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.
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.
Microsoft should have cancelled the deal once the regulators said no the first time. Especially if they were just going to laugh about any structural remedies. All the regulators have to say is they would rather see the free market work it out than let the deal go through and that's that. The crystal ball goes both ways.

For many of these more conservative institutions yes is yes, no is no, and maybe is no. They basically concluded there was maybe a chance and said no.

Bethesda was under the radar and this is not. They have a clear signal where they can and can't spend $70 billion dollars if they are still serious about that level of investment.
 
Microsoft should have cancelled the deal once the regulators said no the first time. Especially if they were just going to laugh about any structural remedies. All the regulators have to say is they would rather see the free market work it out than let the deal go through and that's that. The crystal ball goes both ways.

For many of these more conservative institutions yes is yes, no is no, and maybe is no. They basically concluded there was maybe a chance and said no.

Bethesda was under the radar and this is not. They have a clear signal where they can and can't spend $70 billion dollars if they are still serious about that level of investment.

These massive companies get arrogant and think that they can do whatever they want during certain times. You think that they would learn their lesson not to even try this stuff. It's a complete waste of shareholder value for all companies involved.
 

Imagine Jim Ryan tweets that profile pic.
DKw5G0S.jpg
 
I do believe @SneakersSO pointed out that a perpetual license arrangement could have been made but Microsoft insisted on 10-year maximum individual deals. Which did nothing for them in regards to potential new entrants and even on an adequate timeline for existing participants. Basically, had Microsoft gone out of their way to show that they were willing to let the cloud market grow without ever using ABK to have an advantage in it, they would have still been allowed to do with it as they pleased in other markets. Microsoft wasn't willing to go that route.
Monopolists only can think one way. It can't be helped, this is MS's corporate culture and psychology since forever and it's virtually impossible to change corporate culture for a company which quite literally employs over 200,000+ people. MS is a company the size of a small city, that's a ship that can't just be turned around. They will always think like this even though it burns them again and again.
 
I do believe @SneakersSO pointed out that a perpetual license arrangement could have been made but Microsoft insisted on 10-year maximum individual deals. Which did nothing for them in regards to potential new entrants and even on an adequate timeline for existing participants. Basically, had Microsoft gone out of their way to show that they were willing to let the cloud market grow without ever using ABK to have an advantage in it, they would have still been allowed to do with it as they pleased in other markets. Microsoft wasn't willing to go that route.
The issue is gamepass.
Gamepass+Xcloud is a serious threat to all cloud gaming.

MS has the ability to do Stadia route for Xcloud, which people arent paying attention to. That will give MS alot of power. Now add Activision content, and you got yourself a behemouth company.

Think of it like Meta with PS content on VR.
 
These massive companies get arrogant and think that they can do whatever they want during certain times. You think that they would learn their lesson not to even try this stuff. It's a complete waste of shareholder value for all companies involved.

I don't really blame them, though. ABK was a once in a lifetime opportunity. CoD was a once in a lifetime opportunity. This was a hail mary pass to try and overcome two decades of relative failure. A company and properties like those just don't ever go up for sale until their value has dried up. Where I blame Microsoft is having so much money for all 20+ years of Xbox being around and never effectively building their first-party and making deals to ensure the content flowed. They completely squandered their progress with the 360 by totally misreading the market. They let the next console flounder for an entire generation. Then they came up with some wild scheme to loss-lead a new type of gaming market without actually having the manpower they needed to provide the content to make it work. So after so many bone-headed moves or so many years of just not giving a shit, they had to hurry and buy the biggest fish they could to make it work.

The issue is gamepass.
Gamepass+Xcloud is a serious threat to all cloud gaming.

MS has the ability to do Stadia route for Xcloud, which people arent paying attention to. That will give MS alot of power. Now add Activision content, and you got yourself a behemouth company.

Think of it like Meta with PS content on VR.

Yeah. I responded to him and reiterated that the CMA did not want Microsoft using ABK to gain a crushing advantage in cloud gaming but the CMA didn't care where they individually sold it. So their two options, really, were never have their ABK games on any cloud platform or offer a perpetual license to everyone. Microsoft entertained neither option.
 
The CMA never sounded particularly open to any reasonable remedies. What realistic option do you think MS had in regards to these cloud concerns? Divest CoD, or Windows, or Azure?

The whole thing is even crazier since ABK isn't even part of the cloud gaming market as it is, but some how they are a necessary linchpin for all future cloud gaming services (even though, in reality these service won't have much more chance at landing ABK in a cloud focused future anyway as they would likely just do their own thing).

MS likely needs to shift focus to the summer show and start trying to change the foreground conversation, even if they want to keep fighting this in the background.
What reasonable remedies did Microsoft put forward? They literally did nothing but offer 10 year COD deals. To everyone. Cloud provider? COD deal. Console provider? COD deal.

I've said since the beginning that I felt that this would not happen without meaningful structural remedies. Divesting COD. Maybe separating Xbox and the game publishing wings. I honestly think Microsoft never discussed this with the CMA because they just didn't want to do it. Companies this large get used to basically doing what they want and fighting tooth and nail to get the fines reduced to a pittance if they break a promise to a regulator.
 
I don't really blame them, though. ABK was a once in a lifetime opportunity.

Sure when you have stupid money to play with maybe you gamble it.

But that's the problem, the data suggests these acquisitions end up as poor investments even if they do go through. If they don't, you've wasted your own time and money on nothing at all
 
Last edited:
The deal in major trouble; Redfall a potential turd; Starfield months away…Xbox is unraveling.

Dump Phil!
 
Last edited:
What reasonable remedies did Microsoft put forward? They literally did nothing but offer 10 year COD deals. To everyone. Cloud provider? COD deal. Console provider? COD deal.

I've said since the beginning that I felt that this would not happen without meaningful structural remedies. Divesting COD. Maybe separating Xbox and the game publishing wings. I honestly think Microsoft never discussed this with the CMA because they just didn't want to do it. Companies this large get used to basically doing what they want and fighting tooth and nail to get the fines reduced to a pittance if they break a promise to a regulator.

Yeah. CMA made it clear that they had serious concerns about not only Microsoft leveraging ABK to gain crushing advantages in early markets, significant advantages in existing markets (which they walked back on), but also their doubts that Microsoft would make good on their deals. As with getting CoD to run adequately on Switch. On top of that, Microsoft having such a huge presence in multiple areas that overlap gaming, like cloud infrastructure and operating systems.
 
These massive companies get arrogant and think that they can do whatever they want during certain times. You think that they would learn their lesson not to even try this stuff. It's a complete waste of shareholder value for all companies involved.

Talking of arrogance:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65407005

In an interview with the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, Mr Smith, who is Microsoft's vice chair and president, said the company was "very disappointed" about the CMA's decision, "but more than that, unfortunately, I think it's bad for Britain."

"There's a clear message here - the European Union is a more attractive place to start a business than the United Kingdom."

How is blocking two massive companies who are each above 40yrs old from merging "a clear message that the EU is a more attractive place to start a business than the UK"?

I get that he's trying to kiss the EU's ass right now because they haven't made a decision yet and to pit the EU and UK against eachother instead of having solidarity on his bullshit merger but come on Brad have some shame.
 
Last edited:
Talking of arrogance:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65407005



How is blocking two massive companies who are each above 40yrs old "a clear message that the EU is a more attractive place to start a business than the UK"?

I get that he's trying to kiss the EUs ass right now because they haven't made a decision yet and to pit the EU and UK against eachother instead of solidarity on his bullshit merger but come on Brad have some shame.

The country shaming is really disgusting and disingenuous tbh

UK will do just fine without a massive acquisition that nobody other than MS and ATVI wanted or needed
 
they could easily buy any of those compnies. The problem with buying activisiton is Sony crying about COD. I hope xbox and activision enter into a 10 year exclusive deal and keep COD off playstation consoles.

Tell me where did uncle Jimbo touch you. I'll report him to the CMA.
 
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.
It was not as unexpected. Remember I kept mentioning that the only option was divestment or prohibition? You kept pointing out that I am omitting "behavioral remedies."

But the CMA had clarified that behavioral remedies do not work in this case -- specifically because of the cloud gaming market.

Microsoft did not agree to divest. So the CMA blocked it.
 
Omg, I just watched my first two CrapGamer YouTube videos ever. First, the dude has zero talent. His only benefit seems to be trashing Sony and worshipping Microsoft.

Yesterday's video was basically a victory parade as he said the deal has basically been finalized and ponies now have to shut up.

Today's video was him in shock and, I shit you not, his voice cracking as he became emotional and Sony keeps getting away with this. To him, Sony has put MS through hell and kept them from releasing games or making announcements because of this. Governments are conspiring because... I'm not sure, I guess because they're PS fans?

I had someone tell me a few weeks ago that the only reason there was any pushback on the deal in the UK is because Jim was making snake deals with his UK pals. To some people, everyone is out to get poor, little MS and it's all across countries, governments, and who knows what else. I find it's best to back away slowly from such people and just leave them to it.
 
I had someone tell me a few weeks ago that the only reason there was any pushback on the deal in the UK is because Jim was making snake deals with his UK pals. To some people, everyone is out to get poor, little MS and it's all across countries, governments, and who knows what else. I find it's best to back away slowly from such people and just leave them to it.
I agree. There were also people who thought the deal was going to pass because Microsoft was bribing the regulators. Leave the delusional people to themselves.
 
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.

The problem is that the CAT set a precedent for this last year with the Meta/Giphy acquisition/merger. Meta/Giphy appealed the CMA's decision claiming that they were using potential issues in the future instead of focusing on the here-and-now. This was the CAT's response:

5.4 In this case, the relevant products of the Parties and their rivals are complex, differentiated and include recent (and forthcoming) product developments. The potential issues under analysis relate in various ways to how competition between the merging Parties and their rivals will dynamically evolve over time. In these circumstances, the CMA will place more emphasis on the competitive assessment than on static market definition. In its assessment of the impact of the Merger on competition, it will consider evidence on concentration measures alongside evidence of closeness of competition. This involves assessing the strength of the current and likely future constraints between the products of the merging Parties and their rivals. Evidence on concentration and on closeness of competition can be interpreted and taken into account without the need for a precise definition of the relevant markets.

This same argument can (and likely will) be applied to the CMA's decision regarding the cloud gaming market, assuming that Microsoft actually does appeal this to the CAT. Specifically, there is not enough present data available when it comes to cloud gaming, so the CMA is (according to the CAT) able to consider likely/potential "future constraints".

Basically, the CMA has extremely broad discretion when it comes to how they interpret the impact and potential impact of acquisitions/mergers for newer/developing technologies, and the one party that could limit this (the CAT) has instead backed the CMA and stated that they didn't overreach. As such, the CMA is virtually untouchable when it comes to their acquisition/merger decisions with newer/developing technologies.

If cloud gaming was solidly established and had clearcut and identifiable impacts on the industry, the CMA wouldn't be able to use these kind of arguments. But because cloud gaming is still developing and there is not a sufficient amount of hard data to show potential industry impact, the CMA can essentially make up any scenario that is within the realm of possibility, and the CAT has said that that's their prerogative.

EDIT: While I wanted the acquisition to be blocked, I will say that the amount of power that the CMA holds is kind of scary. I live in the U.S., so I'm not impacted by it very often. But if the FTC (or any branch/department of the U.S. government) had this kind of power, I'd be contacting my senator about that.
 
Last edited:
I agree. There were also people who thought the deal was going to pass because Microsoft was bribing the regulators. Leave the delusional people to themselves.

I can't disagree with you there. However, I'm focusing more on the vitriol that has been shown towards Sony through all this. Even with the console concerns dismissed, there's still some who want to blame Sony entirely for MS' issues and the decision by the CMA. It's weird and irrational.
 
The problem is that the CAT set a precedent for this last year with the Meta/Giphy acquisition/merger. Meta/Giphy appealed the CMA's decision claiming that they were using potential issues in the future instead of focusing on the here-and-now. This was the CAT's response:



This same argument can (and likely will) be applied to the CMA's decision regarding the cloud gaming market, assuming that Microsoft actually does appeal this to the CAT. Specifically, there is not enough present data available when it comes to cloud gaming, so the CMA is (according to the CAT) able to consider likely/potential "future constraints".

Basically, the CMA has extremely broad discretion when it comes to how they interpret the impact and potential impact of acquisitions/mergers for newer/developing technologies, and the one party that could limit this (the CAT) has instead backed the CMA and stated that they didn't overreach. As such, the CMA is virtually untouchable when it comes to their acquisition/merger decisions with newer/developing technologies.

If cloud gaming was solidly established and had clearcut and identifiable impacts on the industry, the CMA wouldn't be able to use these kind of arguments. But because cloud gaming is still developing and there is not a sufficient amount of hard data to show potential industry impact, the CMA can essentially make up any scenario that is within the realm of possibility, and the CAT has said that that's their prerogative.
Probably why the "death valley" argument holds some merit.
 
Any chance of Microsoft taking the L and divesting COD instead of walking away entirely? Could still end up with Blizzard and King.

Though I can't imagine them getting near what they'd want for COD part of Activision considering how clear the regulators are on what cant be done with the property. Which will basically mean 10s of billions spent on Blizzard King
 
I can't disagree with you there. However, I'm focusing more on the vitriol that has been shown towards Sony through all this. Even with the console concerns dismissed, there's still some who want to blame Sony entirely for MS' issues and the decision by the CMA. It's weird and irrational.

Just use the rule that if anyone has used "Sony is crying" or "Jim is crying" without their tongue firmly planted in their cheek, they should be ignored as they have zero concept how a business should operate.
 
Any chance of Microsoft taking the L and divesting COD instead of walking away entirely? Could still end up with Blizzard and King.

Though I can't imagine them getting near what they'd want for COD part of Activision considering how clear the regulators are on what cant be done with the property. Which will basically mean 10s of billions spent on Blizzard King

The time for divestment and behavioral/structural remedies is past. The CMA has made the decision. The only options Microsoft has are to appeal to the CAT, or walk away from the acquisition.
 
Any chance of Microsoft taking the L and divesting COD instead of walking away entirely? Could still end up with Blizzard and King.

Though I can't imagine them getting near what they'd want for COD part of Activision considering how clear the regulators are on what cant be done with the property. Which will basically mean 10s of billions spent on Blizzard King

King would still be a massive get on Microsoft's part.
 
I can't disagree with you there. However, I'm focusing more on the vitriol that has been shown towards Sony through all this. Even with the console concerns dismissed, there's still some who want to blame Sony entirely for MS' issues and the decision by the CMA. It's weird and irrational.
It's pretty silly to blame Sony for why this didn't go through. Likewise it's silly to claim this as some mastermind move by Sony.

There are sore losers and there are sore winners. It's fun to watch the meltdowns, the lighthearted memes are great too (that Hitler video was funny as fuck), but I've seen some unnecessarily mean posts.
 
It's pretty silly to blame Sony for why this didn't go through. Likewise it's silly to claim this as some mastermind move by Sony.

There are sore losers and there are sore winners. It's fun to watch the meltdowns, the lighthearted memes are great too (that Hitler video was funny as fuck), but I've seen some unnecessarily mean posts.

Twitter was absolute gold today. Well, not gold. More like... What's something that is revolting and painful at the same time?

Herpes. Twitter was absolute herpes today.
 
It's pretty silly to blame Sony for why this didn't go through. Likewise it's silly to claim this as some mastermind move by Sony.

There are sore losers and there are sore winners. It's fun to watch the meltdowns, the lighthearted memes are great too (that Hitler video was funny as fuck), but I've seen some unnecessarily mean posts.

Eh, I'm not much for the meltdown posts. I figure it's just in the moment reactions and will be tempered over time. What I enjoy is the informative posts as well as the sincere ones. Not to mention, as you pointed out, the memes which have been adding a much needed touch of humour to this whole affair.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom