Edmund
is waiting for Starfield 7
These bots act the same everywhere
It's like some of these accounts are managed by the same person
It's as if they are mind controlled or something.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
It's as if they are mind controlled or something.
Bernoulli
M2 slut
Astray
Member
No no no the cloud is not the future ok it's not last month anymore.that's the power of the Cloud
POKEYCLYDE
Member
I'm not sure if ABK is going to end the deal by the termination date. I'm sure they have to look like they're fighting for the deal up until the termination date, but why hire what probably amounts to a very expensive high profile lawyer to fight for the deal if you just plan on ending it in a couple months?
Maybe it's a required performance so they can say they did their best to fight for the deal, so they're not in breach of whatever contract they have with Microsoft, or maybe they really want to take this thing as far as they can.
I was of the opinion they would bounce at the termination date (July 18), but now I'm not so sure.
Maybe it's a required performance so they can say they did their best to fight for the deal, so they're not in breach of whatever contract they have with Microsoft, or maybe they really want to take this thing as far as they can.
I was of the opinion they would bounce at the termination date (July 18), but now I'm not so sure.
Astray
Member
His costs will be vastly cheaper than 3bn.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
because they have everything to win (in normal circumstances)
Mibu no ookami
Demoted Member® Pro™
They'll do whatever they can to try and get this deal through. As
Astray
has said it's significantly cheaper than the 3B they're going to lose outright. At 5,000 dollars an hour, you're still only at 1.6 million dollars for 2 months of work. And it isn't going to be 2 months of work, but I exaggerated because it'll likely be longer than 8 hour days. Legal fees are a drop in the bucket here compared to just losing outright and they'll call it quits probably if they lose again in 2 weeks.
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
22nd of this month.
POKEYCLYDE
Member
But Activision is the one who hired them. Activision only has $3B to gain.
POKEYCLYDE
Member
That would make sense if Microsoft were the ones who hired him, but Activision were the ones who hired him.They'll do whatever they can to try and get this deal through. As
Legal fees are a drop in the bucket here compared to just losing outright and they'll call it quits probably if they lose again in 2 weeks.
So again, not sure if this is just a show, if this is required of them to not be in breach of contract. Or if Activision plans on taking this deal past the termination date.
Astray
Member
"Only" 3 billion? Dude that's a significant chunk of change, you can fund at least 5 AAA titles with that money.
If the deal doesn't actually close, they will need those 3bn because their commercial plans have been in stasis for over a year now because of the merger agreement.
You have to keep in mind that there's a chance that Microsoft won't want to pay 3 billion, and in that case, there will be lawsuits between them, so hiring a big shot lawyer is a good way to cover their asses on that too.
Banjo64
cumsessed
They're thinking 'I'm not going to release my game on Xbox because there's no financial benefit' and then the Xboi's cry and blame Sony.
POKEYCLYDE
Member
I think you're taking what I'm saying the wrong way.
The prevailing opinion has been that Activision will end the deal at the termination date and take their $3B.
But if that's the case, why hire a very expensive, very high profile UK lawyer to fight for the deal?
Tams
Member
Varteras
Member
They get $3 billion if they lose. POSSIBLY $69 billion if they win. In either scenario, the money they get makes such a lawyer fee look like a drop in the bucket. They already hired activism defense lawyers to protect where the $3 billion goes if the deal is blocked. This other lawyer also helps protect them from Microsoft arguing against them in court that they didn't do enough to help the deal, so Microsoft shouldn't have to pay them because they violated the clause where they have to publicly support the deal.
Would you pay someone $1,000 to help protect a $3 million payout and possibly win you $69 million in the process? You would. You'd be completely fucking stupid not to.
Considering the rate of success for appealing a CMA decision on mergers and acquisitions specifically, which currently sits at 0%, at least in recent years, and the fact that continuing beyond the deadline means negotiating new terms that Microsoft probably won't like, since it will make the acquisition even more costly, AND tying down Activision to a partner in a likely doomed deal which will prevent them from making any new deals with anyone else, like their current breadbasket Sony, for the potentially YEARS that the appeal process could take, AND considering that Activision's woes that led up to the acquisition discussion with Microsoft are largely gone now, it's very unlikely that Activision extends beyond the July deadline and just collects $3 billion. *phew*
The only way this works out any other way than Activision just keeping up appearances is if somehow the CAT agrees to the appeal before the July deadline and they show gaping holes in the CMA's reasoning or procedures. Which, as I said with mergers and acquisitions, hasn't happened. This is also on top of an imminent increase in power that the UK government plans to give the CMA.
Astray
Member
Like
Varteras
said, they need to showcase that they are backing the deal at full momentum, because if Microsoft detects that they want to low-key kill the deal with apathy or thru half-assing it, they will absolutely sue their way out of paying that 3 billion.What's interesting is that this is the 1st time I hear about ABK and MSFT having separate representation. This might have been that way since the beginning, but this is the 1st time it's been disclosed publicly?
POKEYCLYDE
Member
So you think hiring this high profile UK lawyer is just for show? A performative gesture to shore up a defense against Microsoft saying ABK was in breach of their contract?
Or do you think ABK might want to take this past the termination date of the deal and see the appeal process through to it's conclusion?
I'm 50/50 on the matter. I was leaning toward ABK bailing out of the deal when the termination date came around, but now I'm not so sure.
I am sure it's been disclosed at least in the FTC case, I can't remember if any of the Activision documents to the CMA has disclosed their lawyers.
Astray
Member
ABK needs to pursue this until July 18th, after that they have the legal right to 3bn unless the two boards agree an extension, which then has to be approved by shareholders.
The lawyer thing is happening because if the appeal is successful then they are back in business, if not, then they will have covered their ass properly thru hiring one of the biggest names in UK law.
They're hedging their bets.
Varteras
Member
What
Astray
just said. This is little more than one last shot at getting the deal through before the deadline and it makes them look good so Microsoft's grounds to deny them payment shrinks. Like I said, they already hired lawyers to protect that payout from internal fighting months ago.Truth is, it would be foolish for Activision to pursue this beyond the deadline. Their contracts with Sony expire next year. The appeal process could take as long as two or three years. In that time, Activision wouldn't be able to negotiate new deals with anyone else. Meaning they'd have to just watch as their most lucrative platform holder, by far, makes deals with competitors while they're stuck with the console market loser whose platform doesn't sell games. All just to probably still be told "no" in the end.
Astray
Member
One correction to this, Activision's biggest business platform rn is PC, but yes, it isn't in their interest to lose out on any potential marketing deals with their biggest single platform partner.
PaintTinJr
Member
I suspect they are thinking that using DirectX to launch on Windows/Xcloud and Xbox is no longer better for them than using Vulkan to easily release on PlayStation, SteamOS, Windows, Cloud and potentially MacOS/Switch/iOS/Android.
I've said it in different threads, but Xbox's strength in market share is needed for them to keep DirectX viable for developers, because 3rd parties are losing access to expertise and support from PlayStation when they don't release on PlayStation or when they favour DirectX as their primary API.
Redfall being acquired as first party likely saw graphics engineers that specialising to-the-metal in non-DirectX12 leave to get work at multiplatform devs or at dev teams specialising in PlayStation exclusives to continue to work at the cutting-edge with to-the-metal solutions to show at a siggraph - opportunities that they were no longer going to get because Zenimax was acquired by Microsoft and all development went xbox/xcloud/windows exclusive.
PaintTinJr
Member
Does that number adjust for the CoD MTX revenue share split based on playtime? or is that just where the purchase took place?
Astray
Member
It's pure revenue I think.
Activision Blizzard is making more money from PC games than console titles
Activision made more money from its console games than its PC projects throughout the 2000s and 2010s, even after it bought Blizzard and all the World of...
www.techspot.com
GHG
Member
Do they receive these messages direct from Greenberg I wonder.
I'm almost certain that collectively it's fewer people than we think doing this. It's probably just a couple of people with alt accounts. It's most likely that along with a few bot farms being commissioned.
Ar¢tos
Member
Haven't they tried once (or more than once) to remove the bloat legacy junk from both DirectX and Windows without much success because everything is tied together in knots in the code?
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
He's not even a loyal shill anymore
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
If they don't look like they are serious in making this acquisition go through, Microsoft can sue them in an attempt to prevent the $3 billion penalty.
This is all a facade. The real picture will appear once July 18 rolls out, and shareholders refuse to vote for the acquisition once again.
FunkMiller
Banned
GHG
Member
Well it doesn't matter either way for him.
Deal goes through - he gets money
Deal doesn't go through - he gets money
And the biggest bonus for him out of all of this is the amount of time that has passed and the fact that the media along with the blue/purple hairs have the memory of a goldfish. He will be able to keep his position and nobody will say a word.
Flawless victory.
Last edited:
PaintTinJr
Member
Maybe, but I still find it very suspicious that the other place throughout this deal has - so people have said on here - been moderated to support this massive market consolidation (Sony bad, Microsoft good).
In what universe does the largest specialist gaming forum - with the most industry insiders, presumably - favour the destruction of their gaming pass-time hobby and the industry they work in - unless the random company that bought that collective industry voice is being incentivized behind the scenes to moderate and control the narrative for one of the two parties that stand to gain from such a deal?
Maybe I'm wrong, but if you were a smart industry professional registered at the other place you would surely smell a rat, and be looking to keep your foot in a camp like Gaf, too that lets the discussion based on merit reign supreme and does not silence the voices trying to protect competition. It feels like widespread brainwashing or shilling that a place that can't discuss like adults is multiple times the size of Gaf, when Gaf (IMHO) is clearly the distilled down barometer of what real gamers think.
Last edited:
xHunter
Member
Isnt this the kid that believed there was a second gpu inside the xbox one power brick?
TheRedRiders
Member
I've seen his tweets a few times, a lot of pseudo-expert takes on the console and PC hardware. He's wrong most of the time as well but for some reason carries on.
GHG
Member
The reason for what's taken place there is simple.
They have a number of moderators who are part of the aforementioned Xbox programs.
Twitter accounts like this are like the twilight zone.
Mr Moose
Member
MisterXMedia fanatic.
Edmund
is waiting for Starfield 7
Imagine if MS actually spent all these money and energy on making good games instead of hiring shills to astroturf and say bad things about their competition.
You only have to resort to such tactics when you don't believe in your products. I've never seen Nintendo or Sony doing these kind of shit.
Last edited:
PaintTinJr
Member
But someone bought the site and would be taking a huge risk letting that type of moderation fly IMO unless they knew the people personally and trusted them, So the new site owners would surely need incentivized to put their new purchase at constant risk with such partisan moderation, no?
The only thing that makes business sense to me is that the sale was a third party ownership setup to hide the identity of who wants to pay to control narratives.
Last edited:
POKEYCLYDE
Member
So you don't think there's anyway that Activision extends past the termination date?What
Truth is, it would be foolish for Activision to pursue this beyond the deadline. Their contracts with Sony expire next year. The appeal process could take as long as two or three years. In that time, Activision wouldn't be able to negotiate new deals with anyone else. Meaning they'd have to just watch as their most lucrative platform holder, by far, makes deals with competitors while they're stuck with the console market loser whose platform doesn't sell games. All just to probably still be told "no" in the end.
Bernoulli
M2 slut
Doesn't make sense they will get stuck until the appeal ends and that can take years without knowing the outcome
nikolino840
Member
GHG
Member
The duality of man on full display here.
"They have typos, they don't know what they are talking about, incompetent!"
But...
"They say the CMA's decision will be overturned by the UK government!"
But wait for it, there's more...
"Microsoft wasn't threatening":
Last edited:
Astray
Member
It is possible, but the incentives that we know about kinda push things in the other direction.
Maybe there's stuff we don't know about that makes them want to extend the agreement, we genuinely don't really know same as the way we didn't know that CMA would block.
Best we can do is infer.
nikolino840
Member
The duality of man on full display here.
"They have typos, they don't know what they are talking about, incompetent!"
But...
"They say the CMA's decision will be overturned by the UK government!"
But wait for it, there's more...
"Microsoft wasn't threatening":
Who cares what he say...i don't even know or follow him... any comments about the typos and not the twitter user?
GHG
Member
You're the one who posted his tweet, and now you want to say "you don't follow him"?
What the hell do you want me to say about the typos? I'm commenting on the very tweets you posted.
drganon
Member
The duality of man on full display here.
"They have typos, they don't know what they are talking about, incompetent!"
But...
"They say the CMA's decision will be overturned by the UK government!"
But wait for it, there's more...
"Microsoft wasn't threatening":
The funniest thing is that he's only got about five people replying to his stupid tweets and one of them is sage.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
That guy is a joke.
- Status