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.
Mibu no ookami said:
I believe they said that CoD was contingent on the deal going through but xbox games were not.
Click to expand...
Could be.

It isn't clear. in the CMA document it says the "benefit is merger specific". But that could just mean be the ABK titles.

I don't use GFN - no one does - so I didn't pay attention to the original announcement.
 
Last edited:
Elios83 said:
But the deal they proposed to the EU just a week ago was already so good!??
Just a week later COD can now be day one on Playstation Plus :messenger_grinning_sweat: (they're not disclosing if the price is in the billion range each year though).
Click to expand...
Dates please?

Do you know when MS filed this document?

Also this document doesn't actually say when PS+ licensing was first offered.

You may have a point about the licensing cost but get the dates correct.

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/microsoft-activision-deal-approval-watch-ot.1641775/post-267199087
 
Last edited:
Three said:
What's the article lulu is rallying the troops about?
Click to expand...
not sure it's actually been put out yet, entirely possible someone contacted her for comment & this is her trying to get ahead of the article by rallying her white knight defense force

how she became Chief Communication Officer is astounding because she acts about as mature as your average TikTok Gen Z type
 
reksveks said:
Dates please?

Do you know when MS filed this document?
Click to expand...
I only know this news is suddenly coming out now after a round with the CMA and I think that if it was already offered last week it's impossible that they refrained to disclose it until now with all the mediatic noise they have been making with the help of their supporters on twitter and in the press (not to mention their own PR conferences).
Anyway the substance is that we have now gone from 10 years to 10 years + day one on PS+.
 
Last edited:
Elios83 said:
I only know this news is suddenly coming out now after a round with the CMA and I think that if it was already offered last week it's impossible that they refrained to disclose it until now with all the mediatic noise they have been making with the help of their supporters on twitter and in the press (not to mention their own PR conferences).
Anyway the substance is that we have now gone from 10 years to 10 years + day one on PS+.
Click to expand...
Have a look at the date on the attachment but if you don't want to.

VuEH31O.jpg


Who is the they? MS? Microsoft didn't disclose it yesterday. The CMA did.

Also MS mentioned that they offered it onto ps plus before but we didn't know and still don't know the full terms of the licensing agreement.

Source for the first story about ps plus: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antit...of-duty-offer-to-sony-to-include-subscription
 
Last edited:
reksveks said:
Have a look at the date on the attachment but if you don't want to.

VuEH31O.jpg


Who is the they? MS? Microsoft didn't disclose it yesterday. The CMA did.

Also they offered it onto ps plus in December but we didn't know and still don't know the full terms of the licensing agreement.
Click to expand...
They = Microsoft, since Microsoft is disclosing everything about this deal to fuel their mediatic assault I thought the news was coming from them.
And as I said I don't know the dates when this was proposed, but it's weird that no one has ever talked that the 10 years deal included day one on PS+ until today.
Why has it been always omitted? It seemed like a good bullet point to prove their good faith?
But good to know, I'm just learning today that the bar Microsoft has committed to is actually higher than I thought.
About the CMA the point is always the same, it's not the structural remedy they want.
 
Last edited:
Elios83 said:
But the deal they proposed to the EU just a week ago was already so good!??
Just a week later COD can now be day one on Playstation Plus :messenger_grinning_sweat: (they're not disclosing if the price is in the billion range each year though).
But the point is that every week there's a new concession and the minimum livel of the requested remedies will go up.
And some people think that Sony doesn't know what they're doing....
At this point it's also clear that Microsoft does not expect the CMA to approve the deal so they're trying to throw whatever they can except what CMA has asked them.
Click to expand...
The price will likely be $60 per user that plays more than 1 hour of COD. About 20M COD users on PS every year. That's $1.2B a year. Why would Sony do that? Not only does Sony lose out on their day 1 COD royalty ($280M for 20% split) but now they're forking out $1.2B? If this is MS offer for COD, then it isn't a serious deal. There's a reason why MS is buying ABK as a whole rather than making a day 1 GP license deal with ABK. It's much better value to own ABK and then put out day 1 GP COD.
 
reksveks said:
Have a look at the date on the attachment but if you don't want to.

VuEH31O.jpg


Who is the they? MS? Microsoft didn't disclose it yesterday. The CMA did.

Also MS mentioned that they offered it onto ps plus before but we didn't know and still don't know the full terms of the licensing agreement.

Source for the first story about ps plus: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antit...of-duty-offer-to-sony-to-include-subscription
Click to expand...

I would imagine if the cost was predatory, or subject to change with no boundaries, it would be exactly one of the things the CMA is worried about and wouldn't help Microsoft's case with them.
 
What people need to realize is that the CMA has allowed only 1 case referred to Phase 2 in the last 5 years to clear with behavioral remedies and that was because the company being absorbed was going out of business anyways. That's 1 out of 59 cases.

So anyone who thinks this deal is likely to move forward, especially after Microsoft has already said they'll abandon this deal rather than divest has fooled themselves.
 
Baki said:
The price will likely be $60 per user that plays more than 1 hour of COD. About 20M COD users on PS every year. That's $1.2B a year. Why would Sony do that? Not only does Sony lose out on their day 1 COD royalty ($280M for 20% split) but now they're forking out $1.2B? If this is MS offer for COD, then it isn't a serious deal. There's a reason why MS is buying ABK as a whole rather than making a day 1 GP license deal with ABK. It's much better value to own ABK and then put out day 1 GP COD.
Click to expand...
Of course I also think it's not a good deal for Sony because it's gonna cost a lot and it helps in shifting the whole business where Microsoft wants, but it's still important that the option is there as the minimum bar for the remedies they're offering.
 
Elios83 said:
They = Microsoft, since Microsoft is disclosing everything about this deal to fuel their mediatic assault I thought the news was coming from them.
And as I said I don't know the dates when this was proposed, but it's weird that no one has ever talked that the 10 years deal included day one on PS+ until today.
Why has it been always omitted? It seemed like a good bullet point to prove their good faith?
But good to know, I'm just learning today that the bar Microsoft has committed to is actually higher than I thought.
Click to expand...
I don't know why it's omitted, and I'm pretty sure they (think Smith) also have mentioned ps plus offering in an interview but the internet as a whole has a goldfish like memory.

Elios83 said:
About the CMA the point is always the same, it's not the structural remedy they want.
Click to expand...
I only bring up the CMA as they are the party that disclosed it. Nothing related to what they think of this proposed remedy that was true as of two weeks ago.

I believe that they still have a couple of more behavioural remedies that they would need to commit to specifically for cloud streaming. The issue around the pricing for MGS services may be something that they might never be able to resolve
 
Foilz said:
That's why we all should be happy Xbox is owned by Ms. If all we had was Sony we would be fucked
Click to expand...
If I had the money I'd buy Sega and start a new console with games that firmly fit in between Nintendo and PlayStation, not too kiddy, not too AAA.

Why nobody tries making those types of games anymore I'll never understand.
 
reksveks said:
I don't know why it's omitted, and I'm pretty sure they (think Smith) also have mentioned ps plus offering in an interview but the internet as a whole has a goldfish like memory.


I only bring up the CMA as they are the party that disclosed it. Nothing related to what they think of this proposed remedy that was true as of two weeks ago.

I believe that they still have a couple of more behavioural remedies that they would need to commit to specifically for cloud streaming. The issue around the pricing for MGS services may be something that they might never be able to resolve
Click to expand...
Brad Smith is the one that has unveiled any kind of embarrassing (for them) performance metrics, the deal they made with Nintendo and nVidia. The only thing he failed to mention is the day one PS+ option in the deal they proposed to Sony.
It's really weird as that would have been a really good propaganda point to prove their good intentions (even if it's just smoke and mirrors because the price is probably prohibitive and it would make Sony lose an important revenues source).
That is why I'm really surprised that this is coming out today, at least for me.
 
