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.
StueyDuck said:
We've heard this since 2010 and they've Still yet to enter.

Both Google and Amazon tried streaming and one is dead and the other is dying.

It's just not a good enough argument anymore
Click to expand...
They can still be 3rd party publishers who buy EA or Take Two per example.

It's very possible and I wouldn't rule it out.
 
Varteras said:
Never, ever trust a company to not find some way out even 5 years later.
Click to expand...
that's why a 10 year deal was given. A deal not common in the industry. 10 years- hardware, tech, software all change.
Also these deals typically get negotiated every year.

Sony has time to both re-negotiate like every player in the industry and or make their own game.

The MS lawyer literally just said these contracts don't even occur- the expectation is that the game will show up- They literally gave them a deal for 10yrs guaranteed. Sony said no.
the FTC's suggestion is that there isnt a financial analysis done- MS is literally saying more people get the product- Nintendo, Nvidias streaming shit, etc all get guaranteed access- How is that anti-competitive.
 
Looks like the lack of financial analysis of their 10year cloud deals has got the judge smelling a rat, and has put the Microsoft lawyer on her heels, and the judge now seems less keen to accept her words at face value.
 
Bethesda
Bethesda
Bethesda
Bethesda
Bethesda
Bethesda
Bethesda
Bethesda
Bethesda
Bethesda
Bethesda
Bethesda
Bethesda
Bethesda
Bethesda

Skyrim sold 60M copies due in part to PS3, PS4, PSVR, PS5. The next title from the makers of Skyrim is exclusive to who again?
 
Last edited:
Judge is actually hammering this point pretty hard. Why didn't MS bother to do any real financial analysis on what to do with CoD? The answer is presumed: Because the fate of CoD was already determined no matter what. The real question then is that is the planned fate for CoD foreclosure?
 
Varteras said:
Really should have been their focus the whole time. Protecting a new market. Not protecting an established one with an already very strong player who would be the one affected and who could fire back with its own deals.
Click to expand...

Exactly. CMA had the foresight to recognize this, that's why their block was based around cloud SLC, not console.

Not to say console SLC concerns aren't valid, especially in the case of recent leaks and truths from Microsoft in their strategy for the acquisitions to use them against PlayStation. But it's much harder to convince people not in-tune with the market to see it the same way.

VAVA Mk2 said:
Stadia is dead and Luna sucks
Click to expand...

Yeah but they're both way more prominent than Boosteroid and some UK cable TV provider when it comes to gaming, and certainly cloud.

Easy to take guesses why Microsoft didn't give them offers.
 
CALL OF DUTY IS THE BEST THING SINCE NUTELLA

...WHAT? OF COURSE THEY SHOULD ANALYZE IF IT'S WORTH PORTING IT TO 140 MILLION PLAYERS! IT MIGHT BOMB!
 
Not_A-Cop_Maybe said:
that's why a 10 year deal was given. A deal not common in the industry. 10 years- hardware, tech, software all change.
Also these deals typically get negotiated every year.

Sony has time to both re-negotiate like every player in the industry and or make their own game.

The MS lawyer literally just said these contracts don't even occur- the expectation is that the game will show up- They literally gave them a deal for 10yrs guaranteed. Sony said no.
the FTC's suggestion is that there isnt a financial analysis done- MS is literally saying more people get the product- Nintendo, Nvidias streaming shit, etc all get guaranteed access- How is that anti-competitive.
Click to expand...

From what we know, those deals had loopholes that allowed MS to walk pretty much at any point and keep all revenue.
 
Astray said:
Precisely the point, it sucks in part because it doesn't have a "content moat", having an independent Activision that can potentially strike deals with Amazon would definitely help alleviate that.
Click to expand...
Cod is one of the worst examples of games that would do well on streaming. Doubt anyone from the FTC or the judge knows that tho
 
The fact that they had models for removing playstation yet none for adding Nintendo shows how confident they are that it will not be a competitor to xbox.
 
Last edited:
It's done.

Everyone join me.

nou1CSp.jpg
 
"It's not gonna make any difference in my decision" - judge

well, then let's not keep us waiting and relay your judgment today in either case.
 
Varteras said:
From what we know, those deals had loopholes that allowed MS to walk pretty much at any point and keep all revenue.
Click to expand...
Like every other publisher?

you think SE puts their shit on Sony first because they like Sony?
They do it because they can make money.

when they put it on another console- they also make money lol.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
‘Microsoft’ said they were streamlining 9000 people across XGS/ABK/ZM
Rumor 
19
467
Topher replied
Microsoft wins FTC appeal challenging $69 billion Activision Blizzard deal
News Business  2 3
125
3K
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
8K
MDSLKTR replied
Battlefield 6 Beta |OT| Open Beta/Closed Weapons.
|OT|  60 61 62 63 64
3K
5K
Branded replied
Top Bottom