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.
Draugoth said:
Because Sony could have bought them instead of Bungie when they still held the rights to these IPs, that's what im saying. They already have a strong relation with SE having paying off the exclusivity rights on FF.



My bad.
Click to expand...
ok, I don't know much what could have happened.
 
thicc_girls_are_teh_best said:
Phil Spencer did not specify in what way COD would remain multiplat. For example, they could in fact remove the annual releases, but keep Warzone multiplat. That would be analogous to them making TES VI Xbox console exclusive, but keeping ESO multiplatform.

So Phil's answer to that question means effectively nothing.
Click to expand...
And I thought I was cynical!

Here's what I think. I expect MS certainly considered making CoD exclusive but have realised the key to this deal is providing guarantees that it will remain multiplat.

No more, no less.

And, from Sony's point of view, that's probably acceptable.
 
Ogbert said:
He delivered a prepared statement (likely agonised over by MS lawyers for days).

He gave the economic argument for CoD remaining multi platform, but more importantly, called out the anger Sony gamers would have if it was made exclusive. Detrimental harm to the video game market. You just don't say something like that unless you're prepared to honour it.

A regulator can absolutely hold them to that standard. As I say, if you tried to reverse on that in the EU or UK, you would be hauled over coals within days.

I appreciate the US might be different. If witnesses are allowed to knowingly mislead regulators then it's a pretty wild jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
Hence why they only said "PS5," and reneged on "as long as PlayStation exists" under oath.
 
Last edited:
Slikk360 said:
This is why they in court legal obligation to not remove or alter content on other platforms if the deal goes through.
Click to expand...

Technically speaking releasing a new version/installment of a game in the IP already counts as altering the content, on an annual basis. Same with making updates to an ongoing live-service/GaaS title.

So even that definition is quite open to interpretation, IMO.

freefornow said:
Lulu??
Click to expand...

She wishes 😏
 
NickFire said:
I'm not sure why he thinks Sony or exclusivity in general is on trial here. Cause they aren't.

Ultimately its the scale of this that is on trial. But today's trial is really just to determine if status quo should be maintained until the regulatory trial actually occurs.
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair the line of questioning about exclusives has far exceeded Activision. Between Sarah Bond and Phil, they have been asked about porting Halo and other games in their first party lineup to other consoles as well.
 
Ogbert said:
He delivered a prepared statement (likely agonised over by MS lawyers for days).

He gave the economic argument for CoD remaining multi platform, but more importantly, called out the anger Sony gamers would have if it was made exclusive. Detrimental harm to the video game market. You just don't say something like that unless you're prepared to honour it.

A regulator can absolutely hold them to that standard. As I say, if you tried to reverse on that in the EU or UK, you would be hauled over coals within days.

I appreciate the US might be different. If witnesses are allowed to knowingly mislead regulators then it's a pretty wild jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
I do think EU and UK regulators have more power. Regardless, he is testifying about current future plans in court. He was not entering into a stipulation with the regulators when he said that. Now if he got caught with sufficient proof it was a lie that would be a big problem for him and MS. But a plaintiff would have to prove that. If the Plaintiff could not prove that plans simply changed, well, 🤷‍♂️
 
NickFire said:
I'm not sure why he thinks Sony or exclusivity in general is on trial here. Cause they aren't.

Ultimately its the scale of this that is on trial. But today's trial is really just to determine if status quo should be maintained until the regulatory trial actually occurs.
Click to expand...
'But but sony buys exclusives' nonsense from John linneman, Benji, and other industry people is so moronic I honestly cant fathom it. Sony has never even come close to spending $8 billion, let alone $70 billion on an acquisition. sony is literally worth $100 billion themselves. MS has spent over $80 billion on zenimax, activision, and minecraft. they can actually go and buy sony if they wanted. before activision, they had $150 billion cash on hand. sony had $10 billion.

I am beginning to believe these guys are just fanboys in disguise because i refuse to believe people are this dumb. In fact, i hope they are fanboys because while i can tolerate people being biased, i cant them being morons. surely there is a reason this is being challenged in courts vs sony buying bluepoint and MS acquiring Ninja fucking theory.
 
Kilau said:
Has FTC proved MS could and has incentive to foreclose games? Have they proved that MS will close the merger if not under injunction?
Click to expand...

What they've shown so far is Microsoft's history of foreclosure, their desire to foreclose even big games like Minecraft, and that they have contradicting statements/actions. I do not believe they have yet asked Microsoft about their plans to close the deal before the CAT appeal process. Which is going to put Microsoft in a spot. If they say they won't close before then, and they try, I believe it turns into a criminal case for lying under oath. If they say yes, it prepares the CMA and shows the judge they have no respect for the law. Which may influence the judge to grant the injunction just on that principle.
 
Ogbert said:
And I thought I was cynical!

Here's what I think. I expect MS certainly considered making CoD exclusive but have realised the key to this deal is providing guarantees that it will remain multiplat.

No more, no less.

And, from Sony's point of view, that's probably acceptable.
Click to expand...

Acceptable based on what terms, though? What marketing rights would Sony have to future COD games? Distribution rights? Revenue share splits? Cloud streaming accesses? Subscription service privileges? So on and so forth.

It's not just about PlayStation simply continuing to get those games on their platform. EA released games on MegaDrive/Genesis for example but under terms Sega as a platform holder would have 100% preferred not to have entered under. They tried it again with Dreamcast, causing Sega to reject their support.
 
thicc_girls_are_teh_best said:
Technically speaking releasing a new version/installment of a game in the IP already counts as altering the content, on an annual basis. Same with making updates to an ongoing live-service/GaaS title.

So even that definition is quite open to interpretation, IMO.



She wishes 😏
Click to expand...

Cool if they want to f around and find out messing with a court system and judge thinking their smarter. Good luck
 
SlimySnake said:
'But but sony buys exclusives' nonsense from John linneman, Benji, and other industry people is so moronic I honestly cant fathom it. Sony has never even come close to spending $8 billion, let alone $70 billion on an acquisition. sony is literally worth $100 billion themselves. MS has spent over $80 billion on zenimax, activision, and minecraft. they can actually go and buy sony if they wanted. before activision, they had $150 billion cash on hand. sony had $10 billion.

I am beginning to believe these guys are just fanboys in disguise because i refuse to believe people are this dumb. In fact, i hope they are fanboys because while i can tolerate people being biased, i cant them being morons. surely there is a reason this is being challenged in courts vs sony buying bluepoint and MS acquiring Ninja fucking theory.
Click to expand...
preach GIF


HeisenbergFX4 HeisenbergFX4 can tell you all about what MS has done to get media shills "journalists" on their side, especially singling out and want to bring DF close to their chest.
 
ah shit, Derek is saying he lost power. I don't want to have a stream running along with work lol
 
mckmas8808 said:


Benjy has been paid off too. :-(

It's official. They got 'em!
Click to expand...


Just one less person to take seriously online (and one more to openly question when I see them post something sus).

Seriously, MS's astroturfing strategy that's basically ruining journalistic integrity in gaming media should be under investigation itself. It could be argued as a form of false advertising (since they're doing this to influence would-be potential buyers of their products, or investors into their products & services, etc.).
 
thicc_girls_are_teh_best said:
Acceptable based on what terms, though? What marketing rights would Sony have to future COD games? Distribution rights? Revenue share splits? Cloud streaming accesses? Subscription service privileges? So on and so forth.
Click to expand...
None whatsoever. Sony will have zero privileges.

But the moment MS demonstrate a lack of support for the Sony version that could be said to demonstrate a material impact in quality, Sony will point to this statement delivered under oath.
 
Draugoth said:
Plenty of time for them to but Take Two out of spite.
Click to expand...
If this deal goes through and Sony doesnt buy TakeTwo with GTA and RDR IPs, they might as well retire and sell off their PS business. Bungie with their destiny DLC and whatever PvP trash they are working on, wont save them if they lose CoD. COD is played by 55% of the console userbase followed by GTA which is 45%. It's literally their only play.

I hope they know this and why they have been fighting so hard but i dont know if they have the $30 billion or so to buy Take2. I guess we will find out if sony truly believes in the playstation business if its willing to take on debt to make sure they have enough capital for the Take2 purchase. But i have zero faith in jimbo who seems to think gaas games can compete with the juggernaut that is CoD. Since 2007, Halo, battlefield, Titanfall, Apex, Killzone, Resistance, Gears of War, Destiny, Division, Ghost Recon, and dozens of other gaas and mp games have tried to come after CoD, it is still king. Only GTA comes close.
 
SlimySnake said:
I hope they know this and why they have been fighting so hard but i dont know if they have the $30 billion or so to buy Take2. I guess we will find out if sony truly believes in the playstation business if its willing to take on debt to make sure they have enough capital for the Take2 purchase. But i have zero faith in jimbo who seems to think gaas games can compete with the juggernaut that is CoD. Since 2007, Halo, battlefield, Titanfall, Apex, Killzone, Resistance, Gears of War, Destiny, Division, Ghost Recon, and dozens of other gaas and mp games have tried to come after CoD, it is still king. Only GTA comes close.
Click to expand...

They are investing on GaaS titles because GaaaS games give more money back to the publishers if they succeed.

But yeah, CoD being a PlayStation exclusive will sell more Xbox consoles (assuming they dont kil lthe franchise like they did with Halo)
 
Phil Spencer: They don't look like that (referring to the Xcloud Azure servers)

My imagination now says Azure servers looks like the interior of the Nebuchanezzer from the Matrix Movies rather than some pristine server farm with neon lighting and cryo smoke depicting how cool they keep the servers? No Xbox Series S consoles neatly stacked on top of one another?

My whole life is a lie.
 
Last edited:
SlimySnake said:
'But but sony buys exclusives' nonsense from John linneman, Benji, and other industry people is so moronic I honestly cant fathom it. Sony has never even come close to spending $8 billion, let alone $70 billion on an acquisition. sony is literally worth $100 billion themselves. MS has spent over $80 billion on zenimax, activision, and minecraft. they can actually go and buy sony if they wanted. before activision, they had $150 billion cash on hand. sony had $10 billion.

I am beginning to believe these guys are just fanboys in disguise because i refuse to believe people are this dumb. In fact, i hope they are fanboys because while i can tolerate people being biased, i cant them being morons. surely there is a reason this is being challenged in courts vs sony buying bluepoint and MS acquiring Ninja fucking theory.
Click to expand...

Pay Me Music Video GIF by DJ Mustard
 
SlimySnake said:
I hope they know this and why they have been fighting so hard but i dont know if they have the $30 billion or so to buy Take2. I guess we will find out if sony truly believes in the playstation business if its willing to take on debt to make sure they have enough capital for the Take2 purchase. But i have zero faith in jimbo who seems to think gaas games can compete with the juggernaut that is CoD. Since 2007, Halo, battlefield, Titanfall, Apex, Killzone, Resistance, Gears of War, Destiny, Division, Ghost Recon, and dozens of other gaas and mp games have tried to come after CoD, it is still king. Only GTA comes close.
Click to expand...

You don't have to topple COD to have GAAS be worth it.

Apex has pulled in billions in just a few years.
 
All these Spencer threads, except for one that is really important. He swore under oath that he won't pull CoD future titles off of PS.

Still a bad deal for gaming?
 
Ogbert said:
None whatsoever. Sony will have zero privileges.

But the moment MS demonstrate a lack of support for the Sony version that could be said to demonstrate a material impact in quality, Sony will point to this statement delivered under oath.
Click to expand...

It's not about "privileges" insofar as Sony having a leg-up over Microsoft in that regard, so I should've probably chosen a better term.

But rather, would they have parity in access to those things similar to Microsoft, or at least parity in terms of degree of access they would have with other 3P games they don't have marketing rights to? For example if MS wants a higher revenue cut off PlayStation versus typical 3P publishers despite not providing anything in return for Sony in doing so, that could be argued as creating conditions unfavorable for a direct competitor by Microsoft, and leveraging acquired content in ways that could be viewed as extortion (or at least anticompetitive).

It's one thing if a company like ABK is doing that as a bluff to both platform holders; it's another if a near $3 trillion market cap megacorp is doing that to a significantly smaller direct competitor over content that was independent just prior in the market, IMO.
 
I don't understand why some people seem to think there needs to be some "gotcha!" smoking gun for this to have any effect. That's not how the real world works. This isn't Law & Order. The last two days, the FTC has been laying a groundwork to illustrate a pattern of behavior by Microsoft of a) saying one thing then doing something else, and b) using their vast financial power to buy, then shut out, competitors. Between testimony from Booty, Hines, and Spencer, they've been competent at laying the foundation for their case.

Could they be doing better in areas? Most definitely. But they've already dispelled damn near every narrative that's come out of Microsoft or their proxies through direct testimony, prior depositions, and internal documents provided via discovery. They've gotten Hines on record as being upset about Starfield's exclusivity shift and the supposed plans to leave ABK multiplatform after Microsoft forced Bethesda into canceling multiplatform development. They've gotten Spencer on record admitting he wanted to turn Minecraft exclusive. No, those aren't "gotcha!''s by themselves, but they certainly establish the case the FTC is trying to make.
 
Varteras said:
You'll have to forgive Benji. He's a bit of a smooth brain who constantly talks about his mental issues. He doesn't understand that the FTC is trying to show Microsoft's foreclosure tactics. Which involve them being permanently in control of the companies making those games. So no one else can negotiate.
Click to expand...
He had enough of the Twitter warring
 
Stafford said:
All these Spencer threads, except for one that is really important. He swore under oath that he won't pull CoD future titles off of PS.

Still a bad deal for gaming?
Click to expand...

He specifically said PS5, and didn't specify in which form or under what conditions.

And even if it meant what you want to think it meant, there are many concerning points surrounding the deal that could be bad for the industry in precedents that are set.

Astray said:
He had enough of the Twitter warring
Click to expand...


Don't care, and his own damn fault for trying to put a narrative of his own out there instead of just reporting what was happening.
 
Last edited:
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