Support NeoGAF

[DeepEnigma]

Should we have a 10 day countdown timer?

 

[Elios83]

Stage of acceptance?

I don't get it.
He's saying that if the acquisition is blocked Microsoft won't lose anything but a revenues boost?

 

[HoofHearted]

 

[DeepEnigma]

I don't get it.
He's saying that if the acquisition is blocked Microsoft won't lose anything but a revenues boost?

Don't try to understand shilltards.

 

[ToadMan]

The US doesn't really block vertical mergers, at least not in decades. Idk that Sony made their look at more likely to win than average.

As far as creating a monopoly, that's for sure a no.

I could still see her saying fight it out in court to them tho. That would effectively kill the deal but she might not take that into account.

Yes this could well be one outcome.

The gamer's lawsuit argued on vertical merger harm. This is an excerpt of the judgement from June 27

So the Judge accepted that the vertical merger claim survived enough to at least justify a full hearing.

 

[GHG]

But you can close, right?

Sure go ahead.

To be honest it would be far more entertaining to witness people get giddy about COD arriving on gamepass only to have those privaliges whipped away from them just a few months later.

What better way to serve as a timely reminder that people have absolutely zero rights when it comes to those "free" games and that they can be whipped away in an instant without recourse (or rights to any kind of refund for the subscription service)?

 

[demigod]

Don't try to understand shilltards.

My brain hurts trying to decipher that shit.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Stage of acceptance?

And that of wet dreams.

 

[Corndog]

You mean Microsoft? Not legally in the UK, no. CMA has issued an order prohibiting closing. They have to go through the appeal process.

No point arguing about this. If the ftc doesn't block then I guess we will see.

I just don't see the point of Microsoft even going to court with the ftc if there is no chance to close by the deadline. I think they would have just scuttled the acquisition.

 

[DeepEnigma]

My brain hurts trying to decipher that shit.

It's why I scrolled on by.

And that of wet dreams.

The worst of the fandoms favorite exclusives. Acquisitions.

It's a mental illness to gain absolutely nothing other than misguiding dopamine and gleeful feelings off of perceived damage to the "enemy." Sociopathic, really.

 

[SixPin]

How long until Bobby calls Sony a great business partner

 

[Corndog]

How long until Bobby calls Sony a great business partner

As soon as he gets a check.

 

[ToadMan]

Having pondered the issue for weeks or months, now I'm inclined to believe their strategy will be to close, but not incorporate - I think that is the technical term, but would welcome a correction.

For Illumina/Grail it was described as being "held separate" by the EU - I'm not sure if that term makes it to US or UK law.

I can't remember the exact definition but it boiled down to not integrating the business operations or finances - basically keep ties very slim - effectively keep it running as a self contained separate organisation - so that a subsequent divestment is simple.

 

[Topher]

No point arguing about this. If the ftc doesn't block then I guess we will see.

I just don't see the point of Microsoft even going to court with the ftc if there is no chance to close by the deadline. I think they would have just scuttled the acquisition.

You could also ask why bother appealing the CMA's decision if it was irrelevant? If/when the FTC's injunction is denied then I imagine MS and ABK will renegotiate the deadline until after the appeal is done. But no, there isn't really anything to argue about. We just have to see how it all unfolds.

 

[Heisenberg007]

The worst of the fandoms favorite exclusives. Acquisitions.

It's a mental illness to gain absolutely nothing other than misguiding dopamine and gleeful feelings off of perceived damage to the "enemy." Sociopathic, really.

It really is so bizarre. They don't even care about games or the studios they just acquired.

Undead Labs's State of Decay 3, Ninja Theory's Hellblade 2, Rare's Everwild, Arkane's Redfall, Initiative's Perfect Dark: so many of their games are or have been in various sorts of troubles. Yet their focus is on acquiring more studios.

 

[gothmog]

It really is so bizarre. They don't even care about games or the studios they just acquired.

Undead Labs's State of Decay 3, Ninja Theory's Hellblade 2, Rare's Everwild, Arkane's Redfall, Initiative's Perfect Dark: so many of their games are or have been in various sorts of troubles. Yet their focus is on acquiring more studios.

It's not about having fun it's about denying someone else a chance at having fun.

