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.
exclusives isnt the issue. phil spencer saying shit like this is.

https://www.kotaku.com.au/2020/07/xbox-series-x-exclusives-phil-spencer/

you cant say shit like that, then go and buy a publisher, and have all the ip exclusive to xbox. he deserves the flak. this isnt even console wars. nobody like someone who blatantly contradicts themselves multiple times. shockingly i used to like phil spencer before when he first took charge of xbox, but i cant stand him now. i want him to be replaced soon.
 
dPIIuHK.gif
 
What you and Xbox guys always do whenever people out out Phil's lies.

Because Xbox fans have been saying it.

Because it was right after the acquisition was complete.

No lies in this case, no Xbox fans have claimed case-by-case statement applies to old games and Quake Remaster was released 5 months after the acquisition was completed.

No real substance to your arguments at all.
 
exclusives isnt the issue. phil spencer saying shit like this is.

https://www.kotaku.com.au/2020/07/xbox-series-x-exclusives-phil-spencer/

you cant say shit like that, then go and buy a publisher, and have all the ip exclusive to xbox. he deserves the flak. this isnt even console wars. nobody like someone who blatantly contradicts themselves multiple times. shockingly i used to like phil spencer before when he first took charge of xbox, but i cant stand him now. i want him to be replaced soon.

Because even the most cursory read of that article clearly shows he's talking about the practice of limiting games to the new hardware at the start of a generation to force hardware upgrades. Essentially defending their cross gen policy and them putting their games on PC and Cloud.

Did you not even read the article?

Some of this just feels like Outrage As A Service where folks fall over themselves to deliver bad faith misquotes of Spencer's comments.
 
No lies in this case, no Xbox fans have claimed case-by-case statement applies to old games and Quake Remaster was released 5 months after the acquisition was completed.

No real substance to your arguments at all.

Hendrick's
How is that a lie? It was always on a case by case basis for new ip and keeping existing ip multiplat. There is no lie here. Phil is above all this console war nonsense.

Tell me, what does case-by-case refer to if Phil said games are going to be exclusive after the contract obligations are fulfilled?
 
You and @Rivet still laughing when Microsoft mentioned Digital Foundry specifically in their supplementary?

Imagine being so wrong and not realizing it..

I laughed at the notion of Digital Foundry being installed as you put it, "the monitoring agency." Did that actually happen, or did Microsoft just mention them in passing/provide a recommendation? I've not been in this thread for a bit.

So here goes:
  • If they were truly installed as "THE monitoring agency," by a court, or courts, then you have my sincerest apologies and congrats on getting it right.
    • Honestly, that's just about the saddest thing I can think of, and Sony not pushing for their own internal benchmarks is rather laughable, but hey....
  • If that didn't happen, and you're just looking for ANY reason to give me some payback for what was a really mild post, then might I suggest holding off?
    • Revenge is a dish best served cold; not red hot and riddled with inaccuracy due to impatience.
 
Last edited:
Deathloop was released in September... That should tell you they were under contract.

Facepalm

Hendrick's
But that clearly says case by case for future games, and old games kept in place.
torpedoing your own arguments is quite a thing 😂

Tell me, what does case-by-case refer to if Phil said games are going to be exclusive after the contract obligations are fulfilled?

When did Phil say all Bethesda games post acquisition would be exclusive ?
 
This is exactly how I feel about your responses.
Games have contracts when they're released on a platform, that's why developers can't just take existing games off a platform.
But that clearly says case by case for future games, and old games kept in place.
torpedoing your own arguments is quite a thing 😂
"AND keeping existing games"
When did Phil say all Bethesda games post acquisition would be exclusive ?


His words are clear. He talks about fulfilling existing contracts and then talks about exclusivity.

If you haven't figured it out by now, he went away from "case-by-case" after the deal closed.

How many times has he used "case-by-case" post acquisition?
 
FTC judge's order on the FTC complaints about MS and ABK.

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ft...-to-compel-production-of-documents-public.pdf

I haven't had a chance to read it in complete (got a headache today), seems like generally in favour of the FTC's lawyers. ABK got some wins. Most interesting thing maybe that MS and ABK need to file the contracts with Nvidia during the discovery phase if they want to bring it up later.

P.s. I want to say that I am going to miss Ezekiel but I am not.
 
Last edited:
FTC judge's order on the FTC complaints about MS and ABK.

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ft...-to-compel-production-of-documents-public.pdf

I haven't had a chance to read it in complete (got a headache today), seems like generally in favour of the FTC's lawyers. ABK got some wins. Most interesting thing maybe that MS and ABK need to file the contracts with Nvidia during the discovery phase if they want to bring it up later.
All of us in this thread:

Suspicious Monkey GIF by MOODMAN


And good stuff by the FTC. MS not filing Nvidia's contract details but still using it as the reason why this acquisition should go through is absurd. They should furnish full details to courts (and to a large extent, the public) if they want to use that for the acquisition and public sentiments.
 
Last edited:
This is exactly how I feel about your responses.
Games have contracts when they're released on a platform, that's why developers can't just take existing games off a platform.

Unless there's a specific marketing or publishing deal with the platform owner, Developers or publishers can pull games off a platform anytime they like.

His words are clear. He talks about fulfilling existing contracts and then talks about exclusivity.

If you haven't figured it out by now, he went away from "case-by-case" after the deal closed.

How many times has he used "case-by-case" post acquisition?

Again, none of that invalidates the previous case-by-case statement. You can make a purchase aimed at boosting Xbox exclusive lineup and still bring some titles to competing hardware.
Releasing Quake Remastered on all platforms well after the deal concluded is a clear example of this.

Not sure how this is hard for you to grasp
 
Unless there's a specific marketing or publishing deal with the platform owner, Developers or publishers can pull games off a platform anytime they like.
There are agreements in place prior to a game being released. That's like saying Sony never signed an exclusive deal before it was "shadow dropped."
Again, none of that invalidates the previous case-by-case statement. You can make a purchase aimed at boosting Xbox exclusive lineup and still bring some titles to competing hardware.
Releasing Quake Remastered on all platforms well after the deal concluded is a clear example of this.

Not sure how this is hard for you to grasp
It does because he talks about making future games exclusive after it was finalized. You can't find anything even remotely similar. lol
 
Unless there's a specific marketing or publishing deal with the platform owner, Developers or publishers can pull games off a platform anytime they like.
Does anybody argue that a publisher can't choose not to release a game on a platform unless they are legally bound to do so?

I don't think anybody argues that. They are free to choose and not release a game on PlayStation.

That said, it goes directly against what Microsoft said before the acquisition closed. So they did lie to the public and the gaming fraternity.
 
Come on, don't try and make out Sony didn't feed the CMA all those concerns. Sony did the exact same thing to Brazil, the FTC and the EU. The CMA has demonstrated they know very little about the gaming industry and almost followed Sony's submission to a tee.
I'm not sure why you don't want to admit that Sony played a big hand in it.
Not all regulators have said the same thing as the CMA. The Brazilian regulator said that its not the role of a regulator to protect the interests of the dominate player in a market.
I don't care what CADE has to say, they approved it unconditionally. The 3 major regulatory bodies all had objections to the deal, the FTC has sued to block it outright (the same FTC who fanboys thought would approve it by August of last year), the EU had objections to which Microsoft responded to, so we're waiting on a ruling for that & the CMA also had concerns regarding CoD & cloud gaming & offered divestiture as a remedy, to which Microsoft already said no. The CMA put out a well-detailed report & I was surprised by how much they understood the industry.

I don't know why you're acting like I'm refusing Sony played a big part in this, I remember the fanboys on this very forum were talking about how the deal was gonna through without a hitch & Sony wouldn't be able to do anything to stop it. And yet here we are, yea no shit it's not a shocker Sony's the main opposition to the deal for obvious reasons. That's been a well-known fact since the very beginning & their strategy is working so far, so much for the "Microsoft will bribe the regulators to get it through" crowd.
Sony has no moral high ground with taking content away from other platforms.
The issue with alot of Sony players is that until now you had everything going your way. The line share of top exclusives. Sony had the more higher rated first party studios. More consoles sold.
Lmao, "everything going your way." The bolded part still remains true, Sony heavily invested in their first-party over time & churned out some quality titles including some of the best games from last-gen. TLOU, TLOU2, God of War, Ghost of Tsushima, Marvel's Spider-Man, Death Stranding, Bloodborne & etc. Games like Returnal (new IP) & Spider-Man were funded & published by Sony themselves with Housemarque & Insomniac who were third-parties at the time before they got acquired after the games were successful. Look at how much of a powerhouse Insomniac became now with their insane output already this gen, an absolute steal for Sony for just $230M, that's how it's done.

The result of those investments they made paid dividends for them as the consumers (including me) & the market chose them over Xbox because of what they had to offer, they earned the market share they have today because they learned from their past mistakes & actually invested in their first-party output. All of these IP's (with the exception of Spider-Man which funny enough Phil passed on when Marvel asked) were formed under Sony, they weren't taken away from other platforms like you keep whining about. No one was complaining when Xbox acquired studios like Ninja Theory or Playground, PS players started complaining when publishers like Bethesda were acquired & they found out games like Starfield, the next Fallout & Elder Scrolls will be permanently yanked off PlayStation, which is exactly what Microsoft plans to do with Call of Duty if the deal goes through.

Now tell me, what major multiplat IP did Sony recently take away from Xbox permanently & called it first-party?
It gave them a opportunity to shit on MS with the usual cries of "xbox has no games" "MS wont use Office money to prop up Xbox" "If you want to play a Sony exclusive game, buy a Playstation" and so on.
It ain't Sony's fault Phil sucked at his job when it came to investing in their own first-party output last-gen, take it up with him.
It's changed again. MS is a big deal in gaming now. Even if ABK goes through, MS is going to grow even more with further acquisitions.
It doesn't matter if people don't like it.
They've been in the industry for 2 decades now & have always been a major player alongside Sony, they didn't just become a "big deal" over night because of a $69 billion deal that has yet to even go through. No one's gonna care if MS continues acquiring studios the way Sony has been doing now, as long as big publishers aren't being bought out resulting in established IP's being taken away from the competing platform. I still don't know what the fuck Phil's doing & why Asobo Studio hasn't been acquired yet, they're a capable developer who have a lot of potential under Xbox first-party. I've played both Plague Tale games on PS & they were great.
MS doesn't care about stupid little rules fanboys put out there like "you shouldn't be allowed to buy publsihers"
Don't worry, regulators will do their jobs. They'll care then, just like how they went from thinking no concessions would be needed for ABK, to signing all these licensing deals with other companies & offering Sony a 3-year CoD licensing deal before upping that to 10 years after more unexpected regulatory scrutiny. I guarantee you they won't think about acquiring any major publishers after this ABK mess gets resolved, that's the one good thing to come out of this deal.
all while forgetting that Sony bought publishers when Sega couldn't afford to buy them.
Michael Jordan Lol GIF

Not this shit again...
 
Last edited:
FTC judge's order on the FTC complaints about MS and ABK.

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ft...-to-compel-production-of-documents-public.pdf

I haven't had a chance to read it in complete (got a headache today), seems like generally in favour of the FTC's lawyers. ABK got some wins. Most interesting thing maybe that MS and ABK need to file the contracts with Nvidia during the discovery phase if they want to bring it up later.

P.s. I want to say that I am going to miss Ezekiel but I am not.
I wonder why they are asking for documents regarding crossplay and why MS are fighting back on that request?

Coincidentally PS seem to have included some prompt that I had to allow or disallow regarding privacy settings and crossplay invites. Is this some new feature or was there some legal issue to crossplay invites without agreeing to them?

It just showed up on the PS5 system UI as a question while I was trying to play COD yesterday.
 
huh it looks like Bethesda games weren't going to be exclusive if it wasn't for the acquisition after all. Looks like some posters have egg on their face.
How is this even relevant? No shit that any dev in an acquisition process who publishes on multiple platforms is going to keep developing for multiple platforms until they are acquired. Operational changes are not wise until a deal is sealed.

I doubt there was a significant amount of people suggesting that games coming out now from Bethesda were not originally intended to be multi platform. But hey, lets make up a fact that this is how many Xtards think so we can use this bit of nothing as ammunition against them. Then again, since multiple people think this is important, there must be just as many MS fans who are clueless enough to think Bethesda was planning to be Xbox only on games they started 5 or 6 years ago.
What the fuck is this nonsense? The post you are replying to is talking about how businesses deal with mergers. Have you ever been involved in one? The 2 parties need to operate as though the deal will not go through until it goes through. They don't stop developing products for competitors until the deal is done. Once the deal is done it still takes a long time to transition to a new way of doing business. They have to merge IT and financial systems, they have to review all projects and contractual agreements. Full integration from when the deal closes has taken 1-2 years in the cases I have seen while being an employee on the acquirer side. Once done the products are all aligned to a business strategy.

This thread is filled with so much ignorant bullshit.
Sony could have offered to buy them. Some of you seem confused here, someone else mentioned a "double standard" earlier. If Sony were the ones buying ABK, the same logic would apply. It would be MS getting ten years to, if they choose, try to create something that would replace CoD in case Sony removed it once the decade was up.

There also seems to be a mislaid undertone of MS being lazy or something by purchasing ABK. Those people conveniently ignore the fact that Sony is fighting this deal so hard because they don't want MS to be in control of the free CoD revenue Sony gets for doing absolutely nothing. It's silly.
It is not free revenue. They created a brand and grew and maintained their customer base. They also develop and improve the platform. That is how they justify licensing costs for 3rd party games. I take issue with the 30% crap, especially when digital prices are controlled by one vendor, but Sony absolutely did something to be able to command that.

The logic here is confusing me

MS signed agreements to put COD on new platforms and to keep it there for 10 years. If it is making a lot of money on those platforms how exactly can they stop selling it on/to those platforms when they have shareholders to answer to? COD exclusivity would cost them billions now. The only way it wouldn't cost them billions in the future would be if most of the alternatives fail and they have most of the gaming market.

How can MS owning COD, but not making it exclusive cause others to fail? Is it that since they are making the game, that they are taking in the lion share of that profit and can use that to grow their gaming platform? They also take on all the risk. What if COD declines in popularity due to something like Fortnight?
Whatever your place is, when you have an infinite warchest, that you begin to use to massively buy publishers left and right, and that the next one is the biggest of all of them, your place in that race has no meaning at all.
How exactly do you think companies enter new markets? They invest in a new venture. Sony used their electronics empire to buy/bully their way into the gaming market which led to Sega exiting as a platform owner. How is that different? Google tried to do something with their ad money. Amazon tried to do something with their cloud and retail money. Why is this somehow wrong when everyone else is doing it? This is how business works. Only really big companies can afford to enter established markets with similar products. In some cases some unique innovation can win a startup some slice of a pie, but that still takes outside money from VCs to make happen. Your stance on this has no relation to how business is done.

Regulators don't really look at other business units in detail when considering a merger. They probably should, but how do you do that objectively? How do you say, no MS, you can't spend money to make your 3rd place gaming effort do better because you already have too many Windows licenses out there and your pay per click and/or connection licenses for office automation are fucking obnoxious and ridiculously complicated for users to navigate. The best solution here would probably be, MS you can buy ABK, but you need to spin off Xbox. But then Xbox would be fucked because a lot of it is built on software and systems developed my the other parts of MS and that other part is creating more value by making things that can be shared across other business units. So something like that reduces the value of the 2 parts and to the shareholders. Also why should Sony get to have PCs, phones, cameras, and AV as well as PlayStation if MS can't?
 
What makes those any different than MS? The arguments against MS buying it mostly applies to all the other corporations as well as far as im aware.
None of them own a traditional console platform (meta obviously has VR but that is very niche) so the threat of vertical foreclosure isn't there, their gaming revenues are also far lower than MS.
 
The best solution here would probably be, MS you can buy ABK, but you need to spin off Xbox. But then Xbox would be fucked because a lot of it is built on software and systems developed my the other parts of MS and that other part is creating more value by making things that can be shared across other business units. So something like that reduces the value of the 2 parts and to the shareholders. Also why should Sony get to have PCs, phones, cameras, and AV as well as PlayStation if MS can't?
How about the much simpler solution of ABK remaining independent, MS you can't buy ABK.
 
Last edited:
Deadloop was delayed.
Sony knows which games are going to be released on their platform. There are agreements in place prior to games releasing.

You guys need to just stop. lol.
Lots of people being super overwhelmed because now they have to admit that their favorite console is run by someone who is just as much of a lying empty suit as ever other console chief.
 
What is beeing said is these games have been in development for more plattforms but MS made sure this was stopped.
But it seems this reality is cognitively overwhelming some people.

No. This is being used as a gotcha for many to say Phil lied in his statements that existing games would not be taken away from competing consoles.

Games in development have not been released, and cannot then have been removed from storefronts.

This should not be difficult for you to grasp.
 
No. This is being used as a gotcha for many to say Phil lied in his statements that existing games would not be taken away from competing consoles.

Games in development have not been released, and cannot then have been removed from storefronts.

This should not be difficult for you to grasp.
It is a completely valid gotcha though IMO, because the essence of the meaning of his statements suggests one thing when the reality of his actions is something else in contradiction to the meaning.

Had the position been stated as it really is he would have caught flack for it at the time. Suggesting it was understood when he was talking out of both sides makes it look like you are arguing in bad faith IMO.
 
No. This is being used as a gotcha for many to say Phil lied in his statements that existing games would not be taken away from competing consoles.

Games in development have not been released, and cannot then have been removed from storefronts.

This should not be difficult for you to grasp.
If a game was midway through development then it was "existing".

The previous argument was that the titles had never entered development but now we have clarification that they had.
 
Are you back to trying to frame unreleased games in development as 'existing games'?

Why?
Where did Microsoft submit they were talking about "existing games" only?

zohlEL8.jpg


On the other hand, Microsoft did make the EC believe that they won't be involved in either a full or partial foreclosure strategy (which includes non-existing games that were currently in development in Zenimax).

Nt5XwvW.jpg
 
Killing competition from 3rd place, right. And it's not even a close 3rd place.


"Microsoft Corporation, a global technology company that owns: (a) the Xbox gaming
console, (b) Game Pass, the fastest growing game subscription service, (c) xCloud, the largest
cloud gaming service
, and (d) twenty-three game development studios that make some of the
world's most popular games (including Halo and Minecraft), now proposes to acquire Activision
Blizzard, Inc., one of the most important publishers of video game content, for approximately
$70 billion"



Distant thrid place huh?
 
FTC judge's order on the FTC complaints about MS and ABK.

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ft...-to-compel-production-of-documents-public.pdf

I haven't had a chance to read it in complete (got a headache today), seems like generally in favour of the FTC's lawyers. ABK got some wins. Most interesting thing maybe that MS and ABK need to file the contracts with Nvidia during the discovery phase if they want to bring it up later.

P.s. I want to say that I am going to miss Ezekiel but I am not.

Yeah quick reading seems to be in favor of the FTC.

But the interesting thing to me was the order that any documents not submitted during this investigation cannot later be used in the trial.

That was the FTC's main bone of contention - it means if MS want to argue their third party deals offer mitigation, they have to submit those contracts and supporting documents for analysis.

So far they seem to have tried to avoid handing over those contracts to regulators.
 
"Microsoft Corporation, a global technology company that owns: (a) the Xbox gaming
console, (b) Game Pass, the fastest growing game subscription service, (c) xCloud, the largest
cloud gaming service
, and (d) twenty-three game development studios that make some of the
world's most popular games (including Halo and Minecraft), now proposes to acquire Activision
Blizzard, Inc., one of the most important publishers of video game content, for approximately
$70 billion"



Distant thrid place huh?
Instead of that jibberjabber why not show the console sales?
 
But the interesting thing to me was the order that any documents not submitted during this investigation cannot later be used in the trial.

That was the FTC's main bone of contention - it means if MS want to argue their third party deals offer mitigation, they have to submit those contracts and supporting documents for analysis.
It's only fair. I hope the CMA made a similar request to Microsoft.
 
exclusives isnt the issue. phil spencer saying shit like this is.

https://www.kotaku.com.au/2020/07/xbox-series-x-exclusives-phil-spencer/

you cant say shit like that, then go and buy a publisher, and have all the ip exclusive to xbox. he deserves the flak. this isnt even console wars. nobody like someone who blatantly contradicts themselves multiple times. shockingly i used to like phil spencer before when he first took charge of xbox, but i cant stand him now. i want him to be replaced soon.

If the deal fails and Microsoft has to hand over that 3 Billion in fines then it's guaranteed. Especially since a major part of the arguments against this deal come from Phil Spencer's PR. It won't be immediate, more so right time right place like 343 and the Halo debacle/lay-offs.
 
This is exactly how I feel about your responses.
Games have contracts when they're released on a platform, that's why developers can't just take existing games off a platform.

"AND keeping existing games"



His words are clear. He talks about fulfilling existing contracts and then talks about exclusivity.

If you haven't figured it out by now, he went away from "case-by-case" after the deal closed.

How many times has he used "case-by-case" post acquisition?

The Bethesda acquisition closed March 9 2021, this is after the deal was completely done
 
Ask Microsoft to release the official console sales data, and we can add that to the discussion.
Do you have anything that suggests current estimates of 1.5:1 (PS5:XSX/S) aren't reasonably accurate? And that's with the XSS being widely available (even discounted!) while the PS5 was having supply issues for most of this gen.
 
It's only fair. I hope the CMA made a similar request to Microsoft.

I'm curious about that now - because the CMA had the question about the 10 year "cliff edge".

It seems like they were going by MS's testimony rather than the contract itself.

I assume if MS are trying to avoid giving that data, they'd avoid giving it to any regulator. And presumably they feel something in those contracts harms their case.
 
My favorite thing about this is by tommrow or midday today, people will be claiming that Redfall was never In development for ps5. It's a fascinating loop on here. Like in thext 2 to 3 hours someone will bring up spiderman.
 
Last edited:
My favorite thing about this is by tommrow or midday today, people will be claiming that Redfall was never In development for ps5. It's a fascinating loop on here. Like in thext 2 to 3 hours someone will bring up spiderman.
Don't forget Street Fighter and Final Fantasy.
 
I'm curious about that now - because the CMA had the question about the 10 year "cliff edge".

It seems like they were going by MS's testimony rather than the contract itself.

I assume if MS are trying to avoid giving that data, they'd avoid giving it to any regulator. And presumably they feel something in those contracts harms their case.
True. And the PS+ offer that Microsoft made to Sony, that was also interesting. Microsoft requested Sony to redact the data and details of the PS+ offer, which according to Sony, is impractical for Sony.

So there's definitely more than what meets the eye. And I hope all of that comes out in the open, not redacted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom