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.
rich boy phil spencer cant be stpped


"As a head of xbox, i see my self as an enabler..." i can produce 16times more hot air(exhausts).
bLHTIwc.jpg
 
Last edited:
Here's a real question I asked elsewhere: ABK deal is meant to bolster Gamepass, right? And having Diablo and Crash and all of Call of Duty in Gamepass is very, very attractive.

But I'd say at least half of Call of Duty users buy one game a year - COD. Paying $180 per year (need Gold/Ultimate for online play) doesn't make any sense for that COD user when they're already mostly on PlayStation and can just pay for the title plus PS+ Essential, which is a much better service than Live Gold.

Like.....will the ABK deal - or more specifically the acquisition of COD - actually move that many subscriptions for Microsoft?
No

This is likely more about the income that COD makes. It's to bolster the bottom line.
 
This guy has been attacking Idas for some reason, because he has been covering this deal nonstop.


Fame is getting in to people's head these days
 
Here's a real question I asked elsewhere: ABK deal is meant to bolster Gamepass, right? And having Diablo and Crash and all of Call of Duty in Gamepass is very, very attractive.

But I'd say at least half of Call of Duty users buy one game a year - COD. Paying $180 per year (need Gold/Ultimate for online play) doesn't make any sense for that COD user when they're already mostly on PlayStation and can just pay for the title plus PS+ Essential, which is a much better service than Live Gold.

Like.....will the ABK deal - or more specifically the acquisition of COD - actually move that many subscriptions for Microsoft?

Well, it's clear that Activision is just a beginning. They want to have all big games in there and nowhere else.
 
Yes. Because COD will give gamepass more exposure for casuals.

But the main thing is that COD gives MS more power to get bigger games.

Right now, gamepass doesn't have a must buy game day1 outside of Xbox 1st party games. It can't get games like Valhalla day1 because of that. Activitision library changes that equation.
false
 
Here's a real question I asked elsewhere: ABK deal is meant to bolster Gamepass, right? And having Diablo and Crash and all of Call of Duty in Gamepass is very, very attractive.

But I'd say at least half of Call of Duty users buy one game a year - COD. Paying $180 per year (need Gold/Ultimate for online play) doesn't make any sense for that COD user when they're already mostly on PlayStation and can just pay for the title plus PS+ Essential, which is a much better service than Live Gold.

Like.....will the ABK deal - or more specifically the acquisition of COD - actually move that many subscriptions for Microsoft?
Regular people don't think like this. They see a sticker price of $70 and they see a sticker price of $1 dollar for access to a bunch of games including Call Of Duty. They go for that $1 dollar deal. Then they keep getting asked for small amounts every month that they keep paying. They can end up paying more sure but they're not actively thinking about that. Even MS said gamepass users spend more but didn't really say how.

Another example:
Nobody was thinking hey PS3 is $599 but with a 360 if i buy a hdd, possible wifi adapter or pay for 6 years of XLG over the gen that would be $900. People just see the sticker price at the time of purchase.
 
Regular people don't think like this. They see a sticker price of $70 and they see a sticker price of $1 dollar for access to a bunch of games including Call Of Duty. They go for that $1 dollar deal. Then they keep getting asked for small amounts every month that they keep paying. They can end up paying more sure but they're not actively thinking about that. Even MS said gamepass users spend more but didn't really say how.

Another example:
Nobody was thinking hey PS3 is $599 but with a 360 if i buy a hdd, a possible wifi adapter, or pay for 6 years of XLG over the gen that would be $900. People just see the sticker price at the time of purchase.
is not all about the Sticker price. There is an economic concept called the "Veblen effect" in which something cheaper is less desirable or attractive because is perceived to be of lesser quality.
 
Wasn't Microsoft expecting the remedy working paper from CMA this week?
Private info? CMA is not ready? Can they announce a delay past April 26th if necessary?
 
Wasn't Microsoft expecting the remedy working paper from CMA this week?
Private info? CMA is not ready? Can they announce a delay past April 26th if necessary?
It can be 'private'.

vlB4WWM.jpg


As the post above, the merger parties typically get at least 5 working days to respond.

I haven't actually checked whether the 26th is the latest in of statuory limits.
 
is not all about the Sticker price. There is an economic concept called the "Veblen effect" in which something cheaper is less desirable or attractive because is perceived to be of lesser quality.
That is true but in the case of trying to get Call of duty it's the same product.

People will see $70 to play call of duty or $1 to sign up and play call of duty plus a bunch of other stuff. They may not play much else for a year, and they may end up paying more over the year but they wouldn't think CoD on gamepass is lesser quality than the CoD you purchase. They would probably see it as more for less when doing that instantaneous comparison. I don't think the veblen effect would apply for the same product.
 
That is true but in the case of trying to get Call of duty it's the same product.

People will see $70 to play call of duty or $1 to sign up and play call of duty plus a bunch of other stuff. They may not play much else for a year, and they may end up paying more over the year but they wouldn't think CoD on gamepass is lesser quality than the CoD you purchase. They would probably see it as more for less when doing that instantaneous comparison. I don't think the veblen effect would apply for the same product.

because is not really about buying a 70$ CoD vs buying it for 1$.

is paying 1$ to have acces to a game. and the 1$ thing shouldn't be used as the starting point anyway.

this happens on streaming as well. people not equate subscribing to a service as owning or buying the catalog of movies/TV shows.

the Veblen effect in this case is not about CoD but Game Pass. the consumer may think Game Pass is not even worth just for CoD.
 
If every decision was made based on MS current market position, then what's stopping them from buying every third-party publisher on the market to create a monopoly???

It doesn't make any sense...

They should make decisions based on the possible consequences of the acquisition, not what happened BEFORE it
Their market position is why they are able to make this sort of deal in the first place. Historically mergers passing were based on the how the new merged entity would affect the current market. Since MS is not the gaming market leader and is far from a monopoly in this space there isn't a legal reason to block the deal. Simply disliking MS personally or feeling that since the Xbox isn't successful currently MS should not be allowed to buy another company is the opposite of how regulators should evaluate the legality of a potential merger or acquisition. Like it or not the other far more successful companies in this space gives room for this deal to happen.

Since after the acquisition a new evaluation of the new entity will be taken, future deals of this magnitude will face even greater scrutiny. Seeing how difficult this deal is to get passed it is highly unlikely MS will be able to 'buy the industry'. That was never realistic otherwise MS could just buy their direct competitors. That is more like buying the industry over acquiring a third party developer. As much as some want, MS is not dropping out of gaming or going third party. There are still bigger gaming platforms to support if a person dislikes Xbox.
 
Tell me how is it false?
"COD gives MS more power to get bigger games."

what is bigger than CoD?

If CoD alone doesn't do the trick, then nothing else will.

The order of operations would have been for Microsoft to first develop high-quality games, which would have given them more power to attract bigger games, such as Call of Duty.

if MS is thinking in CoD as a Seinfeld, The Office or Friends (even green products); growth would be limited (if someone doesn't give a shit about CoD they are not going to give a shit just because is on GP aka subscribing to the service).

in other words: With or without CoD MS should produce high-quality AAA/ culturally defining games.
 
Their market position is why they are able to make this sort of deal in the first place. Historically mergers passing were based on the how the new merged entity would affect the current market. Since MS is not the gaming market leader and is far from a monopoly in this space there isn't a legal reason to block the deal. Simply disliking MS personally or feeling that since the Xbox isn't successful currently MS should not be allowed to buy another company is the opposite of how regulators should evaluate the legality of a potential merger or acquisition. Like it or not the other far more successful companies in this space gives room for this deal to happen.

Since after the acquisition a new evaluation of the new entity will be taken, future deals of this magnitude will face even greater scrutiny. Seeing how difficult this deal is to get passed it is highly unlikely MS will be able to 'buy the industry'. That was never realistic otherwise MS could just buy their direct competitors. That is more like buying the industry over acquiring a third party developer. As much as some want, MS is not dropping out of gaming or going third party. There are still bigger gaming platforms to support if a person dislikes Xbox.

Ok Phil, good post....
 
good luck trying to acquire another big publisher.
Never doubt money, power and political influence ... I surely dont ... in this corporate world anything can happen, and furthermore If this kind of decision is only based on market share and activion does fuckall to xbox market share in the gaming scenario.. another big publisher buyout is going to enter in the same permission bias one would think, I know is not that simple but the reasoning would be the same
 
"COD gives MS more power to get bigger games."

what is bigger than CoD?

If CoD alone doesn't do the trick, then nothing else will.

The order of operations would have been for Microsoft to first develop high-quality games, which would have given them more power to attract bigger games, such as Call of Duty.

if MS is thinking in CoD as a Seinfeld, The Office or Friends (even green products); growth would be limited (if someone doesn't give a shit about CoD they are not going to give a shit just because is on GP aka subscribing to the service).

in other words: With or without CoD MS should produce high-quality AAA/ culturally defining games.
Guess you didn't pay attention to the post.
The original point was that COD will give MS leverage for 3rd party games.
 
Never doubt money, power and political influence ... I surely dont ... in this corporate world anything can happen, and furthermore If this kind of decision is only based on market share and activion does fuckall to xbox market share in the gaming scenario.. another big publisher buyout is going to enter in the same permission bias one would think, I know is not that simple but the reasoning would be the same
It will not be the same.
Cma and EU will shut them down.
 
Regular people don't think like this. They see a sticker price of $70 and they see a sticker price of $1 dollar for access to a bunch of games including Call Of Duty. They go for that $1 dollar deal. Then they keep getting asked for small amounts every month that they keep paying. They can end up paying more sure but they're not actively thinking about that. Even MS said gamepass users spend more but didn't really say how.

Another example:
Nobody was thinking hey PS3 is $599 but with a 360 if i buy a hdd, possible wifi adapter or pay for 6 years of XLG over the gen that would be $900. People just see the sticker price at the time of purchase.
Not much of starting price, they do a simple math and realize its more for less anyways, the PS3 was almost twice the 360 core price that didn't have an HDD, yet no release required mandatory installs for years. For the cost of a very old COD at sale they get one month for the ABK catalogue + 400 games. ABK is known for having old titles at very high default price compared to the rest of the industry
 
Last edited:
It will not be the same.
Cma and EU will shut them down.
Cant see this happening if MS remains firmly at third place with out raising their piece of the market pie ... the justification for passing the deal would remain exctly the same or they would have to block it future aquisitions based on another argument that they are not using this time around.....but ... I fully expect MS to use this ABK aquisition to enlarge its market the same way they are using bethesda, by making all of them exclusive games eventually... my bet is some kind of COD exclusivity for the new generation of consoles but we can only speculate at this point what their real intentions are . People trying to pretend they know exactly what a giant corporation as MS will do is just ridiculous.
 


"I write to express concern about Sony's efforts to protect its gaming console business from competition. For more than 20 years, Sony has utterly dominated the gaming console market, as that market has been defined by the Federal Trade Commission. I am concerned Sony's dominance of that market, and its efforts to perpetuate its current position imperils an important economic development opportunity for North Dakota," wrote Senator Cramer.

Season 2 Lol GIF by Insecure on HBO


The fact that politicians who clearly don't have a clue what they are getting embroiled just makes this circus all the more entertaining.
 
Last edited:
Not much of starting price, they do a simple math and realize its more for less anyways, the PS3 was almost twice the 360 core price that didn't have an HDD, yet no release required mandatory installs for years. For the cost of a very old COD at sale they get one month for the ABK catalogue + 400 games.
There was also a launch 20GB PS3 at $499. This doesn't take away from the fact that people don't usually consider additional costs over time. The core was more expensive overall when buying the HDD separately over the gen but even excluding the HDD you were looking at a possible $50-60 reoccurring cost which added up to $300 or more vs the other. Very few people think like this though.

I've seen people check out a free game because it's free and scoff at an $80 game in a store then proceed to spend thousands of pounds in $5 packs on that 'free' game. Land and expand is the way to go.
 
Last edited:
Cant see this happening if MS remains firmly at third place with out raising their piece of the market pie ... the justification for passing the deal would remain exctly the same or they would have to block it future aquisitions based on another argument that they are not using this time around.....but ... I fully expect MS to use this ABK aquisition to enlarge its market the same way they are using bethesda, by making all of them exclusive games eventually... my bet is some kind of COD exclusivity for the new generation of consoles but we can only speculate at this point what their real intentions are . People trying to pretend they know exactly what a giant corporation as MS will do is just ridiculous.
The third place only works this instance. It won't work once they acquire Activision.
CMA and EU will tell them to compete with their studios.
I can see them acquiring small publishers, but not EA, take 2 or Ubisoft.
 
There was also a launch 20GB PS3 at $499. This doesn't take away from the fact that people don't usually consider additional costs over time. The core was more expensive overall when buying the HDD separately over the gen but even excluding the HDD you were looking at a possible $50-60 reoccurring cost which added up to $300 or more vs the other. Very few people think like this though.

I've seen people check out a free game because it's free and scoff at an $80 game in a store then proceed to spend thousands of pounds in $5 packs on that 'free' game. Land and expand is the way to go.
The difference was big enough to most people agreeing on paying it out in a very long term rather than having to right away, it would also apply a very attractive option for those who didn't play online which was still a sizeable chunk back then, didn't also help that PS3 didn't have a major online titles at the launch or with PS2 massively popular online games while Xbox 360 BC could play Halo 2 and Counter Strike if you had the HDD.
 
Last edited:




Season 2 Lol GIF by Insecure on HBO


The fact that politicians who clearly don't have a clue what they are getting embroiled just makes this circus all the more entertaining.

It's (MS) literally the second largest company in the world and this purchase is more than 2/3rds Sony's entire market cap volume.

But we know why these pocketicians truly grandstand with this.
money GIF
 
Last edited:
Where is this "concern" for Apple's dominance in North Dakota and across America?

Oh that's right, American company, it's fine. This only applies if it's a foreign company that dares to embarrass US big tech.
They don't care, as long as they get paid.
That is how it works here.
 
Cant see this happening if MS remains firmly at third place with out raising their piece of the market pie ... the justification for passing the deal would remain exctly the same or they would have to block it future aquisitions based on another argument that they are not using this time around.....but ... I fully expect MS to use this ABK aquisition to enlarge its market the same way they are using bethesda, by making all of them exclusive games eventually... my bet is some kind of COD exclusivity for the new generation of consoles but we can only speculate at this point what their real intentions are . People trying to pretend they know exactly what a giant corporation as MS will do is just ridiculous.
I think regulators will find it hard to consider them "Firmly in 3rd place" because they will instantly leap-frog Nintendo in overall gaming revenue. I believe they've already eclipsed Nintendo in that stat in at least 1 fiscal year.

Yes they will be 3rd place in console hardware, and that matters, but they will become a much bigger player overall just by way of osmosis. ABK's revenue becomes Xbox's revenue. They didn't just look at "hardware numbers" to determine Xbox's market position against Sony.

In fact, Xbox will become pretty damn close to Playstation's revenue. I think Sony will pull away on that front, but MS will be within reach at least if they have a good year and Sony manages to somehow have a bad year (hard to imagine that though.)

In the end though I think there's still a good chance this deal get's blocked. CMA had a bit of embarrassment w/ their console number math goof, but they seemed DETERMINED to block this deal, and I think there's a good chance they'll require structural remedies because of cloud, that make the deal not work.
 
Last edited:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-86_l5gm.pdf
When Congress withholds jurisdiction, we must respect its choice. But when Congress grants jurisdiction to the Nation's courts, we must respect that choice too. We have no authority to froth plain statutory text with factors of our own design, all with an eye to denying some people the day in court the law promises them. Respectfully, this Court should be done with the Thunder Basin project. I hope it will be soon.

R reksveks how does this impact this deal? Would ftc have any chance?
 
This guy has been attacking Idas for some reason, because he has been covering this deal nonstop.


Fame is getting in to people's head these days


Because Idas isn't a complete MS ass-kisser....

FOSS can't claim the same thing. His credit cards might as well have a photo of Bill Gate's ass cheeks on them with money shitting out the crack.
 
Their market position is why they are able to make this sort of deal in the first place. Historically mergers passing were based on the how the new merged entity would affect the current market. Since MS is not the gaming market leader and is far from a monopoly in this space there isn't a legal reason to block the deal. Simply disliking MS personally or feeling that since the Xbox isn't successful currently MS should not be allowed to buy another company is the opposite of how regulators should evaluate the legality of a potential merger or acquisition. Like it or not the other far more successful companies in this space gives room for this deal to happen.

Since after the acquisition a new evaluation of the new entity will be taken, future deals of this magnitude will face even greater scrutiny. Seeing how difficult this deal is to get passed it is highly unlikely MS will be able to 'buy the industry'. That was never realistic otherwise MS could just buy their direct competitors. That is more like buying the industry over acquiring a third party developer. As much as some want, MS is not dropping out of gaming or going third party. There are still bigger gaming platforms to support if a person dislikes Xbox.

ABK isn't a third-party developer. They're one of the biggest 3P publishers in the whole gaming industry, certainly in the console gaming space.

There's...kind of a difference there, IJS.
 




Season 2 Lol GIF by Insecure on HBO


The fact that politicians who clearly don't have a clue what they are getting embroiled just makes this circus all the more entertaining.

The next leter from congress gonna be like "Sony shouldn't be allowed to release games above 30 fps If ms can't"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom