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.
The judge should order them to change their Bethesda deals whilst they're at it. Bethesda games were multiplatform prior to this... and it's basically forcing people to spend money on a new console and Game Pass if they want to play future Bethesda games. But old Philly boy wants to spout nonsense like, "when everybody plays, we all win."

Microsoft has come out of this looking a lot worse, and they've lost a lot of credibility from this.
 
The judge should order them to change their Bethesda deals whilst they're at it. Bethesda games were multiplatform prior to this... and it's basically forcing people to spend money on a new console and Game Pass if they want to play future Bethesda games. But old Philly boy wants to spout nonsense like, "when everybody plays, we all win."

Microsoft has come out of this looking a lot worse, and they've lost a lot of credibility from this.
Bro that's not how it works
 
Can't see how the judge could possibly conclude there is no risk of MS foreclosing access after today. And two of the 3 largest markets after US are still publicly concerned, lending weight to FTC's claim they should be allowed a full trial before the deal closes. Odds of a PI issuing have gone up today IMO.

My guess is she issues it. With a decision that suggests there is enough reason for FTC to be concerned to allow them a trial to evaluate the deal completely. And references to other roadblocks (CMA for instance) as evidence of little harm to MS if they have to wait for a trial. I would also think she could dismiss any argument about MS and Activision abandoning the deal if she issues it as something immaterial since they can renegotiate if they choose.
 
Last edited:
The judge should order them to change their Bethesda deals whilst they're at it. Bethesda games were multiplatform prior to this... and it's basically forcing people to spend money on a new console and Game Pass if they want to play future Bethesda games. But old Philly boy wants to spout nonsense like, "when everybody plays, we all win."

Microsoft has come out of this looking a lot worse, and they've lost a lot of credibility from this.

Probably too late for them to do anything about the Zenimax deal. For any big changes there I'm guessing they'd have to give it its own investigation & trial. Even then, the options might only come up to issuing fines.

But I'm by no means a legal expert, so could be completely wrong.
 
you mean 3 hours of elevator jazz.
Ah, the good old days. :LOL:

y78HahN.jpg
 
Last edited:
The judge should order them to change their Bethesda deals whilst they're at it. Bethesda games were multiplatform prior to this... and it's basically forcing people to spend money on a new console and Game Pass if they want to play future Bethesda games. But old Philly boy wants to spout nonsense like, "when everybody plays, we all win."

Microsoft has come out of this looking a lot worse, and they've lost a lot of credibility from this.

Tell the judge to have Phil give me a pony too.
 
Did we see the Minecraft contract? I'm assuming it is a perpetual never ending contract for multiple systems then?

How are they obligated ? I've asked a few times but no one has been able to share any link where it shows there's contractual obligations via Notch or anyone.

If you mean obligated in the sense that it sells a lot and they don't want to disrupt that, sure, agree.

you'd think if it was true, the FTC woulda brought it up

It was stated that they had a pre-existing contract multiple times before MS acquired them.

How many contracts do you know can be broken?

There was a pre-existing agreement.
 
Probably too late for them to do anything about the Zenimax deal. For any big changes there I'm guessing they'd have to give it its own investigation & trial. Even then, the options might only come up to issuing fines.

But I'm by no means a legal expert, so could be completely wrong.
You are right she cannot. A judge only has authority to decide controversies actually before them. So unless someone sued MS with that goal, there is no authority to start with.
 
Personally, I think the judge is going to rule in Microsoft's favour. I think the FTC presented a damning case and dispelled any notion that they're incompetent. In fact, the opposite seems to be true.

But after listening to the judge, her predisposition seems to be in favour of Microsoft. Allowing Phil Spencer to make that meaningless oath pledge in court and then dismissing the FTC lawyer when he asked Phil to make the same pedge for other ip... That just seemed strange to me.

That aside, I think we've gone full circle. Bobby Kotic himself now seems like Microsoft's biggest hurdle.
 
Probably too late for them to do anything about the Zenimax deal. For any big changes there I'm guessing they'd have to give it its own investigation & trial. Even then, the options might only come up to issuing fines.

