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.

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
How can they focus on long term effects when it doesn't exist yet? Maybe they watched that move Minority Report to make their decision lol
They are doing it proper being preventative with the current 70% cloud infrastructure leader and the data they themselves provided and bragged about for the past decade alone. They did say the parties could revisit in 10 years.
 
Last edited:

Topher

Identifies as young
How can they focus on long term effects when it doesn't exist yet? Maybe they watched that move Minority Report to make their decision lol

Every analysis of a merger or acquisition is a prediction of what effect the transaction will have on the market in the future. Why would the regulator be so short-sighted in their analysis to only examine what the merger would do right now? It isn't that hard to come to a conclusion that ABK owned by Microsoft with its already huge cloud presence will have a significant impact on cloud gaming.
 
his ego was hurt when it was blocked
His ego is going to be more hurt when the EU makes the same decision as the other two, which is why I thought they delayed giving their decision in the first place(to see what decision CMA/FTC would take first). Now, I don't think they have a reason to pass it through, since the EU follows the rest of the herd and the rest of the herd said "no". This can and will back Microsoft into a corner and will kill the deal completely dead as they will run out of ammo and have no reinforcements to lean onto for help.
 
Last edited:
Stop making shit up and being disingenuous like jizz corden. Those are Amazon Prime members. Luna+ requires a different subscription and are nowhere near that number, i doubt it’s even passed 2mil.
The same can be said for Xbox Game Pass Ultimate. When you count Game Pass Ultimate you're including Xcloud users as a 'whole'. Not everyone streams through Xcloud. Obviously, it's cheaper getting Ultimate if you want to play online on Xbox Live, and with 100s of games via Game Pass.
 
How can they focus on long term effects when it doesn't exist yet? Maybe they watched that move Minority Report to make their decision lol
The cloud market does in fact exist? Like, its not a massive market, with the overwhelming majority of users being in other outlets/mediums, but it does exist.

Is it profitable? Obviously, not really. To participate in the Cloud Gaming market, you need to be ready to eat an absolute ton of costs and the industry has tried a load of business models, the latest being subscription services, to jumpstart market adoption. That isn't really yielding the results anyone in the industry wants to see.

With all that said, MS and other big analysts and publishers in the industry all continue to predict that not only will Cloud be one of the biggest markets for the gaming industry, but it'll be the future main entry point for all games consumers, and most of the big players have been investing as if that is true. The CMA is basing the future priority of the cloud market on what Microsoft and other industry leaders are saying, and using their financial analysis as a guide post for their conclusion.

What the CMA is doing is precisely what loads of regulatory agencies DIDN'T do when folks like Google and Facebook were gobbling up loads of market participants in their relative tech sectors and non of the regulators had any idea how big those services would be to the foundation of the developed world, essentially. Preventing a monopoly from emerging in a potential future major market is far more preferable than trying to disarm the various market leverages that these companies wound up accruing after the fact.
 

The Alien

Banned
There is not a single tangible argument that can be made with regard to cloud concerns. CMA's market share calculation of xCloud is purely administrative. CMA argues that if MS were to acquire ABK, they'd have an insurmountable lead in cloud. But any other cloud provider can bundle cloud with their basic offering (Sony, Amazon) and make a big dent in the market. In other words, if Sony were to bundle cloud with PS+ essential, they'd be market leader. Which is the flaw in CMA's reasoning. They're looking at availibility not actual use.
Exactly. I believe MS is arguing that the CMA calculated all GamePass users as cloud users which is far from accurate.
 
The cloud market does in fact exist? Like, its not a massive market, with the overwhelming majority of users being in other outlets/mediums, but it does exist.

Is it profitable? Obviously, not really. To participate in the Cloud Gaming market, you need to be ready to eat an absolute ton of costs and the industry has tried a load of business models, the latest being subscription services, to jumpstart market adoption. That isn't really yielding the results anyone in the industry wants to see.

With all that said, MS and other big analysts and publishers in the industry all continue to predict that not only will Cloud be one of the biggest markets for the gaming industry, but it'll be the future main entry point for all games consumers, and most of the big players have been investing as if that is true. The CMA is basing the future priority of the cloud market on what Microsoft and other industry leaders are saying, and using their financial analysis as a guide post for their conclusion.

What the CMA is doing is precisely what loads of regulatory agencies DIDN'T do when folks like Google and Facebook were gobbling up loads of market participants in their relative tech sectors and non of the regulators had any idea how big those services would be to the foundation of the developed world, essentially. Preventing a monopoly from emerging in a potential future major market is far more preferable than trying to disarm the various market leverages that these companies wound up accruing after the fact.

Your logic is deeply flawed, to the point that you should join a MS camp to be properly re-educated. We all know that a judge should equip a crazy, violent fellow with guns and ammo, that he/she (the judge) be able to intervene after the crime is committed. 🤓
 
Last edited:

Orbital2060

Member
They made it about cloud gaming from the very beginning. This wasn't a fallback position.
Come ON man. None of you guys were discussing cloud gaming in here before april 25th. When the CMA dropped the console part and focussed on cloud, everybody was like - WTF? Cloud?

But now all of a sudden its gospel. Well you know what - everybody on here knows that cloud gaming is not going to be that big. Its an argument made up of rainbow ponies and faiiry dust. Great hardware is always going to be the preferred way to play videogames.
 

feynoob

Banned
Come ON man. None of you guys were discussing cloud gaming in here before april 25th. When the CMA dropped the console part and focussed on cloud, everybody was like - WTF? Cloud?

But now all of a sudden its gospel. Well you know what - everybody on here knows that cloud gaming is not going to be that big. Its an argument made up of rainbow ponies and faiiry dust. Great hardware is always going to be the preferred way to play videogames.
We were.
Most of us assumed that MS were meeting CMA remedies about cloud. Only PaintTinJr PaintTinJr had a point about CMA blocking this deal on behalf of cloud slc.
 
His ego is going to be more hurt when the EU makes the same decision as the other two, which is why I thought they delayed giving their decision in the first place(to see what decision CMA/FTC would take first). Now, I don't think they have a reason to pass it through, since the EU follows the rest of the herd and the rest of the herd said "no". This can and will back Microsoft into a corner and will kill the deal completely dead as they will run out of ammo and have no reinforcements to lean onto for help.
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. MS has one of their cronies embedded with the EU antitrust regulators to ensure they get the decision they want. The EU decision has been telegraphed to be approved for months now, unlike CMA the EU is easy to corrupt with enough money and MS has a lot of money.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Come ON man. None of you guys were discussing cloud gaming in here before april 25th. When the CMA dropped the console part and focussed on cloud, everybody was like - WTF? Cloud?

But now all of a sudden its gospel. Well you know what - everybody on here knows that cloud gaming is not going to be that big. Its an argument made up of rainbow ponies and faiiry dust. Great hardware is always going to be the preferred way to play videogames.
A simple thread search would show you're talking out your ass.

It's ironic that cloud gaming, that pretty much no gamer really gives a shit about, is the major stumbling block. Especially as MS is pretty much the only one who is keeping even the idea of cloud gaming on life support currently.
I know my take on cloud gaming isn't a popular one here, but there is going to be a time when its the platform of choice for most gamers. The moment the infrastructure and tech behind cloud gaming is ready for mass adoption and the pricing/service model is right, it's going to redefine how people consume videogames.

And many more like it before that post and after that post (before April 25th).
 
Last edited:

feynoob

Banned
My takes so far. I was close yet so far.
The issue is that cloud needs MS. Blocking this deal is going to hinder that market.
It's why CMA is open to behavioral remedies for cloud.

Without MS, Activision won't put their games on cloud. So CMA has see whether MS owning Activision would benefit this market or not.