 

[DeepEnigma]

It's not about having fun it's about denying someone else a chance at having fun.

Psychotic behavior, really.

 

[Heisenberg007]

It's not about having fun it's about denying someone else a chance at having fun.

Yeah, true. I've noticed hints of some weird kind of schadenfreude behavior.

 

[Jigsaah]

It came off as grandstanding to me, likely because the judge understands that the media and general public (with their rudimentary understanding of antitrust regulations) would not understand why the FTC keeps mentioning Sony if their ultimate purpose is to protect the consumer interest. Well, by extension, the FTC has to promote a competitive market; in the console industry, Sony and Microsoft are 2 out of 3 players in the market, and are the only two players in the high-end console market. In other words, it is impossible for the FTC to make their case without talking nonstop about the effect it would have on Sony. They are the only competitor when discussing high-end console market. You can argue all you want that Nintendo should be considered a competitor, but Microsoft themselves virtually killed that argument with their internal analysis that focused on Sony alone with no financial analysis conducted for Nintendo. The judge understands this but she has to do her performative bit for the ignorant public.



You can't block a deal that ends up being abandoned by the acquirer or target company. Nvidia abandoned the ARM acquisition, which would have been a vertical merger, just a year or two ago because of the FTC scrutiny. The Microsoft/Activision deal qualifies as both a horizontal (Microsoft the game publisher/developer) and vertical (Microsoft the console maker; Microsoft the cloud gaming platform) integration depending on how you view Microsoft. Crazy part is, the antitrust concerns are significant in both instances because of the concentration in the console market and oligopoly with large publishers.

Hmmm. I do see some performances from judges in high profile or televised cases, but I have no baseline to go off. I haven't seen what a judge is like in trial, in person...simply because I haven't had a reason to go in front of a judge other than for a red light ticket. It makes me wonder what baseline you might have to suggest her questions/interactions to be strictly performative?

If it is performative, what is the motive? What does it resolve? Was all of her interactions performative or was she just grandstanding for one side and not the other?

Being a layman, I tend to take these things at face value because I don't have anything else to reference. It's like introducing a duckling to your dog as soon as it's born. To the duckling, your dog is mom for all it knows. It has no other point of reference.

 

[Jigsaah]

Scheduled to start July 28 and continue for about 6 days.

Before that not much from CAT. Some documents should appear stating the case for each side. That's about it.

Ok so if it starts on July 28, then it's beyond the July 18 closing date. If Microsoft decides to close over the CMA, does this case still proceed?

If the case still proceeds, does it even matter if Microsoft has already closed? I've seen time and time again on this thread that it's difficult to litigate an acquisition once it is sealed. Most those quotes were regarding the FTC hearing, not the CMA.

Just wondering if the CMA have some additional leverage to prevent the deal in this particular situation.

 

[gothmog]

Yeah, true. I've noticed hints of some weird kind of schadenfreude behavior.

Ii just find it weird because I'm sure there's Sony zealots out there saying similar things on the other side. They just seem to be ignored by the masses instead of embraced.

 

[IFireflyl]

Ok so if it starts on July 28, then it's beyond the July 18 closing date. If Microsoft decides to close over the CMA, does this case still proceed?

If the case still proceeds, does it even matter if Microsoft has already closed? I've seen time and time again on this thread that it's difficult to litigate an acquisition once it is sealed. Most those quotes were regarding the FTC hearing, not the CMA.

Just wondering if the CMA have some additional leverage to prevent the deal in this particular situation.

The CMA cannot prevent Microsoft from closing, but it would be illegal for Microsoft to do so since the acquisition has been blocked. Think of it like speeding. If you get caught, you have to pay a fine. That's essentially the only power the CMA has if Microsoft proceeds. Well, unless they want to go nuclear and ban Microsoft products from the U.K. But that doesn't seem like a realistic move. Although, I would also argue that it isn't a realistic move for Microsoft to close regardless of the CMA's decision.

 

[Jigsaah]

The CMA cannot prevent Microsoft from closing, but it would be illegal for Microsoft to do so since the acquisition has been blocked. Think of it like speeding. If you get caught, you have to pay a fine. That's essentially the only power the CMA has if Microsoft proceeds. Well, unless they want to go nuclear and ban Microsoft products from the U.K. But that doesn't seem like a realistic move. Although, I would also argue that it isn't a realistic move for Microsoft to close regardless of the CMA's decision.

A fine....doesn't seem like a huge deterent to 2.7 trillion dollar company. How big could this fine be? Can they continuous fine them over and over again?

 

[Heisenberg007]

A fine....doesn't seem like a huge deterent to 2.7 trillion dollar company. How big could this fine be?

Up to 10% of Microsoft's entire global profits, if I remember it correctly.

 

[Jigsaah]

Up to 10% of Microsoft's entire global profits, if I remember it correctly.

Ok that could be significant, though I don't know what Microsoft's profits are. Take look at both extremes, If Microsoft made $10 and CMA wants $1, nobody's gonna sneeze at that. But if they make a billion, 100 million sounds hefty.

 

[poppabk]

Ii just find it weird because I'm sure there's Sony zealots out there saying similar things on the other side. They just seem to be ignored by the masses instead of embraced.

There are plenty on this forum who will claim that the 'magic' of Sony games are lost when PC gamers get to play them several months after launch. Just think that mentality through.

 

[IFireflyl]

A fine....doesn't seem like a huge deterent to 2.7 trillion dollar company. How big could this fine be?

Right now, not much. But there is a Bill being reviewed that, if passed, would greatly increase the amount that the CMA can fine.

In addition to behavioural and structural remedies, the CMA can impose financial penalties. These may be up to 10% of global turnover and daily fines up to 5% of global turnover for continuing infringement.

Source: https://www.wilmerhale.com/insights/client-alerts/20230504-uks-digital-markets-competition-and-consumers-bill-increased-oversight-especially-for-digital-companies#:~:text=Under the Bill, the CMA,for breaches of consumer law.

You can see the status of this Bill here:

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3453

And to be clear, the 10%/5% isn't for the offending division. It's Microsoft's global turnover as a company. So violating U.K. law for Activision would mean getting assessed a major fine that takes into consideration Microsoft's entire enterprise turnover.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Ok that could be significant, though I don't know what Microsoft's profits are. Take look at both extremes, If Microsoft made $10 and CMA wants $1, nobody's gonna sneeze at that. But if they make a billion, 100 million sounds hefty.

Microsoft's gross annual profit was around $69 billion, if I'm not wrong. That means up to $6.9 billion.

This is an addition to the massive PR hit and pretty much a permanent relationship damage with worldwide regulators that would affect future acquisitions.

 

[Dick Jones]

And that of wet dreams.

God forbid they look to Xbox to make new games on top of third party offerings.

No, no. They want the same amount of games on their console and less on competitors. It's acquisitions or nothing. Pathetic.

 

[ManaByte]

Microsoft's gross annual profit was around $69 billion, if I'm not wrong. That means up to $6.9 billion.

That's about as likely to be paid as an individual being fined $2 trillion in a defamation case and paying that.

 

[Dick Jones]

Microsoft's gross annual profit was around $69 billion, if I'm not wrong. That means up to $6.9 billion.

This is an addition to the massive PR hit and pretty much a permanent relationship damage with worldwide regulators that would affect future acquisitions.

It's on turnover not profit, isn't it? Penalty is 20bn off 200bn revenue.

 

[ChiefDada]

Ok that could be significant, though I don't know what Microsoft's profits are. Take look at both extremes, If Microsoft made $10 and CMA wants $1, nobody's gonna sneeze at that. But if they make a billion, 100 million sounds hefty.

I would argue that 10% of any company's profits going towards fines and penalties (which are non-deductible for tax purposes, btw) is very very bad/not sustainable, doesn't matter if that profit is $10 or $100B.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Up to 10% of Microsoft's entire global profits, if I remember it correctly.

Of revenue. So $20b.

That could be worse than profit taxing.

 

[Jigsaah]

There are plenty on this forum who will claim that the 'magic' of Sony games are lost when PC gamers get to play them several months after launch. Just think that mentality through.

I've always thought this was a weird take, kinda. See it works better for Microsoft because PC is still their ecosystem in one way or another. Either through their store and gamepass app or through the operating system itself.

Sony goes around that, shopping their games to stores like Steam and Epic....wait does Sony have a PC storefront?

