Barakov
Member
I think the difference is Randy Quaid has balls to let it all hang out.Randy Quaid doppleganger?
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
Topher
Identifies as young
KungFucius
King Snowflake
Jesus Christ. So now NVidia and MS are colluding to make AMD's GPUs perform worse than NVidias? And your evidence is Linux performance and the fact that Windows is close source? Wow.
feynoob
Banned
Unknown Soldier
Member
20+ years ago, Nvidia was a tiny company making a very niche product, discrete video cards for PC's. The Nvidia juggernaut of today is almost unrecognizable from the Nvidia of 2002.
They really thought they were going to be the provider of GPU's for Xbox into the indeterminate future. However MS is always going to MS, there's a reason why the saying in Silicon Valley is "Microsoft is a vampire" and Nvidia refused to kowtow when MS demanded price reductions on the OG Xbox's GPU so they could reduce the price without hurting their margins. MS and Nvidia went separate ways after that in consoles.
Today, Nvidia and MS are sort of competitors in consoles, since Nvidia supplies the SoC used in the Switch. In general, console SoC's are a pretty low margin low profits business, which is why AMD doesn't make a whole lot from supplying the SoC's in both Playstation and Xbox consoles either. So it's not really much of a win for anyone to have their chips in consoles. The Nvidia of 20+ years ago was looking at Xbox as a lifeline in those early days, which would be laughable in concept to the Nvidia of today.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
what is it then?
fred420170
Member
Right.. Um, last I checked both the PS and Xbox use AMD GPU's that really wouldn't make any sense but then again... we're definitely not dealing with the sharpest tools in the shed lately.
MasterCornholio
Member
Last edited:
ChuckeRearmed
Member
You are saying as if it is some kind of one-sided relationship between Microsoft and Nvidia....
Why not? Microsoft signed deals with BYOG providers. It does not affect MSFT much and might allow to make cloud gaming more mainstream as people will have more options where to play the games they own (and they still need to purchase them).
Marvel licensing deals...Well, yeah. But again it was a different time.
freefornow
Member
And Santa! (although "nutter" status is debatable with that particular individual)Both distant relatives of Karl Marx?
PaintTinJr
Member
Good find. The text in your link mentions all the companies listed in article below too, which mentions Nvidia buying up companies and presumably now control those patents.
The mention of S3 that created the S3TC technique (S3 Texture compression) and is the foundation technology of Block compression in all GPU APIs, including all of DirectX's BC compression formats, including ones that are just relabelled versions of the S3TC Block compression formats seems to suggest to me this deal was about graphics patents that Nvidia had successfully hoovered up and Microsoft wanted to ensure access to for xbox and Windows. It is also interesting that in the year Nvidia decided to sue 3dfx, Microsoft fronted large amounts of money to Nvidia that would have made that easier.
https://www.theregister.com/2000/08/29/nvidia_sues_3dfx_over_patents/
edit:
The S3 patents talk of being bought by Nvidia.
https://techreport.com/news/632/s3-to-sell-graphics-biz-but-whos-buying/
"In short, S3 has a patent portfolio of considerable value, and the sale of their graphics business—potentially along with these patents—could bring a very nice price. If S3's assets were combined with NVIDIA's own patent portfolio, well, I don't know if anyone would be legally allowed to compete with NVIDIA. I get the impression that together with SGI (another NVIDIA cross-licensee), NVIDIA would practically own lit/shaded/textured polygon-based 3D rendering. Crazy."
Last edited:
DarkMage619
$MSFT
I don't recall anyone saying that two companies could not enter into an agreement that has an indeterminate length. The argument was that regulators will not impose a requirement that a company has to produce a product for their competitors 'forever' to win regulatory approval. Behavioral remedy regulatory requirements don't last forever especially when a company has to make something.
roosnam1980
Member
I did some research all the way back to Nvidia's year 2000 10K sec filling to see if there was some more information on the Microsoft deal. It appears Microsoft fronted Nvidia $200 million to developed the gpu for the original Xbox. Remember Nvidia was "only" about a $300 million dollar company at the time so this was a big contract for them.
"On March 5, 2000, the Company entered into an agreement with Microsoft in
which the Company agreed to develop and sell graphics chips and to license
certain technology to Microsoft and its licensees for use in a product under
development by Microsoft. The agreement provides that in April 2000, Microsoft
will pay the Company $200 million as an advance against graphics chip
purchases and for licensing the Company's technology. Microsoft may terminate
the agreement at any time and if termination occurs prior to offset in full of
the advance payments, the Company would be required to return to Microsoft up
to $100 million of the prepayment and to convert the remainder into preferred
stock of the Company at a 30% premium to the 30-day average trading price of
the common stock. The graphics chip and the game console contemplated by the
agreement is highly complex and development and release of the Microsoft
product and its commercial success are dependent upon a number of factors,
many of which the Company cannot control. There can be no assurance that the
Company will be successful in developing the graphics chip for use by
Microsoft or that the product will be developed or released, or if released,
will be commercially successful."
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/0001012870-00-001346.txt
Part of the deal must have been this rights of first refusal to purchase Nvidia stock if an individual or company tried to by 30% or more of their stock.
"In 2000, we entered into an agreement with Microsoft to develop and sell graphics chips and license certain technology to Microsoft and its licensees for use in the Xbox. Under the agreement, if someone makes an offer to purchase at least 30% of the outstanding shares of our common stock, Microsoft may have first and last rights of refusal to purchase the stock. These provisions could delay or prevent a change in control of NVIDIA, discourage proxy contests, and make it more difficult for shareholders to elect directors of their choosing and to cause us to take other corporate actions they desire."
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000104581022000036/nvda-20220130.htm
PaintTinJr
Member
What about when you add in the full data back to 2000 (I found it on yahoo finance), is that still your opinion?
Unless I'm reading the info completely wrong, both Nvidia and Microsoft graphs with the full data show a consistent trend of rise throughout that period with minor fallbacks before further rises. Where as from what I was looking at it looked like AMD have only really got to that stage in the last 10 or so years and had erratic rise and fall patterns through the first decade of that contract, but obviously I'll state in advance I suspect I'm reading the data wrong.
Last edited:
Yoboman
Member
Don't know if this was posted but could feed into why Google have put their hands up to be involved in this deal. This is a seperate complaing about their behaviour in the broader cloud service market
Summary:
Ironically if Google are replicating these complaints with the ABK deal / Cloud gaming, and the regulators take these complaints into account then all those signed agreements may end up working against Microsoft
This may be a view of why regulators seemed to have honed in on this angle
https://www.reuters.com/technology/...mpetitive-slams-deals-with-rivals-2023-03-30/
Summary:
- Google complaining of anti competitive behaviour from MS
- Microsoft supposedly utilising unfair market practices through bundling
- Bundling is considered anti competitive: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_(antitrust_law)
- Secondly they are accused of essentially buying off complainants with contracts - which may be viewed as similar behaviour to how they are resolving issues with the ABK deal
Ironically if Google are replicating these complaints with the ABK deal / Cloud gaming, and the regulators take these complaints into account then all those signed agreements may end up working against Microsoft
This may be a view of why regulators seemed to have honed in on this angle
https://www.reuters.com/technology/...mpetitive-slams-deals-with-rivals-2023-03-30/
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
I dont think google should be in position for that.
They have anti-competitive position in ads section,
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/sep/13/google-lawsuit-uk-eu-digital-advertising
and another one in the USA this year.
https://www.androidpolice.com/alphabet-new-antitrust-lawsuit-google-ads/
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/technology/google-ads-lawsuit.html
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
Yoboman
Member
I mean that's in Google Ads. More than one thing can be true at a time, and you can't really argue that you're not doing anti competitive actions because Google are doing it elsewhere
StreetsofBeige
Member
Everyone is cheery..... assuming they invested in Activision. I am too. I'm already up $10/share. When the deal finalizes at around $95, I'll make another $10/share. Easiest +30% gainer ever.
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
I am invested in both Mirosoft and Activision but I'm not particularly cheery. It's not a big enough portion of my allocation to care about, and I'm a long-term investor and I don't think this is good for either party long-term.
Most massive acquisitions like this are a failure.
StreetsofBeige
Member
If you don't believe in MS or Activision, then why own them at all. Just sell and pick different stocks.
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
It's not that I don't believe in either of them. It's that I think their overall business is better served as separate companies. I think it's a massive misallocation of capital/cash for Microsoft, and I believe Activision will thrive better long-term as an independent company.
Full disclosure: my holdings in them are through diversified funds, not as individual holdings.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
The entire thing is amusing.
Its like the pot calling the kettle black.
Yoboman
Member
I mean that's been the entire case so far lol
Yeah, posted the articles but not the nice summary. I do think it's somewhat analogous.
Ignoring the fact that they hypocritical nature of Google and they would be bundling in a useful service if they had one.
Microsoft did obviously offer some changes globally, and then some more specifically to those three recent complainants. Whether they will extend those to the rest of the market is unknown. I also would have suspect that this kind of behaviour would be under the purview of the DMA but not 100% sure.
My bigger macro view is that ABK doesn't really impact cloud streaming competition nearly as much as Windows licensing cost.
Last edited:
Will have to have a look, it was a bit late yesterday but the issue will come back to causation and correlation.
April's fools day is a bit lame and not one I can get behind
I just struggling to where MS could have stuck their capital into. I don't think it's going to be a massive success but there isn't many places to MS to expand into except for an 'app store'.
I think more investment into designing chips may have been an partial alternative as well as more investment in hw for LLM training but these would be all alot smaller than this deal.
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
Share buybacks or dividends would even be better, they don't need to buy companies
Potentially, I still rather them committing cash for investing in companies or R&D than stock buybacks.
Banjo64
cumsessed
Think end of April is when we have clarity. Feels like a long 3 weeks incoming. I don't know enough about the US process but from what I've read here MS will steam roll the FTC so remedy wise it's in the EU/UK's hands.
Varteras
Member
I mean, this situation really was a unicorn for them. Something like Activision being willing to sell is something that any company in the industry with the financial means would have been crazy to not jump on. Not even just for what it could mean for the Xbox brand. Just the money the company makes in general and the possibilities for the IP they own. Zenimax was already a lucky break for Xbox. Then this? Someone sacrificed their child to a demon to have that kind of luck.
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
Yes, it seems enticing on the surface. That's kind of the problem, it's very surface level. A knee jerk reaction to a rare opportunity with a company that had far too much money to waste.
But it's $70B, and acquisitions of this scale are notoriously bad long term
Last edited:
Varteras
Member
I do not disagree at all that this has A LOT of potential to enormously backfire on them.
In what way?
I mean, it's going through. Gaming needs a wakeup call to change the status quo and it's interesting to see how all of this will play out in the end.
Goalus
Member
She (as an executive of the higher ranks) understands how console warriors think and triggers them to the maximum on a regular basis. I have nothing but respect for this woman. It has been a joy to follow her on Twitter since she took over.
Tomeru
Member
Whats enticing about a huge ass company, that did absolutely nothing for the last decade, made all the wrong choices, has a not so stellar rep when it comes to its os (and more) - buying another huge ass company that has a bad rep of its own?
Thats like a gambler lost everything, finds one million dollar on the floor and went back to gamble.
That is not enticing to me. I'd much rather have competition from a conpany that trues instead of a company that buys.
I can't wait for all the praise ms gets for puting out the same games abk puts out
I think you didn't read the comment correct unless you are a shareholder.Whats enticing about a huge ass company, that did absolutely nothing for the last decade, made all the wrong choices, has a not so stellar rep when it comes to its os (and more) - buying another huge ass company that has a bad rep of its own?
Thats like a gambler lost everything, finds one million dollar on the floor and went back to gamble.
That is not enticing to me. I'd much rather have competition from a conpany that trues instead of a company that buys.
I can't wait for all the praise ms gets for puting out the same games abk puts out
Buying ABK is enticing for MS not consumers, that's what James/Vateras is talking about.
Last edited:
phil_t98
#SonyToo
It also can be seriously good for them too. Nobody knows yet and won't for a long time
Banjo64
cumsessed
Microsoft, Call of Duty and Sony are all major components of the status quo.
I mean, it's going through. Gaming needs a wakeup call to change the status quo and it's interesting to see how all of this will play out in the end.
Not sure, ABK's profitability is pretty constant and I expect any decreased profit from the revised ps rev split deal to be largely cancelled out by warzone 2 on mobile. I think this deal will largely be like LinkedIn.
Goalus
Member
Share buybacks and dividend payouts should be performed only if there is no better way to make use of the money. At a P/E ratio of 25-30 it would be idiotic to spend 60 billion on share buybacks in the current climate. Sony absolutely needs to be taught a lesson regarding their anti-competitive practices, and this is a good way to do this. In this way, MS extend their userbase from Xbox/PC to Playstation and Mobile - a huge win for them.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
You don't need to pretend you're supporting this to virtue signal. Just let your inner fan boy roam free
Last edited:
modiz
Member
If you look at it that way I wonder why Jim wants to block the deal.
- Status