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.
Banjo64 said:
The plot thickens…


Bil4uLv.jpg


6w6OxQa.jpg


Joined within 13 days of each other 19 years ago. Usernames similarly formatted DarkMage/DopeyFish. Exits a long hiatus to cheerlead a MS acquisition.

I kid of course.





Meme Reaction GIF
Click to expand...

that's when GAF moved away from Gaming-Age to become NeoGAF, fyi. you'll find lots of accounts with my sign-up date.

I always and only use the name DopeyFish. Have since I worked for msxbox.com in the year 2000, on Gaming-Age Forums (ezboards, and vBulletin) and NeoGAF and elsewhere.

I'm an ancient member.
 
Last edited:
reksveks said:
Re the gamers lawsuit, will be interesting to see if the lawyers can convince thier clients to spend more money on this case.
Click to expand...

I'm interested in that too. This group of gamers has some level of conviction since they've put their money where their mouth is, so to speak, once already.
 
feynoob said:
MS will also lose users from PS who will not buy Xbox, which means they are losing money in the process, compared to leaving the game on PS.

CMA is relying on the idea that MS would benefit from exclusivity, however they need to also focus on the loss side.

If there are 10m PS users who play COD, and only 6m of those went to xbox, MS would lose 4m sales, as those users are not going to buy xbox.
Click to expand...
PlayStation only represents 13% of ABK revenue ($975M) which is chump change for MS in the grand scheme of things. MS has/is investing over $80B into gaming division because they are looking to radically shake up their current market position. If making COD exclusive leads to their big gaming dream, they will do it in a second. For the record, $975M is equivalent to 5.4M GPU subscribers.
 
DopeyFish said:
that's when GAF moved away from Gaming-Age to become NeoGAF, fyi. you'll find lots of accounts with my sign-up date.

I always and only use the name DopeyFish. Have since I worked for msxbox.com in the year 2000, on Gaming-Age Forums (ezboards, and vBulletin) and NeoGAF and elsewhere.

I'm an ancient member.
Click to expand...
Sounds like something an alt would say.
 
XesqueVara said:
Just to shows what will happen If FTC case goes to a Federal Court.
Click to expand...

Nah not quite.

The gamers suit didn't have access to MS documents that the regulators have so they can't use MS internal plans to support their case - it's just "he says she says" and the Judge assumes MS is going to conduct itself by reasonable business practices.

But that gets refuted by the evidence already presented by the CMA for us, and the FTC will obtain further material per it's court request last week.
 
Last edited:
Warablo said:
I just see failure if they try to make CoD Mobile and Candy Crush exclusive. They might require a Microsoft account though.
Click to expand...
I would suspect that the aim here is to keep more of players' spending.

I would expect the games to be available on all stores but that if you're spending money you'll either have to spend less or get more for your money when you buy with Microsoft rather than on Apple/Google's store.

Microsoft can afford to undercut their product vs other stores because they get to keep either all, or more of the money.

With time Microsoft may add exclusive features or titles, but I imagine, initially at least, that their stores will be competing with the existing storefronts on a value proposition, rather than exclusive content.
 
Last edited:
Baki said:
PlayStation only represents 13% of ABK revenue ($975M) which is chump change for MS in the grand scheme of things. MS has/is investing over $80B into gaming division because they are looking to radically shake up their current market position. If making COD exclusive leads to their big gaming dream, they will do it in a second. For the record, $975M is equivalent to 5.4M GPU subscribers.
Click to expand...
No it's not equivalent. Because a GPU subscriber is paying for more than COD. MS has to pay all the other 3rd parties on the service, fund the other first party games, pay the upkeep of Azure servers. They reap far more profit by keeping it non-exclusive. Which they are doing by signing up Nintendo, Steam and Nvidia.
 
People are really trying to use a pseudo-serious cort case by some gamers that would never ever EVER go in a fight against MS lawyers as a WIN ???? Or as something that will have any impact in anything ??

"You lost the case to the CMA" .. but but but that judge in that case said MS is in their right ... surejen.gif
 
feynoob said:
that Twitter warrior mentality got him the best.

He become so obsessed with this deal, like MS is his parent or something.
Click to expand...
He obvious has some kind of stake in this ... is the only thing I can think of .. in fact it would bring much more respect ... just post a picture of some MS shares or some midia PR contract of any kind ... I cant believe all of his act is just pure passion and devotion to the xbox brand
 
Last edited:
BeardGawd said:
No it's not equivalent. Because a GPU subscriber is paying for more than COD. MS has to pay all the other 3rd parties on the service, fund the other first party games, pay the upkeep of Azure servers. They reap far more profit by keeping it non-exclusive. Which they are doing by signing up Nintendo, Steam and Nvidia.
Click to expand...
Things we don't know for sure
  • Will the purchase result in less reliance (maybe eventually irradiation) of 3rd party games on Game Pass?
  • Do Xbox actually pay MS for any Azure resources out of their revenue?
  • What is the definition of exclusivity? It may be that they let CoD be available on all these services at RRP of $100 a copy and either not allow it on other sub services or price it so that it would be impossible for others to justify the cost (hence to worry of it becoming a defacto GP exclusive in the subscription space).
I'm sure the regulators are looking into all possible models and hopefully suitable measures are enforced to ensure competition is always present.
 
Last edited:
Bojanglez said:
What is the definition of exclusivity? It may be that they let CoD be available on all these services at RRP of $100 a copy and either not allow it on other sub services or price it so that it would be impossible for others to justify the cost (hence to worry of it becoming a defacto GP exclusive in the subscription space).
Click to expand...

Sony would love that. A chance to jack up the price and blame your rival all at once.
 
Bernardougf said:
He obvious has some kind of stake in this ... is the only thing I can think of .. in fact it would bring much more respect ... just post a picture of some MS shares or some midia PR contract of any kind ... I cant believe all of his act is just pure passion and devotion to the xbox brand
Click to expand...
Sage said he had a 40k stake in this originally, however later revised that to 8k further down the line.

Nothing wrong with just saying 'I hope this goes through because I'll get paid handsomely' and just leave it at that.

Instead he compiles reams of word spaghetti.
 
Helghan said:
Psst. not the same at all, COD sells way more than any Bethesda game
Click to expand...
Psst losing money is losing money... losing last say .. 100 millions (bethesda) in ps sales is bad , of course losing more (cod) is worse.. but case in point it is what they did .. lost potential money to keep bethesda games of PS ..

I know.. I KNOW.. is not the exactly same thing because COD > Bethesda.. but... they did it before and can do it again .. say is not possible is just rubbish .... it is possible.... and everybody knows it .. it is probable??.. well .. for me yes ... for some no ... thats what the regulatory systens are trying to decide
 
Bernardougf said:
People are really trying to use a pseudo-serious cort case by some gamers that would never ever EVER go in a fight against MS lawyers as a WIN ???? Or as something that will have any impact in anything ??

"You lost the case to the CMA" .. but but but that judge in that case said MS is in their right ... surejen.gif
Click to expand...
the same that will say that Microsoft can just pull out of the UK and CMA opinion doesn't matter
reksveks said:
New CMA document from MS

https://assets.publishing.service.g...sponse_to_the_notice_of_possible_remedies.pdf
Click to expand...
this is it Microsoft wants to make COD exclusive after 10y the deal will get blocked by the CMA

At the Remedies Hearing the CMA asked Microsoft if the 10-year duration is sufficient and whether there would be a "cliff edge" for Sony at the end of this period. The 10- year period is []. Microsoft considers that a period of 10 years is sufficient for Sony, as a leading publisher and console platform, to develop alternatives to CoD.28 The 10- year term will extend into the next console generation []. Moreover, the practical effect of the remedy will go beyond the 10-year period, since games downloaded in the final year of the remedy can continue to be played for the lifetime of that console (and beyond, with backwards compatibility).
 
Bernoulli said:
the same that will say that Microsoft can just pull out of the UK and CMA opinion doesn't matter

this is it Microsoft wants to make COD exclusive after 10y the deal will get blocked by the CMA

At the Remedies Hearing the CMA asked Microsoft if the 10-year duration is sufficient and whether there would be a "cliff edge" for Sony at the end of this period. The 10- year period is []. Microsoft considers that a period of 10 years is sufficient for Sony, as a leading publisher and console platform, to develop alternatives to CoD.28 The 10- year term will extend into the next console generation []. Moreover, the practical effect of the remedy will go beyond the 10-year period, since games downloaded in the final year of the remedy can continue to be played for the lifetime of that console (and beyond, with backwards compatibility).
Click to expand...
They're pretty much admitting that the ending goal is an exclusive COD. Not a good answer relatively to the concerns they're trying to address.
 
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