And as far as we know, MS is 100% in this market with their xcloud gamepass.

some people are hell bent on CMA divestment.

If CMA gives a shit about cloud gaming, the last thing they will

The issue is that MS has Xbox. Without Xbox, no one would have cared about cloud, as activision alone isnt enough.

But when you have gamepass with xbox 1st party games, 3rd party games plus bethesda and activision all using xcloud, then there is a risk of anti-competitive actions.

MS had to allow nvidia to access their steam games as sign of cooperation with regulators.
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
Come ON man. None of you guys were discussing cloud gaming in here before april 25th. When the CMA dropped the console part and focussed on cloud, everybody was like - WTF? Cloud?

But now all of a sudden its gospel. Well you know what - everybody on here knows that cloud gaming is not going to be that big. Its an argument made up of rainbow ponies and faiiry dust. Great hardware is always going to be the preferred way to play videogames.
You are ignorant.



I think the CMA are arguing that owning Activision & CoD, alongside their existing first party/brand recognition and cloud infrastructure, will make them the defacto major player in the future cloud streaming race and will make it borderline impossible for future entrants to make a dent.

That’s not within the remit of the regulators AFAIK.

They are looking at whether MS owning Acti (alongside their cloud infrastructure, existing first party, subscription service and brand recognition on the gaming space) could reduce competition in the market and prevent future entrants in to the space.

Your stance was that Sony can copy Microsoft at any time, therefore there’s no harm to possible competition in the gaming subscription market. It’s not true. The CMA’s stance is that it could potentially harm future competition in the market, which would effect the consumer.


I mean it’s pretty straight forward, if Microsoft get too big no one else will be bothered to try and crack the market in 10 or 20 years time. We’ve already seen Google bow out, what more evidence do you need that it’s already hard to compete against the established names as is? A lack of competition ALWAYS harms the consumer.


They’re getting clowned by MS fan boys only, who think that investigating something thoroughly before approving or denying it is a hideous sin.

EA, Ubisoft and Sony wouldn’t have a catalogue featuring CoD, Zenimax and Microsoft Game Studios’ releases. CoD sells more alone than any of Sony’s exclusives every single year. None of those companies have their own cloud infrastructure either, so as the CMA say, it’s a combination of all 3 factors. Library, infrastructure, existing brand power.


If Sony would make more money following Microsoft’s path, why haven’t they done it? If they’ve crunched the numbers and calculated that they’d be losing hundreds of millions of pounds annually by putting games on PS Plus day 1, you think that’s a sensible decision?


Listen, anyone is free to check out my post history, when Zenimax and AKB’s acquisitions were announced I basked in the tears of Sony fanboys along with the best of them.

However I won’t play along with people who think that Brazil and Saudi Arabia are sound and that true scrutiny shouldn’t exist 🤷‍♂️ it’s likely that the CMA still ratify this deal after their phase 2, but it’s their job to investigate the possible future impact and the Xbox fans crying about it, and pretending not to understand basic hypotheticals, that are plainly spelled out, is the most cringe worthy display of corporate bootlicking on par with anything I’ve see from PS fanatics.

I can’t believe the blinkers some of you have on when you make this all about Sony, despite the CMA being clear that this is also about existing infrastructure and future competition in the cloud and subscription service space.

Well, I can. It’s pretty damning though.

No, because this is also about Microsoft’s internal cloud infrastructure, their subscription plans and their ability to accept big losses in the short term to foreclose rivals in the long term.

That’s it sorry?

I can selectively quote as well, here you go;



Now if you actually want to discuss the article you posted, I’m all for it.

A. This is a short article, which only looks at one single element of the CMA findings. There’s no mention at all of cloud gaming, existing infrastructure, brand recognition, subscription services or other potential entrants in to the market - which are all cornerstones of the CMA’s full report.

