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.
Fredrik said:
They've already done that when the shareholders voted for the deal to go through with the concern intact about how that would affect the Playstation output.
Click to expand...
Thats because they were offered a good value for this acquisition. ( Price per share)

If this deal fails though it would be something entirely else if activision stops cooperating with sony - the bigger competitor in console gaming market.

You can't reject an sony offer that would boost your revenue without good reason.
 
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping said:
It's been bullshit since the beginning. They're not paying $69 billion for fucking king you donkey :messenger_tears_of_joy:
Click to expand...

If they only want king. They no need Call of Duty.

Attack Of The Clones Wisdom GIF by Star Wars
 
I can't wait to see this deal coming to an end. No matter what happens to the deal, four things are for sure: Many crows will be eaten, many tears will flow, many goalposts will be moved and i'll be laughing my ass off.
 
Ar¢tos said:
Sony will just copy MS ps4/x1 gen move, and put the condition that games have to release on ps5/xsx at the same time with same content or not release on ps5 at all.

MS is already going to DRASTICALLY reduce profit of Zenimax games by cutting 100m potential buyers (i don't know the real number of ps4 + ps5 out there, I'm estimating one) and cutting it even more by putting them on game pass (2 months of gamepass to play the game is much cheaper than 70$).
Can they afford to do the same with Activision games?
Click to expand...
PS4 got tons of exclusive modes amd content versus XB1. Not sure what you mean?

And Sony is definitely cocky lately but if they denied COD on Playstation to force Parity would only be hurting themselves and give MS the exclusivity they are trying so hard to prevent.

MS is making Bethesda SINGLE player games exclusive. Which makes sense. Like Minecraft, COD is multiplayer dependent and was never going to be made exclusive but Sony is way too cocky. This going to blow up in their face spectacularly.
 
Rick Dangerous said:
Pathetic analysis.
Click to expand...

I didn't even have to list -

Fortnite
PUBG
Minecraft
Ass Creed games
Sports games
Ninty e.g. Animal Crossin
Star Citizen

Or....mobile versions e.g. PUBG mobile.

By all means tell me how Sony and COD are the only game in town and why it should be protected? Analyse away.

Drive by reply again? Good chat. Good day.
 
Last edited:
BeardGawd said:
I know this may be difficult to grasp. But the point is the CEO of the company is pissed about it.

If you think they'll remain in bed with Sony after this I don't know what to tell you.
Click to expand...
That'll go down well with the share holders.

'Why are we pissing about with our 150m user base again?'

'It's personal bro'
 
Banjo64 said:
That'll go down well with the share holders.

'Why are we pissing about with our 150m user base again?'

'It's personal bro'
Click to expand...
Nah Sony cost them money and now MS is offering a bigger check for marketing rights and exclusive content. Playstation can get the barebones version from now on.
 
Ozzy Onya A2Z said:
No, you conveniently assume ownership of any and all new IPs deserve to be on Sony outright.

If your point was valid Sony don't get to gimp PC parity, deny crossplay, not dev Strert Fighter for Xbox, Minecraft on all platforms for a decade etc.

Again, you're just cherry picking.
Click to expand...
Ang again... That fallacious argument that PC is independant, running on freaking Microsoft Windows...
 
kungfuian said:
If the deal falls through what's to stop Microsoft from establishing/co-owning a special COD studio group with Activision? In some hypothetical scenario couldn't they have a co-owned partnership with Activision to create platform exclusive COD content; similar to the way other exclusive 3rd party studio's games are funded but with shared interest (partial ownership) in a new developer group? Say Microsoft shoulders more than 50% the costs/risk somehow on paper, then Acti gets money coming in and to further spread COD's growth into service and cloud platforms, and Microsoft gets most of what they want too.

Seems if full ownership of COD is off the table that's fine, because Microsoft don't need to own all of COD, they just need it to stand out above their competitor to draw folks to their platform. I view it as a step above a marketing deal.

Personal note- I know fuck all about how businesses like this work. What is and isn't allowed. Etc. So if this is not something that can be done consider this a thought experiment and I stand corrected.
Click to expand...

Was going to come after you but at least you admitted not knowing how business works.

Microsoft and Activision don't need a joint venture to have COD be exclusive and ultimately it wouldn't work out. What you would do here is just have a deal for exclusive content. Activision wouldn't enter into a joint venture with Microsoft where the joint venture owned COD without some transaction occurring and that transaction would be subject to regulatory controls.

