SneakersSO
Member
Hopefully some of us start playing some videogames lolWhat are we going to do once this thing is resolved?
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Iced Arcade
Member
Next gen speculation threadWhat are we going to do once this thing is resolved?
jm89
Member
In regards to the bolded I think the CMA will start having a more critical eye with Sony's statements after Jim revealed he only wants the merger blocked.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
What does this even mean?
Pelta88
Member
I'm going for the Wild Hearts plat.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
I don't think these games move consoles either, but that's a separate conversation regarding the direction of XGS software. But he said that Xbox didn't release any games, so I only posted the list of games that did come out last year.
Anyway, this convo isn't directly related to this thread, so let's not continue with this.
Last edited:
SneakersSO
Member
Sony's position has been known to the CMA this entire time. They have never indicated they wanted a deal, nor were they or any other regulatory agency under the assumption that a deal was being pursued or that these regulatory reviews hinged on good faith negotiations. Thats just not how any of this works. In fact, Sony told the CMA just a few days ago in writing that they want the deal blocked.
X-Wing
Member
Yeah, I'm sure Lulu's tweet came as a huge surprise to everyone who wasn't paying attention.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
It's shockingly funny how many people think that Sony is under any obligation to take a deal and that their sole motive cannot be to block this merger. As if it's something to illegal to have that intention and the CMA will approve the deal as soon as they learn that Sony does not want to accept a Microsoft offer.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
phil_t98
#SonyToo
I agree with what you are saying but then we or at least the people who are looking at the deal have to ask questions why would Sony just want the deal to not go through and see if the reasons are strong enough to block it ir let it through.
still a long way to go yet
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
You guys are so condescending and quick to attack people and never take time to THINK about what some one is saying.
Yes Sony being against it is obvious. But Sony still has to submit ARGUMENTS as to why certain remedies do not work. Those arguments need to be believable. If we now know they never intended to look at these remedies rationally and have ALAWAYS ONLY wanted to block the merger. You then take their reasons why these remedies don't work with a HUGE grain of salt.
Do you people understand now?
Yes Sony being against it is obvious. But Sony still has to submit ARGUMENTS as to why certain remedies do not work. Those arguments need to be believable. If we now know they never intended to look at these remedies rationally and have ALAWAYS ONLY wanted to block the merger. You then take their reasons why these remedies don't work with a HUGE grain of salt.
Do you people understand now?
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
They already have submitted them.
You're not providing a revelation to things we have not already known since day 1 in this thread. We would be less condescending if people who did not jump in this thread within the past month or so, did not speak down to everyone as if we're retarded and have not known the process nor have been following along every time a new report comes out.
Captain Obvious shit and all that malarkey.
POKEYCLYDE
Member
I meant Call of Duty specifically when I said Activision doesn't release on Nintendo.
You say that Microsoft doesn't need to purchase Activision for Call of Duty to be released on the Switch or to be accessed through GFN. That Activision could decide tomorrow to do those things. But just as the regulators aren't taking Microsoft at their word, I highly doubt they'd view Activision's actions up until this point and put any weight into the thought that they'll suddenly do these things.
For all intents and purposes the CMA will see the benefits this acquisition is offering and judge if those outweigh any SLC. If I'm remembering correctly, the CMA has said there is a consumer benefit to Call of Duty on Gamepass.
Exactly, a 10 year deal on it's surface doesn't address all the concerns the CMA has. But the CMA themselves has said no remedy has been proposed to them at the time of their PF.
Hypothetically, let's say the CMA has 3 worries: - CoD becoming exclusive to Xbox while Sony relies on income from CoD to remain competitive. (Full foreclosure)
- CoD being worse on Sony's platforms, missing modes, coming 30 days after released on Xbox (Partial foreclosure)
- The CMA doesn't want to be bothered to waste the resources monitoring and regulating this acquisition over the next X number of years. This is actually a big reason why they prefer structural over behavioral.
Hearing about a 10 year deal without actually assessing what any proposed contract entails might be sufficient to address 1 worry, but wouldn't address everything. That's where actually proposing remedies would come in.
Anyways, I'm not speaking for the CMA and what they'll ultimately decide, when I say something that could sway them one way I typically also give the counter point that they would consider.
I'm still leaning to the acquisition being blocked. I'm somewhere like 8-12% of it going through with behavioral access remedies. The only thing I'm arguing against is people's certainty one way or the other on this passing or dying.
Thirty7ven
Banned
Do you take MS's proposed remedies with a huge grain of salt too?
Not that's not the ground disappearing under your feet.
prinz_valium
Member
No.
If EU and CMA approve, Microsoft will just close the deal, so the FTC has to file an injunction and win that in court.
That decision will be quick.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Yeah, but the issue is that whether Sony wants to block this deal or not, it does not really matter. It is only the CMA's opinions and understanding of the market that matters.
In this case, the CMA thinks (regardless of Sony's complaints) that this acquisition is anti-competitive. So even if Sony signs the deal, the CMA can still block it. Because Sony is just one party (console market share). It does not accurately represent the competition in the UK cloud gaming market yet, where Microsoft dominates with a 70% market share.
I'm not the one making the decision we are talking about the CMA here but of course I examine all arguments equally and make my conclusion.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
they already did.
POKEYCLYDE
Member
splattered
Member
CMA based their initial opinions on how badly this could affect Sony because Sony ran straight to the CMA with possibly deceiving evidence. Sony are the ones that immediately started crying foul SPECIFICALLY about Call of Duty. So yes, it is shocking to see Sony drop the ball here considering their entire argument has been based around something they all of a sudden reveal they actually don't care about. If Microsoft is willing to commit to a 10+ year deal and even foot the bill to ensure COD stays on competitive platforms in parity then that should change CMA's opinion if they are at all paying attention.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
But do you realize that the CMA also said that behavioral remedies don't work in this situation (before Sony said anything). Now Sony only said, we agree with you, CMA, behavioral remedies do not work in this case.
So the CMA and Sony already believe on the same thing. So Sony's task is cut down.
It is on Microsoft to convince CMA that their earlier stance and belief was wrong, and that behavioral remedies can be sufficient in this case. So obviously MS has a much tougher job.
That's why the general consensus is that the deal is closer to being blocked than accepted.
Can it still pass? Of course. Nothing is set in stone yet, and the CMA can change its mind. But as of now, if you have to make a guess, it is just a higher probability that the deal is getting blocked. Having said that, things may or may not change in the future.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Updated roadmap
feynoob
Banned
What about the drama after that?
I already registered front view ticket.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
How did Sony drop the ball? And how did they show that they don't care about COD?
You're confusing one thing: it's only a 10-year deal. And that is insufficient and unacceptable to both Sony and the CMA.
It's not like Microsoft offered a forever offer for all ABK games, and Sony declined. In that case, there could be an argument against Sony. As of now, it's only a limited-time 10-year deal, which Sony clearly sees as insufficient and is in no way under any obligation to sign.
Last edited:
SneakersSO
Member
Fair enough! Anything can still happen.
Dick Jones
Banned
You know there is proof (news articles) that the MS announced their rationale for the purchase and it is for Candy Crush and mobile so it is shocking that someone's whole argument to purchase has now changed to we need COD when the CMA will allow MS get King.
splattered
Member
Oh yeah sure because that's realistic... ok then lets just go back to every gaming acquisition ever made by all parties Zenimax included because a company is somehow ONLY allowed to buy something and use it to help out a competitor. Say goodbye to 90% of your Playstation library. Organic growth is a BS argument as Sony buys up studios just like everyone else. Without acquisitions you wouldn't even have most of the Sony games you seem to love so much. You guys are fighting so hard against this but you're just yelling at the clouds and beating your heads against an imaginary wall that you have zero sway over.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Topher
Identifies as young
Sony didn't say they "didn't care about" Call of Duty. They said they didn't care about a deal with Microsoft. And they explicitly said as much directly to the CMA in saying the acquisition should be blocked.
Regulators obviously didn't think any of those past deals, including Zenimax, would significantly lessen competition. They do in the case of ABK which would be the largest acquisitions in the history of gaming. And no one has said acquisitions should only be allowed if they "help out a competitor". Where is that even coming from?
splattered
Member
No. Primary reason can be candy crush, it doesn't mean they want to chop up a company and get rid of everything else just to satisfy keyboard warriors on the internet.
Hello mr salesman, i'd like to buy that specific car because i've always wanted a Mustang and i like everything it has on it. ... uhhh sorry sir, that specific Mustang has lots of added options and aftermarket performance parts installed. I don't think it's fair to sell you this car when other people's mustangs don't have these options and parts. But if you are willing to strip it down to the point i am satisfied with i would be more than happy to sell it to you as a base model but at triple the asking price. Do you not see how silly that reasoning is?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
A car is a car!
splattered
Member
At this point i think a lot of you are just being thick on purpose haha
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Maybe, just maybe most of us have been here since the thread started and these runaround comments from the LTTP have all been there done that. There are over 650 pages of these revelations being brought to light, over and over and over and over and over....
Topher
Identifies as young
MasterCornholio
Member
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Fuck me. Its going to 2024....
MasterCornholio
Member
Where?
Edit: I see what you mean. That depends if Microsoft kills it before then.
Last edited:
Dick Jones
Banned
Xbox's Phil Spencer: We need Candy Crush, not Call of Duty
The Microsoft Gaming CEO made it clear that mobile is the focus of the Activision Blizzard acquisition.
www.windowscentral.com
Is Windows Central now a Pro Sony company?
splattered
Member
In the beginning Sony said they cared about Call of Duty and that Microsoft's deal wasn't good enough. And then they said later that NO deal would be good enough. Which is it? Sony are full of shit and they're just trying to throw their weight around to stop Microsoft from acquiring studios period. Not because it's "bad for gamers" but because it's good for Microsoft. Sony shouldn't even be taken into account in this case if they aren't willing to work with Microsoft in good faith and iron out a deal(s) that benefit all parties. Microsoft has never cried and tried to jump in and shit up Sony's acquisitions, even when it's someone like Bungie. Do you see Microsoft flailing around like little babies if Sony announced they were acquiring Namco or Capcom? I really don't ...
splattered
Member
You have selective hearing.
"We only need candy crush. Fuck all the rest of this shit it's worthless"
That's what you WANT to hear... but that isn't reality.
They paid a huge amount of money, specifically for Candy Crush and then everything else that will come along with buying an ENTIRE COMPANY.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Sure. Please share a list of all similar gaming publishers that were acquired for $69 billion, and we can apply this situation to all of those companies.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
- Status