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.
Ogbert said:
Why would you say Reuters have better sources than the FT?

Not a dig. Just curious. The FT is usually pretty reliable on matters of fact.
Click to expand...

They've called out several of these deals accurately.

Check out the writers of these articles and go through their backlog of articles, they have a source for sure.
 
Captiosus said:
I'm with the group who thinks it'll be dead long before then. Even if the EC doesn't block it, I can't see Activision sticking around in legal limbo for another year or more. I fully suspect they're doing/saying all the "right" things now to look like they're fully committed but, behind the scenes, are preparing to bail and get their $3b consolation prize.
Click to expand...
I dunno, 10 billion versus 3 billion depends on how badly another year would hurt them versus how likely you think a deal might be.
 
Mibu no ookami said:
The positive PR and negative CMA PR will be on full tilt monday morning US time.

Maybe they're doing their due diligence, but sources had this as approved months ago.
Click to expand...

These 'sources' don't know shit, neither Reuters or FT. Both expected the CMA to approve several weeks ago didn't they.

These regulatory institutions (CMA/EC) are not like game Devs trying to not leak their game, where the potential for information to get out and the number of people in the know about a hypothetical secret game numbers in the several hundred (Devs, advertises, platform holders etc).

The decision by the EC is known by I suspect literally a handful of people. They are not going to seed any information to lousy journalists.
 
Pretty sure the only sources they will have access to are the interested parties. Hence why report about CMA approval probably means the source was from Microsoft, and that they thought it was in the bag.
 
Thirty7ven said:
Pretty sure the only sources they will have access to are the interested parties. Hence why report about CMA approval probably means the source was from Microsoft, and that they thought it was in the bag.
Click to expand...
FT didn't have a source but instead went what's likely to happen.
Reuters have a source but their information is old if not very old.
 
Heisenberg007 said:
Nothing is wrong with Game Pass. Microsoft can always sign a deal with ABK to get their games on Game Pass, day one or later.

However, acquisitions prevent those games from coming to other consoles. And that's fewer options for gamers. Do you support Microsoft's acquisitions that reduce options for hundreds of millions of gamers?
Click to expand...
Just like a Netflix user can also subscribe to Disney or Paramount to see their content that isn't on Netflix, so to can a person who owns a Playstation get into the xbox ecosystem to play their unique content.
Competition does not exist when everything is available on one platform.
Competing offerings with different content is exactly what we should want.
 
So, in summary, this is what we know about EC's decision.....


George Costanza Seinfeld GIF
Bored Nothing GIF
Bored Nothing GIF
 
In Cold Blood said:
Just like a Netflix user can also subscribe to Disney or Paramount to see their content that isn't on Netflix, so to can a person who owns a Playstation get into the xbox ecosystem to play their unique content.
Competition does not exist when everything is available on one platform.
Competing offerings with different content is exactly what we should want.
Click to expand...

Competition also does not exist when everything is available on one ecosystem. That's why I think gamers should be against all this consolidation, especially when comes to owners of those ecosystems.
 
Topher said:
Competition also does not exist when everything is available on one ecosystem. That's why I think gamers should be against all this consolidation, especially when comes to owners of those ecosystems.
Click to expand...
And the trend in gaming is for more exclusive content between Nintendo, Xbox and PC.
The more exclusives on each system the better.
Under the old system, MS and Sony would release one, maybe two exclusives a year, and then the majority of everything else was multi.
Now with both Sony and MS buying developers, there is going to be way more.
MS has something like 25 teams working on games. Say there is a 5 year Gap between releases, then you are going to have 5 first party games a year. Sony is also working up to that.
I would be happy for 50% of the games on each platform being exclusives.
 
Coulomb_Barrier said:
These 'sources' don't know shit, neither Reuters or FT. Both expected the CMA to approve several weeks ago didn't they.

These regulatory institutions (CMA/EC) are not like game Devs trying to not leak their game, where the potential for information to get out and the number of people in the know about a hypothetical secret game numbers in the several hundred (Devs, advertises, platform holders etc).

The decision by the EC is known by I suspect literally a handful of people. They are not going to seed any information to lousy journalists.
Click to expand...

You're flat out wrong.
 
In Cold Blood said:
And the trend in gaming is for more exclusive content between Nintendo, Xbox and PC.
The more exclusives on each system the better.
Under the old system, MS and Sony would release one, maybe two exclusives a year, and then the majority of everything else was multi.
Now with both Sony and MS buying developers, there is going to be way more.
MS has something like 25 teams working on games. Say there is a 5 year Gap between releases, then you are going to have 5 first party games a year. Sony is also working up to that.
I would be happy for 50% of the games on each platform being exclusives.
Click to expand...

Don't see the benefit of any of it frankly. We still get the same games. We got Redfall and we are getting Starfield. If Microsoft hadn't bought Bethesda........we would have gotten Redfall and we would still be getting Starfield. Only difference is the new corporate logo at game startup on whatever platform.
 
Topher said:
... If Microsoft hadn't bought Bethesda........we would have gotten Redfall and we would still be getting Starfield...
Click to expand...
Actually, word around town was that Sony tried to grab Starfield as a timed exclusive. And this wasn't the only exclusive deal they tried to wrangle before the gen got started. Depending on the deal - such as the Final Fantasy VII remake or even Destiny's exclusive content - Starfield could've been a PS5 exclusive for quite a long time.
 
Topher said:
Don't see the benefit of any of it frankly. We still get the same games. We got Redfall and we are getting Starfield. If Microsoft hadn't bought Bethesda........we would have gotten Redfall and we would still be getting Starfield. Only difference is the new corporate logo at game startup on whatever platform.
Click to expand...
You only don't see the benefit of it when you have one console of choice and you want to be able to play all the games you want to on that one console. That's anti competitive. I would love Netflix to have every single movie on it so then I don't have to sub to Disney, Stan (An Aussie thing), Paramount, Binge (Another Aussie thing) and Prime.
Healthy competition is when there are competing companies in an adversarial relationship trying to one up each other. It might come across as anti-consumer, but it is what competition is based on.
 
ZehDon said:
Actually, word around town was that Sony tried to grab Starfield as a timed exclusive. And this wasn't the only exclusive deal they tried to wrangle before the gen got started. Depending on the deal - such as the Final Fantasy VII remake or even Destiny's exclusive content - Starfield could've been a PS5 exclusive for quite a long time.
Click to expand...
And that is supposed to be worse than buying a publisher and making the game full exclusive?
 
In Cold Blood said:
And the trend in gaming is for more exclusive content between Nintendo, Xbox and PC.
The more exclusives on each system the better.
Under the old system, MS and Sony would release one, maybe two exclusives a year, and then the majority of everything else was multi.
Now with both Sony and MS buying developers, there is going to be way more.
MS has something like 25 teams working on games. Say there is a 5 year Gap between releases, then you are going to have 5 first party games a year. Sony is also working up to that.
I would be happy for 50% of the games on each platform being exclusives.
Click to expand...

Fuck that... hard!

I want first parties focussed on cultivating new developers' talent up to the big AAA leagues; not buying up existing AAA multiplatform devs.

We should be advocating for more AAA developers to enter the market, not less. Less AAA devs in the market overall just mean fewer games to play on our boxes overall, and with dev cycles and budgets increasing gen-over-gen, it's all the more reason for a healthy gaming market, for those companies with the privilege of being able to take greater financial risks due to platforms royalties, subs revenue, and HW revenue, to be reinvesting a large part of that wealth back into creators to expand the market by expanding the quantity and quality of games produced.

Industry consolidation is diametrically opposed to this. All it does is provide a bigger war chest to those existing multiplat devs lucky enough to be gobbled up by FP, which makes it even harder for the remaining 3rd parties to compete, leading to an eventual loss of multiplat 3rd parties until the only games being made are those greenlit by a smaller and smaller number of publishers; meaning fewer game genres, less variety, endless sequels, and overall lower quality games due to less competition.
 
In Cold Blood said:
And the trend in gaming is for more exclusive content between Nintendo, Xbox and PC.
The more exclusives on each system the better.
Under the old system, MS and Sony would release one, maybe two exclusives a year, and then the majority of everything else was multi.
Now with both Sony and MS buying developers, there is going to be way more.
MS has something like 25 teams working on games. Say there is a 5 year Gap between releases, then you are going to have 5 first party games a year. Sony is also working up to that.
I would be happy for 50% of the games on each platform being exclusives.
Click to expand...
Anyone remember the streaming hardware wars where amazon was on fire TV and Roku, Netflix was available on Roku and Apple TV and chromecast, youtube was available on everything but Fire TV, HBO was available on some platforms and not others etc etc. I'd like as few hardware exclusives as possible and everyone to have a service either subscription or store.
 
TheThreadsThatBindUs said:
Fuck that... hard!

I want first parties focussed on cultivating new developers' talent up to the big AAA leagues; not buying up existing AAA multiplatform devs.

We should be advocating for more AAA developers to enter the market, not less. Less AAA devs in the market overall just mean fewer games to play on our boxes overall, and with dev cycles and budgets increasing gen-over-gen, it's all the more reason for a healthy gaming market, for those companies with the privilege of being able to take greater financial risks due to platforms royalties, subs revenue, and HW revenue, to be reinvesting a large part of that wealth back into creators to expand the market by expanding the quantity and quality of games produced.

Industry consolidation is diametrically opposed to this. All it does is provide a bigger war chest to those existing multiplat devs lucky enough to be gobbled up by FP, which makes it even harder for the remaining 3rd parties to compete, leading to an eventual loss of multiplat 3rd parties until the only games being made are those greenlit by a smaller and smaller number of publishers; meaning fewer game genres, less variety, endless sequels, and overall lower quality games due to less competition.
Click to expand...
There are always new companies entering the market. Not long ago we had news of some of Playground Games senior people leaving to set up their own studio.
In this time and place every man and his dog wants to set up a studio and then sell it to make their millions.
It's easier to do it now than ever before.
You can use Unity or UE for free, don't have to pay a thing until you sell the game. You go to a major publisher and get funding, maybe do a deal with Sony or MS, and away you go.
Look at all the studios that have popped up like that.
You think MS is going to buy them all? Honestly?
 
poppabk said:
Anyone remember the streaming hardware wars where amazon was on fire TV and Roku, Netflix was available on Roku and Apple TV and chromecast, youtube was available on everything but Fire TV, HBO was available on some platforms and not others etc etc. I'd like as few hardware exclusives as possible and everyone to have a service either subscription or store.
Click to expand...
MS agrees with you. They are trying to put it on everything other than PS. Sony doesn't believe in that theory at all.
Competition will dictate that MS will push its direction, and if it's what the people want, Sony will get dragged along kicking and screaming to match it or lose relevance.
 
ZehDon said:
Actually, word around town was that Sony tried to grab Starfield as a timed exclusive. And this wasn't the only exclusive deal they tried to wrangle before the gen got started. Depending on the deal - such as the Final Fantasy VII remake or even Destiny's exclusive content - Starfield could've been a PS5 exclusive for quite a long time.
Click to expand...

I've read that rumor as well. I'm absolutely certain Sony tried as timed exclusivity has been Jim Ryan's big dick move this gen. But my point is that we are getting exclusives at the expense of those same games that would have been multiplat. Same applies to timed exclusives. There is no benefit to gamers.

In Cold Blood said:
You only don't see the benefit of it when you have one console of choice and you want to be able to play all the games you want to on that one console. That's anti competitive.
Click to expand...

Actually I own all the consoles so you are wrong. I don't see the benefit of it as a gamer. I'm not against exclusive content. I'm against consolidation of multiplatform publishers into subsidiaries of ecosystem/platform owners.
 
Topher said:
I've read that rumor as well. I'm absolutely certain Sony tried as timed exclusivity has been Jim Ryan's big dick move this gen. But my point is that we are getting exclusives at the expense of those same games that would have been multiplat. Same applies to timed exclusives. There is no benefit to gamers.



Actually I own all the consoles so you are wrong. I don't see the benefit of it as a gamer. I'm not against exclusive content. I'm against consolidation of multiplatform publishers into subsidiaries of ecosystem/platform owners.
Click to expand...
There will never be a world where MS is going to own ABK, EA, Ubisoft, Embracer and T2. The difficulty MS had with ABK should show you that.
And Sony as market leader would have no chance of getting an aquisition of a large Publisher through.
I also don't think it needs to be a publisher for Sony and MS. A publisher is just a group of studios.
I would rather MS buy 10 independent studios like Certain Affinity, Asobo, Squanch etc than Ubisoft. It makes way better sense and would most likely cost less and give you more diversity of games.
 
In Cold Blood said:
There will never be a world where MS is going to own ABK, EA, Ubisoft, Embracer and T2. The difficulty MS had with ABK should show you that.
And Sony as market leader would have no chance of getting an aquisition of a large Publisher through.
I also don't think it needs to be a publisher for Sony and MS. A publisher is just a group of studios.
I would rather MS buy 10 independent studios like Certain Affinity, Asobo, Squanch etc than Ubisoft. It makes way better sense and would most likely cost less and give you more diversity of games.
Click to expand...

Certainly under the current climate it doesn't look like major mergers and acquisitions are going to be easy. I'm glad for that.
 
azertydu91 said:
And that is supposed to be worse than buying a publisher and making the game full exclusive?
Click to expand...
Never said it was better or worse, I was highlighting that Sony tried to lock out Microsoft from as many titles as it could afford at the beginning of the generation. If you're not a fan of Microsoft's moves, Sony's opening moves must have made you upset. Of course, that's simply a "both sides" position without nuance. Take a step back and look at what each platform was/is doing: Microsoft is denying PlayStation gamers access to the new titles it owns in an attempt to help its console platform improve on its distant third place. Sony wanted to deny Xbox games access to games it didn't own from a publisher historically associated with Xbox solely to increase its already extremely dominant position even further. It's up to you which of those is "better" or "worse".
Topher said:
I've read that rumor as well. I'm absolutely certain Sony tried as timed exclusivity has been Jim Ryan's big dick move this gen. But my point is that we are getting exclusives at the expense of those same games that would have been multiplat. Same applies to timed exclusives. There is no benefit to gamers.
Click to expand...
I generally agree with this, however, there is a limit for me: if the game improves as a result of said exclusivity. That's on Microsoft to actually demonstrate *cough*Redfall*cough*. Starfield seems to be the proving moment for their acquisition given Phil's comments. Bethesda have a long history of games launching with substantial technical issues or design problems, like Skyrim PS3 or Fallout 4. If Starfield releases and its noticeably better than their previous efforts, we might learn that Microsoft's assistance really did make the game better than it would've been otherwise. However, if it's the same or worse than their prior efforts, than its fair say that the exclusivity did nothing except give Xbox a tentpole. But that's not to invalidate your opinion: if you're not a fan of exclusives at all, it's certainly a solid position and not one my opinion detracts from.
 
In Cold Blood said:
There are always new companies entering the market. Not long ago we had news of some of Playground Games senior people leaving to set up their own studio.
In this time and place every man and his dog wants to set up a studio and then sell it to make their millions.
It's easier to do it now than ever before.
You can use Unity or UE for free, don't have to pay a thing until you sell the game. You go to a major publisher and get funding, maybe do a deal with Sony or MS, and away you go.
Look at all the studios that have popped up like that.
You think MS is going to buy them all? Honestly?
Click to expand...

List the number of new studios that go on to develop more than one successful AAA games?

I'll even make it easier for you and limit it to the last decade.... i'm waiting...

Making AAA is risky as hell for small independent studios and without major publisher confidence, new studios get dropped after a single AAA flop and end up relegated to making indie games, ports of other studios' games, or shovelware until they eventually close up shop.
 
Last edited:
ZehDon said:
I generally agree with this, however, there is a limit for me: if the game improves as a result of said exclusivity. That's on Microsoft to actually demonstrate *cough*Redfall*cough*. Starfield seems to be the proving moment for their acquisition given Phil's comments. Bethesda have a long history of games launching with substantial technical issues or design problems, like Skyrim PS3 or Fallout 4. If Starfield releases and its noticeably better than their previous efforts, we might learn that Microsoft's assistance really did make the game better than it would've been otherwise. However, if it's the same or worse than their prior efforts, than its fair say that the exclusivity did nothing except give Xbox a tentpole. But that's not to invalidate your opinion: if you're not a fan of exclusives at all, it's certainly a solid position and not one my opinion detracts from.
Click to expand...

Sure, I get your point. There are certainly other other aspects to consider than just game output and I think you are right that there probably can be good things that come out of these big deals. Hard to put a finger on that stuff since we cannot see what would have been. I do recall Double Fine saying they benefitted from being the resources that came from being acquired. I think at that level the acquisition is probably much more impactful though.

I'm not a big fan of exclusives, but I understand why they exist. Having said that, if I were king for a day I'd decree that all games must be released on PC day one and then all would right in the world.

And shitty port devs....

beheading episode 11 GIF


Probably a good thing if I'm never King
 
Last edited:
ZehDon said:
Never said it was better or worse, I was highlighting that Sony tried to lock out Microsoft from as many titles as it could afford at the beginning of the generation. If you're not a fan of Microsoft's moves, Sony's opening moves must have made you upset. Of course, that's simply a "both sides" position without nuance. Take a step back and look at what each platform was/is doing: Microsoft is denying PlayStation gamers access to the new titles it owns in an attempt to help its console platform improve on its distant third place. Sony wanted to deny Xbox games access to games it didn't own from a publisher historically associated with Xbox solely to increase its already extremely dominant position even further. It's up to you which of those is "better" or "worse".
Click to expand...
I don't know timed exclusives are wasted money but at least the other party end up having the game, buying a whole publisher to restrain the others from playing their games seems to be even more money wasted and no possibility of having the game o another platform, money that could've been used to create studios, jobs, help their struggling studios....
So more money wasted for less gamers reach seems worse than less money wasted for something that can ultimately be played by the others.The only gain in both cases is for console warriors, no gamers benefit from that.
 
Timed exclusivity for a game compared to a publisher buy out is always funny. Microsoft should be happy they got Bethesda under the table and cut their losses with ABK.
 
James Sawyer Ford said:
Yeah only way I see Activision NOT taking the $3B is if they renegotiate a much higher share price for them to stick through it for appeals/another year, including another termination fee if the deal doesn't go through...Possibly $110 share price and another $2-3B termination fee.

How much money is MS willing to blow to try and get activision?

There is zero incentive for Bobby to do anything but take the money and run.
Click to expand...
But if he can extract another 5/6B from Microsoft I'm sure he'll accept... Even though he knows the CMA has this killed, it's not his problem... He wins either way.
 
poppabk said:
I dunno, 10 billion versus 3 billion depends on how badly another year would hurt them versus how likely you think a deal might be.
Click to expand...
I get your point but they'd be gambling a guaranteed $3b on the hopes that the deal would close at some point and get them $10b. If the deal doesn't close, they lose everything and have spent multiple years in limbo where their ability to make long term deals was hampered.

Given two of the three regulatory bodies are against it and are willing to drag it out in court, that doesn't seem like a wise gamble.
 
Nydius said:
I get your point but they'd be gambling a guaranteed $3b on the hopes that the deal would close at some point and get them $10b. If the deal doesn't close, they lose everything and have spent multiple years in limbo where their ability to make long term deals was hampered.

Given two of the three regulatory bodies are against it and are willing to drag it out in court, that doesn't seem like a wise gamble.
Click to expand...
Microsoft have arguably thrown the generation away to get this deal done.
 
Last edited:
www.bloomberg.com

EU Blazes Own Path on Microsoft-Activision Deal

Welcome to the Brussels Edition, Bloomberg’s daily briefing on what matters most in the heart of the European Union.
www.bloomberg.com www.bloomberg.com

Microsoft's $69 billion deal for Activision Blizzard is expected to be approved by the EU's competition enforcers today, just weeks after
the UK's watchdog moved to block the record-breaking gaming merger. Commission approval — which is slated to be announced
today but could be confirmed anytime before the May 22 deadline — comes after Microsoft made commitments to open
Activision's game library to rival platforms for a 10-year period. Alongside UK opposition, the US Federal Trade Commission also
sued to block the merger. EU competition chief Margrethe Vestager has maintained that different regulators may reach different conclusions on Microsoft's largest-ever acquisition.
Click to expand...
Same thing as Reuters
 
Last edited:
In Cold Blood said:
Just like a Netflix user can also subscribe to Disney or Paramount to see their content that isn't on Netflix, so to can a person who owns a Playstation get into the xbox ecosystem to play their unique content.
Competition does not exist when everything is available on one platform.
Competing offerings with different content is exactly what we should want.
Click to expand...

Oh... so this week is you in the "xbox/gamepass ambassador fanboy shit take semi-PR aquisition defense force" rotation bullshit...

But this one is awesome... let me see if I get it... so we should all want to have MS buying publishers that realeased games on all systems so we can them have to buy Their system to play the exactly same games we already would play on our previous system anyway ... and we should WANT that ...

Brother.. get out of that copium .. is melting your brain capacity to "fanboy" without sounding completely incoherent.

Just a reminder, in case your fanboy brain so conveniently forgot, MS has today the bigger number of gaming studio's, and it is by itself one of the biggest publishers of the industry, so NOTHING but its own fucking incompetence its stopping than of producing great games and making us want to buy their systems.

Dont even bother replying, had enough crazy talk with copium smoking ganboys in this thread, just going to ignore the crazys from now on , Now go play redfall and enjoy all the first party goods that xbox brings to the table after their aquisitions.
 
Last edited:
Bernardougf said:
Oh... so this week is you in the "xbox/gamepass ambassador fanboy shit take semi-PR aquisition defense force" rotation bullshit...

But this one is awesome... let me see if I get it... so we should all want to have MS buying publishers that realeased games on all systems so we can them have to buy Their system to play the exactly same games we already would play on our previous system anyway ... and we should WANT that ...

Brother.. get out of that copium .. is melting your brain capacity to "fanboy" without sounding completely incoherent.

Just a reminder, in case your fanboy brain so conveniently forgot, MS has today the bigger number of gaming studio's, and it is by itself one of the biggest publishers of the industry, so NOTHING but its own fucking incompetence its stopping than of producing great games and making us want to buy their systems.

Dont even bother replying, had enough crazy talk with copium smoking ganboys in this thread, just going to ignore the crazys from now on , Now go play redfall and enjoy all the first party goods that xbox brings to the table after their aquisitions.
Click to expand...
Yeah, pretty much this. Anyone that supports these acquisitions imo hate gaming really. Robbing consumers of content is never in their best interest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Microsoft wins FTC appeal challenging $69 billion Activision Blizzard deal
News Business  2 3
125
2K
Unknown? replied
MS/ABK is advertising games that don't exist for data collection
46
3K
POKEYCLYDE replied
My apologies to Ubisoft, Sony, Activision, EA, MS etc. for making a big deal out of $70 games
2 3 4
156
7K
MDSLKTR replied
Microsoft, Activision Deny Report Regarding Financial Performance
Business Hardware  2 3
131
12K
Jaybe replied
What happened to all the people that were cheering over that MS Activision acquisition?
Drama  5 6 7 8 9
414
19K
GateofD replied
Top Bottom