B. They don’t mention Zenimax at all, only ‘less valuable game titles’. The combined weight of Doom, TES, Fallout, Prey, Wolfenstein, Dishonoured and now Starfield FAR outweigh what Minecraft was AT THE TIME MS PURCHASED IT.

C. This appears to just be their own interpretation of that one element of the report, it’s hardly a scathing comprehensive assessment that reduces the CMA’s arguments to nothing. They literally just extrapolate that because Minecraft is multi platform, CoD will be too.

Do you have anything else?

I think CoD is a red herring. The deal is definitely twin pillared for Microsoft’s obvious gain in CoD and King - however the potential for data harvesting/tailoring content, combined with their infrastructure and potential to strong-arm existing players/prevent future entrants just makes the entire package pretty unappealing at a time where people are sick to the back teeth of mega corps. I personally hope it’s killed stone dead at this point. People are focusing on CoD/Sony but it’s much more than that, they are just grabbing the headlines and clicks because it’s drama, whereas there’s not much drama talking about how MS could gain an unfair advantage by knowing your mobile gaming/web browsing and console gaming habits.

EGS too and GeForce Now - Microsoft are trying to turn everyone’s eye to Sony when the CMA and EU are worried about foreclosure or future entrants in to the space, infrastructure, data usage etc. If this is one of many concessions, great.

I can.

The CMA should ensure it is focused on seeking the best outcome for consumers and not act as an impediment to greater choice, nor to the furtherment of innovation in developing markets such as cloud gaming.

Where will greater choice come from if Microsoft cement themselves as the only major player in the cloud streaming space with XGS, ABK, Zenimax, possible future acquisitions of major publishers, Xbox’s brand recognition in the UK market and Microsoft’s internal infrastructure?

People keep conflating choice with being inside of Microsoft’s walled garden, as they allow you to stream to most devices. That is the illusion of choice and it’s why the CMA reported that it was concerned that Microsoft could withhold ABK’s library from competing streaming platforms.

It’s not impossible, because Microsoft’s own internal documents and third party documents show that streaming has been well received and it growing at a steady pace. Only Microsoft can leverage their infrastructure (brand recognition/content/Azure/OS) whereas Sony can’t.

I can only cherry pick points here because the full assessment within the report is pages long. But it does deal with how Microsoft could do this, and what their incentive would be. In many cases Microsoft’s own internal documentation is cited to validate the points.

How does that make 0 sense for cloud gaming when Microsoft’s internal documents and third party documents have shown that cloud gaming is well received and growing steadily in terms of popularity?


The conversation is around everything. Google and Amazon don’t have Microsoft’s brand recognition (in terms of gaming) in the UK, they don’t have the studios or IP. Sony and Nintendo do, but they don’t have the infrastructure. Microsoft are the one company with everything.

Sony in the bin.

Unless the CMA’s concerns around cloud and infrastructure are significant enough to warrant divestiture of CoD, it’s going through.

I think the CMA might pass it now. The calculation error was bad enough, but to completely change tune on the infrastructure/cloud concerns would leave their already shot reputation in tatters.

How is it consumer protection?
Because Microsoft with its cloud infrastructure, subscription service, ability to eat costs and potential first party game line up with Activision could prevent any serious competitor from entering the cloud based/subscription market which means NO CHOICES FOR YOU, THE CONSUMER.

Just read the CMA findings for fucks sake
How are the concerns spelled out, that MS could leverage its in house cloud infrastructure alongside its brand power and library to stop or suppress any future entrants in to subscription/cloud based gaming corporate protection?
 

Topher

Identifies as young
oh? Is that on the report?

Yes it is. I'll try to find it and quote it later.

Come ON man. None of you guys were discussing cloud gaming in here before april 25th. When the CMA dropped the console part and focussed on cloud, everybody was like - WTF? Cloud?

But now all of a sudden its gospel. Well you know what - everybody on here knows that cloud gaming is not going to be that big. Its an argument made up of rainbow ponies and faiiry dust. Great hardware is always going to be the preferred way to play videogames.

I was convinced when they threw out the console aspect of this that the deal was done. Said that many times. Well you know what - CMA didn't ask me, now did they? So what does what was said here have to do with anything.....answer: nothing. Either way, looks like Banjo64 Banjo64 and DeepEnigma DeepEnigma have already thoroughly proved you wrong.

And yeah, cloud is gospel according to the CMA in this instance. That's all that matters. Wishing this was about console wars doesn't make it so.

Cloud gaming will continue to grow as the tech improves. It will become a segment in gaming just as console, mobile and PC are segments of gaming. Preventing Microsoft from gaining a stranglehold on the cloud gaming segment is as justifiable a position for opposing this acquisition as any, imo.
 

feynoob

Banned
I dunno bros. according to actual experts this deal is 100% guarantee "ours".
Here is an expert take. Not ashamed of this take. It was the only logical step at that time.
N4 was a shit take though. Thnx CMA.
  1. There several key points I want to highlight about this deal.
    1. Activision put themselves for sale. MS approached, but were rejected. They went to facebook, instead. Facebook rejected Activision deal. Activision went back to MS, and the sale happened.
    2. This wasnt a hostile takeover. This was a business that was up for sale, and anyone could have made the sale.
    3. Same thing happened to Bethesda. Bethesda were up for sale. MS bought them. There was no hostile take over.
    4. As such, both deals werent done by MS big money, in order to hurt the competition. They were companies who were on the market, and MS had the means to buy them.
  2. B:
    1. Activision deal isnt just about COD, like people here make it out to be. Its about 3 division of activision.
    2. 1A: Activison with COD, and other IPs
    3. 1B: Blizzard, which opens the windows store for PC player through WOW, and battlenet integregation with windows store.
    4. 1C: King with candy crush, and COD mobile. This opens the door for MS to open Mobile store, by utilizing King, and in hopes of porting their games to mobile through King.
  3. This deal wont hurt Sony, as COD needs playerbase. By excluding PS users, MS is essentially undercutting COD growth. There is also the fact, that MS has tons of FPS shooters, which would also hurt COD revenue on Xbox. Hence, why MS wont remove the game from PS.
  4. This deal wont give MS leverage through cloud gaming. Cloud gaming is early experiment. It needs time, and tools to replace the traditional consoles. There are major players in cloud gaming. Players such as,
    1. 4A: Amazon with luna.
    2. 4B: Sony with PS Now, or as we call it now PS+ premium. Which includes a high catelog of library, which are much bigger than MS own cloud gaming library.
    3. 4C: Geforce, which offers the ability to play owned games on their service.
    4. As such, Activision purchase wont hurt the competition in this avenue.

Would this deal pass?
Yes, it would, since there are no major problems with this acquision.
MS/Xbox is last in console race in term of userbase, sold hardware, and 2nd in term of revenue. While MS has enermous amount of money under their belt, this acquision wont put them in advantage mode, due to userbase not being enough. Currently, Xbox has half of PS userbase, and 75% of nintendo userbase.

While this deal wont be a problem, there are future problems if this deal is passed, which would put MS in anti competitive range, should they acquire publishers like EA and take 2. If this happens, MS should face the scrunity for monopolistic tactic, as those publishers would give them alot of advantages.
 
Last edited:

feynoob

Banned
R reksveks


Fox Tv Popcorn GIF by The Four
 
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. MS has one of their cronies embedded with the EU antitrust regulators to ensure they get the decision they want. The EU decision has been telegraphed to be approved for months now, unlike CMA the EU is easy to corrupt with enough money and MS has a lot of money.
Honestly, anything is possible at this stage. And to be even more honest, if the above was 100% true, the EU would've made their decision in an instant and not delay it for so long. Microsoft's money couldn't buy out the decision of the FTC, which is based in their own home turf(the good ol' US of A). Am I supposed to believe that they didn't have cronies embedded in there too, so they could have their way?