But I'm by no means a legal expert, so could be completely wrong.
Oh, I know. It can't change. But I'm just saying what they did was wrong, and I'm willing to bet that everyone at Zenimax hates the deal now and probably was misled by the Microsoft team. I honestly believe people like Todd and Pete wanted Starfield to be on every platform.
 

I'm still torn TBH. When it came to the CMA I thought they would fully pass the deal but with some additional remedies. Instead they blocked it outright.

Thought the EC would approve it with the current offered remedies. They approved, but seemingly enforced a few other remedies on top (still behavioral, nothing structural).

I want to act surprised when the decision is made and don't want to jinx it or set myself up for disappointment, so I'm just gonna say the PI isn't granted, but no official vote on that.
 
1. this what FTC said, and EC replied back saying that this is not true and they did not make their decision whether Microsoft had incentive or not
You sir are dumb.

MS did indeed tell the EC that they had no incentive to foreclose.

The fact th EC did not see that as a problem anyway doesn't mean it wasn't promised.

It blatantly was, it's in the document in black and white, where most of us, obvs not you, can read it.
 
Can't see how the judge could possibly conclude there is no risk of MS foreclosing access after today. And two of the 3 largest markets after US are still publicly concerned, lending weight to FTC's claim they should be allowed a full trial before the deal closes. Odds of a PI issuing have gone up today IMO.

My guess is she issues it. With a decision that suggests there is enough reason for FTC to be concerned to allow them a trial to evaluate the deal completely. And references to other roadblocks (CMA for instance) as evidence of little harm to MS if they have to wait for a trial. I would also think she could dismiss any argument about MS and Activision abandoning the deal if she issues it as something immaterial since they can renegotiate if they choose.

What about Microsoft's claim that issuing the PI effectively kills the deal. Do you think that has a merit to it or just a hyperbolic argument?
 
It was stated that they had a pre-existing contract multiple times before MS acquired them.

How many contracts do you know can be broken?

There was a pre-existing agreement.

ok couple of things to point out here.


1. I cannot find any instance in any of the records / tweets / verge articles about anyone saying that Minecraft has a pre-existing contract keeping it multiplat. You'd THINK that if anything like that were revealed in any of the documents that have come out so far, there would be a GAF topic about it at the very least.

2. Phil commented on thinking of getting Minecraft DUNGEONS as an exclusive, but then they didn't do that either.

3. If they really wanted to, and if such a contract ever existed, don't you think they would/could have renegotiated it ala Indiana Jones ?

4. The only official communique about even the thought of making Minecraft exclusive is stated thusly:



So, I'm sorry, doesn't look like there's any merit to the mine craft thing, or at least I can't find any.
 
Last edited:
Can't see how the judge could possibly conclude there is no risk of MS foreclosing access after today. And two of the 3 largest markets after US are still publicly concerned, lending weight to FTC's claim they should be allowed a full trial before the deal closes. Odds of a PI issuing have gone up today IMO.

My guess is she issues it. With a decision that suggests there is enough reason for FTC to be concerned to allow them a trial to evaluate the deal completely. And references to other roadblocks (CMA for instance) as evidence of little harm to MS if they have to wait for a trial. I would also think she could dismiss any argument about MS and Activision abandoning the deal if she issues it as something immaterial since they can renegotiate if they choose.
She still also has to conclude that foreclosing access to COD is an anti-trust concern.
 
It's possible it wasn't discussed with her. Which is alarming if the CFO is not in the loop on huge financial calculations like that. Yet, her knowing or not, it shows not only that Microsoft did indeed run assessments, with possible avenues for foreclosure, but also possible significant communication dysfunction at the executive level.

Big companys are strange sometimes. A friend of mine works for big pharmacy and his lab didnt get the budget it needed mid year so they just couldn't work for a few weeks. Some administration stuff is really weird with really big companys.
 
Hey y'all, I'm a bit out of the loop, is this the season finale or is there gonna be more episodes after today?
If the PI is approved, it is pretty much the season finale. Microsoft will announce they're walking away in a couple of days.

If the PI is rejected, then the drama continues until at least July 18.
 
What about Microsoft's claim that issuing the PI effectively kills the deal. Do you think that has a merit to it or just a hyperbolic argument?

A PI granted to the FTC would be crushing. Not one, but two major regulators would be standing in the way. Considering how weak the FTC is viewed, if they can convince a US judge to block, you stand no chance against the CMA. ABK would have more than enough legal argument to walk and collect $3 billion. MS may try to fight them in court, but ABK would just point to this and the contract stating they even stuck around after the CMA said no.
 
1. I cannot find any instance in any of the records / tweets / verge articles about anyone saying that Minecraft has a pre-existing contract keeping it multiplat.

Might be an old wives tale but I've heard mention of Notch requiring Minecraft to stay multi-platform as a condition of the sale to Microsoft and this was long before the Microsoft/AKB acquisition.
 
ok couple of things to point out here.


1. I cannot find any instance in any of the records / tweets / verge articles about anyone saying that Minecraft has a pre-existing contract keeping it multiplat.

2. Phil commented on thinking of getting Minecraft DUNGEONS as an exclusive, but then they didn't do that either.

3. If they really wanted to, and if such a contract ever existed, don't you think they would/could have renegotiated it ala Indiana Jones ?

4. The only official communique about even the thought of making Minecraft exclusive is stated thusly:
Jim Ryan said that they had a pre-existing agreement with Mojang. I heard it distinctly, but I haven't seen any reporting about it. Could be a mistake on my part, but I am fairly sure he said it.
 
Last edited:
A PI granted to the FTC would be crushing. Not one, but two major regulators would be standing in the way. Considering how weak the FTC is viewed, if they can convince a US judge to block, you stand no chance against the CMA. ABK would have more than enough legal argument to walk and collect $3 billion. MS may try to fight them in court, but ABK would just point to this and the contract stating they even stuck around after the CMA said no.
I'll be going to bed soon. I'm posting both memes. In case the judge gives her judgment today, use the meme that's appropriate 😛

8rhpmQk.jpg
bHXCyvW.jpg
 
What about Microsoft's claim that issuing the PI effectively kills the deal. Do you think that has a merit to it or just a hyperbolic argument?
The scale of this deal is beyond my pay grade so to speak, so that argument might mean more in this court than I would expect.

But if we reduced the scale to normal people and a governmental agency, I don't think normal people would get a lot if traction from pressuring the judge to allow something before a full trial occurs, just because they will take their ball and go home if you have to wait. And sure, MS could argue it would be Activision who walks, but ultimately MS chose to contract within the timelines at issue. So they made their own bed, and that bed does not warrant special treatment.
 
1. Read my comment. I didn't say Microsoft made a commitment. I said they told EC that they have no financial incentive ... all the details are in my comment. And there is a clear lie.

2. The "new IPs only" argument has been just debunked.


Is not technically a lie if the incentive is not financial ... not in the short term... just like COD .. is financially crazy to take it out of playstation so that is no FINANCIAL incentive right now to do so .

The incentive therefore is another ... and the financial part comes later since they can take the hit.

At least thats just like i always have seen it
 
Is not technically a lie if the incentive is not financial ... not in the short term... just like COD .. is financially crazy to take it out of playstation so that is no FINANCIAL incentive right now to do so .

The incentive therefore is another ... and the financial part comes later since they can take the hit.

At least thats just like i always have seen it
It is a lie when they show the numbers that Xbox will have to reach for it to make it financially viable for them to make those games exclusive. Yet they make them exclusives 2 days after the acquisition closes and without Xbox hitting growth targets.

Besides, today's emails already proved that it was a lie because Microsoft had already estimated financial model #5 and decided to make ALL Zenimax games exclusive, yet they told EC they have no financial incentive. They had already done the calculations but lied to EC.
 
It was stated that they had a pre-existing contract multiple times before MS acquired them.

How many contracts do you know can be broken?

There was a pre-existing agreement.
Yup yup i'm just wondering if there was a term date on the agreement? Like ... 5 years, 10 years, forever, etc
 
Yup yup i'm just wondering if there was a term date on the agreement? Like ... 5 years, 10 years, forever, etc
My guess is that it was a forever contract for all Minecraft games and Minecraft spin-off games.

I think that's why Phil might have initially thought that he could make Minecraft Dungeons exclusive and wanted his team to find ways to make it exclusive, but they couldn't. I bet if Mojang ever makes a non-Minecraft game, it is an Xbox exclusive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom