Dick Jones
Banned
Bobby Kotick should just pretend it never happened like George quitting in Seinfeld and coming back the next day claiming it was a joke.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
bitbydeath
Gold Member
Didn't expect this to get so ugly.
MS clearly had a lot riding on this deal.
MS clearly had a lot riding on this deal.
GHG
Gold Member
Jez is giving his audience hopium at a time of need there through his incorrect interpretation of the goverment office's statement (which by the way, is exactly the same copy and paste statement they are providing to every outlet that reaches out to comment).
It's a farce that some of these guys call themselves "journalists".
Astray
Member
They committed over %70 of their cash and short term investments to it, basically as close as putting in all their chips.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
well, they were riding Boby's big dick
Topher
Identifies as young
Ignore Microsoft's whines about the Activision takeover. The CMA did its job
The silliest line in Microsoft president Brad Smith's whine about the UK was his claim that the Competition and Markets Authority is "not only unelected but unaccountable". That is an absurdly over-the-top reaction to a regulatory thumbs-down in the UK, on entirely coherent grounds, for Microsoft's planned $68.7bn (£55bn) takeover of the video games firm Activision Blizzard.
What does Smith want? A national poll to choose the directors of the independent body responsible for competition and consumer protection? In practice, one suspects, Smith would expect to see something like the UK's current system.
The chair of the CMA, its chief executive and the rest of the board are appointed by the business secretary of the elected government. Grant Shapps, holder of the post at the time, appointed Sarah Cardell as CMA chief executive last December.
As for accountability, Smith must know that CMA decisions can be appealed. Microsoft is free to take its argument to the Competition Appeals Tribunal, a separate body. And, if it doesn't like what the CAT decides, it can trot along to the court of appeal for another go.
https://www.theguardian.com/technol...-blizzard-blocked-by-uk-competition-regulator
This setup is different from the one that operates in Smith's and Microsoft's home patch of the US, but not wildly so. In the US, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has to sue to block a deal (which, note, it is now doing in the Activision case). Ultimately, though, the process can end up in court in both countries.
That is why, one trusts, Rishi Sunak will ignore Smith's invitation to "look hard at the role of the CMA and regulatory structure in the UK" if he wants the tech industry to flourish here.
Microsoft can yank investment from the UK if it wishes, but another part of the global tech industry may be encouraged by the rare sight of a regulator being willing to step into the path of US Big Tech's steamroller.
Smith hardly helped his case when he tried to paint the UK as a place where it's hard for a successful tech founder to sell a business. The record shows that the number of deals blocked by the CMA – across all sectors – is tiny in most years.
Indeed, the more common complaint is that the regulator is too willing to accept an acquirer's proposed remedies to competition concerns. Microsoft tried the remedy route with Activision but the CMA, unusually, wasn't convinced. Tough.
And, whatever Smith thinks, the EU is not some regulatory paradise for big companies in which every big deal goes through on the nod. Deals sometimes get stopped by Brussels too.
Those who regard Activision hits Call of Duty, Candy Crush and so on as recreational fluff may view the stakes here as low, but nobody should doubt the CMA's right to inspect the Microsoft deal.
One US company was trying to buy another US company, but the relevant measure is the size of UK revenue. Activision generates about £700m of its global £6bn turnover in the UK, so 10 times the CMA's £70m cutoff. This was not a marginal case.
On the substance of Smith's grumble – that Microsoft's remedies for the cloud part of the gaming market were sufficient – opinion obviously differs, but the CMA hasn't lost its marbles.
In essence, the takeover would wed a big content company (Activision) to a big next-generation platform provider (Microsoft). The proposal was never going to be a slam-dunk, which is why the FTC and the European Commission are also all over it.
All contractual remedies – especially time-limited ones as offered by Microsoft – must be policed. So, if the CMA had said yes, the regulator would be permanently diving into a cloud market that is still in its infancy.
It is surely a reasonable pro-competition and pro-innovation view of the world to believe, first, that the market should be left to develop freely if cloud-based delivery is the coming force; and, second, that Microsoft is big enough already if it has an estimated 60%-70% of cloud gaming services.
