Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?


  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Your on thin ice yourself, oh, and removed from thread.
No one needs to make you look crazy. You do it all on your own.

Haha, you're batshit fanboyism is seen by all so we can all see you're crazy too. 😆

GIF by ABC Network
 
I want the deal blocked only because I want the entertainment of seeing era have a meltdown. Who doesn't want to see that? I haven't even played an Activision game since mw2 on 360.

Even 4TF boxes in 2023+ after poking fun of anemia in the console realm, game streaming, etc..

I remember when PS5 was weak and would hold the generation back.. then the series s was officially revealed and we never heard that again! Series s would have no problem running current gen games at 1440p!
 
Last edited:
Not every game is guaranteed to every platform. Xbox gamers miss out on multi-platform games regularly. It happens in business. The fact that MS puts some of their first party titles on non-Xbox platforms should be something regulators look at too. They have hardly been the platform about exclusives and the numbers prove that. This is especially true when every game they make hits PC day and date. Looks like you choose to not see some things too.
I don't even think you believe what you wrote here.
 
Not every game is guaranteed to every platform. Xbox gamers miss out on multi-platform games regularly. It happens in business. The fact that MS puts some of their first party titles on non-Xbox platforms should be something regulators look at too. They have hardly been the platform about exclusives and the numbers prove that. This is especially true when every game they make hits PC day and date. Looks like you choose to not see some things too.
I don't even think you believe what you wrote here.
Please Understandâ„¢
 
Last edited:
"If the only argument is that Microsoft is going to withhold 'Call of Duty' from other platforms, and we've now entered into contracts that are going to bring this to many more devices and many more platforms, that is a pretty hard case to make to a court," Mr. Smith said. He said any decision on the deal would be subject to judicial review.
Mr. Smith said Microsoft expects to reach additional deals in the coming weeks. "More will follow," Mr. Smith said.
Microsoft earlier made a similar offer to Sony Group Corp., the most prominent critic of the planned Activision deal. Mr. Smith said the companies haven't reached a formal agreement and aren't currently in discussions.

Only interesting things from the following source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/micros...-approval-to-buy-activision-blizzard-a8c5372f
 
Imagine your opinion being so intrenched that any argument to the contrary, makes you respond in such an irrational way, to the point where mods drop a thread ban.
 
How do you enforce it though? And when MS breaks their commitments does the CMA have to get dragged into it again? What if Google comes up with another streaming service, or Apple, and none of them are covered by MS's agreements? What about time wise. In ten years regulators just have to waste their time keeping tabs on MS again?

MS is doing what they feel is enough sure, but maybe what they feel is enough isn't.
 
Last edited:
How do you enforce it though? And when MS breaks their commitments does the CMA have to get dragged into it again? What if Google comes up with another streaming service, or Apple, and none of them are covered by MS's agreements? What about time wise. In ten years regulators just have to waste their time keeping tabs on MS again?

MS is doing what they feel is enough sure, but maybe what they feel is enough isn't.
100% CMA will get dragged into it, they can hire a third party but regulators would be out of there minds to put complete trust in a third party.
 
How do you enforce it though? And when MS breaks their commitments does the CMA have to get dragged into it again? What if Google comes up with another streaming service, or Apple, and none of them are covered by MS's agreements? Etc

MS is doing what they feel is enough sure, but maybe what they feel is enough isn't.

That's why behavioural remedies don't work here. Hard to enforce and Microsoft could even breach it as they have a history of in the past. Sony said this to the CMA too.
 


Weird turns in this whole saga

Geez Microsoft is shameless. Not that I thought that Atomic Heart should have been taken off GP, but it would have been nice if they had announced some due diligence on the developer and their funding sources. Instead we got crickets as far as I know.

But hey, we need this deal so let's do a feel good deal with a Ukrainian cloud company.
 
Basically they can't offer more than the 10 years deal or the whole thing isn't worth it.
They know CMA won't approve it.
The strategy is to create mediatic pressure on the regulators.
But if they go with things as low as trying to pass the Activision deal like something good for Ukraine they have really lost it.
They think this is an american reality show.
 
Last edited:



Microsoft end game strategy seems to be abandon the "It's really about mobile, not COD" narrative and instead find a sizeable group. Any sizeable group. And promise them the clouds, literally. At this point, Microsoft is just pointing at different demographics and saying "You get Cloud/Cod too" like

giphy.gif


Stomach turning really.
 
Last edited:
"Microsoft Corp. and Boosteroid on Tuesday announced a 10-year agreement to bring Xbox PC games to Boosteroid's cloud gaming platform. Boosteroid, which has its software development team in Ukraine, recently surpassed 4 million users globally and has become the largest independent cloud gaming provider in the world. The agreement will also enable Activision Blizzard PC titles to be streamed by Boosteroid customers after Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard closes."

Comes across as incredibly self-serving.
 
The fact that MS puts some of their first party titles on non-Xbox platforms should be something regulators look at too.

The numbers speak for themselves.

100% multiplat before Zeni acquisition and 100% exclusive after.

FTC and CMA have both referred to this. And they blocked the acquisition.

So, that claim is addressed and put to bed.

Was there something else?
 
Last edited:
It gets better. They aren't even a Ukrainian business.

Their founder is Romanian, they were founded in Romania and they are headquartered in Romania.
Their LinkedIn says their headquarters are in Kiev

The numbers speak for themselves.

100% multiplat before Zeni acquisition and 100% exclusive after.

FTC and CMA have both referred to this. And they blocked the acquisition.

So, that claim is addressed and put to bed.

Was there something else?
How is putting games on PC not multiplatform?
 
Last edited:
The numbers speak for themselves.

100% multiplat before Zeni acquisition and 100% exclusive after.

FTC and CMA have both referred to this. And they blocked the acquisition.

So, that claim is addressed and put to bed.

Was there something else?
Can't say 100% right now. There has been 2 Xbox & PC only games released, out of like 5 or 6 Zenimax games...
 
Last edited:
Hating from the usual suspects in the last pages will be very funny when the deal will go through. Can't wait 😄
Using Ukraine to tease Ms is a bit sad.
Ms helps Ukraine from the beginning with money and cyber security support, it left Russia from the beginning as company and supports Stalker 2 devs every day…c'mon…
There is going to be a whole lot of crow eating and cope once this deal goes through. I'm already getting my gifs ready.
 
Last edited:
There is going to be a whole lot of crow eating and cope once this deal goes through. I'm already getting my gifs ready.

Really? Who is on your list to serve up crow to? Hopefully you've bookmarked those posts where people have predicted the acquisition will fail.
 
Exactly. The game goes exclusive then. That's why it's only a 10-year deal and not a "forever" deal. And 10 years are nothing in the video game industry when a AAA title can take 5-6+ years to develop.
That's the fear but that's not for sure what's going to happen. There are reasons why business don't do forever contracts. There is no such contract for Minecraft and that's released multi-platform and same with it's spin off titles like Dungeons.

One of the reasons why you wouldn't make a forever deal is to re-evaluate your business strategy involving Call of Duty (this could mean making it exclusive).

Another reason would be the industry changing. If the standard platform/publisher holder cut changes, let's say to 12/88, and the contract details state a 30/70 cut as is standard currently, Microsoft would be locked in at an unfavorable rate.

Sony could change things up like they did with the PS3, making a hard to develop for architecture. The parity clause would strain things for Microsoft (they'd follow the contract, even to the detriment of their own platform), but being locked into those terms forever would be less than ideal.

If the contract disallows Activision studios from working on similar titles that are not Call of Duty. Say Treyarch wants to make a stand alone zombie game not tied to Call of Duty. A forever contract would bar them from ever doing that.

My guess is if 10 years isn't long enough, a clause to renew for 5-10 years will be included, which the CMA would deem if necessary at that time. 10 years with the option to renew for 10 would probably satisfy regulators. As Call of Duty has been around for 20 years, guaranteeing access for the next 10-20 would suffice.
 
Really? Who is on your list to serve up crow to? Hopefully you've bookmarked those posts where people have predicted the acquisition will fail.
He will choose based on brand wars, not actual context and nuance of positions or posts.

The clown trap of green vs blue that MS has been marketing on their social sphere, when in reality it has been MS vs. 3 main regulation bodies.
 
Last edited:
There is going to be a whole lot of crow eating and cope once this deal goes through. I'm already getting my gifs ready.

I mean, we are not professionals, we are just geeks talking online about videogames, but can't we raise the level of discourse above "neener neeneeerr!!! Now you Sony ponies ugly faces don't have call of duty!!"?
 
Last edited:
The screenshot I posted are the terms and conditions pulled directly from their website.

https://boosteroid.com/terms

And correction, the nationality of their CEO/Founder is unknown:

https://ae.linkedin.com/in/ivan-shvaichenko

Make what you will of where he conducted his higher education.

Interesting. Browse to google maps: https://www.google.com/maps

Search for "Boosteroid Games". I get only one result:

bnZ2HqX.png


Not saying that is definitive proof of anything, but still.......I get your point.
 
Last edited:
It's funny how Microsoft are signing contracts with all these companies when it's totally irrelevant to the CMA concerns about the size of call of duty, how big it is on Playstation and Microsoft using the ip to foreclose Playstation at any point in the future. How does anything they've done address those issues? They are sidestepping the actual issues.

They want it their own way. They don't want to divest or do structural remedies because that means they don't have control of call of duty. Which is exactly why they are doing any of this. If they can't have that, they will walk away. At the moment they are doing everything they can to persuade the CMA to change their stance and accept behavioral remedies.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom