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.
DeepEnigma said:
Really showing their ass, eh?
Click to expand...
Screen-Shot-2014-09-23-at-08.35_620x349.jpg
 
Banjo64 said:
You think if Microsoft want to call witnesses to testify based on certain evidence that the FTC should 'get bent' rather than get to see the evidence themselves first hand?

Interesting.
Click to expand...

No, they should get bent because Derek's previous tweet when he was live tweeting said that 'they don't want it because they don't understand specific parts of it'.

JqDTUMZ.png




Them not understanding is not a basis for them having issues with potential testimony.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
adamsapple said:
No, they should get bent because Derek's previous tweet when he was live tweeting said that 'they don't want it because they don't understand specific parts of it'.

JqDTUMZ.png




Them not understanding is not a basis for them having issues with potential testimony.
Click to expand...
Nick Young Wtf GIF


Ok, makes more sense than what you quoted previously but sounds like typical wrangling to me. The CMA also told the CAT judge that if Microsoft want to start introducing witnesses the procedure will be slowed down, which I presumed would be because they'd need time to analyse what is being said and what the sources of information are behind it.
 
Banjo64 said:
Nick Young Wtf GIF


Ok, makes more sense than what you quoted previously but sounds like typical wrangling to me. The CMA also told the CAT judge that if Microsoft want to start introducing witnesses the procedure will be slowed down, which I presumed would be because they'd need time to analyse what is being said and what the sources of information are behind it.
Click to expand...

I think I quoted the wrong Derek tweet in my first post. That's on me.
 
Last edited:
DeepEnigma said:
Not like MS doesn't have a history of being very convoluted.
Click to expand...


The judge didn't make a ruling on that point one way or the other anyway, and it sounds like FTC didn't raise any issue about it a day before today either.

Microsoft's lawyer Beth Wilkinson explained that the FTC did not raise the issue of Microsoft having asserted privilege over some of those documents until yesterday.
Click to expand...
 
feynoob said:
nikolino840 nikolino840

Jacqueline Scott Corley

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics
ballotpedia.org ballotpedia.org
Click to expand...
At the moment both Democrats and Republicans want to get Big Tech. For different reasons sure, but their desired outcomes are the same. So really the political leanings won't matter much here.

However having a son who works for Microsoft, this is the Hunter Biden of video games I guess. How very mysterious that MS offers her son a job at this very coincidental point in time. I'm sure his salary was very generous too. And the more he can influence his mom, the more his salary goes up...
 
Last edited:
adamsapple said:
... Them not understanding is not a basis for them having issues with potential testimony.
Click to expand...
I think it is absolutely grounds for them having issues with the testimony. If someone wants to talk about "X and Y and Z" being the foundation for reason(s) that the FTC shouldn't block the merger, the FTC needs to understand those points in full to make a proper decision. I don't think anyone wants a legal system making rulings using information it doesn't understand. If the EC was happy with the remedies because it saw documents A and B and contract C, and Microsoft wants to use the EC's decision to convince the FTC, I think it's entirely fair that they should produce documents A and B and contract C and then draw out the EC's reasoning in crayon for the FTC. I don't really see why this is an issue, unless the FTC's lack of understanding is desired to push them toward ruling one way over another?
 
DeepEnigma said:
Were they known about in advance?
Click to expand...

I would imagine there would be some cross-communication between the involved parties about acceptable documents and who will be testifying or doing dispositions beforehand. I can't imagine all of this is sprung up on the day-of.

ZehDon said:
I think it is absolutely grounds for them having issues with the testimony. If someone wants to talk about "X and Y and Z" being the foundation for reason(s) that the FTC shouldn't block the merger, the FTC needs to understand those points in full to make a proper decision. I don't think anyone wants a legal system making rulings using information it doesn't understand. If the EC was happy with the remedies because it saw documents A and B and contract C, and Microsoft wants to use the EC's decision to convince the FTC, I think it's entirely fair that they should produce documents A and B and contract C and then draw out the EC's reasoning in crayon for the FTC. I don't really see why this is an issue, unless the FTC's lack of understanding is desired to push them toward ruling one way over another?
Click to expand...


True, true.
 
Last edited:
Sony said:
It means that I simp for the merits, not for the company ;) All along this merger, I haven't seen any substansive arguments against it other than "MS shouldn't get bigger".
Click to expand...

Nobody forbids you from rooting for it because of benefits to you. Hell, I'd be happy too if those games would get added to my GP PC subscription that I pay.

But you cannot just dismiss the single biggest argument like it's some arbitrary point for the sake of having one.
 


MS going with the Believe You Me strategy

Probably Indiana Jones? They had a contract with Disney before the acquisition, probably almost surely it stipulates which platforms they were going to develop it for.
 
Thirty7ven said:


MS going with the Believe You Me strategy

Probably Indiana Jones? They had a contract with Disney before the acquisition, probably almost surely it stipulates which platforms they were going to develop it for.
Click to expand...


MS going for the pity party on about Redfall.

"Plz judge. Look at this steaming turd we pumped out. It barely sold"
 
Redfall/Starfield are Xbox/PC-only: "keeping with the need to offer some exclusive content while mitigating the economic costs and damage to its player-focused brand" - Redfall "generated minimal sales" - "many other" future ZeniMax titles will be shipped on PS/Nintendo

Laughable.
 
Banjo64 said:
Redfall/Starfield are Xbox/PC-only: "keeping with the need to offer some exclusive content while mitigating the economic costs and damage to its player-focused brand" - Redfall "generated minimal sales" - "many other" future ZeniMax titles will be shipped on PS/Nintendo

Laughable.
Click to expand...

"May we see these titles?"

"No"
 
Banjo64 said:
Redfall/Starfield are Xbox/PC-only: "keeping with the need to offer some exclusive content while mitigating the economic costs and damage to its player-focused brand" - Redfall "generated minimal sales" - "many other" future ZeniMax titles will be shipped on PS/Nintendo

Laughable.
Click to expand...
remember COD is too 'big' for Xbox to take exclusive yet somehow Elder Scrolls isn't but other 'smaller' stuff is definitely going to not be exclusive 🙄 Microsoft's even willing to pinky promise
 
Last edited:
graywolf323 said:
remember COD is too 'big' for Xbox to take exclusive yet somehow Elder Scrolls isn't but other 'smaller' stuff is definitely going to not be exclusive 🙄 Microsoft's even willing to pinky promise
Click to expand...
Smaller stuff like Quake remastered? Which released on everything after that acquisition went through?
 
Calverz said:
Smaller stuff like Quake remastered? Which released on everything after that acquisition went through?
Click to expand...
it released in August just mere months after the acquisition was completed, likely it was too far along for them to cancel unlike everything since then

or else why did smaller stuff like Hi-Fi Rush not get released even on Switch which seems perfect for it? and we know they actually canceled Redfall for PS5 despite it being an online co-op focused game which could have benefitted from a larger install base
 
Kilau said:
Why is any of this relevant for a temporary injunction hearing? These things can be argued argued at the already scheduled FTC hearing.
Click to expand...
It's the classic making yourself seem pathetic "Your penis is so big...wow....my penis so small, so small" line

A photo of Aaron Greenberg and a couple of his classic tweets would have the same effect.
 
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