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.
Team Andromeda said:
Which Xbox got far more, so I wouldn't laugh too much....
Click to expand...
pxzMfeT.jpg
 
GHG said:
Yes but this is about ensuring the consumer still has the right and option to download and/or purchase the game even if cloud might be their only option (or preference 🤮) at the time.
Click to expand...
So, the EU is worried about a cloud only future where the ability to buy and download a game isn't available? So alongside the cloud remedy (cloud providers big and small getting access to CoD), the EU also wants to have a remedy that guarantees consumers will be able to download games in ABK's catalogue?

Or are they tacking on "the ability to download games" for these cloud providers/streaming services?

I don't fully get it. It's pretty confusing until we see what the actual remedy is...
 
POKEYCLYDE said:
So, the EU is worried about a cloud only future where the ability to buy and download a game isn't available? So alongside the cloud remedy (cloud providers big and small getting access to CoD), the EU also wants to have a remedy that guarantees consumers will be able to download games in ABK's catalogue?

Or are they tacking on "the ability to download games" for these cloud providers/streaming services?

I don't fully get it. It's pretty confusing until we see what the actual remedy is...
Click to expand...

It will be for Microsoft and Microsoft only. It's all they can control in this situation.
 
POKEYCLYDE said:
So, the EU is worried about a cloud only future where the ability to buy and download a game isn't available? So alongside the cloud remedy (cloud providers big and small getting access to CoD), the EU also wants to have a remedy that guarantees consumers will be able to download games in ABK's catalogue?

Or are they tacking on "the ability to download games" for these cloud providers/streaming services?

I don't fully get it. It's pretty confusing until we see what the actual remedy is...
Click to expand...
cloud and ownership.

For example, MS can make COD cloud version for switch, and remove download option.
 
I still don't get it.

If they're safe guarding against a future where consumers can no longer own the video games they play, alright, very cool. I like that remedy.

But.. if it's providing the option to download a game on a cloud streaming service, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.. as offline play wouldn't be possible from a cloud streaming provider.
 
GHG said:
This isn't complicated.

They still want to ensure the consumer has the right to download/purchase either at the time or some point in the future. That's regardless of the hardware that individual has at the time or intends to have at any point in the future.

It is about ensuring consumer rights and options are not eroded in the event that Microsoft take control of all these IP and then decide to try and make the games streaming only at some point in the future (with this, they can't). This closes out any potential loopholes and and it ensures consumers are protected.
Click to expand...

Straightforward.

Consumer buys on Steam or Microsoft Store, and streams via GeForce Now or alternative cloud provider.

Problem solved. Cloud streaming and can download on any PC of their choice.
 
Sanepar said:
The point is not let MS monopolize the industry on a way u can only access games by cloud.
Click to expand...

Microsoft would force Nintendo and Sony to go cloud only? 😀

Microsoft's games are on Steam. 10 year signed deal for guaranteed access, even. There's no logical scenario where Microsoft's games become cloud only.
 
feynoob said:
MS money is in action.
bless the lobbying individuals.
Click to expand...

Microsoft needed to pay Nintendo for them to be opposed to providing documents? For an acquisition Nintendo supports? 😂

This thread keeps delivering absurd takes.

feynoob said:
cloud and ownership.

For example, MS can make COD cloud version for switch, and remove download option.
Click to expand...

10 year signed deal to bring Call of Duty natively to Nintendo hardware. Why would there not be a download option?

Nintendo also has no issues with cloud streaming games on the Switch…
 
Ozriel said:
Microsoft would force Nintendo and Sony to go cloud only? 😀

Microsoft's games are on Steam. 10 year signed deal for guaranteed access, even. There's no logical scenario where Microsoft's games become cloud only.
Click to expand...
My friend abk is just the start. Soon they will own take2, ea and others. All peanut money for ms. So it is better to force them to have an alternative of cloud and gamepass. I don't want be forced to rent games and play on a cloud. This force another channel of distibution.
 
Sanepar said:
My friend abk is just the start. Soon they will own take2, ea and others. All peanut money for ms. So it is better to force them to have an alternative of cloud and gamepass. I don't want be forced to rent games and play on a cloud. This force another channel of distibution.
Click to expand...
What, you don't love paying subscriptions to use Microsoft Office and Adobe Creative Cloud? Because that's the endgame goal here, to turn gaming into Netflix. You will own nothing and be happy, even if it becomes necessary to destroy Sony and Nintendo to accomplish this goal!
 