For Smith and Microsoft, it is apparently "the darkest day in our four decades in Britain". The remark merely advertises Big Tech's sense of entitlement. Go to appeal, or take the decision on the chin. Either way, get a sense of proportion.
www.theguardian.com
The silliest line in Microsoft president Brad Smith's whine about the UK was his claim that the Competition and Markets Authority is "not only unelected but unaccountable". That is an absurdly over-the-top reaction to a regulatory thumbs-down in the UK, on entirely coherent grounds, for Microsoft's planned $68.7bn (£55bn) takeover of the video games firm Activision Blizzard.
What does Smith want? A national poll to choose the directors of the independent body responsible for competition and consumer protection? In practice, one suspects, Smith would expect to see something like the UK's current system.
The chair of the CMA, its chief executive and the rest of the board are appointed by the business secretary of the elected government. Grant Shapps, holder of the post at the time, appointed Sarah Cardell as CMA chief executive last December.
As for accountability, Smith must know that CMA decisions can be appealed. Microsoft is free to take its argument to the Competition Appeals Tribunal, a separate body. And, if it doesn't like what the CAT decides, it can trot along to the court of appeal for another go.
https://www.theguardian.com/technol...-blizzard-blocked-by-uk-competition-regulator
This setup is different from the one that operates in Smith's and Microsoft's home patch of the US, but not wildly so. In the US, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has to sue to block a deal (which, note, it is now doing in the Activision case). Ultimately, though, the process can end up in court in both countries.
That is why, one trusts, Rishi Sunak will ignore Smith's invitation to "look hard at the role of the CMA and regulatory structure in the UK" if he wants the tech industry to flourish here.
Microsoft can yank investment from the UK if it wishes, but another part of the global tech industry may be encouraged by the rare sight of a regulator being willing to step into the path of US Big Tech's steamroller.
Smith hardly helped his case when he tried to paint the UK as a place where it's hard for a successful tech founder to sell a business. The record shows that the number of deals blocked by the CMA – across all sectors – is tiny in most years.
Indeed, the more common complaint is that the regulator is too willing to accept an acquirer's proposed remedies to competition concerns. Microsoft tried the remedy route with Activision but the CMA, unusually, wasn't convinced. Tough.
And, whatever Smith thinks, the EU is not some regulatory paradise for big companies in which every big deal goes through on the nod. Deals sometimes get stopped by Brussels too.
Those who regard Activision hits Call of Duty, Candy Crush and so on as recreational fluff may view the stakes here as low, but nobody should doubt the CMA's right to inspect the Microsoft deal.
One US company was trying to buy another US company, but the relevant measure is the size of UK revenue. Activision generates about £700m of its global £6bn turnover in the UK, so 10 times the CMA's £70m cutoff. This was not a marginal case.
On the substance of Smith's grumble – that Microsoft's remedies for the cloud part of the gaming market were sufficient – opinion obviously differs, but the CMA hasn't lost its marbles.
In essence, the takeover would wed a big content company (Activision) to a big next-generation platform provider (Microsoft). The proposal was never going to be a slam-dunk, which is why the FTC and the European Commission are also all over it.
All contractual remedies – especially time-limited ones as offered by Microsoft – must be policed. So, if the CMA had said yes, the regulator would be permanently diving into a cloud market that is still in its infancy.
It is surely a reasonable pro-competition and pro-innovation view of the world to believe, first, that the market should be left to develop freely if cloud-based delivery is the coming force; and, second, that Microsoft is big enough already if it has an estimated 60%-70% of cloud gaming services.
For Smith and Microsoft, it is apparently "the darkest day in our four decades in Britain". The remark merely advertises Big Tech's sense of entitlement. Go to appeal, or take the decision on the chin. Either way, get a sense of proportion.
Ignore Microsoft’s whines about the Activision Blizzard takeover. The CMA did its job | Nils Pratley
Brad Smith’s reaction to Competition and Markets Authority blocking deal is pure Big Tech entitlement
www.theguardian.com
3liteDragon
Member
freefornow
Member
Other regulatory bodies around the world didnt reach the same decision as CMA? Is the argument that because those other regulatory bodies didnt reach the same decision as CMA they are "unreasonable"?
#justiceforCADE
Topher
Identifies as young
Not sure how they determine how "reasonable" the CMA has been. Don't think it requires comparisons to other country's regulatory bodies. Seriously doubt CADE is the standard they are measuring against, regardless. lol
Last edited:
Lol right? No chance that guy can stay and keep Activision running.
Maybe Tencent could afford them whole.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
M$ losing because of cloud gaming kind of seems like a cop out. Amazon is doing badly in cloud gaming because their product isn't good, same with Google as to why Stadia is now defunct. Sony bought Gaikai in 2012 and OnLive in 2015, but has seemed very uninteresting in cloud gaming as a primary, secondary, or even tertiary form of gaming for them. It's almost as if MS is being punished because only MS and nVidia are taking cloud gaming seriously.
Be against the deal all you want for whatever reason you want, but the official reasoning comes off as silly,
Be against the deal all you want for whatever reason you want, but the official reasoning comes off as silly,
Dick Jones
Banned
Bobby Kotick survived knowing about sexual assaults and doing fuck all. He is still there. Bobby will adapt to survive. He is a cunt, but he is a smart, resourceful and cunning cunt. I'll give him credit there and he will remain.
mansoor1980
Member
ms wants all the profits from their cloud deals with other parties , not 30 percent but 100 percent
Topher
Identifies as young
TheKremlinBossMan
Banned
I have never seen a Trillion dollar company have a public meltdown. Microsoft and Activision both released threatening statements to an entire region. That's a bad look.
Synless
Member
They are taking notes from the danger hairs. Seems to work for them….
Last edited:
bentanchorbolt
Banned
Stadia didn't fail and shutter because the competition was too stiff. It was good tech mated to a disaster of a business model. Nobody was going to buy games on Stadia to play them on only Stadia. It would have failed if they were first to market and had a 10-year exclusive deal to be the only game streaming service on the planet.
Topher
Identifies as young
Perhaps.....still.....didn't help.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
No, I agree with you as the CMA themselves cited this as part of what got them to their decision. I just think it demonstrates to me a lack of understanding on their part. I can come up right now with 5-6 better reasons the deal was blocked and none of them have anything to do with cloud gaming or Stadia.
Last edited:
bitbydeath
Gold Member
More people will want in once the tech works properly and is profitable. The block is to prevent MS from gaining an early monopoly and locking everyone else out.
He's only still there because he was seeing this deal thru. No way he stays on imo
bentanchorbolt
Banned
They are essentially being denied because they offer the best cloud gaming product in a market of companies that have tried but failed due to a poor showing. If Google and Amazon had adopted the same model as nVidia then Google would still be in the industry and Amazon would be doing much better, and these monopoly concerns would be a wash. Not to mention Sony bought out both OnLive and Gaikai and did nothing with them. The health of cloud gaming at this moment is mostly due to bad ideas and lack of effort.
Last edited:
onnextflix5
Member
There is still a chance it will go through after the appeal. As there has been some criticism of the cma in mainstream media, as some feel it gives a bad signal to tech industry about investing in the uk. So watch this space, it's not over yet.
Last edited:
bitbydeath
Gold Member
No, they're being blocked for a multitude of reasons that all add up. Them owning their own servers alone means they can undercut everyone in price. Combine that with them trying to buy out all the popular IP's then it's a recipe to instantly get blocked because it'd be near impossible to compete with.
Sanepar
Member
After what gov said? It is over dude. Good! Ms has 23 studios. Go make good games and stop the bs pr. Gamers will be there if good games are there.
ZehDon
Gold Member
And now we'll find out how much of a backbone the UK Government has now that Microsoft has their ear. In America, the systems of power often curtail to their corporate overloads' demands once they sit down for their closed-door chats. The UK, of course, isn't America, which seems to be Microsoft's biggest miscalculation.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
I don't buy that for a second as solid reasoning. If Sony was actually using Gaikai and OnLive they'd have a larger market share, if Amazon and Google offered a good product they'd have a larger market share. Cloud gaming is in the state its in because companies were bought out and sat on, and the "big dogs" who aren't MS and nVidia have offered legit bad services that were never going to succeed. If the market had grown organically and Amazon and Google offerred competitive services, there would be no concern for a cloud gaming monopoly. The CMA has basically ruled in favor to keeping the playing field as level as possible only after a lot of huge mistakes prevented the industry from being bigger than it is today.
Last edited:
bitbydeath
Gold Member
It's not just about the current situation but the future as well. Also MS acquiring Bethesda contributed to Stadia's death.
Microsoft-Bethesda Acquisition Reportedly Partly Responsible for Stadia Studio Closures - IGN
Google Stadia General Manager Phil Harrison reportedly pointed to Microsoft's acquisition of Bethesda as a reason for closing Stadia's first-party developers.
XesqueVara
Member
Yeah this is one thing who boggles my mind, the only reason that MS is the dominant player on Cloud Gaming is because they are the only one seeing it as a viable market, Google tried and failed,Amazon is there just on Paper, Nvidia even tho is a Estabilished player it did not so much to expand it, Sony barely dipped their toes and Nintendo didn´t even break in.
Topher
Identifies as young
Microsoft has publicly threatened and insulted UK. Imagine the government that capitulates to that. You are right. Microsoft, somehow, does not understand how to work outside the United States. Hasn't that been their problem all along with gaming? I think so.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
I don't put much stock into what Phil Harrison is saying. They didn't shutter Stadia due to Covid-19 and rising costs or MS buying Bethesda. It was shut down because it was a giant money pit that nobody wanted anything to do with. From day one it was a joke, and when they revealed their business model it was obvious they would never gain traction. Phil Harrison can say whatever he wants but I'm not so sure if we should really take his word here, as nobody is going to up and admit their product failed on account of leadership making bad choices.
$10 a month to unlock 4K HDR streaming on games you already own, that can't be played on other services, from a company that is known for creating and shuttering services. I'll give to to Google, tho. The tech was tip top. I played over 100+ hours of Stadia and it worked and looked great 99.99% of the time, but the only game I ever paid for was paid for with Google Play Store credit because I knew early on this wasn't going to be around forever, and so did many other games which is why it never really took off.
Last edited:
GametimeUK
Member
Don't take what I say in fanboy threads seriously. Haha.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
It almost seems more about saving face at this point because I just can't fathom how they think will pay off in the long run.
Topher
Identifies as young
Yeah, it really makes no sense.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
If Google is struggling to get in then that should show you how difficult it would be for anyone at this point in time.
The block prevents MS from monopolising an upcoming technology.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
Yeah lol. As I said before I can think of 5-6 good reasons this deal should have been blocked or at least why it was heavily scrutinized in the first place, and cloud gaming isn't one of them.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Google aren't struggling to get in, they were at the forefront and bailed because the market doesn't exist to support something like Stadia. It's not difficult to get in - it's just almost impossible to make money.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
That's what I said.
The tech is in it's infancy.
The block is to prevent future states.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
No lol. Google struggled for all the reasons I mentioned. They tried to sell gamers a product nobody wanted. If they created a service that allowed you to play the games you already own, like GeForce now, they would still be in the market today and its likely they would be doing quite well. Instead, they created a store that sold games for the same price as other stores, but locked you down to their platform and their platform alone, often with inferior versions of games you could likely buy on the platform you already own.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
The tech has been around well over a decade, but the two biggest services of their day, Gaikai and OnLive, were brought up by Sony and shuttered and sat on. As I stated already, the playing field is what it is because of either bad business choices or heavy handed corporate tactics.
nikolino840
Member
Foilz
Banned
Anyone thinking the CMA made the right decision based on ABK games going into gamepass for the cloud is a moron. ABK doesn't give Ms cloud tech any better chance at being king of the hill especially if it was coming to other cloud companies for 10yrs. The CMA clearly conspired with that twit from the FTC . I'm pretty sure Ms and ABK will get this done some how. Ms employees much smarter people than the American government does. Hell half the people working at 711 are smarter than the American government
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
As a British Xbox owner, Gamepass subscriber and occasional Bing user, I think the government needs to tell Microsoft to get lost.
Their attempting to threaten the country is the stuff of near future sci-fi where corporations are above the law and corrupt regimes line their pockets while people starve.
Unfortunately, that is basically the UK now. I assume that Microsoft didn't know that the government could overrule the judgement, as rather than running adverts, it would have been cheaper to just take a few conservative MPs out for dinner and accidentally leave a few suitcases of cash in their taxis home.
Their attempting to threaten the country is the stuff of near future sci-fi where corporations are above the law and corrupt regimes line their pockets while people starve.
Unfortunately, that is basically the UK now. I assume that Microsoft didn't know that the government could overrule the judgement, as rather than running adverts, it would have been cheaper to just take a few conservative MPs out for dinner and accidentally leave a few suitcases of cash in their taxis home.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
some one? You mean Jim Ryan?
reinking
Gold Member
ulantan
Member
It was me I was drunk and I called them at like 3 am
Varteras
Member
- Status