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.
feynoob said:
@DarkMage619 and SenjutsuSage SenjutsuSage
Hip Hop Television GIF by WE tv
Click to expand...

Right here guaranteeing the deal is getting done. Just stay where you are and don't go missing over the next year and change lol.

BUT if the EU doesn't side with this thing... well, that's all she wrote.

I don't appreciate these regulators dragging out the W I know I'm about to get like this, but it's all good. Something this valuable being chased by Microsoft should never come so easy. Were it a transaction I were against, I'd appreciate the same difficulty level.

I'll admit I was initially taken aback by the decision, but then I remembered.. fight! :messenger_tears_of_joy:

 
GHG said:
Where's the Switch version of call of duty then?

If you think it was going to be anything other than some form of cloud streaming for the current iterations of the game then I have a bridge to sell to you.
Click to expand...
There is no Switch version of CoD because an independent ABK won't make one. If there was a Switch version of CoD then Microsoft couldn't make the claim they were bringing CoD to 150M more players.
 
Last edited:
SenjutsuSage said:
Right here guaranteeing the deal is getting done. Just stay where you are and don't go missing over the next year and change lol.

BUT if the EU doesn't side with this thing... well, that's all she wrote.

I don't appreciate these regulators dragging out the W I know I'm about to get like this, but it's all good. Something this valuable being chased by Microsoft should never come so easy. Were it a transaction I were against, I'd appreciate the same difficulty level.

I'll admit I was initially taken aback by the decision, but then I remembered.. fight! :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Click to expand...

I suggest you give up.

As an arsenal fan, never hope for anything. As they say, it's the hope that kills you.
 
hlm666 said:
Why couldn't Nvidia use these legal intricacies? It was exactly the same as shadow and I guess this nware. I would log int my geforce now vm install steam, install my game and play on the VM. I don't get why these other places apparently can get around it but Nvidia couldn't?
Click to expand...

Because they want their customers to have a seemless experience that involves a "console like" interface and clearly they also want to advertise the games that are available on their platform.

It all comes down to how a business wishes to operate and what type of customer they intend to target.

You can plonk someone who has never used a computer before in front of geforce now and they will be fine, the same cannot be said for some of these other services. While there will inevitably be some crossover, they won't be targeting the same type of consumer.
 
FrankWza said:
You didn't lose anything. You can play every one of those games on your xbox no matter what. How can you win?
Click to expand...
He is losing this. He has to hold on his stock.
Arnold Schwarzenegger Loop GIF by xponentialdesign



I hope he pulled out his stock, or else he is going to lose a lot of money as time goes on.

EU news is around the corner.
 
Last edited:
DeepEnigma said:
"But but but, nVidia" is not a mature or professional response.

You sound like a child who is only put out there to drum up the console warrior retards.
Click to expand...

Why are they fighting so hard for this PR war when the PR means absolutely nothing to these regulatory bodies? What are they expecting to accomplish?
 
LordCBH said:
Why are they fighting so hard for this PR war when the PR means absolutely nothing to these regulatory bodies? What are they expecting to accomplish?
Click to expand...

dotnotbot said:
I believe this is part of their E.E.E. strat. Along with doing everything to get rid of your competition, you also ruin their public reputation by constantly trashing them. Need as much negativity around the competing brand as possible, this way MS is viewed as the good one.
Click to expand...

Here they aren't trashing Sony of course but working on its own "good guy" appearance instead. And also keep trashing CMA cause they exposed them as not so good.
 
Last edited:
Banjo64 said:
Is information sharing between international government bodies illegal in America or something?

This reminds me of the outrage when Jim said he wants to block the deal. Like, no shit.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly when seeing similar tweets making the rounds.

I have no idea what makes some people think this is some gotcha or something.
 
The $3 billion breakup fee was idiotic by Microsoft. It's unlikely the CMA will change their mind. The deal is dead.
Microsoft could have used that money to develop several games or get several 3rd party exclusives. They could even have used that money to make some kind of Call of Duty exclusive deal.

Phil Spencer, it's time for him to go. He's basically throwing money away.
 
Last edited:
fermcr said:
The $3 billion breakup fee was idiotic by Microsoft. It's unlikely the CMA will change their mind. The deal is dead.
Microsoft could have used that money to develop several games or get several 3rd party exclusives. They could even have used that money to make some kind of Call of Duty exclusive deals.
Phil Spencer, it's time for him to go.
Click to expand...

They really don't need anymore studios or IP'a. They have EVERYTHING they need for success, they just don't have anyone who can manage worth a damn. I agree with your last line 100%.
 
GHG said:
Because they want their customers to have a seemless experience that involves a "console like" interface and clearly they also want to advertise the games that are available on their platform.

It all comes down to how a business wishes to operate and what type of customer they intend to target.

