstation? Probably.
Click to expand...
What's hard to prove?
They don't need to prove it will happen, only that it can happen. And that only requires a look at the current COD stats for what's at stake.

Taking it back to the topic though, there is 0 to do with games Sony is already making.
 
Last edited:
bitbydeath said:
What's hard to prove?
They don't need to prove it will happen, only that it can happen. And that only requires a look at the current COD stats for what's at stake.

Taking it back to the topic though, there is 0 to do with games Sony is already making.
Click to expand...
The Chilean regulators polled Call of Duty gamers and asked would they switch consoles if Call of Duty was exclusive. Why did you choose your console of choice. Would you multi-home consoles. Etc. Chile found that players were entrenched in their console of choice and for the vast majority of Call of Duty players, Call of Duty going exclusive to a different console would not sway them to change consoles. The small percentage that would switch wasn't enough to stop the deal or impose remedies.

That same kind of market research could easily be done by these regulators, and the simplest solution if it was found that a high enough percentage of players would abandon the Playstation entirely, would be to impose a remedy that Call of Duty is guaranteed on Playstation (something Microsoft is already willing to do).

Would it be catastrophic if 100% of Call of Duty players abandoned Playstation and bought an Xbox. Yeah. That is the worst case scenario. But you can't just assume the worst case scenario is going to happen. You have to do your due diligence to find out what is the likelihood of that scenario happening? And when due diligence is done, that 100% will be much lower. And when you can guarantee Call of Duty on Playstation, that 100% becomes a negligible percent.
 
They generally have to prove its a likely possibility and that it will have a material impact on the competitor.

You can argue about the definition of likely but its not the same as 'can happen' or 'will happen'.

If we are using probability
Can would be any possiblility greater than 0
Always would be a probability of 1
Likely is some unknown number.

It's why they regulators ask users questions and why they are asking devs what % of users would have to switch for them to not develop for Sony.
 
I'm still pissed at Sony for putting WAY too much focus into Call of Duty. I feel like that distracted people (looking at the FTC) from actual antitrust issues with this deal, such as Microsoft's cloud gaming dominance.
 
NickFire said:
Hold up - that is dated yesterday. Did I miss this yesterday or did we all miss this yesterday?
Click to expand...
Hmmm, it is. Possible that we all missed it. Or perhaps something wrong with the site's CMS.
NickFire said:
Better question - what does this mean in the EU? Is a warning a hard stop unless a deal is reached with regulators? Or just a signal they aren't sure on if they approve or not?
Click to expand...
Warning isn't a hard stop. Now MS can work on remedies. Depending on how strict the objections are, Microsoft may or may not work on all those remedies, however, and that's a different story
NickFire said:
And one observation - MS sure plays nice with EU compared to FTC I guess.
Click to expand...
I'm half-expecting the "EU is unconstitutional" statement anytime from Microsoft 😄
 
Heisenberg007 said:
The CMA was the most vocal body against this acquisition at the start, so I hope they block it in their findings. EU and FTC would have a much easier time than.
Click to expand...
Phase 1 and Phase 2 are different people, and the CMA has posted an extremely positive market participant letter along with their public emails that were 3/4ths in favour of the deal.

It could go either way honestly. They're more for structural remedies which I think would kill the deal. But they could also let it pass without remedies and ride on the back of whatever remedies EC comes to.

But if they're against, they don't have a great appeal process, so it'll be dead.
 
NickFire said:
Didn't Phil take over in 2014, which would be 8-9 years ago depending on month?

No dispute that MS botched the good will from OG Xbox and 360 before Phil took over. But its been 8-9 years. Building blocks are not the issue at this point. Management is the issue IMO.
Click to expand...
Folks forget, but Phil Spencer was the head of Microsoft Gaming, or MGS, essentially the role Matt Booty currently occupies, back in 2008.

Everyone loves saying 360 SW output declined in the 2nd half of the 360 life cycle, and that Spencer's moves to right the ship didn't start in earnest until 2017/2018, but the reality is Phil Spencer has been in charge of the publishing slate for 15 years now in one way or another. We are well past that point that folks (correctly) blame Phil Spencer for the SW slate the X1 had, the 360 had in its later lifecycle, and everything that has gone on with the Xbox Series.

The defense force that rallies around him have done nothing but enable Xbox's biggest problem. The division is never gonna turn around while he is leading it. I don't know how nearly 2 decades of botched leadership should be viewed in the light of 'any day now', but it continues to do so to Xbox's detriment.
 