Last edited:
Unknown Soldier said:
What, you don't love paying subscriptions to use Microsoft Office and Adobe Creative Cloud? Because that's the endgame goal here, to turn gaming into Netflix. You will own nothing and be happy, even if it becomes necessary to destroy Sony and Nintendo to accomplish this goal!
Click to expand...
Also Sony's eventual goal, they are just being coy about it... taking their time while Microsoft takes the heat haha
 
Ozriel said:
Microsoft would force Nintendo and Sony to go cloud only? 😀

Microsoft's games are on Steam. 10 year signed deal for guaranteed access, even. There's no logical scenario where Microsoft's games become cloud only.
Click to expand...
That's why it is interesting what EC is talking about there. After all, none of BYOG providers even sell the games themselves and the games can only be purchased in game stores.
 
POKEYCLYDE said:
So, the EU is worried about a cloud only future where the ability to buy and download a game isn't available? So alongside the cloud remedy (cloud providers big and small getting access to CoD), the EU also wants to have a remedy that guarantees consumers will be able to download games in ABK's catalogue?

Or are they tacking on "the ability to download games" for these cloud providers/streaming services?

I don't fully get it. It's pretty confusing until we see what the actual remedy is...
Click to expand...
It just adds a big expense to every cloud provider. They have to use a drm to keep track if your subscription is active. If not people sub for a month and download legit copies to keep forever.
 
Last edited:
POKEYCLYDE said:
I think you're mixing up appealing the CMA decision with the CMA's decision itself.

Appealing is easier in the EU courts because for the EU to prohibit a merger/acquisition they need strong evidence to suggest anti-competitive effects.

Where as appealing the CMA decision, is much harder, because the party appealing has to prove irrationality. (Procedurally impropriety or something else)


I understand your point. Isolated decisions have less of an impact on marketshare, where as multiple decisions made can compound the effects.

You say Microsoft keeping Minecraft exclusive only makes sense before they own CoD. But I would say where is the evidence for that statement? The CMA's probalistic approach would also ask that question. They would need to find your scenario more likely than not.
Click to expand...
I'm not mixing them up, because the CAT never gets into making details of a decision, even on appeal it would get sent back to the CMA AFAIK for them to redo the job for a new decision, so the means by which they make their decision and the way they defend them at the CAT is the same.

They wouldn't need to evidence it being more likely - as the EC would - they just need to identify it as a strategy that produces an SLC.

In fact the whole assessment by which the CMA have provisionally removed the console SLC would give Sony a very interesting means by which to challenge that decision.

The CMA states there was no financial incentive to remove CoD, and on challenging that decision, Sony could theoretically ask the CMA to prove that the Microsoft's Xbox investment has ever got out of the red - from the day they entered the market - to contrast with whether that decision to be in the console market ever made financial sense for their to have incentive to stay in the market.

Claiming Microsoft have no incentive to remove CoD due to losses, yet without any proof that Xbox makes any direct financial sense at all - unlike PlayStation, that even with the PS3 disaster was funded by PS2 profits they had invested in their financial services arm IIRC. - would seem like very poor reasoning to remove an SLC IMO.
 
Last edited:
Lasha said:
Did you just learn the word foreclosure in this thread. The strategy would be an idiotic waste of resources. Microsoft bought Activision because it achieves it's goals while being profitable. Following that up with throwing 10 billion dollars to try and get people to move away from playstation makes no sense. Microsoft didn't suddenly become a big company. It could have paid tens of billions at any time to do the same thing at the start of the generation.

Ten billion is an enormous amount of money. It's like 5% of the entire video game market. It's over half of take two's market cap. I'm open to see how you came to that number.
Click to expand...
You'd have to be able to prove Xbox has ever made a profit on investment since the start to make losing money for xbox a no go.

They are going to lose $2-3B and the loss in share price if this deal fails. So $10b is well within their means.
 
Ozriel said:
Microsoft would force Nintendo and Sony to go cloud only? 😀
Click to expand...

No, this is about the IP that they are committing to provide to third parties. Ensuring download is an option for everyone (not only on PC) including on Switch and Playstation.
 
Ozriel said:
Microsoft needed to pay Nintendo for them to be opposed to providing documents? For an acquisition Nintendo supports? 😂

This thread keeps delivering absurd takes.