You can plonk someone who has never used a computer before in front of geforce now and they will be fine, the same cannot be said for some of these other services. While there will inevitably be some crossover, they won't be targeting the same type of consumer.
Click to expand...

Just quickly fired up geforce now to see whats changed. They have basically just put a ui over the VM. I had to sign into my steam account and then let it sync the games then it listed the "compatible" games and I could play some of what I own. So if nware or shadow try and make their service user friendly or create a tv app that needs to be controlled by a controller or something their business is screwed because now they will be screwed over by publishers like nvidia? Maybe Nware has plans to make their service more user friendly or deploy on other devices where people wont have a mouse and keyboard to control the remote desktop of the vm?

I don't understand all the legal stuff, hence my questions but from your descriptions if these streaming services want to be viable for a mainstream audience they are going to be in nvidias position right and need publishers approval?
 
X-Wing said:


"After the acquisition closes."
So, never?

The 10 year contracts do not solve CMA's issues with the deal.
Click to expand...

No, but making additional 10 year deals would:
  • Enable them to increase the likelihood that the EC would approve, which then would give them counter ammo in their CMA appeal and FTC court case (which now they need badly).
  • Make their position better should the break-up fee thing with Activision go into courts (as it has for ARM x Nvidia).

fermcr said:
The $3 billion breakup fee was idiotic by Microsoft. It's unlikely the CMA will change their mind. The deal is dead.
Microsoft could have used that money to develop several games or get several 3rd party exclusives. They could even have used that money to make some kind of Call of Duty exclusive deals.
Phil Spencer, it's time for him to go.
Click to expand...
Breakup fees are standard in big corporate mergers because of how unpredictable they are. If the deal doesn't go through, then Activision needs to be compensated for the stasis of its commercial plans that resulted from having to wait for regulatory approval.
 
LordCBH said:
Why are they fighting so hard for this PR war when the PR means absolutely nothing to these regulatory bodies? What are they expecting to accomplish?
Click to expand...

Not doing themselves any favors as foreigners in the UK threatening and insulting the entire country, that's for damn sure.
 
Heisenberg007 said:
SenjutsuSage SenjutsuSage You are not banned anymore. Please share here why you think it's a bad thing if Lina Khan did indeed meet with the CMA?
Click to expand...

It's actually not something that anyone in the middle of ongoing litigation with a specific set of parties would ever want to be caught doing, especially when the person they met with is the head of the very government body due to make a massive decision in a case that's relevant to your current goals in the next week or so. A decision with direct legal implications on the very thing you're in ongoing litigation (FTC case against Microsoft currently) with the parties on. It's very legally problematic if not possibly illegal. But for the sake of arguments let's assume it isn't outright illegal, but nobody can disagree that it has a look of being highly suspect.

Should Microsoft and Activision decide to do it, the Supreme Court has quite literally just granted all parties the power to take its arguments about the current FTC structure and other matters on a constitutional basis directly to Federal District Court and the District Court HAS to hear them out and allow the complaint to proceed and be litigated. There were already countless avenues available to Microsoft to beat the FTC in the USA before that meeting between Khan and the head of the CMA, in person, in Washington, a week and a half before the decision on the 26th.

Lina Khan has just opened up a pretty massive door that lawyers are almost certainly already contemplating stepping right through. Bobby Kotick didn't mention that meeting as a random throwaway. It was done for both political pressure reasons, as well as for legal reasons. Surely by now everybody must realize that Microsoft will engage in every legal maneuver available to them to fight for this deal. There was a time people thought the FTC blocking was a dead deal. Here we are still. CMA should have been the end also. But here we are. And the CMA was just reversed in CAT and forced to revise and approve a deal just in the last two years, with 3 of the same people involved in this inquiry being involved in the last one they got overturned on.

So that's my full answer. Lina Khan messed up. Regardless of what anybody thinks about the outcome of this deal, that meeting is something that should have never taken place purely on common sense grounds, and the Supreme Court 9-0 ruling against the FTC gives Microsoft a whole bunch of avenues in which to exploit it in federal district court. They wouldn't even need to necessarily prove the deal was discussed between them, the appearance alone could be enough to harm the FTC's fight against Microsoft. There is a legal and ethical standard that all federal courts below the Supreme Court follow and expect potential parties before them to adhere to. I guarantee there are federal laws also governing Khan's conduct or appearance of conduct in the position she's in that are only amplified WHILE engaging in litigation with two merging companies.

This is almost like catching Brad Smith or Phil Spencer together meeting with a federal judge due to decide on their merger in federal court at Microsoft HQ just a mere week or days before the decision is to come down, and then surprise! It goes exactly how Microsoft wants it to. The parties can go around trying to do the charm offensive. Lina Khan can not in her current position, especially that close to a decision while in active litigation.
 
