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.
Jigsaah said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yea this was the obvious answer to me too. The FTC and this court have a duty to regulate the US market and MS's deals only had GFN in the US.

The deals outside the US aren't really relevant.
 
Corndog said:
You mean like this.
hgZ7t2l.png
Click to expand...
Oj6SLYi.jpg


SNAP! 😂

A arvfab likes to hide behind emojis. I'm certain he is an alt for one of the Sony bros here. I think he believes his emojis push some narrative lol
 
ToadMan said:
Yea this was the obvious answer to me too. The FTC and this court have a duty to regulate the US market and MS's deals only had GFN in the US.

The deals outside the US aren't really relevant.
Click to expand...
Would you say that the deals, while not having relevancy to the US per se, has an impact on the judges opinion? Like it looks good on their part? Or just no meaningful impact?
 
Just think if this deal doesn't go through, MS could've spent that $3B fine to fund 15 AAA games development, marketing, and publication, which is pretty close to their output over the last 10 years.
 
Jigsaah said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fair contention. I think it's safe to assume she has a relatively deep knowledge of antitrust law compared to overwhelming majority of the population. Which means she understands Section 7 of the Clayton Act which focuses specifically on mergers that have the potential to lessen competition, and makes no reference to the end consumer. This is the same regulation that the FTC is accusing Microsoft of violating. Therefore, it would be very weird for her to tell the FTC to stop talking about Sony (the competition) and focus on the end consumer. In fact, the FTC attorneys would be doing a shit job if that was actually their strategy to primarily lean on potential impact to the end consumer. The initiated parties (FTC, Microsoft lawyers, judge) already come in with an understanding of the FTC's core purpose, the goals of antitrust laws, and why they ultimately exists. The public isn't familiar with any of it (just check the twitter discourse). Her rebuttal only makes sense it she understands the higher than usual public interest in the case, she is aware that the proceedings are being publicly broadcasted, and she is aware of the ignorance of the public who won't be bothered to research law fundamentals, specifics of the case, regulatory citings, accusations, etc.
 
thebigmanjosh said:
Just think if this deal doesn't go through, MS could've spent that $3B fine to fund 15 AAA games development, marketing, and publication, which is pretty close to their output over the last 10 years.
Click to expand...
It kinda sucks for them because if they don't continue pursuing this, then they can kiss 3 billion dollars to the wind. However, continuing to pursue this could end up being EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE.

The fines that were just recently discussed if they close over the CMA would just seem like such a waste. But there's nothing else they can do. It's like their damned if they do, damned if they don't.
 
Calverz said:
Would you say that the deals, while not having relevancy to the US per se, has an impact on the judges opinion? Like it looks good on their part? Or just no meaningful impact?
Click to expand...

In this case the Judge has to determine if the FTC has a reasonable likelihood of "winning" in the administrative court case in August.

At that hearing, I believe the Administrative Court Judge will give little weight to deals that are only effective outside the US because his remit is to judge based on US market competition concerns and US law.

This is the problem with global deals - each territory judges for its own jurisdiction - there isn't a global regulator.

This is one theory of why so many jurisdictions have so far approved the deal but the US and UK have blocked it - they are the places where there could be a direct impact in the near future. Other jurisdictions, not so much.
 
thebigmanjosh said:
Just think if this deal doesn't go through, MS could've spent that $3B fine to fund 15 AAA games development, marketing, and publication, which is pretty close to their output over the last 10 years.
Click to expand...

It's clear that Microsoft's development problems are managerial and not financial at this point. Which sucks for them because effective management and execution is far more difficult to achieve than securing financial resources. The better you are at the former, the easier it is to obtain the latter.
 
Jigsaah said:
It kinda sucks for them because if they don't continue pursuing this, then they can kiss 3 billion dollars to the wind. However, continuing to pursue this could end up being EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE.

The fines that were just recently discussed if they close over the CMA would just seem like such a waste. But there's nothing else they can do. It's like their damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Click to expand...
Oh for sure. I'm positive they accounted for the $3B, and it's worth the gamble. I just don't see how MS leadership/board/shareholders stomach the potential CMA fine and legal fees for what would be a lost cause.

I think it's wild that MS/Xbox refuse to invest in their own studios/staff but are happy to throw billions towards acquisitions. Their reliance on contractors vs carrying staff through projects is absurd and a big reason why 1P quality is so inconsistent. Yes building studios organically is hard, but much easier when you have fuck tons of cash to attract and retain the industry's best.
 