10 year signed deal to bring Call of Duty natively to Nintendo hardware. Why would there not be a download option?

Nintendo also has no issues with cloud streaming games on the Switch…
Click to expand...
I wish people would read, before jumping in to conclusions.
 
GHG said:
No, this is about the IP that they are committing to provide to third parties. Ensuring download is an option for everyone (not only on PC) including on Switch and Playstation.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't be an issue As long as they purchase from a streaming service that has a storefront

GeForce Now - buy on Steam
PlayStation - buy on PS Store
Switch? - Buy on Nintendo Store

That's already guaranteed via 10 year deals for any 'buy to play' cloud platform with an accompanying storefront.
 
Ozriel said:
Straightforward.

Consumer buys on Steam or Microsoft Store, and streams via GeForce Now or alternative cloud provider.

Problem solved. Cloud streaming and can download on any PC of their choice.
Click to expand...
Even a Linux one? Or a Chromebook? Maybe the EU should also insist on a universal containerised gaming format just to be sure.
 
Unknown Soldier said:
What, you don't love paying subscriptions to use Microsoft Office and Adobe Creative Cloud? Because that's the endgame goal here, to turn gaming into Netflix. You will own nothing and be happy, even if it becomes necessary to destroy Sony and Nintendo to accomplish this goal!
Click to expand...

Nintendo: "We're perfectly fine with Microsoft buying Activision. We're convinced this won't be bad for our business"

GAF alarmist : "Noooooo…they're going to destroy you, Nintendo!!!"

The endgame isn't to destroy their Xbox console business while jettisoning billions of dollars in retail and Steam sales. Let's not be ridiculous here
 
Bojanglez said:
Even a Linux one? Or a Chromebook? Maybe the EU should also insist on a universal containerised gaming format just to be sure.
Click to expand...

If you stream GeForce Now on a Chromebook or a Linux desktop, you still own the game on Steam. You can play it via download on compatible hardware.

Ownership isn't taken away from you just because your current device can't play the game natively.
 
Ozriel said:
The endgame isn't to destroy their Xbox console business while jettisoning billions of dollars in retail and Steam sales. Let's not be ridiculous here
Click to expand...

"The endgame isn't to destroy their Xbox console Microsoft Office business while jettisoning billions of dollars in retail and Steam sales. Let's not be ridiculous here"

Boy, that sure turned out prophetic huh. Enjoy paying a subscription for the rest of you and your children's and your grandchldren's natural lives and so on forever until the end of human civilization to use Word and Excel!
 
Last edited:
Unknown Soldier said:
"The endgame isn't to destroy their Xbox console Microsoft Office business while jettisoning billions of dollars in retail and Steam sales. Let's not be ridiculous here"

Boy, that sure turned out prophetic huh. Enjoy paying a subscription for the rest of you and your children's and your grandchldren's natural lives and so on forever until the end of human civilization to use Word and Excel!
Click to expand...
You will be the first to line up. Don't worry about that future.
 
Unknown Soldier said:
"The endgame isn't to destroy their Xbox console Microsoft Office business while jettisoning billions of dollars in retail and Steam sales. Let's not be ridiculous here"

Boy, that sure turned out prophetic huh. Enjoy paying a subscription for the rest of you and your children's and your grandchldren's natural lives and so on forever until the end of human civilization to use Word and Excel!
Click to expand...

Man, you certainly suck at analogies.

You can also buy Office 2021 and use it for a lifetime without paying any subscription fees.

Office 365 remains an option, and it's a very popular option because the market considers it a very good deal.

I'm perfectly happy paying that sub for Office 365. $99 a year for everyone in my family. Not an insurmountable hurdle for me.
 
If you use Disney+, Netflix, Hulu, Streaming music, YouTube subscription, etc, then you have 0 rights to complain about gaming subscription.

You are the reason why these companies are going after gaming subscriptions.
 
Last edited:
Unknown Soldier said:
What, you don't love paying subscriptions to use Microsoft Office and Adobe Creative Cloud? Because that's the endgame goal here, to turn gaming into Netflix. You will own nothing and be happy, even if it becomes necessary to destroy Sony and Nintendo to accomplish this goal!
Click to expand...
Why can't it be both, rental and ownership.

