Support NeoGAF

[POKEYCLYDE]

King/Blizzard and rest of Activision IPs. Still a win and the only thing they have to divest is COD.

I would agree if they didn't lose 5 studios in the process, 3 of which are AAA quality studios. And if they could get a good price for divesting Activision, maybe even then... but anyone willing to buy that isn't an anti-trust issue probably won't spend what Micrososft thinks the Activision part of ABK is worth.

Microsoft could buy Capcom, Kadokawa and Square Enix at double what they are worth and that would only be 35 billion. Half of what this deal is. If they can't convince the CMA to accept rigid behavioral remedies, Microsoft will back out. Blizzard/King is not worth what they'll end up spending.

It would be wiser to save that 70B and aggressively go after smaller publishers and studios, ones that don't have world class dominating IP (Call of Duty, GTA, Fifa, Fortnite, etc.)

And since publicly traded companies have to do their fiduciary duty and get the highest price for their shareholders, I could see Microsoft outbidding Sony on anything they want to acquire. You might see a future where Final Fantasy becomes an Xbox exclusive. If I were a Playstation fan (I get a Playstation each gen for a few select games), but if I were die hard for Sony, I probably would've wanted Microsoft to blow their load of cash on CoD (a franchise I don't care about).

It'll be very interesting to see what kind of strategy Microsoft pivots to if the deal falls through. Some of you might hate it even more than the idea of ABK being acquired.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Lol someone should tell her that she's not in a twitter court and CMA has already decided about what's concerning or not about the deal and they're past that stage.
At this point the only hope she has is that Microsoft thinks the deal is still worth giving up control on COD which is...unlikely??
There's a reason only Activision is talking today...they know it's now in Microsoft's hands to decide what to do.

You clearly don't understand what's taking place. And why would you, half of you aren't really reading anything.

The CMA was very thorough here, and while they suggest a range of divestiture options, they clearly stress the importance of protecting and not destroying any potential relevant consumer benefits, they highlight the desire to not leave whatever divested piece of Activision without the necessary means or resources to even compete effectively, which runs counter to their goal. They highlight that they could be open to access remedies.

The CMA also highlights that Microsoft and Activision Blizzard hasn't yet offered a single remedy to them officially. Microsoft, following the process, have been waiting for this part in the process to do because this is the only phase where a detailed assessment of those plans can be measured. They could have done it in talks leading up to provisional, but Microsoft first wanted to see the provisional findings. And Microsoft faces no punishment or prejudice for doing it that way.

Microsoft are merely following the process, and some are busy thinking they're in trouble. This is the process!

While they do have the scarier sounding divestiture parts, CMA makes clear that they are open to less severe options.

CMA is also nervous about harming the consumer benefits because of divestiture and potentially creating a scenario where it's difficult to decide who gets what and leaves the divested piece unable to adequately compete or get resources. CMA could have flat out blocked it. They didn't. They are making clear they are open to dealing with behavioral remedies.

 

[GHG]

For 69B? It’s a shit deal. COD is at least half that valuation.

If anything is to be divested then they effectively get a "refund" for the amount any assets/properties get sold off for.

 

[Baki]

I would agree if they didn't lose 5 studios in the process, 3 of which are AAA quality studios. And if they could get a good price for divesting Activision, maybe even then... but anyone willing to buy that isn't an anti-trust issue probably won't spend what Micrososft thinks the Activision part of ABK is worth.

Microsoft could buy Capcom, Kadokawa and Square Enix at double what they are worth and that would only be 35 billion. Half of what this deal is. If they can't convince the CMA to accept rigid behavioral remedies, Microsoft will back out. Blizzard/King is not worth what they'll end up spending.

It would be wiser to save that 70B and aggressively go after smaller publishers and studios, ones that don't have world class dominating IP (Call of Duty, GTA, Fifa, Fortnite, etc.)

And since publicly traded companies have to do their fiduciary duty and get the highest price for their shareholders, I could see Microsoft outbidding Sony on anything they want to acquire. You might see a future where Final Fantasy becomes an Xbox exclusive. If I were a Playstation fan (I get a Playstation each gen for a few select games), but if I were die hard for Sony, I probably would've wanted Microsoft to blow their load of cash on CoD (a franchise I don't care about).

It'll be very interesting to see what kind of strategy Microsoft pivots to if the deal falls through. Some of you might hate it even more than the idea of ABK being acquired.

It could just be a holding company that owns the IP. They can keep the studios.

 

[sainraja]

I like it as an optional thing. But it's just being stubborn to not mentally conceive that it's entirely possible this could be the future. That's the case with my personal habits with music, TV, movies.

I don't mind it as an optional thing either but "ease of use/access" is going to be a huge factor when they are finally able to get gaming to the point where movies and music are, and I do realize that one of the future scenarios could be where streaming takes over and replaces the traditional way of accessing games, not forcefully but due to cost, ease, etc. I don't really want that and so I will hope that streaming never takes off in gaming, even if it means not being okay with it as an optional thing.

 

[GHG]

And with this, the CMA just said they don't give a shit about 99.999% of the people rooting for the merger to happen.

I've stated it can't be taken into account previously for the following reasons:

Here's the thing about gamepass:

• There is no guarantee it will be around forever
• There is no guarantee it will forever be structured as it is today
• There is no guarantee it will forever be priced as it is today
• It "costs less" but you own nothing

As such regulators cannot run under the assumption that "gamepass is good for consumers". It is until it suddenly isn't. Activision weren't interested in putting COD on gamepass, why do you think that is? For the fun of it or because it wouldn't allow them to continue putting the reinvestment (money) they have done into the franchise since the original Modern Warfare? One day Microsoft suddenly stop offering gamepass, or change the terms (The monthly fee goes through the roof? Or how about you pay per hour played instead of a set monthly fee? Or they say games will only be available on gamepass/xclould? etc etc), they can do what they want, it's their service. Therefore worst case scenarios need to be looked at by regulators.

The final point above (erosion of ownership for consumers) in particular is under the microscope by the EU and has been for some time.

The great irony is that you want to talk about people being blinded? Take the gamepass goggles off and look around.

They cannot hold Microsoft as an organisation accountable for it (neither for how it exists today or its continued existence) therefore it cannot be taken under consideration.

 

[Topher]

It could just be a holding company that owns the IP. They can keep the studios.

I'm guessing that would have to go back through stockholder approval as well.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

It could just be a holding company that owns the IP. They can keep the studios.

CMA prefers in cases of divestment, that anything divested would need to keep it's quality. So everything that makes Call of Duty great would need to be divested. Since you have 5 studios (3 main studios and 2 support studios), those would need to be divested.

If Microsoft could just sell the Call of Duty IP, I believe they would do that in a heart beat.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

I'm calling it. This deal is going through! Taking avatar bets/ban bets. Who wants in? I already have a bet with thicc_girls_are_teh_best on concessions that I'm likely to lose, but the deal will go through.

 

[Pelta88]

In the latest financial reports, Microsoft just said that Xbox has hit 120 million MAU.

PR or securities fraud? They Boosted their PR number by an additional and gargantuan 65 million.

 

[poppabk]

According to what exactly?

According to part one - gamers don't give a shit about it.

 

[tmlDan]

There is no way someone is going to say Sony is smarter at spending money when they are also the company that released the crappy designed PS3, PS Move, PS Vita failed. Sony is no smarter than MS at "spending money" they just got a strong headstart in a market that is built on nostalgia and running franchises. Its really that simple.

Are you delusional? you're going back to 2012?

We're talking about the now, stop living in the past.

 

[Banjo64]

You clearly don't understand what's taking place. And why would you, half of you aren't really reading anything.

The CMA was very thorough here, and while they suggest a range of divestiture options, they clearly stress the importance of protecting and not destroying any potential relevant consumer benefits, they highlight the desire to not leave whatever divested piece of Activision without the necessary means or resources to even compete effectively, which runs counter to their goal. They highlight that they could be open to access remedies.

The CMA also highlights that Microsoft and Activision Blizzard hasn't yet offered a single remedy to them officially. Microsoft, following the process, have been waiting for this part in the process to do because this is the only phase where a detailed assessment of those plans can be measured. They could have done it in talks leading up to provisional, but Microsoft first wanted to see the provisional findings. And Microsoft faces no punishment or prejudice for doing it that way.

Microsoft are merely following the process, and some are busy thinking they're in trouble. This is the process!

While they do have the scarier sounding divestiture parts, CMA makes clear that they are open to less severe options.

CMA is also nervous about harming the consumer benefits because of divestiture and potentially creating a scenario where it's difficult to decide who gets what and leaves the divested piece unable to adequately compete or get resources. CMA could have flat out blocked it. They didn't. They are making clear they are open to dealing with behavioral remedies.

Their past behaviour suggests behavioural remedies are all but off the table. Of course they aren’t actually going to write that down in their published document.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I'm calling it. This deal is going through! Taking avatar bets/ban bets. Who wants in? I already have a bet with thicc_girls_are_teh_best on concessions that I'm likely to lose, but the deal will go through.

 

[ToTTenTranz]

CMA is also nervous about harming the consumer benefits

You know who else is getting nervous?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I'm calling it. This deal is going through! Taking avatar bets/ban bets. Who wants in? I already have a bet with thicc_girls_are_teh_best on concessions that I'm likely to lose, but the deal will go through.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

CMA prefers in cases of divestment, that anything divested would need to keep it's quality. So everything that makes Call of Duty great would need to be divested. Since you have 5 studios (3 main studios and 2 support studios), those would need to be divested.

If Microsoft could just sell the Call of Duty IP, I believe they would do that in a heart beat.

CMA is saying they generally prefer divestiture, but they have made clear that they are making an exception for this transaction, and are entertaining behavioral remedies for a case in which they normally would not.

Behavior remedies that are strong enough are not at all off the table, and CMA has made clear they have yet to fully assess any behavioral remedies because it was not the time to do so, and Microsoft had not offered any yet.

 

[Punished Miku]

Real life footage of SenjutsuSage

 

[GHG]

According to part one - gamers don't give a shit about it.

This is the problem when you assume something without doing any prior research to back it up.

It tends to be wrong.

 

[Heisenberg007]

PR or securities fraud? They Boosted their PR number by an additional and gargantuan 65 million.

Did they really just commit fraud?!

Either with regulatory bodies or their shareholders?!

 

[Thirty7ven]

If anything is to be divested then they effectively get a "refund" for the amount any assets/properties get sold off for.

But who determines the price? The offers they get right? I don’t see any company out there giving them 30 billion for COD and the studios.

 

[Snowdonhoffen]

The CMA has published its full report. And it says in this that Microsoft has less than 55 million Monthly Active Users (MAU) globally.

In the latest financial reports, Microsoft just said that Xbox has hit 120 million MAU.

Could they be referring to active users on console only with the 55 million number (360, One and Series)?
And the 120 million could be console, cloud and PC users (I honestly believe if you accidentally open the Xbox App con PC you count as an active Xbox User, lol).

 

[GHG]

But who determines the price? The offers they get right? I don’t see any company out there giving them 30 billion for COD.

The most likely scenario is that it gets spun off into it's own independent company and then the shares (equal to the value of whatever is agreed in terms of a valuation) are divided up across the executives of the newly formed entity.

Nobody has to "buy" it per se, and any valuation work should have already been done as part of Microsoft's due diligence prior to submitting their formal offer for the acquisition.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Could they be referring to active users on console only with the 55 million number (360, One and Series)?
And the 120 million could be console, cloud and PC users (I honestly believe if you accidentally open the Xbox App con PC you count as an active Xbox User, lol).

If you play Minecraft on ps4 they count that as active user.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

You know who else is getting nervous?

Activision stock is one of the safest on the stock market. That's nothing. With or without the deal, this is an easy $90+ stock.


The CMA went from a whole host of complaints down to these two.

This deal is closing 100%.

 

[Badlucktroll]

I don’t understand Microsoft

 

[Heisenberg007]

Could they be referring to active users on console only with the 55 million number (360, One and Series)?
And the 120 million could be console, cloud and PC users (I honestly believe if you accidentally open the Xbox App con PC you count as an active Xbox User, lol).

Maybe? lol. But they have not made that distinction, either in their financial reports or in the data submitted to the CMA.

That's why it's so confusing and potentially seems like MS has fudged its numbers and committed fraud.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

CMA is saying they generally prefer divestiture, but they have made clear that they are making an exception for this transaction, and are entertaining behavioral remedies for a case in which they normally would not.

Behavior remedies that are strong enough are not at all off the table, and CMA has made clear they have yet to fully assess any behavioral remedies because it was not the time to do so, and Microsoft had not offered any yet.

I understand that the CMA is open to behavioral remedies. But in cases where they want divestment, they don't want the divested asset to be crippled and unfunctional. So selling off the IP alone wouldn't be acceptable. Selling the IP and 1 studio wouldn't be acceptable. It would have to be the entirety of Activision basically.

I think it's highly unlikely Microsoft will be able to convince the CMA to accept rigid behavioral remedies, but I'm not saying it's impossible.

 

[ToadMan]

This is one of the stupidest things I ever read. Then why would the cma approve of any acquisition. The purpose of an acquisition or merger is too gain an advantage.

I ain’t mad at cha little cuz.

Google was too hard for those bigwigs at MS too so let me show you what the CMA does

We help people, businesses and the UK economy by promoting competitive markets and tackling unfair behaviour in a number of ways:

• we investigate mergers that have the potential to lead to a substantial lessening of competition. If a merger is likely to reduce competition substantially, the CMA can block it or impose remedies to address those concerns

Oh and this is what the FTC says

As that law has been interpreted, it is not illegal for a company to have a monopoly, to charge "high prices," or to try to achieve a monopoly position by what might be viewed by some as particularly aggressive methods. The law is violated only if the company tries to maintain or acquire a monopoly through unreasonable methods.

 

[GHG]

With or without the deal, this is an easy $90+ stock.

If that were the case then the stock would already be trading at $90+, especially so considering the circumstances surrounding this proposed acquisition. Don't be fooled by the low beta your shares will have experienced since the announcement of this deal.

 

[Jimmyisback]

Maybe? lol. But they have not made that distinction, either in their financial reports or in the data submitted to the CMA.

That's why it's so confusing and potentially seems like MS has fudged its numbers and committed fraud.

Go report it to the cma. ASAP. lol

 

[DeepEnigma]

Go report it to the cma. ASAP. lol

Don't need to. CMA has been pretty privy to how the industry works, despite the geniuses on social medias and here who claim otherwise.

 

[Topher]

I'm calling it. This deal is going through! Taking avatar bets/ban bets. Who wants in? I already have a bet with thicc_girls_are_teh_best on concessions that I'm likely to lose, but the deal will go through.

For the record, I've always maintained that the deal is going through. I have a knack for making shitty predictions though. Might want to sell your stock.

 

[Pelta88]

Did they really just commit fraud?!

Either with regulatory bodies or their shareholders?!

Technically no.

They added PC, Mobile, Laptops, TV's and kitchen sinks to boost the mau number. It'd be securities fraud if they submitted the 120 number to courts. But it is disgusting and a misleading practice Microsoft has engaged in since 2013 when it comes to XBOX.

 

[Yoboman]

Looking forward to MS pulling out of this deal

 

[Banjo64]

I'm calling it. This deal is going through! Taking avatar bets/ban bets. Who wants in? I already have a bet with thicc_girls_are_teh_best on concessions that I'm likely to lose, but the deal will go through.

Oh it’s going through (probably). Microsoft won’t have control over Call of Duty though.

 

[Tiamat2san]

CMA is saying they generally prefer divestiture, but they have made clear that they are making an exception for this transaction, and are entertaining behavioral remedies for a case in which they normally would not.

Behavior remedies that are strong enough are not at all off the table, and CMA has made clear they have yet to fully assess any behavioral remedies because it was not the time to do so, and Microsoft had not offered any yet.

Do you have Any exemple of behaviourial access remedy?
I don’t really understand what it is.

It’s not easy to follow when you are not into this kind of stuff.

 

[graywolf323]

where the f is the PR at these companies to get these people to stop acting like fools on Twitter? this guy is a VP & GM at Stardock

 

[silent head]

B2P= Buy to play

 

[ToadMan]

How? Ms is in third place among the three console platforms. Do you think Sony would survive without cod? How much marketshare do you think Sony would lose do to this acquisition? Curious if you had a number in mind?

The regulators aren’t there to make up for MS being where they are.

The regulators aren’t there to stop competition - in fact the opposite, the regulators are there to enable fair competition where all competitors play by the same rules.

There’s not one rule for the market leader and different rules for the company at the bottom.

And companies are allowed to be so good at what they do as to effectively gain a monopoly.

All of the above is decided in the market by consumers. What MS is doing, is trying to force consumers to change where they spend money through acquisition and in doing so, reduce consumer choice - ie play COD and other ABK titles? Only on MS now.

Sorry you don’t get that - but that is what it is.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I'm calling it. This deal is going through! Taking avatar bets/ban bets. Who wants in? I already have a bet with thicc_girls_are_teh_best on concessions that I'm likely to lose, but the deal will go through.

Maybe just stick with an avatar bet for the next one, amigo. Don't go paying for a classroom's worth of games when all's said and done

CMA is saying they generally prefer divestiture, but they have made clear that they are making an exception for this transaction, and are entertaining behavioral remedies for a case in which they normally would not.

Behavior remedies that are strong enough are not at all off the table, and CMA has made clear they have yet to fully assess any behavioral remedies because it was not the time to do so, and Microsoft had not offered any yet.

From the wording it sounds like a behavioral remedy (or remedies) is only something they'd entertain if they're VERY good and notably better than what Microsoft have already publicly pitched. So they would have to be beyond a 10-year deal.

You even said it yourself: a deal for full COD multiplatform access and parity (including service access) in perpetuity. But the challenge to that is the services part, because MS can still just roll COD into Game Pass and for various financial reasons, Sony would not be able to do the same for PS+. When it comes to gaming revenue, every dollar MS loses means at least 10x in value that Sony loses on the same dollar. That's the difference in gaming as a pillar for the respective companies revenue and especially profit-wise.

So MS could promise to keep COD on PlayStation forever, have feature and timing parity, marketing parity (meaning both can advertise COD for their platform as they see fit) and so forth, but even though Sony could put COD in PS+, that works against their business model for PlayStation. OTOH, MS can and most likely would put COD in Game Pass, and any money left on the table through loss of direct sales means literally nothing to them because Xbox's absolute revenue is a pittance compared to the money Microsoft makes from their other divisions.

It can basically be argued as a form of predatory pricing, which does fall under antitrust. And that would be a big hold-up in any such behavioral remedy, long as MS still had full ownership of COD. Which is why I think the concessions will probably be structural remedies, likely divesting COD into its own company (but I can see them allowing MS to retain partial ownership).

Did they really just commit fraud?!

Either with regulatory bodies or their shareholders?!

So MS are telling regulators Xbox MAU is 55 million? And we all know that's between Game Pass, XBL Gold, and Silver (which is free).

I mean, are they only focusing on Xbox-branded services, so not including Game Pass, or only accounting for services (any type) actually accessed through Xbox consoles? I think it HAS to only be considering Xbox consoles here, not PC, mobile, PlayStation or Nintendo platforms, because they can only reach 120 million MAU by including all the non-Xbox consoles in there.

It's really weird, both in however MS are reporting the number and whether or not they've done something illegal. I'd just play it safe and say the 55 million is for all MS-owned services accessed through Xbox consoles, although again folks don't need to pay for Silver or for accounts needed for say Minecraft. And the 120 million figure accounts for Xbox consoles, Sony consoles, Nintendo consoles, PC and mobile. Probably bloated with a shit ton of free Minecraft accounts, ESO accounts, Sea of Thieves accounts and the such.

 

[DeepEnigma]

B2P= Buy to play

Phil Spencer: Game Pass leads to more game sales

This past weekend's X018 event was, arguably, a two-hour long advertisement for Game Pass, and given what Microsoft gam…

www.gamesindustry.biz

 

[GHG]

B2P= Buy to play

Oh dear.

What have you done Philip.

 

[Interfectum]

 

[Pedro Motta]

http://[URL][URL]https://www.gamesindustry.biz/phil-spencer-game-pass-leads-to-more-game-sales

[/URL][/URL]

The latest earnings from MS tell the whole truth.

I have a XSX, didn't buy a single game for it.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Oh dear.

What have you done Philip.

 

[3liteDragon]

I think it's dead at this point.

Open Markets Weighs in on Latest in Microsoft’s Acquisition of Activision Blizzard — Open Markets Institute

The Open Markets Institute Europe Director Max von Thun released the following statement with regard to the United Kingdom Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) issuing of provisional findings from its investigation into Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard.

www.openmarketsinstitute.org

 

[ToadMan]

I'm still somewhat inclined to think this deal goes through, but with the major concession and in inconclad writing that CoD is to remain on PS4 & PS5, and all existing Sony platforms moving forward. I'm sure there are others but this is very likely the biggest hurdle in the deal.

Do you think that’s enough? Just a licensing deal for last gen and this?

I mean the CMA has said divestiture is necessary.

But then added in the possibility of behavioural remedies - those remedies would have to be at least as encompassing and water tight as divestment.

There’s no timescale on divestment and no limit on licensing. MS would have to effectively put COD and whatever other properties the CMA chooses into a wholly owned subsidiary with separate management and financials.

They (MS) would have to show that they license content from the subsidiary in the same way as any other third party. That would be the equivalent of divestment in behaviour terms.

They would even have to pay the going rate for Gamepass COD.

I don’t feel a simple contract promising COD on PS is the equivalent of divestment…

 

[DeepEnigma]

I think it's dead at this point.

But what about Chile where they don't even sell the product there approving it ??!!

 

[MasterCornholio]

Wonder what he's going to say about this.