ChiefDada said:
Fair contention. I think it's safe to assume she has a relatively deep knowledge of antitrust law compared to overwhelming majority of the population. Which means she understands Section 7 of the Clayton Act which focuses specifically on mergers that have the potential to lessen competition, and makes no reference to the end consumer. This is the same regulation that the FTC is accusing Microsoft of violating. Therefore, it would be very weird for her to tell the FTC to stop talking about Sony (the competition) and focus on the end consumer. In fact, the FTC attorneys would be doing a shit job if that was actually their strategy to primarily lean on potential impact to the end consumer. The initiated parties (FTC, Microsoft lawyers, judge) already come in with an understanding of the FTC's core purpose, the goals of antitrust laws, and why they ultimately exists. The public isn't familiar with any of it (just check the twitter discourse). Her rebuttal only makes sense it she understands the higher than usual public interest in the case, she is aware that the proceedings are being publicly broadcasted, and she is aware of the ignorance of the public who won't be bothered to research law fundamentals, specifics of the case, regulatory citings, accusations, etc.
Click to expand...
Hmm I see. Why would focusing on the potential impact to the consumer be a bad strategy? I'm literally asking myself this out loud as I type this.

Maybe because there's a lot that happens behind closed doors that could also end up affecting the end user, by proxy, if you will.

So by talking about how things affect Sony, it also affects their consumers down the line. Am I in the ball park?

That makes it seem that particular interaction was kinda like your wife kicking you in the knee under the table at dinner so you don't accidentally mention how awesome the sex was last night to your kids.
 
Jigsaah said:
Hmm I see. Why would focusing on the potential impact to the consumer be a bad strategy? I'm literally asking myself this out loud as I type this.

Maybe because there's a lot that happens behind closed doors that could also end up affecting the end user, by proxy, if you will.

So by talking about how things affect Sony, it also affects their consumers down the line. Am I in the ball park?

That makes it seem that particular interaction was kinda like your wife kicking you in the knee under the table at dinner so you don't accidentally mention how awesome the sex was last night to your kids.
Click to expand...
Sony represents the largest high end console consumer market. So clearly it will impact consumers through them, just as it would any other industry and their consumers.
 
thebigmanjosh said:
Oh for sure. I'm positive they accounted for the $3B, and it's worth the gamble. I just don't see how MS leadership/board/shareholders stomach the potential CMA fine and legal fees for what would be a lost cause.

I think it's wild that MS/Xbox refuse to invest in their own studios/staff but are happy to throw billions towards acquisitions. Their reliance on contractors vs carrying staff through projects is absurd and a big reason why 1P quality is so inconsistent. Yes building studios organically is hard, but much easier when you have fuck tons of cash to attract and retain the industry's best.
Click to expand...
OH my god THANK YOU!

I been saying this for years. Literally years. Build up what you got. Microsoft is too worried about Amazon and Google when they barely even have a foothold. Matt Booty's email says it all. They are in a rush to grab studios/publishers so that Amazon and Google can't grab them first. Booty already said they don't know content...so what are they worried about? Sony would be more of a threat if they could afford these ridiculous prices for these publishers, but I don't think they are even interested in going that deep. They rarely buy devs unless they've vetted them through previous deals and/or 2nd party support.
 
Jigsaah said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't think Luna makes money from selling games either and is a minor player compared to Nvidia.
 
Jigsaah said:
Hmm I see. Why would focusing on the potential impact to the consumer be a bad strategy? I'm literally asking myself this out loud as I type this.

Maybe because there's a lot that happens behind closed doors that could also end up affecting the end user, by proxy, if you will.

So by talking about how things affect Sony, it also affects their consumers down the line. Am I in the ball park?

That makes it seem that particular interaction was kinda like your wife kicking you in the knee under the table at dinner so you don't accidentally mention how awesome the sex was last night to your kids.
Click to expand...

You can research the Gamer's lawsuit - same Judge. That is specifically about consumer harm - literally individuals giving testimony on the impact of the acquisition on them.

MS tried to say that individuals cannot bring merger Injunction suits at all. Judge Corley didn't agree with that.
 
Jigsaah said:
OH my god THANK YOU!

I been saying this for years. Literally years. Build up what you got. Microsoft is too worried about Amazon and Google when they barely even have a foothold. Matt Booty's email says it all. They are in a rush to grab studios/publishers so that Amazon and Google can't grab them first. Booty already said they don't know content...so what are they worried about? Sony would be more of a threat if they could afford these ridiculous prices for these publishers, but I don't think they are even interested in going that deep. They rarely buy devs unless they've vetted them through previous deals and/or 2nd party support.
Click to expand...
Almost all of Sonys studios are acquisitions.
 
thebigmanjosh said:
Just think if this deal doesn't go through, MS could've spent that $3B fine to fund 15 AAA games development, marketing, and publication, which is pretty close to their output over the last 10 years.
Click to expand...

Just underlines the fact that money can't buy you quality.

Spending $3B won't get you anywhere if you don't have talent to work with and a core studio culture of high achievement that people want to work for
 
Corndog said:
Almost all of Sonys studios are acquisitions.
Click to expand...
Sigh...yes, this is true, but there's nuance here I don't think you're paying attention to.

Sony's acquisitions are what most call "organic". This means that the devs Sony acquires studios that they've had working relationships with before. Like Naughty Dog, Insomniac almost always made games for Playstation exclusively before they were bought. Same goes for studios like Playground Games for Xbox. Sony tends to do business this way almost exclusively, with Bungie being an outlier.

Microsoft does this as well to some extent, but not nearly as much as Sony. Most of their acquisitions are deals to save a dev from ruin or include studios they have very little working history with. That's a more "inorganic" approach.

Does this kinda help clarify things a bit?
 
Last edited:
Corndog said:
Almost all of Sonys studios are acquisitions.
Click to expand...
Acquisitions of studios they had longstanding partnerships and publishing arrangements with, many long before Xbox was even released.

What success has MS had with their acquisitions since 2001? It took Rare 15 years to put out a hit after releasing multiple classics on Nintendo platforms.

No one is saying acquisitions are bad. Consolidation of publishers to fuel subscriptions and eliminate competition is bad. There's a big difference.
 
Jigsaah said:
Sigh...yes, this is true, but there's nuance here I don't think you're paying attention to.

Sony's acquisitions are what most call "organic". This means that the devs Sony acquires studios that they've had working relationships with before. Like Naughty Dog, Insomniac almost always made games for Playstation exclusively before they were bought. Same goes for studios like Playground Games for Xbox. Sony tends to do business this way almost exclusively, with Bungie being an outlier.

Microsoft does this as well to some extent, but not nearly as much as Sony. Most of their acquisitions are deals to save a dev from ruin or include studios they have very lil working history with. That's a more "inorganic" approach.

Does this kinda help clarify things a bit?
Click to expand...
MS jumped straight into storied 3rd party publisher and IP purchasing. And so far, it was to play takeaway. Hurting their rivals and said consumers of once 3rd party platforms.
 
ToadMan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Which is so of my point. If the CMA's first response would be to stop them integrating to "hold it separate" then they would try to argue no harm, no foul, worst case they divest at a huge loss at the CMA's say so, but it would allow them to remove ATVI board and shareholders from the equation of time-extensions by actually closing at the pre-agreed price. But that is all on the assumption that the parts of the SEC filing that have been included to protect Microsoft in the merger can be waived by Microsoft to close over the CAT?CMA/SEC if the FTC fail to get their injunction.
.

Given that some rumours of them closing without a CMA u-turn come from people like Michael Pachter, leads me to think that something of the ilk is definitely considered possible by Microsoft. I mean what are the penalties in the US for ignoring a SEC filing?

Microsoft closing on ATVI even if divested later will absolutely torpedo PlayStation financial strategy based on the contingency work they will then need to fully activate and ramp up
 
James Sawyer Ford said:
Just underlines the fact that money can't buy you quality.

Spending $3B won't get you anywhere if you don't have talent to work with and a core studio culture of high achievement that people want to work for
Click to expand...
They have talent, they just refuse to fund triple A SP experiences with 200+ mi budget.
 
DeepEnigma said:
MS jumped straight into storied 3rd party publisher and IP purchasing. And so far, it was to play takeaway. Hurting their rivals and said consumers of once 3rd party platforms.
Click to expand...
I mean this is kind of the way it had to have been if they wanted to get exclusives as they had very little 2nd party prescence to begin with. There wasn't much else to draw from in their position, to be fair. Sony also participates in that brand of business warfare.
 
