diffusionx
Gold Member
Of course it was. He's the head of Xbox gaming, it was his strategy, obviously he gained the approval of other Xbox leadership but it's his name on this.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
gothmog
Gold Member
Also Microsoft's mistake was arrogance. If they had worked for realistic remedies with the CMA this deal would be practically closed.
Future acquisitions will be measured and be designed with approval in mind.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
Its satya, with the help of brad smith.
Phil acted as medium, but the operators were Brad and Satya.
SneakersSO
Member
Yeah, we saw fewer big budget releases from third party, but that was largely driven because of how much better the margins are on GaaS/SaaS, than actually fully developing, marketing, and releasing titles is, traditionally. For the big 3rd parties, putting out either an annual release (Madden, NBA 2K, Fifa/whatever EA calls it now, CoD) just makes more sense for them cause they are still risk averse.
There is a difference though - all of this focus on GaaS & MP suites from 3rd parties completely opened the door for co-op/sp titles, and those consumers who seek them out. This has been the bread & butter of both Nintendo and SIE's publishing slate, and led to them differentiating their output for nearly a decade.
I think what the big publishers didn't anticipate is that, while GaaS allowed gamers to be engaged for longes, this didn't necessarily curb the appetite gamers have for getting wildly new experiences and large content refreshes. This meant that big pubs had to keep devoting more and more dev resources into producing games and creating post-launch dev pipelines whose budgets was just as high as making a new game outright.
The knock-on effect of this is that folks who are in the business of building characters, worlds, and just new IP in general, would be far better equipped to maximize on the effect that transmedia expansion for gaming IP is currently having for games and the broader entertainment industry (see Witcher/Netflix Castlevania/TLoU HBO/ SBMB movie). Its easy for SIE to go in, develop a new IP, focus on characters, market it - in part cause they've cultivated an audience for 15 years that loves this stuff, and then, turn these into movies/tv shows/etc. Folks who were already equipped for this (Nintendo, SIE, etc.) are reaping the rewards big time. The big players, like EA or ATVI, are only now trying to play catch up on expanding their IP catalog. This is why you're seeing EA do that magic FPS thing seemingly out of nowhere, for example. EA has suffered in trying to chase that sweet GaaS dragon for so long that they've been heavily burned by it for quite awhile. ATVI knows it was only a matter of time - Kotick was just hoping he could sell it off before that refusal to pivot caught up to him.
FYI, Microsoft and their insistence on focusing most of their proper effort into a handful of IP, while leaving their new IP efforts to essentially wither on the vine, is also getting burned big time by this knock on effect. Their big play is investing heavily into co-op/survival experiences, because they need content that is guaranteed to drive GP engagement. I still think they need to focus on characters and build worlds folks want to be a part of, first and foremost.
Last edited:
Topher
Identifies as young
No, VP Brad Smith has been spearheading this. Not Spencer.
Rac3r
Member
He spearheaded the initial talks.
Read exactly how Microsoft’s $68.7 billion deal for Activision Blizzard came together
There were nearly two months of negotiations.
www.theverge.com
"The initial conversation about an acquisition happened between Spencer and Kotick on November 19th, just three days after the WSJ's report about the Activision Blizzard CEO and a single day after Spencer said told Xbox staff he was "deeply troubled." "
feynoob
Banned
Xbox doesnt own that money, its MS money.
If anything, Xbox will be weak at this moment. MS crippled Xbox with their 10k employee cut.
Topher
Identifies as young
He spearheaded the initial talks.
Read exactly how Microsoft’s $68.7 billion deal for Activision Blizzard came together
There were nearly two months of negotiations.
"The initial conversation about an acquisition happened between Spencer and Kotick on November 19th, just three days after the WSJ's report about the Activision Blizzard CEO and a single day after Spencer said told Xbox staff he was "deeply troubled." "
Yes, but not closing the deal. That was above him.
Wastelander92
Member
I think I lost brain cells reading some of the dumbass fanboy "takes" on Twitter today.
freefornow
Member
SneakersSO
Member
Making room for a big employee surge, and it just isn't gonna come to fruition thanks to the CMA. Beautiful.
PaintTinJr
Gold Member
I was still trying to workout what Microsoft's angle was for saying they'd appeal this decision, when it isn't going to change the outcome...but having a little thinking about HoegLaws' tweet and everyone saying the FTC are now having to bring action in Federal court against Microsoft to prove this is anti-trust - which yesterday was guaranteed to be thrown out - I now think the appeal for Microsoft is merely to get more contention points on record with the CMA/CAT decision, because after the appeal fails I expect Lina and the FTC will file with a federal court for anti-trust - for a massive fine and landmark judgement - citing the CMA decision as primary evidence that a judge won't dismiss easily as it was part of a SEC filing for the deal in the US, and as it is from a respected and authoritative source will carry more weight than could easily be argued away as the FTC's own theories of harm IMO.
Get more things into the CMA file - that the CAT?CAMA ignore - might be purely about a pre-emptive way of combating the CMA decision as evidence in a federal case with the FTC.
Get more things into the CMA file - that the CAT?CAMA ignore - might be purely about a pre-emptive way of combating the CMA decision as evidence in a federal case with the FTC.
feynoob
Banned
That was a dumb move.
Now they have to spend alot of money getting new employees and training them.
SneakersSO
Member
I honestly don't really buy that. If I had to take a guess, both parties so publicly committing this early to appeal, knowing full well the prospect of it actually succeeding is so unbelievably low, is probably more of an effort to not leave meat on the table to have either party claim the other is violating the good faith clause of the purchasing agreement.
Like the NVidia & Arm deal, which had a break fee that was fought over for 2 years in court, I imagine there will be a legal fight over the break fee for the MS/ATVI purchase agreement.
feynoob
Banned
It wont matter that much if EU shuts them down too.
We have 4 weeks of regulatory updates from other markets. Some of these will be a block.
- April 28th 2023: decision from New Zealand
- May 2023: decision from the SAMR in China.
- May 2023: decision from the Korea Fair Trade Commission.
- May 2023: final decision from the Competition Tribunal in South Africa.
- May 22nd 2023: provisional deadline for a decision from the EC.
FrankWza
Member
There were times there when he was silent after contradicting what they were trying to lobby. He kept talking and you could make the assumption that came from above because he was hurting their cause.
feynoob
Banned
Easy to know that would be brad smith's pie-chart.
Phil is too smart for these tactics.
diffusionx
Gold Member
Obviously the guy who runs the legal parts of MS is going to be dealing with regulators and filing legal briefs. putting that part of the company into motion to get it done is part of the buy-in I was talking about before. My point was that this A-B acquisition was a centerpiece of Spencer's Xbox strategy, and now it's in tatters. I don't see how he survives at MS, and I also don't really see why he would want to. When stuff like this blows up it's standard practice for execs to just move on.
Last edited:
FrankWza
Member
He's a salesman. No more no less.
Bernoulli
M2 slut
all they had to do is leave COD
Dick Jones
Banned
If E3 was still happening, Phil was going to wear a tshirt with the piechart on it
PaintTinJr
Gold Member
True, but I guess the more people like the EC(& SAMR) that side with the CMA makes it much easier for the FTC to build an anti-trust case against Microsoft and get some landmark decision that makes all their other cases easier to win via citation if they can win an Anti-trust case for Microsoft trying to buy ATVI.
Bernoulli
M2 slut
There is no winning for activision, they will act like they want the appeal but just to secure the 3 billions
if they stay with the appeal that means being stuck with no sony deal until the appeal is finished wich would take 3 years according to analysts
and if EC blocks it too they are finished
if they stay with the appeal that means being stuck with no sony deal until the appeal is finished wich would take 3 years according to analysts
and if EC blocks it too they are finished
Topher
Identifies as young
Phil Spencer brought a possible deal to his employer, Microsoft. Microsoft executives were the ones to decide to go forward with acquisition and push the legal team to make it happen. None of that involves Phil Spencer. That is why Brad Smith has been in the public eye all this time on this and not Phil Spencer. Phil Spencer isn't the guy in this photo:
Phil Spencer wasn't the one to respond today.
SlimeGooGoo
Banned
You guys need some love
Here's some GooGoo love
Here's some GooGoo love
Topher
Identifies as young
PaintTinJr
Gold Member
The "attempt" to get an appeal isn't taking three years, it will be dealt with expediently as no-one in the UK wants that rabid dog on their lawn any longer than necessary. If Microsoft's solicitors drag their feet attempting to appeal then ATVI would have evidence against Microsoft for not doing enough. The CAT will probably just deny Microsoft's grounds for appeal - for not meeting the bar = and call it a day, job done.
feynoob
Banned
Tribalism, and lack of idea on how to run a business.
These are the dumb society who thinks they know everything.
They mention the amount of sold Switches CoD would be available on in their prior Nintendo deal PR so they are referring to it coming to Switch 1. That said, I think it's pretty clear the CMA know that deal about COD on switch is just a dangled carrot. Anybody knows if there was a market for a Switch version ABK is fully capable of doing a that release. It would be even more funny if ABK start development without the deal closing. I haven't seen any outrage from Nintendo Switch owners from this deal being blocked at all, anecdotally indicating little interest, so I doubt it but it would be funny if they started development in June nonetheless.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
MS doesnt own call of duty and has no idea how it can run on switch.
oh man, part of me wants that ms was run by these internet morons and tries to pull something like this.
idiot fails to see how destructive such a move will be to microsoft itself.
like governments of the world (u.s. included) would just sit and watch how a corpo punishes critical sectors of a country over a blocked "gaming" buyout.
they will be dismantled to atomic pieces in no time.
i know how stupid gamer opinions can get and all that, but this whole saga is bringing fantastic new lows.
Last edited:
Unknown Soldier
Member
They have a history of this strategy and it failing too, for a fun bit of history look into the Format War between HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc circa 2006
KungFucius
King Snowflake
I don't get how they can block this based on hypotheticals. Their issue is not in the console space but the streaming space. Streaming is minor and may or may not take off for a very long time. MS is the leader because they have it as a part of gamepass, but the people streaming are only doing it supplementally. It's a small addon that gets access to games when the better experience is not possible. My main issue with streaming is that most of the companies that tried to make money with it failed or are failing. Is MS making money streaming? OnLive failed, Stadia failed, Luna is failing or already failed. PS Now is not a major part of Sony's business and NVidia's streaming solution includes only games that you own, but publishers get a cut of what you pay to Nvidia meaning you have to pay them more than you paid them for the game. Why does being the market leader in a space that is full of failure and tiny worth blocking something over?
Astray
Member
Kotick would be absolutely insane to agree to sell King tbh. It's basically his fallback in case Activision or Blizzard have missteps in their production or see a bad year.
NickFire
Member
We might see streaming that way, but when trillion dollar entities keep calling it the future, the regulators won't agree with us common folk.
Thirty7ven
Banned
So apparently in 2021 MS were mulling over which one to buy, EA, Take Two or ABK. Incredible, run by monkeys this company.
NickFire
Member
Interesting. But doubtful EA was seriously considered. Madden can only be exclusive if the NFL would agree, which I just don't see ever happening. Too much to lose.
MarkMe2525
Banned
Let me start off by saying this is 100% in good faith as I am struggling to find a definitive answer. From my understanding of reading the initial press release by MS, that is exactly what they did. https://news.microsoft.com/2023/03/...-more-games-to-more-players-around-the-world/
"Microsoft Corp. and Boosteroid on Tuesday announced a 10-year agreement to bring Xbox PC games to Boosteroid's cloud gaming platform. Boosteroid, which has its software development team in Ukraine, recently surpassed 4 million users globally and has become the largest independent cloud gaming provider in the world. The agreement will also enable Activision Blizzard PC titles to be streamed by Boosteroid customers after Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard closes."
Now Phil's announcement tweet is as follows: "Players deserve more choice than they have now when it comes their favorite games. Today we've signed a 10-year deal with @Boosteroid_main enabling players to stream Xbox PC games, including Activision Blizzard PC titles like CoD following after close https://news.microsoft.com/?p=448117"
It states they signed the deal that will enable players to stream Xbox PC games. It goes on to say it will include "Activision Blizzard PC titles like CoD following after close". Am I in the wrong for reading this as the "after close" part is simply referring to the Activision titles? The official press release does not mention the Xbox PC games part being tied to the acquisition going through.
Again, this is not a gotcha thing and I will not reply back. I can't tell if the Verge just misinterpreted the tweet, or that they have another source that clarifies the assertion.
Last edited:
NickFire
Member
Press releases and contract terms may or may not align. I wouldn't put much stock in press releases.
POKEYCLYDE
Member
Sony has gotten 2 acquisitions done while Microsoft has been trying to get this one done. Now Microsoft is on the hook for $3B regardless of if they cancel the acquisition now or fight it until July. There's something to be gained by seeing what conclusions the rest of the regulatory bodies come to.
But 1-3 years in appeals? Not just appeals, but highly unlikely to work appeals? Tying up $70B in money that will just be depreciating. I think that would be foolish, however, no idea what/if there's anything Microsoft could do outside of appealing the decision to get the deal through.
Like restructuring their Gamepass tiers to more accurately reflect their true cloud gaming position in the market (I think they'll want to do this regardless). Idas also mentioned something about "ringfencing".
Just like there was a non-zero chance it got blocked today, there's a non-zero chance the appeal works. If you read some of the more in depth justification for the block it's all centered around the uncertainty of this emerging markets future. It could be argued that it's irrational to throw out all the Relevant Customer Benefits (RCBs) for unknown, possibly non-existent harms that have no evidence of happening.
Personally, I think they should carry on to July, restructure Gamepass tiers to reflect their actual cloud gaming position, do that to shore up future acquisitions' chance at success, and then go for some smaller acquisitions that won't meet as harsh regulatory scrutiny.
But 1-3 years in appeals? Not just appeals, but highly unlikely to work appeals? Tying up $70B in money that will just be depreciating. I think that would be foolish, however, no idea what/if there's anything Microsoft could do outside of appealing the decision to get the deal through.
Like restructuring their Gamepass tiers to more accurately reflect their true cloud gaming position in the market (I think they'll want to do this regardless). Idas also mentioned something about "ringfencing".
Just like there was a non-zero chance it got blocked today, there's a non-zero chance the appeal works. If you read some of the more in depth justification for the block it's all centered around the uncertainty of this emerging markets future. It could be argued that it's irrational to throw out all the Relevant Customer Benefits (RCBs) for unknown, possibly non-existent harms that have no evidence of happening.
Personally, I think they should carry on to July, restructure Gamepass tiers to reflect their actual cloud gaming position, do that to shore up future acquisitions' chance at success, and then go for some smaller acquisitions that won't meet as harsh regulatory scrutiny.
Yeah. If anyone would be the public face of the deal, that would be Brad Smith. Nadella too.
NickFire
Member
There's an expression that Shit Rolls Downhill. Nadella isn't taking this fall I bet,
Yoboman
Member
It was actually that damn snake Don Matttick again
Block was totally unexpected, tbh, and was the second weirdest thing to read from the UK after coming out of a long haul flight (first was Arsenal capitulating so easily to Man City).
Whether or not Xbox is successful with an appeal, I hope the lights a fire under that division to do much better with their available resources.
Whether or not Xbox is successful with an appeal, I hope the lights a fire under that division to do much better with their available resources.
I've logged on to just to come and laugh at this.
Now I've got an XSX and GP. But I'm no fanboy - I'm a gamer. Last gen I had a PS4 Pro. Its not like I was gonna buy an Xbox One was I?!
The second I saw this deal announced I thought it was wrong and shouldn't be allowed to go ahead. It's just obvious that this already huge company shouldn't be allowed to swallow up half the industry.
So I'm laughing not for partisan CONSOLE WARZZ reasons but because I think this deal is dogshit, anti-competitive and bad for gaming as both a medium and industry.
Now I've got an XSX and GP. But I'm no fanboy - I'm a gamer. Last gen I had a PS4 Pro. Its not like I was gonna buy an Xbox One was I?!
The second I saw this deal announced I thought it was wrong and shouldn't be allowed to go ahead. It's just obvious that this already huge company shouldn't be allowed to swallow up half the industry.
So I'm laughing not for partisan CONSOLE WARZZ reasons but because I think this deal is dogshit, anti-competitive and bad for gaming as both a medium and industry.
Last edited:
dotnotbot
Member
Did CMA even agree that there are some RCBs? The fact that Microsoft says so doesn't mean they exist. Everything they proposed (COD on Switch, ABK games in cloud) could already happen even without acquisition.
- Status