Last edited:
bitbydeath said:
If I had the money I'd buy Sega and start a new console with games that firmly fit in between Nintendo and PlayStation, not too kiddy, not too AAA.

Why nobody tries making those types of games anymore I'll never understand.
Click to expand...

Why does that require a console though?

The costs involved with designing, producing, distributing, and advertising a console is just too high if you aren't hitting a certain number of units.

Sega games aren't popular enough to maintain a console. Honestly few publishers could do this. Maybe T2 and maybe EA, but not even Activision could.
 
Mibu no ookami said:
What people need to realize is that the CMA has allowed only 1 case referred to Phase 2 in the last 5 years to clear with behavioral remedies and that was because the company being absorbed was going out of business anyways. That's 1 out of 59 cases.

So anyone who thinks this deal is likely to move forward, especially after Microsoft has already said they'll abandon this deal rather than divest has fooled themselves.
Click to expand...

Yeah. From what I've gathered, the language the CMA used in their provisional findings made it pretty clear they had serious doubts that a suitable behavioral remedy would be found. They really want to avoid Microsoft being able to leverage Call of Duty in any way in the future.

Another point I think that a lot of people overlook is that the CMA doesn't have a duty to customers around the globe. Their duty is to UK citizens and the UK market already sees Xbox being competitive with PlayStation. They're not going to risk Xbox gaining a crushing advantage in the UK just to help them be more competitive with PlayStation in Europe or anywhere else. Whatever arguments are to be made with the CMA have to focus on how it will affect UK citizens.
 
Elios83 said:
Of course I also think it's not a good deal for Sony because it's gonna cost a lot and it helps in shifting the whole business where Microsoft wants, but it's still important that the option is there as the minimum bar for the remedies they're offering.
Click to expand...
I don't think that deal particularly helps assuage regulators concerns when it comes to a level playing field for subscription services. This is why CMA wants divestment, that way the COD company can give both MS and Sony the same shitty deal ($1B/year). :messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy:

Varteras said:
Yeah. From what I've gathered, the language the CMA used in their provisional findings made it pretty clear they had serious doubts that a suitable behavioral remedy would be found. They really want to avoid Microsoft being able to leverage Call of Duty in any way in the future.

Another point I think that a lot of people overlook is that the CMA doesn't have a duty to customers around the globe. Their duty is to UK citizens and the UK market already sees Xbox being competitive with PlayStation. They're not going to risk Xbox gaining a crushing advantage in the UK just to help them be more competitive with PlayStation in Europe or anywhere else. Whatever arguments are to be made with the CMA have to focus on how it will affect UK citizens.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Xbox is very competitive with PS5 in the UK. 2.5M PS5 vs 1.8M XBS. Source: https://eraltd.org/media/72551/2023-era-yrbk.pdf
 
Last edited:
Varteras said:
Yeah. From what I've gathered, the language the CMA used in their provisional findings made it pretty clear they had serious doubts that a suitable behavioral remedy would be found. They really want to avoid Microsoft being able to leverage Call of Duty in any way in the future.

Another point I think that a lot of people overlook is that the CMA doesn't have a duty to customers around the globe. Their duty is to UK citizens and the UK market already sees Xbox being competitive with PlayStation. They're not going to risk Xbox gaining a crushing advantage in the UK just to help them be more competitive with PlayStation in Europe or anywhere else. Whatever arguments are to be made with the CMA have to focus on how it will affect UK citizens.
Click to expand...

635 pages and people largely want to ignore the realities of this.
 
Baki said:
I don't think that deal particularly helps assuage regulators concerns when it comes to a level playing field for subscription services. This is why CMA wants divestment, that way the COD company can give both MS and Sony the same shitty deal ($1B/year). :messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy:
Click to expand...
Microsoft should realize that divesting is their best option to get a better COD deal going forward AND still expand their studio offerings. I'm guessing the problem is that they're going to find it difficult to get someone who will overpay for CoD/Activision not that cash isn't so abundant.
 
graywolf323 said:
I mean I wouldn't expect any of you to get it because of your own biases but Sony isn't the only one against it and it's been made clear many times why other publishers might not care as much
Click to expand...
Do you have dyslexia? I literally said there are others.
Heisenberg007 said:
How many console manufacturers are there in the industry that compete with Xbox? There is only one, Sony, and it has problems with the deal.

Why would third-party game publishers will have issue this acquisition? Like why would EA have problem with it?
Click to expand...
Because the size of the Xbox publishing division might be too big for their liking? I mean which business likes that their competitor keeps growing to something insanely big? So that they can use their position and size to get publishing deals?
 
Mibu no ookami said:
Why does that require a console though?

The costs involved with designing, producing, distributing, and advertising a console is just too high if you aren't hitting a certain number of units.

Sega games aren't popular enough to maintain a console. Honestly few publishers could do this. Maybe T2 and maybe EA, but not even Activision could.
Click to expand...
Because it's a different style of games not being produced today.
 
Mibu no ookami said:
Microsoft should realize that divesting is their best option to get a better COD deal going forward AND still expand their studio offerings. I'm guessing the problem is that they're going to find it difficult to get someone who will overpay for CoD/Activision not that cash isn't so abundant.
Click to expand...

They can spin off COD as a public company, retain 49% ownership, but will lose the studios and will need to strike a licensing agreement to use COD IP in the mobile games they want to publish. Actually, they might lose some of the mobile developers as well, because of COD warzone.
 
Baki said:
They can spin off COD as a public company, retain 49% ownership, but will lose the studios and will need to strike a licensing agreement to use COD IP in the mobile games they want to publish. Actually, they might lose some of the mobile developers as well, because of COD warzone.
Click to expand...

I don't understand where this 49% ownership comes from. Owning 49% of a company pretty much means you choose where the company goes.
 
kaizenkko said:
Could someone please summarize the latest news?
Click to expand...
  • There is no "news" yet because there's nothing new from the CMA yet.
  • The CMA asked parties to submit their responses regarding behavioral remedies.
  • Sony submitted the response that behavioral remedies would not work in this case -- as the CMA originally mentioned -- and asked the CMA to stick with their original decision, i.e., to divest or prohibit the merger.
  • MS submitted the same 10-year deals that they had mentioned before and said to the CMA that these promises are sufficient behavioral remedies and requested the CMA to not stick with just divestment or prohibition.
 
Elios83 said:
But the deal they proposed to the EU just a week ago was already so good!??
Just a week later COD can now be day one on Playstation Plus :messenger_grinning_sweat: (they're not disclosing if the price is in the billion range each year though).
But the point is that every week there's a new concession and the minimum livel of the requested remedies will go up.
And some people think that Sony doesn't know what they're doing....
At this point it's also clear that Microsoft does not expect the CMA to approve the deal so they're trying to throw whatever they can except what CMA has asked them.
Click to expand...

Most people know what they are doing. It's only the Sony die hards that deny it
 
Heisenberg007 said:
  • There is no "news" yet because there's nothing new from the CMA yet.
  • The CMA asked parties to submit their responses regarding behavioral remedies.
  • Sony submitted the response that behavioral remedies would not work in this case -- as the CMA originally mentioned -- and asked the CMA to stick with their original decision, i.e., to divest or prohibit the merger.
  • MS submitted the same 10-year deals that they had mentioned before and said to the CMA that these promises are sufficient behavioral remedies and requested the CMA to not stick with just divestment or prohibition.
Click to expand...
Thank! What do you think will happen? Personally, I think Microsoft's ten-year agreements are a joke and shouldn't even be used as an argument.
 
kaizenkko said:
Thank! What do you think will happen? Personally, I think Microsoft's ten-year agreements are a joke and shouldn't even be used as an argument.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I am in the same boat. The CMA's comments in the provisional findings did not look good for the 10-year promises by MS.

Besides, the CMA clearly said that the suggested behavioral remedies (if MS convinces the CMA on the idea of behavioral remedies in the first place) should be similar to the structural remedies (divestment) in effect. Microsoft submitted the same 10-year promises and completely disregarded CMA's request.

They also didn't really address their cloud gaming concerns with these 10-year promises. Nvidia was never considered as the main affected party by the CMA, so that Nvidia deal does not really matter.

This will likely be blocked by the CMA.
 
Baki said:
They can spin off COD as a public company, retain 49% ownership, but will lose the studios and will need to strike a licensing agreement to use COD IP in the mobile games they want to publish. Actually, they might lose some of the mobile developers as well, because of COD warzone.
Click to expand...

They actually can't do this. The CMA specifically cites that the new company would have to be wholly independent. As a majority stakeholder with 49% of the stock, this company would not be independent.

They actually need to find an independent buyer, not just spooling it off as a public company.
 
www.bloomberg.com

Sony Tells UK to Force Microsoft Call of Duty Sale or Veto $69 Billion Activision Deal

Sony Group Corp. urged the UK’s antitrust watchdog to block Microsoft Corp.’s $69 billion Activision Blizzard Inc. deal or force it to sell the blockbuster Call of Duty, as no other solution exists that’ll prevent harm to consumers in the cloud gaming and console markets.
www.bloomberg.com www.bloomberg.com

Sony Group Corp. urged the UK's antitrust watchdog to block Microsoft Corp.'s $69 billion Activision Blizzard Inc. deal or force it to sell the blockbuster Call of Duty, as no other solution exists that'll prevent harm to consumers in the cloud gaming and console markets.

The UK's Competition and Market's Authority said in provisional findings last month that the deal could result in a substantial lessening in competition for UK gamers. It suggested a number of remedies, including the sale of the best-selling Call of Duty game or blocking the deal altogether. The agency did say it would consider other remedies that would safeguard rivals' access to the blockbuster shooter game.

Microsoft has since said that the deal cannot be be completed without Call of Duty. It has struck long-term licensing deals with Nintendo Co. and Nvidia Corp. in an effort to appease global regulators. However, Sony said that Microsoft's past conduct shows that behavioral remedies are not suitable in this case, according to responses to the potential remedies published on Wednesday.
Click to expand...
Competition authorities in the US and UK have soured on so-called behavioral remedies in recent years. In a recent speech, CMA Chief Executive Officer Sarah Cardell said behavioral remedies are disfavored "particularly in a sector where technology or business models are changing quickly."

"Behavioral remedies are unsuited to this case because of the lever they would give Microsoft over PlayStation and the difficulty the CMA would encounter in specifying, monitoring, policing, and enforcing any behavioral commitment," the company's lawyers said in a reply to the CMA's proposals. Microsoft's lawyers said in a separate document published Wednesday that behavioral remedies are met in this case because the firm is "proposing a package of licensing remedies," which guarantee equality between the PlayStation and Xbox platform.
Click to expand...
 
Heisenberg007 said:
Yeah, I am in the same boat. The CMA's comments in the provisional findings did not look good for the 10-year promises by MS.

Besides, the CMA clearly said that the suggested behavioral remedies (if MS convinces the CMA on the idea of behavioral remedies in the first place) should be similar to the structural remedies (divestment) in effect. Microsoft submitted the same 10-year promises and completely disregarded CMA's request.

They also didn't really address their cloud gaming concerns with these 10-year promises. Nvidia was never considered as the main affected party by the CMA, so that Nvidia deal does not really matter.

This will likely be blocked by the CMA.
Click to expand...

I agree that it'll be blocked.

Microsoft's response to the CMA was basically, Sony sucks, CMA sucks, UK sucks. I'd have to look into past responses to the CMA but I doubt anyone has had any success telling the CMA that they don't have the right to block the deal and that behavioral remedies work because they say they work without any concrete enforceability. They also ignored entirely the request for specifics on divestment.

I think that CMA maintains divestiture and Microsoft doesn't accept, essentially abandoning the acquisition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Microsoft wins FTC appeal challenging $69 billion Activision Blizzard deal
News Business  2
82
142
StueyDuck replied
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
Top Bottom