James Sawyer Ford said:
Huh? MS isn't afraid of spending money
Click to expand...
MS are stingy on staff. They rely on contractors for game dev to get around the salaries/bonus/stock awards full time staff receive.

Edit: Let me clarify this is not a practice exclusive to MS, but they are the most egregious and it shows with the end products.
 
Last edited:
PaintTinJr said:
Which is so of my point. If the CMA's first response would be to stop them integrating to "hold it separate" then they would try to argue no harm, no foul, worst case they divest at a huge loss at the CMA's say so, but it would allow them to remove ATVI board and shareholders from the equation of time-extensions by actually closing at the pre-agreed price. But that is all on the assumption that the parts of the SEC filing that have been included to protect Microsoft in the merger can be waived by Microsoft to close over the CAT?CMA/SEC if the FTC fail to get their injunction.
.

Given that some rumours of them closing without a CMA u-turn come from people like Michael Pachter, leads me to think that something of the ilk is definitely considered possible by Microsoft. I mean what are the penalties in the US for ignoring a SEC filing?

Microsoft closing on ATVI even if divested later will absolutely torpedo PlayStation financial strategy based on the contingency work they will then need to fully activate and ramp up
Click to expand...

Yeah totally agree.

If and when it becomes possible for MS to complete the transaction in the US, the equation is cost * risk of UK fines/divestments vs benefit of getting ATVI in house now and avoiding losing the acquisition altogether.

But remember that at the moment MS is barred in the US from closing and it's not clear that will be lifted before the 18th.

For the SEC filing part, the acquisition was agreed between MS and ABK so if the terms of the deal are broken, its interested parties who could try to claim damages. ABK shareholders would have received their money while MS shareholders would be left with the UK lawsuits. So I'd suggest any claims against this deal closing would have to come from MS shareholders claiming MS board proceeded outside the terms, and then incurred legal issues that impacted the share price. I suppose some ATVI shareholders could also join that suit claiming they shouldn't have been forced to sell when the terms weren't met and claiming they lost out on share value as a result.

This would all just be to squeeze some cash out of MS though - not a move ending in divestment or anything, and personally I can't see any likelihood of the above scenarios unless things got really bad with UK fines and that significantly impacted MS operations and revenue.
 
Jigsaah said:
Hmm I see. Why would focusing on the potential impact to the consumer be a bad strategy? I'm literally asking myself this out loud as I type this.
Click to expand...

Because the regulation the FTC is accusing Microsoft of violating centers around the possibility of substantially lessened competition.

Not a perfect example but close enough: Imagine if I'm a state attorney and I charged someone with illegally possessing a nuclear bomb. I specifically cite the state laws as my basis for the charges which specifically states that possession of a nuclear bomb is against the law. If I go into trial and build my entire case on why this guy having a nuclear bomb is bad for the rest of society, technically/legally, I should not win that case because I did nothing to prove that the accused was in possession of a nuclear bomb. Virtually everyone understands why it's not good for someone to be in possession of a nuclear bomb. Similarly, the judge would be viewed as a weirdo for telling the state to focus more on how/why this is bad for society.

Going back to FTC v. Microsoft - The antitrust regulations, specifically Section 7 of the Clayton Act, states that mergers that might substantially lessen competition is illegal. Period. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree, every business must abide by these laws and the judiciary must enforce these laws. That is the baseline, which effectively means that everyone should be in agreement that lessened competition is bad for consumers. This is the regulation the FTC accused Microsoft of violating and cited to support their case That is why FTC was appropriate in mentioning all the ways Sony's ability to compete could be reduced if the deal goes through was wholly appropriate and highly relevant.

Jigsaah said:
Maybe because there's a lot that happens behind closed doors that could also end up affecting the end user, by proxy, if you will.

So by talking about how things affect Sony, it also affects their consumers down the line. Am I in the ball park?
Click to expand...

See above. That's already baked into the baseline. In other words, if competition's (Sony) ability to compete might be substantially lessened, it is automatically assumed that the potential merger is bad for consumers, thus illegal.

Jigsaah said:
That makes it seem that particular interaction was kinda like your wife kicking you in the knee under the table at dinner so you don't accidentally mention how awesome the sex was last night to your kids.
Click to expand...


Girl Door GIF
 
Calverz said:
You really need to remove yourself from your echo chamber? Worthless contracts? Says who? You? Lmao.
Click to expand...
You telling someone they need to remove themselves from a echo chamber is rich when you yourself don't make a single salient point.
No, mocking someone else because you're unable to see what they're telling you or because you're only interested in your own viewpoint doesn't count.
Dude, you yourself are your own little, personal echo chamber.
 
ShadowkillXNA said:
You telling someone they need to remove themselves from a echo chamber is rich when you yourself don't make a single salient point.
No, mocking someone else because you're unable to see what they're telling you or because you're only interested in your own viewpoint doesn't count.
Dude, you yourself are your own little, personal echo chamber.
Click to expand...
Oh no. Another one…..
 
Jigsaah said:
I mean this is kind of the way it had to have been if they wanted to get exclusives as they had very little 2nd party prescence to begin with. There wasn't much else to draw from in their position, to be fair. Sony also participates in that brand of business warfare.
Click to expand...
I don't buy the victim complex from the second largest company in the world. They did it to themselves over the past 10+ years and now they want to hurt others for their failures.

To add, they're trying to disrupt an entire industry for a division that was supposedly a mere blip on their entire company earnings profile.

The epitome of pride and hubris.
 
Last edited:
Heisenberg007 said:
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.
Click to expand...
You just listed all the games they are working on, do you want Phil Spencer to go down there and whip them to work faster?

James Sawyer Ford said:
Huh? MS isn't afraid of spending money
Click to expand...
They never have been big on spending money on game development unless its Halo or Gears. All their single player stuff was mostly third party time paid exclusives. (Bioshock, Mass Effect, Alan Wake, Quantum Break)
 
Last edited:
Jigsaah said:
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?
Click to expand...
My ignorant opinion (on the subject, others can be debated) is that the fine is not that big of a deterrent. Looking at the history of fines the CMA has issued, I doubt the initial fine would be as much as the 3-billion-dollar breakup fee. I think the real issue for MS is what else they would impose on top of the fines. See Facebook/Giphy. I know there are people that believe MS can work their way around the CMA but I highly doubt it would be possible without severe repercussions.
 
DeepEnigma said:
I don't buy the victim complex from the second largest company in the world. They did it to themselves over the past 10+ years and now they want to hurt others for their failures.

To add, they're trying to disrupt an entire industry for a division that was supposedly a mere blip on their entire company earnings profile.

The epitome of pride and hubris.
Click to expand...
Yea they had 10 years and they failed. I'm not calling them a victim. That's just the reality. In present time, what can they do to stay in the game? What's done is done. They could start fresh and try to make it another 5-10 years building up studios. My inkling is that they don't have that kind of time for various reasons.

This is not to excuse the fact that they are doing it this way. It's simply to explain how it got to this point in a world where they tried and failed otherwise.
 
Jigsaah said:
Yea they had 10 years and they failed. I'm not calling them a victim. That's just the reality. In present time, what can they do to stay in the game? What's done is done. They could start fresh and try to make it another 5-10 years building up studios. My inkling is that they don't have that kind of time for various reasons.

This is not to excuse the fact that they are doing it this way. It's simply to explain how it got to this point in a world where they tried and failed otherwise.
Click to expand...
Failing up has been a cultural thing with them, yes.

ManaByte said:
That's about as likely to be paid as an individual being fined $2 trillion in a defamation case and paying that.
Click to expand...
Since you are using the individual comparison as a basis for your analogy. Let's play a little one right here as well.

CMAs ruling has made it so they would be operating illegally in the UK, even forbid them to invest into one another for at least 10 years.

Let's say you or I decided to open up a business in the UK, and we operated it illegally and refused to pay the fines... what would then happen to us and our business there?
 
Calverz said:
Oj6SLYi.jpg


SNAP! 😂

A arvfab likes to hide behind emojis. I'm certain he is an alt for one of the Sony bros here. I think he believes his emojis push some narrative lol
Click to expand...
Fab is the GOAT, I am a bit jealous though you guys get LOL emoji's while I always get Empathy emoji's. It's 100% an alt and I got a an idea who it might be, which makes it only funnier.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
‘Microsoft’ said they were streamlining 9000 people across XGS/ABK/ZM
Rumor 
19
457
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