Either way, PC is not within the ecosystem Sony has built for itself, though they realize they need to expand. Sony fans, who are attached to this walled garden seem to feel that the games they play are somehow not as premium I guess if people on PC can play it? It's hard to try and explain why, because your right, it doesn't make sense. I sually think of a good ananlogy about things like this.

Ah...ok so it's kinda like a Golfing Club...you got all these rich folks paying thousands of dollars a month to be in the golf club. They feel like they belong to something exclusive. Let's say the owner decides to start letting folks from another area in, maybe lower the prices to lure more customers or start offering their services in different locations. The club goers may feel a bit slighted because their prestigious club is expanding and letting other folks in that's not part of the original club. What used to be premium and "rare" experience just for them now is available to others.

It's a dumb mentality if nothing changes for you personally. As a matter of fact, things get better for Playstation users because it's more revenue to make bigger and better games and to fund other projects.

 

[Topher]

That's about as likely to be paid as an individual being fined $2 trillion in a defamation case and paying that.

Correct. That will never be paid. Either MS abandons the acquisition or wins massively on appeal and is allowed to close.

 

[IFireflyl]

That's about as likely to be paid as an individual being fined $2 trillion in a defamation case and paying that.

Microsoft is about as likely to close regardless of the CMA's decision as I am to win the jackpot this week.

 

[Jigsaah]

That's about as likely to be paid as an individual being fined $2 trillion in a defamation case and paying that.

Well I think that a fine like that could effect investors outlook on things, no? So maybe there's some kind of compound negative effects that could result from a fine this big.

 

[ToadMan]

Ok so if it starts on July 28, then it's beyond the July 18 closing date. If Microsoft decides to close over the CMA, does this case still proceed?

The CAT case could be adjourned pending resolution of the legal action againstMS for closing the acquisition illegally.

I guess that would be up to CMA to request but I'd imagine the CAT would listen sympathetically to such a request if MS had broken the law.

If the case still proceeds, does it even matter if Microsoft has already closed?

In terms of the specific CAT review I think it will be a consideration but not a reason to totally halt proceedings if the CMA are prepared to proceed.

I've seen time and time again on this thread that it's difficult to litigate an acquisition once it is sealed. Most those quotes were regarding the FTC hearing, not the CMA.

Exactly. In terms of the CMA it won't be difficult to litigate at all.

There is a UK order issued prohibiting MS and ABK from consummating the merger.

If they "close over" the CMA, then the CMA will initiate court proceedings (separate to CAT which is just a judicial tribunal).

That will be an immediate cease and desist issued to MS and an order to hold ABK separate pending divestment, and probably the initiation of fines for ignoring the order.

But this will be a separate legal action taken out in a UK court in front of a UK Judge entirely separate to the CAT process.

Effectively the UK already has an injunction in place right now and MS would breaking that.

Just wondering if the CMA have some additional leverage to prevent the deal in this particular situation.

See above. The leverage the CMA potentially has are the immense fines they can levy that would make the acquisition ruinously expensive for MS.

The CMA could also freeze or seize UK based assets (bearing in mind MS Ltd and ATVI Ltd are UK companies) or halt sales of certain product services in UK jurisdictions.

How far the CMA and UK courts go down that road in this hypothetical is anyone's guess.

 

[BlueLyria]

Should we have a 10 day countdown timer?

A 10 day meltdown timer

 

[Calverz]

This guy is living in his own reality.

Touting contracts designed from the ground up to be worthless on paper. And Bethesda exclusives which Microsoft said would be on a "case by case basis" publicly. While in private, XB had already decided to make those games exclusive.

Like... These are known facts. Facts introduced to the public by court order. But Calverz wants us to believe the horse manure he's spreading because he likes that reality better.

You really need to remove yourself from your echo chamber? Worthless contracts? Says who? You? Lmao.

 

[DeepEnigma]

A 10 day meltdown timer

 

[Calverz]

About the "Microsoft can just close" narrative.

The contract still states that the CMA has to approve. So no matter what happens with the FTC, if they can't convince the CMA the terms have not been met. I understand why the "They can just close over Canada, Australia, UK" Etc Still persists but in terms of contractual law...

