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.
ActusReusJB said:
Am I reading the other posts correctly, that MS only needs 2M additional GP subscribers to remove CoD from PS and not notice a difference? That seems way low, wish I could play with the model.
Click to expand...

The numbers don't add up at all. Something is missing. Sony themselves declared in internal docs that they made over $1 Billion on COD alone in ONE YEAR! So how will $360 Million with having 2 million more GP subs level out the loss of revenue for MS?
 
Portugeezer said:
She definitely should have removed herself.

The fact she didn't says it all. We all know how the decision will go.
Click to expand...
Here's my thing. She disclosed this to both parties didn't she? Why didn't the FTC ask her to recuse herself at the onset of this? It's kinda too late right now after they've felt her ire especially after yesterday's fiasco.

Nobody brought this up in the beginning. Is this just another bumbling decision by the FTC?

Like I was kinda rooting for the FTC, but after that shit show yesterday....like they don't deserve the win.

I can't continue to support somebody who is this incompetent. If they win the injunction, I will be floored.
 
FoxMcChief said:
Yeah, I haven't played it in years, but even the last time I played multiplayer CoD, it was great fun. Hell, even the mobile game is fun.
Click to expand...
My only shooter mp experience is some Destiny matches, and there wasn't much appeal. I preferred the limited mp of Gambit since there was a bigger purpose than just shooting the other team.
 
Jigsaah said:
Here's my thing. She disclosed this to both parties didn't she? Why didn't the FTC ask her to recuse herself at the onset of this? It's kinda too late right now after they've felt her ire especially after yesterday's fiasco.

Nobody brought this up in the beginning. Is this just another bumbling decision by the FTC?

Like I was kinda rooting for the FTC, but after that shit show yesterday....like they don't deserve the win.

I can't continue to support somebody who is this incompetent. If they win the injunction, I will be floored.
Click to expand...
Because it's all a drama, you see.
 
mckmas8808 said:
The numbers don't add up at all. Something is missing. Sony themselves declared in internal docs that they made over $1 Billion on COD alone in ONE YEAR! So how will $360 Million with having 2 million more GP subs level out the loss of revenue for MS?
Click to expand...
Was that really sony's cut? that would mean that is 20% of the total revenue so cod did 5 billion revenue on sonys platform alone? if that's correct god damn there is no way microsoft would just throw 4 billion away right well a bit less they'll have to cough up 30% i guess.
 
Jigsaah said:
Here's my thing. She disclosed this to both parties didn't she? Why didn't the FTC ask her to recuse herself at the onset of this? It's kinda too late right now after they've felt her ire especially after yesterday's fiasco.

Nobody brought this up in the beginning. Is this just another bumbling decision by the FTC?

Like I was kinda rooting for the FTC, but after that shit show yesterday....like they don't deserve the win.

I can't continue to support somebody who is this incompetent. If they win the injunction, I will be floored.
Click to expand...
Because it's a lose lose for the FTC. She wouldn't recuse herself and imagine her being even more hostile toward the FTC after they publicly accuse her of being unethical.
 
I think this thread has also brought out most people's bitterness. It was like a place where both sides got way too heated. I think I've learned about myself that, while I love playing video games, I don't think I care how the sausage is made. I'll always own every console, so these deals don't mean anything to me, and if games start to suck because of moves, then I'll move on to something else if my needs aren't being met anymore.
 
James Sawyer Ford said:
No, that's not the point of a business to destroy the company, employees, customers to pay off shareholders in the short term
Click to expand...
Do you even understand the the concept of a corporation? Why they exist? All corporations are businesses, but not all businesses are corporations. Generally speaking, a corporation exists to maximize profit for the shareholders. That's it. Now, as I said, there's a discussion to be had on business strategy and whether it's better for the shareholders to pursue lower short term gains for long term sustainable profits or if the board should drive the corporation to maximize short term gains.

Edit: With that being said, I do agree with you that short term gains often lead to terrible business decisions. Also, not a corporate lawyer, so I'm generally going off my memory of Corporate Law 101 from 10 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Jigsaah said:
Here's my thing. She disclosed this to both parties didn't she? Why didn't the FTC ask her to recuse herself at the onset of this? It's kinda too late right now after they've felt her ire especially after yesterday's fiasco.

Nobody brought this up in the beginning. Is this just another bumbling decision by the FTC?

Like I was kinda rooting for the FTC, but after that shit show yesterday....like they don't deserve the win.

I can't continue to support somebody who is this incompetent. If they win the injunction, I will be floored.
Click to expand...
I agree completely, I'm more surprised she didn't deem is suitable enough to remove herself.

I'm sure she believes in her mind "well, I won't be influenced". Maybe the FTC has a lower bar when it comes to this, because I wouldn't expect it for a serious criminal prosecution.

Any US law geeks here feel free to inform.
 
FoxMcChief said:
I think this thread has also brought out most people's bitterness. It was like a place where both sides got way too heated. I think I've learned about myself that, while I love playing video games, I don't think I care how the sausage is made. I'll always own every console, so these deals don't mean anything to me, and if games start to suck because of moves, then I'll move on to something else if my needs aren't being met anymore.
Click to expand...
I was angry and bitter before this thread and I'll be angry and bitter after this thread has fucked off!
 
mckmas8808 said:
The numbers don't add up at all. Something is missing. Sony themselves declared in internal docs that they made over $1 Billion on COD alone in ONE YEAR! So how will $360 Million with having 2 million more GP subs level out the loss of revenue for MS?
Click to expand...
Just focus on the 1million PS5 users that Jim(?) mentioned that have only played CoD on the system and are whale level users. They are spending MTX money and buying new peripherals because of stick drift. If those users spend just £1000 each in the first year buying the console too, that would be £1b
 
mckmas8808 said:
The numbers don't add up at all. Something is missing. Sony themselves declared in internal docs that they made over $1 Billion on COD alone in ONE YEAR! So how will $360 Million with having 2 million more GP subs level out the loss of revenue for MS?
Click to expand...
Sony keeps what, somewhere between 20-30% of all the COD revenue that passes through their accounts?

Now imagine if they kept 100%.
 
Keep reading about how the Judge was grilling the FTC and and generally playing with kid gloves for Microsoft. Just anecdotal, but in my experience many judges tend to hold the government attorneys to a higher standard and are a little harder on them - within reason. But I've had times where I've gotten absolutely lit up by judges during oral arguments and walk out thinking I'm a complete moron and blew it, just to get the written decision where I win. What I'm trying to say is, don't assume the PI will be denied on account of the tone the judge was taking with the FTC attorneys.

edit: moved a comma
 
Last edited:
Kilau said:
Because it's a lose lose for the FTC. She wouldn't recuse herself and imagine her being even more hostile toward the FTC after they publicly accuse her of being unethical.
Click to expand...
Isn't the law that if there is any reasonable suspicion that a judge can't be impartial that the judge SHALL recuse themselves?

I mean one can argue if whether she can or can't be impartial, true...but for it not to be even brought up....knowing you don't have the strongest of cases going in...I mean what do you have to lose?

If the judge took that wrong and was more hostile toward the FTC...doesn't that in a way prove the point?

Judge: I'm impartial, my son's position at Microsoft will have no effect due to the fact he works in the rank and file and this decision will not affect him in any way.
FTC: With all due respect Judge Corley, we simply are cautious as there is a lot riding on your decision and we want to be perfectly sure we are getting a fair hearing. We ask that you please recuse yourself

Judge:
RageFaceNo-5ae79bcd3128340037321cb4.jpg

FTC: K...let's proceed then.
(Day 5, closing arguments)
Judge: To be clear FTC, you should be worried about protecting consumers, not Sony................you little bitch....
FTC:
flat,750x,075,f-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.u4.jpg
 
Pollux said:
Keep reading about how the Judge was grilling the FTC and and generally playing with kid gloves for Microsoft. Just anecdotal, but in my experience many judges tend to hold the government attorneys to a higher standard and are a little harder on them - within reason. But I've had times where I've gotten absolutely lit up by judges during oral arguments and walk out thinking I'm a complete moron and blew it, just to get the written decision where I win. What I'm trying to say, is don't assume the PI will be denied on account of the tone the judge was taking with the FTC attorneys.
Click to expand...
She did commend the FTC lawyers for "holding their own" despite not having access to the resources the private sector like a $2.6T company such as MS has. Says it will be a "difficult decision" but I am not holding my breath. Would like to be pleasantly proven wrong in current year, however.
 
Pollux said:
What I'm trying to say, is don't assume the PI will be denied on account of the tone the judge was taking with the FTC attorneys.
Click to expand...
This is 100% excellent advice.

And your point about one side getting grilled before things end up decided in their favor is something most lawyers who spend time in court will have seen before.
 
StueyDuck said:
lol you underestimate the power of money my friend.

nothing is ever black and white.
Click to expand...
Including the FTC that REQUESTED this very judge and stated they don't see a problem her son happens to work for MS who isn't in anyway shape or form involved in this process? So maybe go to to the FTC that funded the money to get this judge to possibly lose the case 🤣
 
Last edited:
IntentionalPun said:
Yeah they were lying.

And to some extent it was lip service to regulators I'm sure, although it seems like their main target was to not piss off gamers.

Just the most smarmy douchebags on earth. Never trust a C-suiter, they are sociopaths.

In the end though from a legal standpoint MS has now signed contracts and sworn under oath that it's different with COD. Chances are this will be an embarrassment for MS and nothing more, as it already pretty much was during the CMA case, and eventually that angle was completely dropped.
Click to expand...

The bolded isn't true though. What contracts state that COD will stay on Playstation? And nothing Phil said under oath is legally binding. We all know this now.
 
The irony that MS put so much effort into cloud, which is a wet fart they may be pivoting away from, but that effort might be what blocks their ATVI deal is killing me.

Why shouldn't a judge believe cloud is the future when so much of big tech including MS bet the farm on it?

But thing is, IMO, cloud game streaming isn't the future.

And ironically the ABK deal being blocked might even accelerate it's demise as a mainstream possibility.
 
mckmas8808 said:
The bolded isn't true though. What contracts state that COD will stay on Playstation? And nothing Phil said under oath is legally binding. We all know this now.
Click to expand...

Phil said no i cannot legally bind for Microsoft? Or did he pause the answer before the subject was changed? He was being led down a slippery slope and he recognized this and acted and spoke accordingly. FTC was trying to pull a fast one in Sony's favor and he was probably right in pausing his answers there.
 
DeepEnigma said:
She did commend the FTC lawyers for "holding their own" despite not having access to the resources the private sector like a $2.6T company such as MS has. Says it will be a "difficult decision" but I am not holding my breath. Would like to be pleasantly proven wrong in current year, however.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I've had judges say it's going to be a difficult decision on open and shut cases where both sides know what is going to happen and at the end, the judge does what we all thought they would do. They almost have to say it's a hard decision. Most judges have their standard lines that they say about how it's a hard case, lots of complex issues, gonna take time to get a clear head and unravel the their thoughts, etc.

On the FTC side, that's a legit compliment. When you're going against Microsoft, or any other high powered or well funded party, it's fucking rough. Keep in mind, that these FTC attorneys aren't scrubs. They're all very smart, very good, and very overworked. Combine that with the extremely high profile nature of this case, they're going have some missteps and as a litigator I don't hold that against them. There's a reason the firms and corporations snatch them up as soon as they can with good paying jobs. If the government attorneys were as bad as people think they are, they wouldn't always jump to good firms and in house counsel positions. Some government jobs may be cushy with easy hours, that's not the case with being a trial lawyer for the government. Been there, it's chaos.
 
Last edited:
mckmas8808 said:
The bolded isn't true though. What contracts state that COD will stay on Playstation? And nothing Phil said under oath is legally binding. We all know this now.
Click to expand...
They offered a 10 year contract and I seriously doubt they wouldn't offer a much longer one at this point. I know Sony didn't sign, but if the deal is going through, chances are they will.

I know the under oath statements aren't 100% legally binding but they are a massive anti-trust target if MS changed course. They'd better have their ducks in a row with zero internal communications about the future of COD if they did change course, especially if they did it right at the end of whatever contracts they have offered.
 
FoxMcChief said:
Let's say the judge rules in favor of MS/Activision. Can the CMA actually stop the merger? Like, is their position more bark than bite?
Click to expand...
I've viewed the CMA as the real obstacle since their block, and what will eventually stop the merger from happening. American courts act more as handlers for mega corporations. Good thing the FTC at least tried.
 
Pollux said:
Keep reading about how the Judge was grilling the FTC and and generally playing with kid gloves for Microsoft. Just anecdotal, but in my experience many judges tend to hold the government attorneys to a higher standard and are a little harder on them - within reason. But I've had times where I've gotten absolutely lit up by judges during oral arguments and walk out thinking I'm a complete moron and blew it, just to get the written decision where I win. What I'm trying to say is, don't assume the PI will be denied on account of the tone the judge was taking with the FTC attorneys.

edit: moved a comma
Click to expand...
I didn't think this happened at all though. I thought the judge asked reasonable questions. And I also thought the FTC lawyer did a good job at responding to her, despite people saying he was blowing it.
 
I still wanna know if an extension will be agreed upon or not... i know Bobby said the PI would kill the deal but it could have been a bluff to try and speed things along? Or maybe not. Guess we will find out when this just comes back with her final verdict in a week or two.
 
Jigga117 said:
Including the FTC that REQUESTED this very judge and stated they don't see a problem her son happens to work for MS who isn't in anyway shape or form invoked in this process? So maybe go to to the FTC that money hatred's MM lol
Click to expand...
Money is money,doesn't matter which team is your favorite.

Anyone thinking a 70 billion dollar M&A that there isn't dodgy shit going on behind the scenes is a naive fool.
 
Last edited:
DrFigs said:
I didn't think this happened at all though. I thought the judge asked reasonable questions. And I also thought the FTC lawyer did a good job at responding to her, despite people saying he was blowing it.
Click to expand...
Completely agree - I've just seen the reactions and thought I would share my perspective on this since I've had similar experiences. Another important thing to keep in mind, is people are sitting here playing monday morning QB with this because of gaffes or misstatements, but generally in the heat of it, the judge isn't giving those "mic drop moments" that much weight. They're there for the forest, not the trees.
 
splattered said:
I still wanna know if an extension will be agreed upon or not... i know Bobby said the PI would kill the deal but it could have been a bluff to try and speed things along? Or maybe not. Guess we will find out when this just comes back with her final verdict in a week or two.
Click to expand...

Activision's shareholders meeting happened somewhere in June and an extension wasn't even one of the topics of the meeting...
 
Jigsaah said:
Wait what!? They requested Judge Corley!?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it works that way. I've heard of forum shopping which will reduce the pool of judges you may have assigned to a case. But not so sure you can select the actual judge.

Anyone with federal court experience able to chime in on this?
 
X-Wing said:
Activision's shareholders meeting happened somewhere in June and an extension wasn't even one of the topics of the meeting...
Click to expand...

So you're saying it's impossible they held a separate meeting specifically for this deal? It would have only been discussed at the general shareholders meeting?
 
FoxMcChief said:
I think that's the bad thing that's come out of this acquisition. The wool has been pulled out from over my eyes and I realized that all these game companies are run by pieces of shit.
Click to expand...
Man, the early 2000s were a great era for Vidya. I feel like it was the ps3/360 era that big money REALLY started to pour in.
 
NickFire said:
I'm not sure it works that way. I've heard of forum shopping which will reduce the pool of judges you may have assigned to a case. But not so sure you can select the actual judge.

Anyone with federal court experience able to chime in on this?
Click to expand...
I do not believe they "chose her," there is no basis of that anywhere I was able to fine. Sounds like a narrative™ if you ask me. Saw this bit of news, however.

Jeff Hauser, founder and director of the Revolving Door Project, argued that the agency could have faced blowback if it tried and failed to get Corley to recuse from the case.

"Nothing antagonizes a judge with whom you might have litigation in the future like calling them recklessly biased," he said. "What are the odds that Judge Corley would recuse if she was already choosing to brazen her way through this apparent conflict of interest?"
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
kvltus lvlzvs said:
Man, the early 2000s were a great era for Vidya. I feel like it was the ps3/360 era that big money REALLY started to pour in.
Click to expand...
We also knew less of the background shit. But social media and whatnot have brought out the dirty laundry over the last 15 years or so.

Ignorance can be bliss sometimes. I already wish I knew less than I do about the gaming industry. And these days, you can't avoid it.
 
Vognerful said:
I have a feeling that if ABK deal fails, they will revert back their plan and look at which games they can release multiplatform from zenimax. maybe starfield but after a year or 6 months.
Click to expand...

I actually think you have a really good point here.
 
Silent Viper said:
Its baffling they discuss all this sensitive stuff casually through emails but not through private voice chat.

They have outlook messenger and other chat services they can use to voice chat than fucking typing dumb shit and making fool out of themselves lol
Click to expand...
Why are emails so easily accessible?
Can someone explain how this lawyers get the emails? I tought emails were private
 
DeepEnigma said:
I do not believe they "chose her," there is no basis of that anywhere I was able to fine. Sounds like a narrative™ if you ask me. Saw this bit of news, however.
Click to expand...
I'm a little surprised her son actually works for MS. Kind of figured that was a false narrative since she didn't recuse herself. Not really comfortable saying if she actually needed to recuse herself or not because I don't know the details of her son's job, don't know exact standard for recusal, FTC didn't ask, etc.

But I feel very confident on one thing. If she says FTC deserves an internal trial before the deal closes, who would NOT be able to claim she was biased?
 
Vognerful said:
I have a feeling that if ABK deal fails, they will revert back their plan and look at which games they can release multiplatform from zenimax. maybe starfield but after a year or 6 months.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

If there is one thing has been made abundantly clear is that Microsoft's values great PR above all else. They do not care about the cost. Their main gaming avenue is literally a sink hole in terms of money spent with next to no return. In fact, it "cannibalises" itself. But because Microsoft can create "Number of players" sound bites, they keep it around for PR purposes.

Which is important to note because the uproar from their own community would be deafening if Starfield were to ever appear on PS. Couple that with a gaming strategy which by their own definition is losing billions it's hard to see how any XB exclusive goes multiplat.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
‘Microsoft’ said they were streamlining 9000 people across XGS/ABK/ZM
Rumor 
19
461
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