NickFire said:
Hold up - that is dated yesterday. Did I miss this yesterday or did we all miss this yesterday?

Better question - what does this mean in the EU? Is a warning a hard stop unless a deal is reached with regulators? Or just a signal they aren't sure on if they approve or not?

And one observation - MS sure plays nice with EU compared to FTC I guess.
Click to expand...
The warning I think is the SO (statement of objections). Microsoft received it Tuesday I think? It's confidential, so unless something leaks we won't get any details from it. What it basically means is that formal talks about remedies are starting between the EC and Microsoft.
 
POKEYCLYDE said:
The Chilean regulators polled Call of Duty gamers and asked would they switch consoles if Call of Duty was exclusive. Why did you choose your console of choice. Would you multi-home consoles. Etc. Chile found that players were entrenched in their console of choice and for the vast majority of Call of Duty players, Call of Duty going exclusive to a different console would not sway them to change consoles. The small percentage that would switch wasn't enough to stop the deal or impose remedies.

That same kind of market research could easily be done by these regulators, and the simplest solution if it was found that a high enough percentage of players would abandon the Playstation entirely, would be to impose a remedy that Call of Duty is guaranteed on Playstation (something Microsoft is already willing to do).

Would it be catastrophic if 100% of Call of Duty players abandoned Playstation and bought an Xbox. Yeah. That is the worst case scenario. But you can't just assume the worst case scenario is going to happen. You have to do your due diligence to find out what is the likelihood of that scenario happening? And when due diligence is done, that 100% will be much lower. And when you can guarantee Call of Duty on Playstation, that 100% becomes a negligible percent.
Click to expand...
But again, nothing to do with PlayStations current output.
 
SneakersSO said:
The defense force that rallies around him have done nothing but enable Xbox's biggest problem. The division is never gonna turn around while he is leading it. I don't know how nearly 2 decades of botched leadership should be viewed in the light of 'any day now', but it continues to do so to Xbox's detriment.
Click to expand...

100% factual
 
IFireflyl said:
I'm still pissed at Sony for putting WAY too much focus into Call of Duty. I feel like that distracted people (looking at the FTC) from actual antitrust issues with this deal, such as Microsoft's cloud gaming dominance.
Click to expand...
Cloud gaming 'dominance' where it isn't even available outside of Game pass. How can something be dominant when it isn't even stand alone? Cloud gaming is just an optional feature of Game pass ultimate.
 
bitbydeath said:
But again, nothing to do with PlayStations current output.
Click to expand...
The argument is that even without Call of Duty, Sony would be able to compete just fine. Their 1st party content is killer and doing really well. That is why their 1st party content doing good could be used as ammo as to why the deal should go through. Sony was the one who argued without Call of Duty, they would cease to be viable competitor in the gaming market.
 
NickFire said:
Didn't Phil take over in 2014, which would be 8-9 years ago depending on month?

No dispute that MS botched the good will from OG Xbox and 360 before Phil took over. But its been 8-9 years. Building blocks are not the issue at this point. Management is the issue IMO.
Click to expand...

Phil might as well have been more of a figurehead since his budget, and obviously his influence, simply was not there. Xbox was on the table for possible shutdown. Phil himself confirmed this. Phil truly got power at Microsoft to make real decisions in late 2017 when he was finally added to Microsoft leadership.

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/phil-spencer-joins-microsoft-senior-leadership-team

Every major decision and all acquisitions started coming fast and furious the next year in 2018 where they acquired like 6 studios that year, and haven't stopped since. The person Phil use to have to answer to, head of Windows Terry Myerson, also left shortly after that. Some may not like it, but the real test of phil as Xbox leader is really 2018 and beyond, which is basically once he started building up a proper first-party operation. And we know that takes time, which is why they did acquisitions like Bethesda and now Activision Blizzard to increase their roster and to help fill gaps. And Microsoft's preferred business model right now is clearly Game Pass over more traditional sales even though they still sell games the normal way.

bitbydeath said:
Just showing how many play COD on PlayStation platforms and how much money they make from it is enough, their own games aren't relevant as its about the potential loss of sale that could impact their future.

Let's say someone is a hardcore COD player and buys GoW, TLOU etc as well, there is a chance if the deal goes through that, that player will leave and not buy future Sony games. Their own games aren't relevant to this equation.

That's all they need to prove.
Click to expand...

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. If sony's first-party games compete against other AAA titles in the current and same games industry where Call of Duty is relevant then, yes, Sony's games are indeed 100% relevant. If Sony's games weren't relevant, why the heck do you think all regulators want to know about all the other big players that make AAA games also? You think they talk to other market participants because they aren't at all relevant? You seriously think they would be interested in the likes of EA, Ubisoft, games like Elden Ring, Fortnite, etc, Apex Legends, FIFA, but somehow ignore Sony's first party games that are among the best sellers and most critically well received hits in the entire industry? You think they're going to ignore Spider-Man, God of War, The Last of Us? Sounds to me like very wishful thinking my friend.

Sony's games are 100% relevant to this acquisition. Let's also not forget the fact that they now own Bungie, creator of the highly popular shooter, Destiny 2. This deal if/when approved, it will be because Sony's own impressive lineup of games will have played a significant role as well as other major third party titles such as the other successful hits like Witcher 3, Cyberpunk 2077, and many others.
 
DarkMage619 said:
Cloud gaming 'dominance' where it isn't even available outside of Game pass. How can something be dominant when it isn't even stand alone? Cloud gaming is just an optional feature of Game pass ultimate.
Click to expand...

This is how Microsoft defines Game Pass:

For a low monthly price, you can enjoy access to hundreds of Xbox games. Play on Xbox consoles, PC, mobile devices and more depending on the Xbox Game Pass plan you choose.
Click to expand...

Game Pass can be used for both cloud gaming and non-cloud gaming. How else would you pay for cloud gaming without a subscription service? Why can't a subscription service offer multiple different features and options? Amazon Prime hasn't only been free shipping in a LONG time. Prime video is in competition with Netflix and Hulu. Your take on this is objectively terrible.
 
IFireflyl said:
This is how Microsoft defines Game Pass:



Game Pass can be used for both cloud gaming and non-cloud gaming. How else would you pay for cloud gaming without a subscription service? Why can't a subscription service offer multiple different features and options? Amazon Prime hasn't only been free shipping in a LONG time. Prime video is in competition with Netflix and Hulu. Your take on this is objectively terrible.
Click to expand...
My point is that cloud gaming isn't a stand alone service so arguing that MS is dominant in a area that you can't even use unless you are signed up to something else is the definition of an objectively terrible take.

MS is not dominant in gaming period and it again shows why objections to this deal are largely specious. Sony is the market leader now and will be after MS acquires Activision.
 
SenjutsuSage said:
Phil might as well have been more of a figurehead since his budget, and obviously his influence, simply was not there. Xbox was on the table for possible shutdown. Phil himself confirmed this. Phil truly got power at Microsoft to make real decisions in late 2017 when he was finally added to Microsoft leadership.
Click to expand...
If he was handcuffed by budget then its a fair defense as long as they start shipping these games this year.
 
DarkMage619 said:
My point is that cloud gaming isn't a stand alone service so arguing that MS is dominant in a area that you can't even use unless you are signed up to something else is the definition of an objectively terrible take.

MS is not dominant in gaming period and it again shows why objections to this deal are largely specious. Sony is the market leader now and will be after MS acquires Activision.
Click to expand...

I know what your point is. I'm saying it is stupid. Amazon Prime Video is a competitor to Netflix. Netflix is a standalone streaming subscription while Amazon Prime Video is part of an overall Amazon Prime subscription. The same thing applies to Nvidia's GeForce Now and Microsoft's Game Pass. They are still competitors in the cloud gaming space. You can't argue that they are not, because they are both offering subscription services for cloud gaming. The fact that you can also have non-cloud gaming with Game Pass doesn't somehow negate its cloud gaming aspect.
 
SenjutsuSage said:
Phil might as well have been more of a figurehead since his budget, and obviously his influence, simply was not there. Xbox was on the table for possible shutdown. Phil himself confirmed this. Phil truly got power at Microsoft to make real decisions in late 2017 when he was finally added to Microsoft leadership.
.
Click to expand...
You mentioned Phil's name 3 times in such a short paragraph. God damn.... 😝😝
 
Edmund said:
You mentioned Phil's name 3 times in such a short paragraph. God damn.... 😝😝
Click to expand...
suck my dick wwe GIF
 
Edmund said:
All that crock just to justify more games on gamepass.
Click to expand...

Dude, that's the whole point of the deal... more great games on game pass. You're catching on! That's what this entire deal is really about for Microsoft. It's about turbo charging Game Pass. Microsoft still sells games, but they want more people choosing Game Pass even over traditional software sales if they can help it. Microsoft wouldn't even care if plenty people still keep buying their games, so long as the userbase on Game Pass is a nice solid, steadily growing one.
 
NickFire said:
If he was handcuffed by budget then its a fair defense as long as they start shipping these games this year.
Click to expand...
Its not a fair comparison at all. This talk of 'Phil's reign only started in 2018' is disingenuous, if not outright lying to themselves.

Every organization or corporation has to work within the constraints of a budget. Sony and SIE had to operate within a budget. Nintendo too. Why is that the only way MS can even begin to try to compete is only when they have the full financial backing of MS, which even with an unshackled warchest hasn't done a single thing to turn around their position?

MS was on the verge of closing Xbox in-spite of Phil's supposed excellent leadership of the division. Any other corporate entity would've found someone new to lead it. Every gaming org with a history of success and failures has done the same. MS is the only one that double-down on their terrible leadership, and yet the results 4 or 5 years since that decision are looking *exactly* the same as they were prior to it.

What that should tell anyone is that the issue isn't Microsoft or Xbox, but almost entirely on Phil's leadership of a console platform.
 
Last edited:
SneakersSO said:
Its not a fair comparison at all. This talk of 'Phil's reign only started in 2018' is disingenuous, if not outright lying to themselves.

Every organization or corporation has to work within the constraints of a budget. Sony and SIE had to operate within a budget. Nintendo too. Why is that the only way MS can even begin to try to compete is only when they have the full financial backing of MS, which even with an unshackled warchest hasn't done a single thing to turn around their position?

MS was on the verge of closing Xbox despite of Phil's leadership of the division. Any other corporate entity would've found someone new to lead it. Every gaming org with a history of success and failures has done the same. MS is the only one that double-down on their terrible leadership, and yet the results 4 or 5 years since that decision are looking *exactly* the same as they were prior to it.

What that should tell anyone is that the issue isn't Microsoft or Xbox, but almost entirely on Phil's leadership of a console platform.
Click to expand...

It's really not, though. Phil was answering to the Windows dude who literally wanted Xbox's budget cut at every turn. He wanted to get rid of Xbox. Phil never had a direct line to the CEO. Phil convinced the CEO and became part of leadership late 2017, and then early 2018, Terry Myerson was finally out the door. It's no coincidence less than a year after Phil was put into leadership everything started happening. It takes times to build new games ground up, so the only thing we've had to judge phil on since has been the series x launch, the massive improvement to game pass as a service, the strong 2021, the fairly criticized 2022 where Halo's live service wasn't hitting the speed it should have had, but now 2023 is the year where all of Phil's plans and moves, including next-gen only plans, getting bethesda onboard, etc, finally start coming together.

This year is Redfall, Hi-Fi Rush, Starfield, Forza Motorsport, Minecraft Legends, the potential closing of the ABK deal, and possibly more surprise first party games? If this year comes together for Xbox like it seems it could, it would be one of the best years ever for Xbox and would represent Phil delivering on all the promises he has made on just about everything he has been saying would be coming. And of course we know Halo things are still going on. Whatever Tatanka actually is. Lots to look forward to. Avowed is coming, Indiana Jones, Fable is apparently looking amazing behind scenes. Game Pass is going to be delivering hits all year. It's an exciting time.

2023 is, to me, the proper year to start judging Phil on his progress because this is the year that the true next-gen only games start appearing for the system, and when finally they start benefitting from Bethesda exclusives. WE've already seen what just Hi-Fi rush has achieved. Mighty impressive for a shadow drop.
 
There's more than one report that MS received the list of objections from the EU already now. But it's all quiet. No "leaks", no pr blitz, no orchestrated messaging. This is boring. Come on Phil, tell us what they are!
 
NickFire said:
There's more than one report that MS received the list of objections from the EU already now. But it's all quiet. No "leaks", no pr blitz, no orchestrated messaging. This is boring. Come on Phil, tell us what they are!
Click to expand...

I think this is all a sign that UK and EU are willing to agree to something with Microsoft. We shall see, though.
 
NickFire said:
There's more than one report that MS received the list of objections from the EU already now. But it's all quiet. No "leaks", no pr blitz, no orchestrated messaging. This is boring. Come on Phil, tell us what they are!
Click to expand...
They are quiet because they might know it's over. I expect a small blitz of government overreach posts and then a formal bye bye from the deal. If it was small things they could fix they would be running their mouths continuously about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

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
6K
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
18K
GateofD replied
Microsoft has Closed the Activision Blizzard King Deal
22 23 24 25 26
1K
98K
MasterCornholio replied
Top Bottom