You'll note that they didn't say they could divest from Activision but keep COD as a possible structural remedy.
 
Skifi28 said:
Who the hell would think that? I mean just look at Bethesda...

... Oh wait
Click to expand...
That's still a dumb argument when bethesda has released games on playstation. You guys keep claiming games that were never announced for playstation were taken away. Those games don't count.

Also ms never lied about bethesda. Nowhere did they claim they would keep everything multi platform after the purchase.

Bobby kotic is a piece of shit. He is a shrewd businessman. I despise him and activision. However he is right. There is zero chance they would intentionally do something to lose 60% - 70% of sales on playstation. They didn't do this with minecraft, they wont do it here.

Sony only wants to prevent COD hitting more platforms (consider switch and game pass as different platforms) , as that will potentially harm sales on playstation platforms. This is all they want to protect. Its a system seller.
 
Last edited:
BeardGawd said:
PS4 got tons of exclusive modes amd content versus XB1. Not sure what you mean?
Click to expand...
I'm talking of indie games. MS wasn't market leader, so they could only impose this conditions on indie games. Many indies want to release first on the console with the largest market share to start recouping costs while they work on the version for another platform, MS didn't like that and imposed that the games release at the same time on both or to release later on Xbox it would have to have more content than the ps4 version (this had to be negotiated on a per game basis).

The difference now is that Playstation is market leader, so things change a bit.
 
KungFucius said:
Most people aren't fanatics who want the other side to suffer, they just want things to be better for them. Getting a game they usually buy and other games they might try to be on a service they pay for is good for them. It's pretty whiny and entitled to point at people who would like a better deal with gamepass as making you a victim, as if that is the main motivator. You could buy an Xbox or sub gamepass on PC. It's not like there aren't people who buy Playstations just for the damn exclusives when they prefer to game on other platforms.

Full disclosure. I am a PC gamer and gamepass subscriber. I have been enjoying the service, especially the riskier AA games I would skip otherwise. I don't play COD, but I would like to see AB acquired by MS if it means they would be given the freedom to create some unique smaller games like Pentiment or Hi-Fi Rush. I dont think this will happen if they stay as independent publishers. I don't give a fuck where else their games are available, I just want good games for a good deal. If MS needs to make a deal to keep COD on all platforms then I want that if it means I might get a few gems on GP. I also have a PS5 & Switch for exclusives and used to buy Xboxes for exclusive
Click to expand...

Maybe you should reply to what I actually said instead of typing out this long ass essay that no one cares about.

My point is, Xbox fans caring about whether Kotick stays on or not and the working conditions of acti blizzard members is just posturing.


No one gives a shit about your full disclosure.
 
Last edited:
oldergamer said:
That's still a dumb argument when bethesda has released games on playstation. You guys keep claiming games that were never announced for playstation were taken away. Those games don't count.

Also ms never lied about bethesda. Nowhere did they claim they would keep everything multi platform after the purchase.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that games that were in development long before the Zenimax acquisition never had a ps4/ps5 version planned?
Right....
 
Mr.Phoenix said:
Parity doesn't work like that. Especially with regard to controller setups and hardware support.

You don't make everything 1080p because one platform does not support 4k. You don't not use adaptive triggers because the other platform does not have them in its controller. You don't not put in a VR mode because the other platform doesn't support VR.

Parity simply means that all platforms receive identical features and content as long as they can support them. So if one gets 10 maps, so must the other....etc
Click to expand...

You seem to miss, that that's exactly my point, and exactly why "parity" isn't something that Microsoft can promise to a satisfactory degree. Microsoft's version of parity reduces competition and innovation.

Sony could have PS6 be twice as powerful as the next xbox, but if Microsoft won't take advantage of that power, so that they can still sell CoD on their system even though Sony is taking a loss on their very powerful PS6, which consumers like, but they still want CoD, it means consumers have been hurt in the process. This is what the CMA is going to look at in terms of an ever-changing dynamic market.
 
Hero of Spielberg said:
From what I've read appeals against CMA decisions can be appealed to CAT then their decisions can be taken to Supreme Court
Click to expand...
a judicial review standard applies, meaning the applicant must show that the CMA acted irrationally, illegally or with procedural impropriety. The CAT will not engage with the merits of the CMA's decision or conduct a wholesale review of the parties' evidence.

I doubt they'll be able to appeal.
 
Ass of Can Whooping said:
They're in agreement because he's currently getting them $94 a share assuming it closes

Guess what happens if it doesn't close?
Click to expand...
If it doesn't close due to Sony Sabotage? So Sony has cost everyone there money? They break the status quo and do marketing rights and exclusive content with Xbox!
Ar¢tos said:
I'm talking of indie games. MS wasn't market leader, so they could only impose this conditions on indie games. Many indies want to release first on the console with the largest market share to start recouping costs while they work on the version for another platform, MS didn't like that and imposed that the games release at the same time on both or to release later on Xbox it would have to have more content than the ps4 version (this had to be negotiated on a per game basis).

The difference now is that Playstation is market leader, so things change a bit.
Click to expand...
Forgot about this. But remember Sony themselves have stated how essential COD is. So they won't deny whatever version they get. Activision holds all the cards here.
 
sinnergy said:
He is right .. Sony should work from their strengths .. seems they are not confident of their own ability to create their future .

What Sony now does, is what losers do ..

Not very industry leader like .
Click to expand...

I agree, and I don't. Sony has beaten MS fair and square, already. MS has pretty much no other way out so their tactic now is to slowly squeeze Sony out by buying everything.

MS could never do this if they were primarily supported by gaming, like Sony. But it must be exasperating for Sony that MS takes its endless pockets in other areas to take over gaming, without adding much of value of their own. All they do is give away everyone elses shit for free in desperation to gain traction and damage the enemy.

For the record, it's a business transaction they have the right to do it. But is it good for gaming, not really. MS has demonstrated that they pretty much suck balls at managing studios so I see it as buying out Sony's lunch, dumping a whole container of salt on it and then giving it away for free. I don't really see it as good for anyone except maybe MS and the shareholders who will bank out on the deal. TBH if it really happens I expect the value of all the properties to start eroding just like Halo. Sure Sony could try and plug in all that lost value but they may as well not completely lose it in the first place for no benefit to anybody.

Of course there is the short term benefit of a load of already out games being on GP overnight. In 5-10 years I think reality will set in.
 
Part of this is Activision's fault. They attached themselves to sony with long marketing deals and game exclusivity (there have been other games they released that did not appear on xbox).

In the end they based too much of thier business off playstation. Now when they was to sell and cash out, sony does everything it can to prevent it as COD IS bigger then any single first party game. Its the gta situation all over again.

Activision put all its eggs in one basket.

What they should have done is what Ea did at the start of the 360 ps3 gen. They decided to put more weight behind xbox to level the playing field and prevent one platform from getting too big. It could have been easy for them to simply stick with sony after ps2, which would have had a similar effect like it did with the dreamcast.
 
Banjo64 said:
a judicial review standard applies, meaning the applicant must show that the CMA acted irrationally, illegally or with procedural impropriety. The CAT will not engage with the merits of the CMA's decision or conduct a wholesale review of the parties' evidence.

I doubt they'll be able to appeal.
Click to expand...
Fair enough you doubt they'll be able to, but it is possible to do so.
 
I don't get why Microsoft doesn't take everything bar call of duty. That would be so much more appealing.

Keep it multi plat and open to any cloud service etc and just put all the blizzard games and more on game pass?
 
DenchDeckard said:
I don't get why Microsoft doesn't take everything bar call of duty. That would be so much more appealing.

Keep it multi plat and open to any cloud service etc and just put all the blizzard games and more on game pass?
Click to expand...
Makes sense for them at this point. They'd still get a big boost in content for GP and make it more likely to clear regulation.
 
oldergamer said:
What they should have done is what Ea did at the start of the 360 ps3 gen. They decided to put more weight behind xbox to level the playing field and prevent one platform from getting too big. It could have been easy for them to simply stick with sony after ps2, which would have had a similar effect like it did with the dreamcast.
Click to expand...

This is so dumb it's insane to read.
 
Bonsaibäumchen said:
Thats because they were offered a good value for this acquisition. ( Price per share)

If this deal fails though it would be something entirely else if activision stops cooperating with sony - the bigger competitor in console gaming market.

You can't reject an sony offer that would boost your revenue without good reason.
Click to expand...
Voting yes for a nice sale price would be awfully short sighted if they considered a scenario without games on Playstation. I guess we'll see what happens but I'm pretty sure status quo won't be it going by the talk right now, things could get even more infectious before it's done.
 
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
99K
MasterCornholio replied
Top Bottom