Also Bobby's testimony indicates he's thinking twice about the deal. Maybe he's thinking about what GP would do to his legacy?

Didn't FTC push for this rapid injunction because they believe the merger would be closed despite the cma ruling? So therefore, it can close despite cma?

 

[Corndog]

Ii just find it weird because I'm sure there's Sony zealots out there saying similar things on the other side. They just seem to be ignored by the masses instead of embraced.

You mean like this.

 

[bitbydeath]

Didn't FTC push for this rapid injunction because they believe the merger would be closed despite the cma ruling? So therefore, it can close despite cma?

That's what Xbox fans were saying, there's no proof of it though, and more than likely just another fake narrative.

 

[ToadMan]

Ok that could be significant, though I don't know what Microsoft's profits are. Take look at both extremes, If Microsoft made $10 and CMA wants $1, nobody's gonna sneeze at that. But if they make a billion, 100 million sounds hefty.

10% of global profits is about £10bn - yes it is big money. It would erase any income MS hoped for from ATVI and more.

However that is a theoretical amount the CMA can fine for - in practice the fines would start lower and gradually ratchet up the longer MS remains in contravention of the law.

There is no time limit on the fine - it continues until MS complies.

When the CMA did this to BMW they were accumulating the fine by the day for example.

Well I think that a fine like that could effect investors outlook on things, no? So maybe there's some kind of compound negative effects that could result from a fine this big.

A loss of 10% profit and being a company that openly flouts the law? Yeah that's something stock holders will not wish to see.

And ultimately MS would be forced to divest ATVI at what would be a big loss - possibly before ATVI even got a game out the door under MS ownership. So yeah, the damage to MS reputation and credibility would be immense.

 

[Jigsaah]

You really need to remove yourself from your echo chamber? Worthless contracts? Says who? You? Lmao.

So I think this was actually brought up in court. The contracts for GeForce Now don't really matter for the arguments in the case because GeForce Now doesn't make money from the sale of the games (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

The other cloud services they did contracts with like Boosteroid have no presence in the US market and don't have near the amount of resources that Microsoft does. Giving a deal to them does not harm Microsoft in anyway.

Even more notable is that Microsoft did NOT broker a deal with the main competitors in cloud....namely Amazon and Google. So it was kinda like Microsoft was picking and choosing deals for the sake of the case without giving away too much. If they were sincere about these deals, they would have gone to their biggest competitors first. Google might be too little too late (plus google had way bigger problems than it's content). But Luna still exists.

 

[ToadMan]

You mean like this.

He thinks you're a funny guy.

Got to say I'm surprised some people get so triggered by the reactions. I don't even look at those in the notifications.

Maybe if someone <cough> MS <cough> was paying me to get likes and not LOLs I'd care. But they ain't, so

 

[harry mason 1989]

A 10 day meltdown timer

Sorry I was looking for a reason to post my favorite song

 

[Calverz]

So I think this was actually brought up in court. The contracts for GeForce Now don't really matter for the arguments in the case because GeForce Now doesn't make money from the sale of the games (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

The other cloud services they did contracts with like Boosteroid have no presence in the US market and don't have near the amount of resources that Microsoft does. Giving a deal to them does not harm Microsoft in anyway.

Even more notable is that Microsoft did NOT broker a deal with the main competitors in cloud....namely Amazon and Google. So it was kinda like Microsoft was picking and choosing deals for the sake of the case without giving away too much. If they were sincere about these deals, they would have gone to their biggest competitors first. Google might be too little too late (plus google had way bigger problems than it's content). But Luna still exists.

I was talking about ms honouring exclusivity contracts after the Bethesda acquisition (deathloop and ghostwire).

As for the contracts you speak of, the cod ones, there is also the one signed by Nintendo which ftc tried to convince the judge was a seperate market but failed to do so in any meaningful way from what I could tell.

 

[Jigsaah]

I was talking about ms honouring exclusivity contracts after the Bethesda acquisition (deathloop and ghostwire).

As for the contracts you speak of, the cod ones, there is also the one signed by Nintendo which ftc tried to convince the judge was a seperate market but failed to do so in any meaningful way from what I could tell.

Oh, my bad. I thought we were talking about cloud contracts. I'll go back and read those posts.