Take AppleTV, you can stream shows and films on there but you can also pay to download and own them too. I think this is the best of both worlds and to be honest I think this is what gaming is clearly heading towards and I'm happy with that.
 
PaintTinJr said:
You'd have to be able to prove Xbox has ever made a profit on investment since the start to make losing money for xbox a no go.

They are going to lose $2-3B and the loss in share price if this deal fails. So $10b is well within their means.
Click to expand...

Microsoft's share price will also drop slightly if the deal goes through. An acquirer's share price always moves slightly in a merger since cash or debt are used to buy the target company. The penalty is irrelevant because Microsoft didn't enter into the merger with the intent to pay it. The penalty is there to protect Activision investors from the effects of a failed deal. Possibly paying a breakup fee is not comparable to spending 10 billion dollars on marketing deals.

I don't actually need to prove anything. Microsoft itself says Xbox is a profitable division. Those words are backed up by continued investment in the division by Microsoft. The implications for that being a lie are massive and you should definitely share any information you have which disputes that claim.

Both points are irrelevant to our discussion since I agree that Microsoft has $10B. I disagree with your suggestion that Microsoft will let Xbox blow $10B on a marketing deal with an uncertain outcome over more productive uses of the money. You said you came to that number through some form of accounting so show me that.
 
ToadMan said:
Yet those zeni games not present on PS, including Redfall and Starfield PS versions cancelled midway through development, contradicts your rational assessment of how a normal business operates.

MS isn't a business like that. Neither are any of the big Techs. They're not there to make "healthy" 10% or even 30% returns - they're there to dominate and make 300% returns having destroyed the market place and competition.

And it's you, me and all content consumers who'll pay for them to make that money.
Click to expand...

The decision to make games exclusive is rational when you acknowledge both Xbox and Playstation are structured around selling consoles at a loss to earn revenue from service subscriptions and a cut of all games sold on the platform. COD exclusivity would be irrational in the short term since the value of Activision is predicated on the revenue of its games being sold everywhere. Minecraft didn't go exclusive for similar reasons.
 
Lasha said:
Microsoft's share price will also drop slightly if the deal goes through. An acquirer's share price always moves slightly in a merger since cash or debt are used to buy the target company. The penalty is irrelevant because Microsoft didn't enter into the merger with the intent to pay it. The penalty is there to protect Activision investors from the effects of a failed deal. Possibly paying a breakup fee is not comparable to spending 10 billion dollars on marketing deals.

I don't actually need to prove anything. Microsoft itself says Xbox is a profitable division. Those words are backed up by continued investment in the division by Microsoft. The implications for that being a lie are massive and you should definitely share any information you have which disputes that claim.

Both points are irrelevant to our discussion since I agree that Microsoft has $10B. I disagree with your suggestion that Microsoft will let Xbox blow $10B on a marketing deal with an uncertain outcome over more productive uses of the money. You said you came to that number through some form of accounting so show me that.
Click to expand...
It would help if you actually read what I wrote. Accounting? I used the word guestimate.

But the bigger comprehension issue for you was that you misconstrued me talking about if Xbox has ever broken even - ROI - with its yearly running profit - although even the year by year info is completely opaque and gets rebundled in divisions every few years through fear of being transparent with shareholders about Xbox. Microsoft is so good at bundling up xbox monies we'd have no way of knowing what they were spending, like we never have. And as a company they've been spending $10-20b on marketing for the last 5-10years, which could include deals like that for all the clarity their info provides.

There is no public record of Xbox ever achieving a ROI for the 20years of the platform's existence AFAIK. We have evidence from the Apple vs Epic case where Microsoft stated they've always lost money on console hardware - all throughout a generation - somewhere between $100-200 per console, and that applies to the ~200M consoles they've sold to date. So back of a pad calculation - excluding the RRoD cost and taking the lower $100 per console - they've needed to average $1b per year profit from Xbox just to possibly cover running hardware losses. I still have my doubts if the CMA did forensic accounting on Xbox for the last 20years they wouldn't find a huge $100b loss between advertising, marketing deals with publishers and hardware losses/R&D.
 
Last edited:
feynoob said:
If you use Disney+, Netflix, Hulu, Streaming music, YouTube subscription, etc, then you have 0 rights to complain about gaming subscription.

You are the reason why these companies are going after gaming subscriptions.
Click to expand...
LMAO I don't have any of those things. I don't have Amazon Prime either. In fact the only things I subscribe to are things I am forced to in order to live in the current society, so I pay for Comcast Internet only, no cable TV and I pay for my cell phone monthly bill.

I have every right to complain about gaming subscription by your definition.
 
Last edited:
PaintTinJr said:
It would help if you actually read what I wrote. Accounting? I used the word guestimate.

But the bigger comprehension issue for you was that you misconstrued me talking about if Xbox has ever broken even - ROI - with its yearly running profit - although even the year by year info is completely opaque and gets rebundled in divisions every few years through fear of being transparent with shareholders about Xbox. Microsoft is so good at bundling up xbox monies we'd have no way of knowing what they were spending, like we never have. And as a company they've been spending $10-20b on marketing for the last 5-10years, which could include deals like that for all the clarity their info provides.

There is no public record of Xbox ever achieving a ROI for the 20years of the platform's existence AFAIK. We have evidence from the Apple vs Epic case where Microsoft stated they've always lost money on console hardware - all throughout a generation - somewhere between $100-200 per console, and that applies to the ~200M consoles they've sold to date. So back of a pad calculation - excluding the RRoD cost and taking the lower $100 per console - they've needed to average $1b per year profit from Xbox just to possibly cover running hardware losses. I still have my doubts if the CMA did forensic accounting on Xbox for the last 20years they wouldn't find a huge $100b loss between advertising, marketing deals with publishers and hardware losses/R&D.
Click to expand...

A guestimate based on what? You pulled 10B out of nowhere without realizing how much money it represents. Why do you think Microsoft is going to spend 2.5B dollars more than it paid for Zenimax on a one off marketing campaign?
 
Ozriel said:
Man, you certainly suck at analogies.

You can also buy Office 2021 and use it for a lifetime without paying any subscription fees.

Office 365 remains an option, and it's a very popular option because the market considers it a very good deal.

I'm perfectly happy paying that sub for Office 365. $99 a year for everyone in my family. Not an insurmountable hurdle for me.
Click to expand...
YOU cannot buy Office 2021. Those shady sites selling stolen volume license keys for Office 2021 are not selling something which is available at retail. Office 2021 is for corporate licensors and is not sold to the end user. You cannot go to Best Buy and purchase Office 2021 for this reason. In fact MS can revoke those Office 2021 keys at any time because they are obtained illegally.

Microsoft thanks you for your service, though. You can keep right on adding to their $2 trillion market value by giving them $99 a year every year for the rest of your natural life. Actually, since I hold a pretty decently sized position in MSFT, as a shareholder I also thank you for your service. Please continue giving Microsoft money for the rest of your natural life. I will continue to enjoy stock dividends and appreciation. Much obliged, consumer. Consume more, enjoy!
 
Unknown Soldier said:
YOU cannot buy Office 2021. Those shady sites selling stolen volume license keys for Office 2021 are not selling something which is available at retail. Office 2021 is for corporate licensors and is not sold to the end user. You cannot go to Best Buy and purchase Office 2021 for this reason. In fact MS can revoke those Office 2021 keys at any time because they are obtained illegally.

Microsoft thanks you for your service, though. You can keep right on adding to their $2 trillion market value by giving them $99 a year every year for the rest of your natural life. Actually, since I hold a pretty decently sized position in MSFT, as a shareholder I also thank you for your service. Please continue giving Microsoft money for the rest of your natural life. I will continue to enjoy stock dividends and appreciation. Much obliged, consumer. Consume more, enjoy!
Click to expand...
Shady sites???? I just typed "Office 2021" on Amazon and came up with several version to buy
 
Unknown Soldier said:
YOU cannot buy Office 2021. Those shady sites selling stolen volume license keys for Office 2021 are not selling something which is available at retail. Office 2021 is for corporate licensors and is not sold to the end user. You cannot go to Best Buy and purchase Office 2021 for this reason. In fact MS can revoke those Office 2021 keys at any time because they are obtained illegally.

Microsoft thanks you for your service, though. You can keep right on adding to their $2 trillion market value by giving them $99 a year every year for the rest of your natural life. Actually, since I hold a pretty decently sized position in MSFT, as a shareholder I also thank you for your service. Please continue giving Microsoft money for the rest of your natural life. I will continue to enjoy stock dividends and appreciation. Much obliged, consumer. Consume more, enjoy!
Click to expand...
Why does that matter to you?
 
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