Astray said:
No, but making additional 10 year deals would:
  • Enable them to increase the likelihood that the EC would approve, which then would give them counter ammo in their CMA appeal and FTC court case (which now they need badly).
  • Make their position better should the break-up fee thing with Activision go into courts (as it has for ARM x Nvidia).
Click to expand...

I'm not sure this will help in any way. The EU has already expressed similar concerns to the CMA when it comes to cloud gaming, that alone already reduces the chances of a successful appeal.
 
SenjutsuSage said:
This is almost like catching Brad Smith or Phil Spencer together meeting with a federal judge due to decide on their merger in federal court at Microsoft HQ just a mere week or days before the decision is to come down, and then surprise! It goes exactly how Microsoft wants it to. The parties can go around trying to do the charm offensive. Lina Khan can not in her current position, especially that close to a decision while in active litigation.
Click to expand...

No, it really isn't like that at all. At this point, you are just making up narratives.
 
SenjutsuSage said:
It's actually not something that anyone in the middle of ongoing litigation with a specific set of parties would ever want to be caught doing, especially when the person they met with is the head of the very government body due to make a massive decision in a case that's relevant to your current goals in the next week or so. A decision with direct legal implications on the very thing you're in ongoing litigation (FTC case against Microsoft currently) with the parties on. It's very legally problematic if not possibly illegal. But for the sake of arguments let's assume it isn't outright illegal, but nobody can disagree that it has a look of being highly suspect.

Should Microsoft and Activision decide to do it, the Supreme Court has quite literally just granted all parties the power to take its arguments about the current FTC structure and other matters on a constitutional basis directly to Federal District Court and the District Court HAS to hear them out and allow the complaint to proceed and be litigated. There were already countless avenues available to Microsoft to beat the FTC in the USA before that meeting between Khan and the head of the CMA, in person, in Washington, a week and a half before the decision on the 26th.

Lina Khan has just opened up a pretty massive door that lawyers are almost certainly already contemplating stepping right through. Bobby Kotick didn't mention that meeting as a random throwaway. It was done for both political pressure reasons, as well as for legal reasons. Surely by now everybody must realize that Microsoft will engage in every legal maneuver available to them to fight for this deal. There was a time people thought the FTC blocking was a dead deal. Here we are still. CMA should have been the end also. But here we are. And the CMA was just reversed in CAT and forced to revise and approve a deal just in the last two years, with 3 of the same people involved in this inquiry being involved in the last one they got overturned on.

So that's my full answer. Lina Khan messed up. Regardless of what anybody thinks about the outcome of this deal, that meeting is something that should have never taken place purely on common sense grounds, and the Supreme Court 9-0 ruling against the FTC gives Microsoft a whole bunch of avenues in which to exploit it in federal district court. They wouldn't even need to necessarily prove the deal was discussed between them, the appearance alone could be enough to harm the FTC's fight against Microsoft. There is a legal and ethical standard that all federal courts below the Supreme Court follow and expect potential parties before them to adhere to. I guarantee there are federal laws also governing Khan's conduct or appearance of conduct in the position she's in that are only amplified WHILE engaging in litigation with two merging companies.

This is almost like catching Brad Smith or Phil Spencer together meeting with a federal judge due to decide on their merger in federal court at Microsoft HQ just a mere week or days before the decision is to come down, and then surprise! It goes exactly how Microsoft wants it to. The parties can go around trying to do the charm offensive. Lina Khan can not in her current position, especially that close to a decision while in active litigation.
Click to expand...

This is all so naive(or ignorant)... Regulators work together all the time. There is nothing illegal or suspicious on that. That is one of the OECDs policies when it comes to regulation.
 
Last edited:
SenjutsuSage said:
Right here guaranteeing the deal is getting done.
Click to expand...
Unless you're being sarcastic, you're an even bigger clown than I thought.

The odds of a successful CAT appeal are as small as me winning the lottery. CMA has said no. FTC is suing to block. That's two of the big four. Doesn't really matter what the EC does. It's done. Accept it. Move on. Microsoft is now, and will always be, a third place also-ran in the gaming space.

Edit: Nvm, I read the rest of your ridiculous posts. You're not just A clown, you're the entire clown car.
 
Last edited:
fermcr said:
The $3 billion breakup fee was idiotic by Microsoft. It's unlikely the CMA will change their mind. The deal is dead.
Microsoft could have used that money to develop several games or get several 3rd party exclusives. They could even have used that money to make some kind of Call of Duty exclusive deal.

Phil Spencer, it's time for him to go. He's basically throwing money away.
Click to expand...
You know what is more shitty than that?
MS refusing Bungie price tag, Sony spending 3b buying them, and MS losing that same money to activitision.
 
Last edited:
FrankWza said:
You didn't lose anything. You can play every one of those games on your xbox no matter what. How can you win?
Click to expand...

First, I have over $15k in activision stock. So that's the first part. Second, this makes Xbox and Game Pass wayyyy better. I want that. It makes the industry more competitive, it means way more day one big first-party games in game pass. Anybody telling anybody who wants the deal approved that they're not getting anything isn't really being forthcoming.

There is a difference with having to either pay $69.99 to buy a game outright, or maybe a game I wouldn't buy anyway because I'm not that interested, compared to a game dropping into game pass effectively free, and now because it's there I suddenly try it because all skepticism is gone.. cause Game Pass. I turn out to enjoy it. Win, win for my favorite hobby on my preferred platform. And just what the deal does for Xbox financially alone is another thing that can end up making Xbox first party as well as game pass better. It may help them land more big AAA third party day ones due to the money swirling around. The more Game Pass grows the more likely Game Pass keeps being awesome for people that love Game Pass.

And, as seen in the case of Bethesda, when Microsoft acquires something, they seek to create exclusive games from it. It just won't be Call of Duty. I want more exclusives to come because I personally feel, even when I'm annoyed at specific exclusive deals, it helps the industry overall. It's competition. I as a PS5 owner want Sony under pressure. I as an Xbox owner, wants Xbox to get its ass kicked here and there. I'm a big believer in the "let them fight" mantra. The more Microsoft and Sony are fighting, the better it is for me.

If Sony doesn't kick Microsoft's ass on Xbox One, you all know we don't get Game Pass, right? So now I like Game Pass, and I want it to be strengthened as much as possible. Therefore I fully support this deal for that reason.
 
Astray said:
No, but making additional 10 year deals would:
  • Enable them to increase the likelihood that the EC would approve, which then would give them counter ammo in their CMA appeal and FTC court case (which now they need badly).
  • Make their position better should the break-up fee thing with Activision go into courts (as it has for ARM x Nvidia).


Breakup fees are standard in big corporate mergers because of how unpredictable they are. If the deal doesn't go through, then Activision needs to be compensated for the stasis of its commercial plans that resulted from having to wait for regulatory approval.
Click to expand...

$3 billion breakup fee has got to hurt, even if it's Microsoft.
Microsoft should have known this deal would be difficult to pass, before agreeing with the absurd breakup fee. Sheer incompetence.
Any other company, Phil Spencer would have his head in a noose.
 
Last edited:
SenjutsuSage said:
First, I have over $15k in activision stock. So that's the first part. Second, this makes Xbox and Game Pass wayyyy better. I want that. It makes the industry more competitive, it means way more day one big first-party games in game pass. Anybody telling anybody who wants the deal approved that they're not getting anything isn't really being forthcoming.

There is a difference with having to either pay $69.99 to buy a game outright, or maybe a game I wouldn't buy anyway because I'm not that interested, compared to a game dropping into game pass effectively free, and now because it's there I suddenly try it because all skepticism is gone.. cause Game Pass. I turn out to enjoy it. Win, win for my favorite hobby on my preferred platform. And just what the deal does for Xbox financially alone is another thing that can end up making Xbox first party as well as game pass better. It may help them land more big AAA third party day ones due to the money swirling around. The more Game Pass grows the more likely Game Pass keeps being awesome for people that love Game Pass.

And, as seen in the case of Bethesda, when Microsoft acquires something, they seek to create exclusive games from it. It just won't be Call of Duty. I want more exclusives to come because I personally feel, even when I'm annoyed at specific exclusive deals, it helps the industry overall. It's competition. I as a PS5 owner want Sony under pressure. I as an Xbox owner, wants Xbox to get its ass kicked here and there. I'm a big believer in the "let them fight" mantra. The more Microsoft and Sony are fighting, the better it is for me.

If Sony doesn't kick Microsoft's ass on Xbox One, you all know we don't get Game Pass, right? So now I like Game Pass, and I want it to be strengthened as much as possible. Therefore I fully support this deal for that reason.
Click to expand...
I feel your pain bro.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MS/ABK is advertising games that don't exist for data collection
46
2K
POKEYCLYDE replied
My apologies to Ubisoft, Sony, Activision, EA, MS etc. for making a big deal out of $70 games
2 3 4
156
6K
MDSLKTR replied
Microsoft, Activision Deny Report Regarding Financial Performance
Business Hardware  2 3
131
11K
Jaybe replied
What happened to all the people that were cheering over that MS Activision acquisition?
Drama  5 6 7 8 9
414
18K
GateofD replied
Microsoft has Closed the Activision Blizzard King Deal
22 23 24 25 26
1K
99K
MasterCornholio replied
Top Bottom