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.
LZzaSJ6.gif
 
Foilz said:
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
Click to expand...
Jonah Hill Ok GIF
 
ZehDon said:
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.
Click to expand...

The difference here is lobbying. It happens here too, but nowhere near or on the overt scale that it does in the US. Here it's polite and hush hush. In the states, it's an industry in and unto itself. And your senators and governors/house are often unashamed by the money that pours in for special interest. Where as here in the UK, that can quickly become a scandal which forces a politician out of office, or at least play a significant part in his/her exit.

But it's the "hush hush" method that Microsoft and Lulu/kotic have blown up. There was undoubtedly an avenue to lobby the cma but now no politician will touch it. It's too overt. Which means the deal, at least in the UK, is dead.
 
Last edited:
bitbydeath said:
That's what I said.
The tech is in it's infancy.
The block is to prevent future states.
Click to expand...
The tech is just the internet and some compression codecs, it's already done, it was working ages ago when I tried out OnLive. The problem is that it's only ever gonna sort of work and no-one in their right mind is going to forego physical hardware for it. How many GeForce subscribers do you really think don't game on PC?
 
Topher said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's a weird take on Smith's words. Name one failure, lost tender, loss to competitor, blockage etc in 40 years to MS doing business in the UK bigger than ABK and this current CMA ruling? There isn't a bigger one, hence the comments about the darkest days. I deal with a lot of investors and investment groups for the projects I work on. These sorts of red tape issues and signals to the marketplace isn't what business wants, especially investments for tech projects.

You're adding bias, as many replies have, to what was said and the history of MS in the UK. They've worked with government in many ways, with various successes and failures, over 4 decades and 10s, if not 100s, of billions of dollars (2021 was approx $5Billion revenue for MS in UK). When you extrapolate out that regional relationship for 40+ years it's a pretty ugly scenario where regulators don't align or trust or even work with such an entity, corporate or otherwise; especially in the face of outright blockage where conversely Apple sailed on through with a walled garden and iron grip. There was plenty of concessions and positives for the deal e.g. breaking the duopoly of mobile for one, arguably created in the UK by CMA being asleep at the wheel.

Frankly reading many replies in this thread thinking MS/Smith was threatening the UK is just disingenuous and misplaced through fanboy type takes. It's not how that was intended, it was simply to illustrate the working two way relationship MS and the UK have enjoyed for decades. A backbone to what should have been a collaborative and involved process for the best outcome for consumers, corporates and government. In reality this is a signal to small, medium and large investors that their deals will be under strict scrutiny and/or blockage. If I was investing billions I'm looking for the path of least resistance and a government/regulators that work with me, not overrule even when concessions and more were being made.

To be clear I'm all for Big Tech having regulations on them, they've had it too good for far too long. Corporations should not exceed regional governments. The trouble is this CMA ruling appears to be the political opposite and like so much going around today there was no middle ground, just a flip of up is down.
 
I'm going to hell for laughing at this:




Any time I look at twitter I'm reminded of how batshit insane it is. Who knew such insanity could come from limiting people to 140 characters?
 
bentanchorbolt said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you don't think the nascent market of Cloud gaming is a good enough reason to sink this deal, then let me attempt to try and contextualize it for you. I'm sure I won't necessarily change your mind with what i'm saying, but I hope it at least gives some context to others paying attention.

  • One of the blunders of regulators in the last 20 years on the corporate M&A stage is that many politicians and political bodies and regulatory agencies all rubber stamped deals on topics they really didn't understand. In the 2000s and 2010s, when things like Facebook and Google began emerging deals such as FB acquiring WhatsApp & Insta, the plethora of acquisitions that Google did or the various search-related companies they bought, we can now look back and see that these deals essentially created these giant technological monoliths, who are stifling innovations in their various sectors. You can ask any of the biggest minds in WebDev, for example, and they will tell you full stop that Google is the internet - if your page isn't showing up on the first few results of a google search, it may as well not exist; this was not always the case. Facebook's reach is so ridiculous it shapes geopolitical events. Regulatory agencies NEVER had the foresight that these sorts of things could come from unchecked M&A in the technology sector. A few of the more well funded regulatory groups have now begun catching up to that fact.
  • So, we have this nascent technology right, Cloud Game Streaming. Its a market that every analyst and almost all major game pubs have agreed can one day be the future of games distribution. Is it there right now? Absolutely not. When WhatsApp was acquired by FB, was it anywhere near the global communication tool it is today? Ofc not. And we have seen how bad thats turned out. This is the exact type of scenario the CMA, the FTC, and the EC want to avoid. Now I know - cloud streaming is not a big market now; why should that affect this deal? And MS is the only one who has dumped money into this market recently; why are they being punished?
  • The truth on MS' involvement in the Cloud market is, unfortunately, more nuanced than the surface level observation would allow. One of the major differences that MS has employed in their approach to content distribution in Cloud is to instead focus on a subscription model as the primary entry point for consumers. A subscription that is tied into services on several other devices and platforms, aka, a vertical integration. This is a tremendous advantage that no other competitor save for Sony can leverage, but there is something else to this. Game Pass, and Game Pass Ultimate, are tremendous loss leading services. Very few other companies have the capital to weather the costs of having to host all of those data centers, and can then just distribute the content out, essentially for free to the consumer, for as long as MS has.
  • Taking the above point, then look at Google. Now, I don't want to paint Google as some company down on their luck, cause they clearly aren't. Theres a few facts to understand about Stadia though: many observers for Cloud game streaming all agreed that Stadia's solution was technically superior to xCloud. This isn't really a point that was up for debate. So they had technological innovation. They didn't have a console userbase they could leverage, and they didn't have a pre-existing subscriber base that they could vertically integrate into this market. And to top it all off, Microsoft owns the data-centers for their cloud network, a distinct advantage on the operational cost side that no one else save for Amazon could emulate. Google, because of the business realities they faced, needed to sell licenses to games in their ecosystem individually, and needed to build up a subscription service from scratch, without having a content pipeline all their own that could allow them to have a content foothold right from the start.
  • Take all that into account: a corporation like Google needed a vertically integrated subscriber base going into the market, a in-house content pipeline that was mature and regularly releasing content, and they needed a business structure that could allow them to primarily give out license access to games at a tremendous loss leading pace, while also finding a way to subsidize the hosting costs like MS can, all so they could be AT EQUAL FOOTING with the market advantages that Microsoft inherently has by just existing. All that before you even consider that Stadia was largely considered to be a superior technical solution to xCloud, so even innovation wasn't enough to give them market leverage.
  • As we all know, Google had to close up shop in the Cloud gaming sector rather than continue to burn cash in order to operate in it. One of the factors in this regulatory fight that everyone seems blissfully content with ignoring, is that Google was against the ATVI merger (one of the few public companies who were - we now know several 3rd parties were as well), and publicly stated that one of the reasons they had to exit the Cloud gaming market, was due to Microsoft's overwhelming market advantages. The CMA not only agreed with Google, but reinforced that finding in their Preliminary Findings.
  • Okay - but is that alone reason enough to kill the ATVI deal? That depends on your perspective, but its unquestionable that if Stadia died given these conditions, then Microsoft getting an even stronger leverage on content, which primarily drives gaming markets in general, could make them almost impossible to match on the content side.
  • So why don't we just take on this potential Microsoft issue someday if it does present a market problem should the Cloud gaming market get more adoption in the future? Anyone who has followed Mergers & Acquisitions will tell you - breaking up a company after the fact to create an equal playing field in a market is nearly impossible. Once the merger goes through, its almost impossible to roll it back. And in the meantime - whose to say that Microsoft isn't already stifling potential innovation in said sector? Why should they be allowed to get even bigger, in that case?
 
Last edited:
We want to legally aquire CoD and all of Activision and Blizzard games, because we believe games should be shared with everyone!

In other news, the Starfield and Redfall teams have stopped working on PlayStation versions now that we legally own them.

Cloud gaming is the future and we are leading the way. It's our #1 focus. We no longer see Nintendo and Sony as our competitors, but those bigger companies that could compete in true cloud gaming such as Google and Amazon.

The CMA clearly has no idea what they're talking about. Cloud gaming is an irrelevant portion of the gaming industry.
 
Last edited:
Captain Toad said:
We want to legally aquire CoD and all of Activision and Blizzard games, because we believe games should be shared with everyone!

In other news, Starfield and Redfall have stopped working on PlayStation versions now that we legally own them.

Cloud gaming is the future and we are leading the way. It's out #1 focus. We no longer see Nintendo and Sony as our competitors, but those bigger companies that could compete in true cloud gaming such as Google and Amazon.

The CMA clearly has no idea what they're talking about. Cloud gaming is an irrelevant portion of the gaming industry.
Click to expand...

Oh and P.S., those third party deals we signed were:

a) only conditional to us getting this deal over the line

and

b) written in a way that ensured we get to keep 100% of the revenue for any transactions that take place on hardware and/or cloud services that isn't our own.

Signed, Good Guy Microsoft.
 
SneakersSO said:
If you don't think the nascent market of Cloud gaming is a good enough reason to sink this deal, then let me attempt to try and contextualize it for you. I'm sure I won't necessarily change your mind with what i'm saying, but I hope it at least gives some context to others paying attention.

  • One of the blunders of regulators in the last 20 years on the corporate M&A stage is that many politicians and political bodies and regulatory agencies all rubber stamped deals on topics they really didn't understand. In the 2000s and 2010s, when things like Facebook and Google began emerging deals such as FB acquiring WhatsApp & Insta, the plethora of acquisitions that Google did or the various search-related companies they bought, we can now look back and see that these deals essentially created these giant technological monoliths, who are stifling innovations in their various sectors. You can ask any of the biggest minds in WebDev, for example, and they will tell you full stop that Google is the internet - if your page isn't showing up on the first few results of a google search, it may as well not exist; this was not always the case. Facebook's reach is so ridiculous it shapes geopolitical events. Regulatory agencies NEVER had the foresight that these sorts of things could come from unchecked M&A in the technology sector. A few of the more well funded regulatory groups have now begun catching up to that fact.
  • So, we have this nascent technology right, Cloud Game Streaming. Its a market that every analyst and almost all major game pubs have agreed can one day be the future of games distribution. Is it there right now? Absolutely not. When WhatsApp was acquired by FB, was it anywhere near the global communication tool it is today? Ofc not. And we have seen how bad thats turned out. This is the exact type of scenario the CMA, the FTC, and the EC want to avoid. Now I know - cloud streaming is not a big market now; why should that affect this deal? And MS is the only one who has dumped money into this market recently; why are they being punished?
  • The truth on MS' involvement in the Cloud market is, unfortunately, more nuanced than the surface level observation would allow. One of the major differences that MS has employed in their approach to content distribution in Cloud is to instead focus on a subscription model as the primary entry point for consumers. A subscription that is tied into services on several other devices and platforms, aka, a vertical integration. This is a tremendous advantage that no other competitor save for Sony can leverage, but there is something else to this. Game Pass, and Game Pass Ultimate, are tremendous loss leading services. Very few other companies have the capital to weather the costs of having to host all of those data centers, and can then just distribute the content out, essentially for free to the consumer, for as long as MS has.
  • Taking the above point, then look at Google. Now, I don't want to paint Google as some company down on their luck, cause they clearly aren't. Theres a few facts to understand about Stadia though: many observers for Cloud game streaming all agreed that Stadia's solution was technically superior to xCloud. This isn't really a point that was up for debate. So they had technological innovation. They didn't have a console userbase they could leverage, and they didn't have a pre-existing subscriber base that they could vertically integrate into this market. And to top it all off, Microsoft owns the data-centers for their cloud network, a distinct advantage on the operational cost side that no one else save for Amazon could emulate. Google, because of the business realities they faced, needed to sell licenses to games in their ecosystem individually, and needed to build up a subscription service from scratch, without having a content pipeline all their own that could allow them to have a content foothold right from the start.
  • Take all that into account: a corporation like Google needed a vertically integrated subscriber base going into the market, a in-house content pipeline that was mature and regularly releasing content, and they needed a business structure that could allow them to primarily give out license access to games at a tremendous loss leading pace, while also finding a way to subsidize the hosting server hosting costs like MS can, all so they could be AT EQUAL FOOTING with the market advantages that Microsoft inherently has by just existing. All that before you even consider that Stadia was largely considered to be a superior technical solution to xCloud, so even innovation wasn't enough to give them market leverage.
  • As we all know, Google had to close up shop in the Cloud gaming sector rather than continue to burn cash in order to operate in it. One of the factors in this regulatory fight that everyone seems blissfully content with ignoring, is that Google was against the ATVI, and publicly stated that one of the reasons they had to exit the Cloud gaming market, was due to Microsoft's overwhelming market advantages. The CMA not only agreed with Google, but reinforced that finding in their Preliminary Findings.
  • Okay - but is that alone reason enough to kill the ATVI deal? That depends on your perspective, but its unquestionable that if Stadia died given these conditions, then Microsoft getting an even stronger leverage on content, which primarily drives gaming markets in general, could make them almost impossible to match on the content side.
  • So why don't we just take on this potential Microsoft issue someday if it does present a market problem should the Cloud gaming market get more adoption in the future? Anyone who has followed Mergers & Acquisitions will tell you - breaking up a company after the fact to create an equal playing field in a market is nearly impossible. Once the merger goes through, its almost impossible to roll it back. And in the meantime - whose to say that Microsoft isn't already stifling potential innovation in said sector? Why should they be allowed to get even bigger, in that case?
Click to expand...

That's all nice and well when you talk about Google, now explain how Apple falls under everything you just typed out?

Apple has everything to compete e.g. content, datacentres, funds, consumers, mobile/app stores, development tools, cross media content for movies/music/first party IPs, manufacturing, chip/hardware development, marketing etc etc. You're also forgetting things like if ABK was approved, with concessions, it opens the door for Google or Amazon or an investment group out of the middle east to enter the market to compete.

I would have preferred the CMA created a regulatory framework with MS that paves the road for other big tech based on what we want. Blocking achieves none of that, it does nothing to lead the way or provide road/paths to traverse. It's piss poor politics really and not want I call industry leadership that promotes competition.
 
Last edited:
Ozzy Onya A2Z said:
That's all nice and well when you talk about Google, now explain how Apple falls under everything you just typed out?

Apple has everything to compete e.g. content, datacentres, funds, consumers, mobile/app stores, development tools, cross media content for movies/music/first party IPs, marketing etc etc. You're also forgetting things like if ABK was approved, with concessions, it opens the door for Google or Amazon or an investment group out of the middle east to enter the market to compete.
Click to expand...
Because the regulators aren't looking at a hypothetical Apple acquisition of ATVI? None of the other companies you listed in your post are trying to buy ATVI - Microsoft is. Regulators also have issues with those other companies on a variety of issues. In fact, the CMA very famously killed a big FB M&A attempt last year, so its not like they are singling out MS here.

Just because other companies are massive, doesn't mean that MS should be allowed to be able to buy this. I imagine that should someone else try to buy ATVI thats on this list you mentioned, they'd also get placed under regulatory scrutiny. Also, none of those companies are currently the market leader in the Cloud Gaming Sector - MS is. So your point doesn't even apply there.
 
Last edited:
SneakersSO said:
Because the regulators aren't looking at a hypothetical Apple acquisition of ATVI? None of the other companies you listed in your post are trying to buy ATVI - Microsoft is. Regulators also have issues with those other companies on a variety of issues. In fact, the CMA very famously killed a big FB M&A attempt last year, so its not like they are singling out MS here.

Just because other companies are massive, doesn't mean that MS should be allowed to be able to buy this. I imagine that should someone else try to buy ATVI, they'd also get placed under scrutiny. Also, none of those companies are currently the market leader in the Cloud Gaming Sector - MS is. So your point doesn't even apply there.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, the role of regulators is to protect and promote competition now and in the foreseeable future. There are competitors and pathways for competition, factually and demonstrable. What it's good enough for web search engines, good enough for mobile but all of a sudden cloud gaming is the deal breaker when it has more competition than previous industries? How about music streaming? Movies? Please.
 
Ozzy Onya A2Z said:
Incorrect, the role of regulators is to protect and promote competition now and in the foreseeable future. There are competitors and pathways for competition, factually and demonstrable. What it's good enough for web search engines, good enough for mobile but all of a sudden cloud gaming is the deal breaker when it has more competition than previous industries? How about music streaming? Movies? Please.
Click to expand...
Thats... yeah thats just nonsense you're mentioning. The CMA isn't going to go around policing markets unless a major event occurs in it, or someone tries to do a merger, which requires them to weigh-in and approve/disapprove. You can point out a ton of problematic markets, thats fine, but the CMA right now is NOT weighing in on that. The CMA's job here was to approve or block a merger of MS & ATVI, and they saw a potential problem area in the future. Hence - they are seemingly, in their view, protecting future competition in the Cloud Gaming market.

And to be clear - this block wasn't the first option. The CMA presented options in the Preliminary Findings they published months ago that gave Microsoft options that would allow them to avoid these concerns of theirs, and Microsoft offered nothing that actually addresses it. Microsoft found the notion of divesting CoD and its studios to be a non-starter.
 
Ozzy Onya A2Z said:
That's a weird take on Smith's words. Name one failure, lost tender, loss to competitor, blockage etc in 40 years to MS doing business in the UK bigger than ABK and this current CMA ruling? There isn't a bigger one, hence the comments about the darkest days. I deal with a lot of investors and investment groups for the projects I work on. These sorts of red tape issues and signals to the marketplace isn't what business wants, especially investments for tech projects.

You're adding bias, as many replies have, to what was said and the history of MS in the UK. They've worked with government in many ways, with various successes and failures, over 4 decades and 10s, if not 100s, of billions of dollars (2021 was approx $5Billion revenue for MS in UK). When you extrapolate out that regional relationship for 40+ years it's a pretty ugly scenario where regulators don't align or trust or even work with such an entity, corporate or otherwise; especially in the face of outright blockage where conversely Apple sailed on through with a walled garden and iron grip. There was plenty of concessions and positives for the deal e.g. breaking the duopoly of mobile for one, arguably created in the UK by CMA being asleep at the wheel.

Frankly reading many replies in this thread thinking MS/Smith was threatening the UK is just disingenuous and misplaced through fanboy type takes. It's not how that was intended, it was simply to illustrate the working two way relationship MS and the UK have enjoyed for decades. A backbone to what should have been a collaborative and involved process for the best outcome for consumers, corporates and government. In reality this is a signal to small, medium and large investors that their deals will be under strict scrutiny and/or blockage. If I was investing billions I'm looking for the path of least resistance and a government/regulators that work with me, not overrule even when concessions and more were being made.

To be clear I'm all for Big Tech having regulations on them, they've had it too good for far too long. Corporations should not exceed regional governments. The trouble is this CMA ruling appears to be the political opposite and like so much going around today there was no middle ground, just a flip of up is down.
Click to expand...

I get it. You are a MS fan and you don't like it.

Nbc Smile GIF by Law & Order
 
bentanchorbolt said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why do you think that is though. Content on their subs mostly made them less attractive. They couldn't secure content publishers to offer their games for their subscription , a platform further crippled for content because their servers don't run MS windows so required developers to put in work to make a port which they didn't do for the install base.
bentanchorbolt said:
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.
Click to expand...
They were doing it because in 2012 they had their lowest install base hardware and were taking losses. they were trying to get customers without having to rely on PS3 sales. When PS4 sold well their cloud expansion was less important to them but was and is still there. Why do you think nobody else is taking it seriously other than MS or nVidia?
Ozzy Onya A2Z said:
You're adding bias, as many replies have, to what was said and the history of MS in the UK. They've worked with government in many ways, with various successes and failures, over 4 decades and 10s, if not 100s, of billions of dollars (2021 was approx $5Billion revenue for MS in UK)...
Click to expand...
He didn't even add anything, it's verbatim the news article from The Guardian. You would know that if you decided to read the article instead of going on and on about MS. Nobody here has added bias.
 
Three said:
Why do you think that is though. Content on their subs mostly made them less attractive. They couldn't secure content publishers to offer their games for their subscription , a platform further crippled for content because their servers don't run MS windows so required developers to put in work to make a port which they didn't do for the install base.
Click to expand...
Be honest, without googling it can you even say what was available? I sure as shit can't because why would I buy a game that is purely available in the cloud?
 
Topher said:
You have already reduced everyone you disagree with to "fanboys" so what is there to talk about?
Click to expand...
Ah, another one liner response with poor assimilation of what was said. It must take effort. I especially like the part where you reply and don't bother to answer any questions posed to you.
 
Last edited:
onnextflix5 said:
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.
Click to expand...
lol that's nothing new.

Companies always criticize regulators after their deals are blocked. That makes literally no difference.
 
Pelta88 said:
The difference here is lobbying. It happens here too, but nowhere near or on the overt scale that it does in the US. Here it's polite and hush hush. In the states, it's an industry in and unto itself. And your senators and governors/house are often unashamed by the money that pours in for special interest. Where as here in the UK, that can quickly become a scandal which forces a politician out of office, or at least play a significant part in his/her exit.

But it's the "hush hush" method that Microsoft and Lulu/kotic have blown up. There was undoubtedly an avenue to lobby the cma but now no politician will touch it. It's too overt. Which means the deal, at least in the UK, is dead.
Click to expand...
Interesting, glad to hear the UK at least understands its poltiical corruption is something hide, not revel in.

From my perspective, while Xbox might have burned some bridges, Microsoft itself still does business with the UK Government directly. That gets them to the table to talk. A little "you scratch mine, I'll scratch yours" behind closed doors could grease the wheels for winning the appeal to get the CMA to re-review, and ultimately get the CMA to change their stance. CMA gets to look like it strong-armed big tech into additional concessions, UK Government keeps its hands publically clean, and Microsoft still gets what it wants. If the UK Government holds firm and supports the CMA' decision behind closed doors, Microsoft may just be out of rope. If the UK Government bends the knee, Microsoft may still come out on top.
 
bentanchorbolt said:
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.
Click to expand...
VR's been around since the 1960's, a decade isn't that long.
 
ZehDon said:
From my perspective, while Xbox might have burned some bridges, Microsoft itself still does business with the UK Government directly. That gets them to the table to talk. A little "you scratch mine, I'll scratch yours" behind closed doors could grease the wheels for winning the appeal to get the CMA to re-review, and ultimately get the CMA to change their stance. CMA gets to look like it strong-armed big tech into additional concessions, UK Government keeps its hands publically clean, and Microsoft still gets what it wants. If the UK Government holds firm and supports the CMA' decision behind closed doors, Microsoft may just be out of rope. If the UK Government bends the knee, Microsoft may still come out on top.
Click to expand...
The CMA is independent and any govt official leaning on it would be ripped to shreds by UK media.
 
bitbydeath said:
VR's been around since the 1960's, a decade isn't that long.
Click to expand...
It still isn't a thing lol. And it took 50 years to get to a niche market. Imagine blocking deals in the 1970's, 80's ect over concern of a VR monopoly. I guess regulators can next pull out that nft monopoly next to block deals they don't like to protect the status quo.
 
Astray said:
The CMA is independent and any govt official leaning on it would be ripped to shreds by UK media.
Click to expand...
If the leaning is behind closed doors, the media wouldn't do a thing. To be clear, I'm not saying anyone will do anything of the sort, I'm saying Microsoft is clearly used to doing business in America where corporations usually get their way.
 
Ozzy Onya A2Z said:
Ah, another one liner response with poor assimilation of what was said. It must take effort. I especially like the part where you reply and don't bother to answer any questions posed to you. It must take effort to cherry pick that often.
Click to expand...

Nope. I'm just bored with those who call out "fanboys" simply because they don't like what was said. So why don't you try again and cut out the bullshit?

Time for bed for me either way. Do, don't. Don't care.
 
Last edited:
ZehDon said:
If the UK Government holds firm and supports the CMA' decision behind closed doors, Microsoft may just be out of rope. If the UK Government bends the knee, Microsoft may still come out on top.
Click to expand...

This sounds like wishful hoping to me.

The CMA has issued their block. The FTC is suing to block the deal here in the states. That's at least two regulatory agencies against it. The EC seems like a coin flip at the moment but with the FTC and CMA against it, that may sway them as well.

How much more time, money, and effort do both Microsoft and Activision want to spend on this? How much will their shareholders allow them to? The longer this drags out the worse it is for Activision, and the more Microsoft execs have public meltdowns like these the more likely any further business dealings get heavily scrutinized.

Smith and Kotick have burned a bunch of bridges today all while the CMA's decision has exposed Microsoft's dishonesty and duplicity for the world to see. And Sony was barely even a factor.
 
Thirty7ven said:
Can you share which reasons you think would be reasonable enough to block the merger?
Click to expand...
Nothing cloud based - no-one is looking to play CoD multiplayer in the cloud. The big issue that would be reasonable them being in control of a major IP in the existing market - consoles and PC.
 
poppabk said:
Nothing cloud based - no-one is looking to play CoD multiplayer in the cloud. The big issue that would be reasonable them being in control of a major IP in the existing market - consoles and PC.
Click to expand...
They argued how good it would be because they would be bringing the games to more gamers. Cloud was going to be the way they delivered on that promise. That delivery system would have been a monopoly in microsofts favor. Blocked.
 
quest said:
It still isn't a thing lol. And it took 50 years to get to a niche market. Imagine blocking deals in the 1970's, 80's ect over concern of a VR monopoly. I guess regulators can next pull out that nft monopoly next to block deals they don't like to protect the status quo.
Click to expand...
Exactly, because it took the tech that long to mature, same for cloud.
 
MS out here having meltdowns....and were one of the companies against the Nvidia - ARM deal...

www.gamesindustry.biz

Nvidia acquisition of Arm under fire from Microsoft and Google

Major tech firms are protesting against Nvidia's $40 billion acquisition of UK semiconductor firm Arm.
www.gamesindustry.biz www.gamesindustry.biz

And had some of the same concerns Sony had.... heh.

Topher said:
You have already reduced everyone you disagree with to "fanboys" so what is there to talk about?
Click to expand...

Topher said:
Nope. I'm just bored with those who call out "fanboys" simply because they don't like what was said. So why don't you try again and cut out the bullshit?
Click to expand...
Exactly.

"If you are not with me....you are my enemy!!"

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
 
ZehDon said:
If the leaning is behind closed doors, the media wouldn't do a thing. To be clear, I'm not saying anyone will do anything of the sort, I'm saying Microsoft is clearly used to doing business in America where corporations usually get their way.
Click to expand...
My friend, take one look at the multiple Prime Ministers the media took down within the past 6 years, even ones that for a while looked unassailable.
 
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
98K
MasterCornholio replied
Top Bottom