Yes, money can buy you many things and even secure a decision you want taken. But at this stage, it seems Microsoft is being played for a fool. The exact opposite decision might even be taken by the EU than the one Microsoft expects. It's a double edged sword, EU can just take the money and bribery and run and Microsoft wouldn't be able to do jack against them, they're a regulator after all.

A thing of note:
Regulatory boards are massive and an analysis and conclusion isn't taken by a single person. Multiple experts weigh in by adding their own takes, concerns & points before a final verdict is reached. So, even if Microsoft got to any of the higher ups through bribery, I doubt the whole board of individuals reviewing the situation would let only the decision of one person pass before looking at it first. Money doesn't always guarantee a solid win. The last thing the EU wants right now is one of their own government entities blamed and mocked for corruption and bribery.
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
Sooo anything fun revealed?
Got to ask, what are people expecting exactly?

It's only going to be numbers like how many people play CoD on PS, MAUs, etc. Information they want to share with the court but don't want public simply for business confidentiality reasons. Remember they weren't obligated to share anything in this case so whatever they have shared isn't going to be putting them in a bad light.
 

Three

Member
Lulu used by sony :messenger_tears_of_joy:

A filing about an Activison VP making threats is a ridiculous low quality filing but I'm sure Tom Warren quotes in MS's was top notch to Florian.

It isn't Lulu being used by Sony by the way. The filing is from the public ("gamers") lawyers . Florian is just adding the usual MS flair of trying to make it all about Sony by using the phrase 'Sony supported'.
 
Last edited:

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
The same can be said for Xbox Game Pass Ultimate. When you count Game Pass Ultimate you're including Xcloud users as a 'whole'. Not everyone streams through Xcloud. Obviously, it's cheaper getting Ultimate if you want to play online on Xbox Live, and with 100s of games via Game Pass.
Amazon Luna is a separate subscription. Amazon Prime is a different subscription.

Does xCloud have a separate subscription?
 

reksveks

Member
It's all rather irrelevant but

- Xcloud can be used free of charge for fortnite for anyone who has an MS account freely
- Xcloud is also a part of GPU.
- Luna has Luna+
- Luna has a 'tier' for amazon prime users with no additional costs which doesn't require another 'subscription'. Obviously this shit gets weird when you maybe think that it could legally be a different subscription but at 0 cost but not sure how Amazon have done it.

It's all not really comparable.
 
Last edited:

Dick Jones

Banned
according to our expert it's over for CMA

Of course why would Jim Ryan be involved in Microsoft's failure with the CMA in a MS appeal to the CAT? The issue is cloud not console (pay attention shill) and I love that he slates people with Jim Ryan photos as their hero, yet throws a photo of the lad hired to clean up MS's failure without a sense of irony.
 
according to our expert it's over for CMA

Is the guy on the right Florian, by any chance? Because if it is, Jim Ryan has nothing to worry about. He looks like a discount armchair intellectual that is more of a minor annoyance to Jim than an actual threat.

Edit: Wearing an expensive formal suit doesn't make people smart, if that's what our twitter intellectual Florian thinks
 
Last edited:

Edmund

is waiting for Starfield 7
Is the guy on the right Florian, by any chance? Because if it is, Jim Ryan has nothing to worry about. He looks like a discount armchair intellectual that is more of a minor annoyance to Jim than an actual threat.

Edit: Wearing an expensive formal suit doesn't make people smart, if that's what our twitter intellectual Florian thinks

Florian Mueller is this guy with the ginormous head.

EdBA3oh.jpg
 
Florian Mueller is this guy with the ginormous head.

EdBA3oh.jpg
Still some armchair intellectual in a fancy suit, nothing remarkable to be honest. Oh and a minor annoyance too. I wonder if he gets paid to act like a spoiled child on twitter all day.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom