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.
The reality is this.

Everyone who has been following the game industry for more than a year knows this merger will hurt competition and will likely hurt gamers in the long run as Microsoft will make most if not all ABK games exclusive.

People believe the anti-trust regulators don't know much about the game industry in order to pass this deal.

This is why these misleading statistics are being presented during these court cases, they're designed to fool the ignorant. lol

And if someone responds with, "This is good for gamers because Nintendo players and many could companies such as GeForce now has access to ABK and Xbox games."

You guys wouldn't blink an eye if these games were taken off other platforms after 10 years. lol
 
analog_future said:
Yeah but everyone here says Game Pass LOSES money.

Who to trust!?
Click to expand...
The article didn't mention anything about Gamepass making money, but increasing console sales due to the game being on gamepass.

You really think those games being on gamepass can make up for that $1.4b ($70 x 20m copies) loss?
 
HeisenbergFX4 said:
Just my 2 cents if the FTC appeal gets thrown out and the only thing hanging over them is the CMA the deal closes this weekend and something gets worked out
Click to expand...
That does seem a bit risky for MS, me not having all the information. Is ABK unwilling to extend the current terms I wonder.
 
ChiefDada said:
You are absolutely right, it's a poorly written regulation that can only lead to confusion. But it's what the FTC, Microsoft, and the District Court has to work with.



So now FTC's reasoning for appeal becomes more clear.

Under Judge's interpretation: Reasonable probability (>50%) that it will (100%) results in overall probability of >50%; greater than 50%

Reasonable probabiliity (>50%) that it might/may be/ likely (>50%) results in overall probability of >25%; as low as (>25%).
Click to expand...
And between Corely getting the market definition wrong, because Switch doesn't run Streaming apps or play DVD/Blu-ray which are heavily used on the actual competing platforms - +30% hours of console time from previous gen IIRC - and her already saying the deal is bad for Sony, she could even have passed the higher test - given that PlayStation is first and Xbox 2nd in the US.
 
PaintTinJr said:
Well I think your inside person isn't getting real info from the top, if that is the idea to close over the CMA as a solution.

If that is what the Brads and Phils are saying to him then he just won't be in the inner circle that will have agreed to divest Activision at the last minute - if a superior solution isn't found.

Microsoft shareholders could hold Microsoft's board accountable for acting illegally - if they close over the CMA with their(shareholders') company and result in people actually going to jail. It has to be a bluff, or the CMA are lying about the deal being blocked.
Click to expand...

Wow you are really going hard trying to wish the divesture of Activison into existence..? I just dont think this going to happen at all. Microsoft want the whole pie at this price, not just a few pieces.
 
It has a Docket number
06akHYc.png
 
HeisenbergFX4 said:
Just my 2 cents if the FTC appeal gets thrown out and the only thing hanging over them is the CMA the deal closes this weekend and something gets worked out
Click to expand...
I'm expecting the same now. This is how I envision CMA resolving if FTC is denied their stay on appeal:

1) MS / AB close.
2) MS submits a new proposal consistent with some minor last minute, and virtually meaningless change in the MS / AB deal, made shortly before closing.
3) CMA fines MS for closing over objection. Some amount that sounds like a lot, maybe 5 or 10 million, but is pennies' to MS.
4) CMA approves the new deal after the closing.
5) MS pays the fines.
6) CMA takes victory lap for standing tough with fines. MS owns AB.

Timing of everything the last few months is too suspect. I think there is a handshake deal and its down to optics for CMA people. Hope I'm too cynical, but can't deny money talks.
 
PaintTinJr said:
And between Corely getting the market definition wrong, because Switch doesn't run Streaming apps or play DVD/Blu-ray which are heavily used on the actual competing platforms - +30% hours of console time from previous gen IIRC - and her already saying the deal is bad for Sony, she could even have passed the higher test - given that PlayStation is first and Xbox 2nd in the US.
Click to expand...

Her ruling was such a jumbled mess in key areas, namely console market competition. I said from the start I have no problem with her ruling against FTC, mainly because of the FTC's shaky performance. But her reasoning was so bad I could barely believe it.
 
What I don't understand is why everyone, the judge included, is acting like the PI is the last leg of the case. Everyone is saying that the FTC lost, but the FTC still hasn't gone to court over the actual acquisition issue. The PI was just to say, "Hey, can you tell Microsoft they're not allowed to close before we have our day in court?" This isn't to say that I think the FTC will win in court. I just don't understand why losing the PI is the nail in the coffin. Winning it would have been the nail in the coffin, but losing it would just mean no change in the status of the acquisition.
 
Jumeira said:
Platitudes. They've got to save face and are saying that due to the rest of the battles brewing beyond ABK merger.

MS are closing by Monday and have got the ok from CMA to remove their worldwide block. CMA will release a statement saying something to that effect that UK is still under review. CMA have retreated from their position multiple times that has shocked M&A lawyers in UK, they know they have no argument and they have no one backing their concerns.

Deal is done.
Click to expand...
The CMA's block is still in place.
The previous remedies have still been rejected.

All the CMA have said is that they would consider a restructure and that would come with another investigation. By restructure that likely means significant divestiture.
By the deal agreed between both parties, Microsoft can't close without CMA approval.
 
NickFire said:
I'm expecting the same now. This is how I envision CMA resolving if FTC is denied their stay on appeal:

1) MS / AB close.
2) MS submits a new proposal consistent with some minor last minute, and virtually meaningless change in the MS / AB deal, made shortly before closing.
3) CMA fines MS for closing over objection. Some amount that sounds like a lot, maybe 5 or 10 million, but is pennies' to MS.
4) CMA approves the new deal after the closing.
5) MS pays the fines.
6) CMA takes victory lap for standing tough with fines. MS owns AB.

Timing of everything the last few months is too suspect. I think there is a handshake deal and its down to optics for CMA people. Hope I'm too cynical, but can't deny money talks.
Click to expand...
Lol how is that a victory lap for the CMA?

MS just proved any big tech company can find away around the CMA, basically made CMAs stance on preferring structural remedies worthless for companies that can easily pay 10s of millions in fines.
 
Last edited:
If this closes, and MS don't make a 60fps Kart racer with, Crash, Banjo, Chief, WoW, Diablo, Starfield, COD, Gears of War, Overwatch, THPS, (and the rest) characters, then I'll actually want BLOOD
 
NickFire said:
I'm expecting the same now. This is how I envision CMA resolving if FTC is denied their stay on appeal:

1) MS / AB close.
2) MS submits a new proposal consistent with some minor last minute, and virtually meaningless change in the MS / AB deal, made shortly before closing.
3) CMA fines MS for closing over objection. Some amount that sounds like a lot, maybe 5 or 10 million, but is pennies' to MS.
4) CMA approves the new deal after the closing.
5) MS pays the fines.
6) CMA takes victory lap for standing tough with fines. MS owns AB.

Timing of everything the last few months is too suspect. I think there is a handshake deal and its down to optics for CMA people. Hope I'm too cynical, but can't deny money talks.
Click to expand...

I could see that happening.

adamsapple said:




Let's hope this doesn't backfire on Jimmy.
Click to expand...


This is old news. And how is it going to backfire when Phil Spencer swore under oath COD would be on PS5 and PS6?
 
Last edited:
Topher said:
I could see that happening.



This is old news. And how is it going to backfire when Phil Spencer swore under oath COD would be on PS5 and PS6?
Click to expand...

The co-marketing part. They would have pretty much exclusive rights to market the game at their press events, tv adverts etc beyond 2024 but Jim declined.
 
Last edited:
adamsapple said:




Let's hope this doesn't backfire on Jimmy.
Click to expand...

So one of my roles last few years down here in Jupiter FL has been helping the newest young players try to get acclimated into being a professional athlete and to steal a famous line from Herm Edwards I always tell kids "Don't press send"

Once you put it in a text or email and hit that send button its out there forever
 
Punished Miku said:
Wouldn't surprise me at all to be up to 500 million - 1 billion, and to still be the rational play for everyone involved.
Click to expand...
That would only be what, somewhere between .5 and 1.5% of the total transaction price?

Yeah, I could see MS eating that with an ear to ear grin while doing so.

jm89 said:
Lol how is that a victory lap for the CMA?

MS just proved any big tech company can find away around the CMA, basically made CMAs stance on preferring structural remedies worthless for companies that can easily pay 10s of millions in fines.
Click to expand...

I hope I am completely off base and the CMA is too principled for my prediction. But I think you are missing something. Specifically, we are talking about a video game transaction. IMO, if the general public reads that CMA made MS pay a fine for buying a video game company before they gave green light, the VAST majority of people will say the CMA won.
 
IFireflyl said:
What I don't understand is why everyone, the judge included, is acting like the PI is the last leg of the case. Everyone is saying that the FTC lost, but the FTC still hasn't gone to court over the actual acquisition issue. The PI was just to say, "Hey, can you tell Microsoft they're not allowed to close before we have our day in court?" This isn't to say that I think the FTC will win in court. I just don't understand why losing the PI is the nail in the coffin. Winning it would have been the nail in the coffin, but losing it would just mean no change in the status of the acquisition.
Click to expand...
Because Microsoft is a 2.6 trillion dollar corporation. One of the wealthiest in human existence. They are using their money, power and influence to get whatever they want. They do not want to be stopped, delayed or challenged in the court of law. They're using their influence to get this judge to get them on their way to the acquisition without wasting anymore time because they're above the law and above other companies in this country. It's just that simple. That's the reason the FTC is trying to clamp down on these god-tier corporations that their progenitors let run amok and allow to become the monster it is today.
 
Ginzeen said:
CMA didn't have to pause the CAT. That move is highly unusual, no matter how you slice it. The time for talking was over. Deal was blocked.
Click to expand...
They've actually bought themselves time. They wanted the appeal further away to give it due attention.
Now that'll be the case. The deal is blocked, none of the previous remedies will be agreeable.

So one of two things is how it'll play out with the CMA

1. Microsoft make a very serious divestment. Microsoft don't want to do this.
2. Nothing can be agreed and we return to an appeal further down the line like the CMA wanted in the first place.

In both scenarios Microsoft are not in a position they want to be in and the CMA hold all the cards.
 
NickFire said:
I hope I am completely off base and the CMA is too principled for my prediction. But I think you are missing something. Specifically, we are talking about a video game transaction. IMO, if the general public reads that CMA made MS pay a fine for buying a video game company before they gave green light, the VAST majority of people will say the CMA won.
Click to expand...
Yeah they would probably just word the press release in such a way that it says "CMA fines Microsoft for violating bla bla bla" without going into specifics. People definitely like when regulators fine "big bad tech" (which basically includes Apple, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, etc.)
 
splattered said:
Wow you are really going hard trying to wish the divesture of Activison into existence..? I just dont think this going to happen at all. Microsoft want the whole pie at this price, not just a few pieces.
Click to expand...
But the problem with the narrative that the CMA will cave is that this isn't more than just one merger for them. They will still have a market's worth of work to do after this merger, and unless they follow the law in this merger, their position would be completely compromised. In fact, they would likely face intervention from the CAT for failing to justifiably unravel their 500 page block, and would have the CAT block the deal for them.

AFAIK the CMA also has lower regulators like Ofcom and Ofwat, OfGem report to them, as the higher authority, and with Ofcom already raising the issue of an impending SLC issue in Cloud service sector, how does the CMA have any position to regulate the regulators issues after an unsubstantiated climb down without further public consultation to hold the climb down to account?

So then you have a choice of Microsoft losing major money beyond the breakup fee from the deal being blocked, or making a fantastic return and have King mobile to lord over Apple and Google by letting Activision go. Or break the UK law and seeing the Kraken regulator that really resides in the island of Great Britain. We've already seen glimpses of cousins at HMRC send house hold legend Boris Becker to jail for tax evasion in recent times, and completely ruining Wimbledon's commentary.
 
NickFire said:
I hope I am completely off base and the CMA is too principled for my prediction. But I think you are missing something. Specifically, we are talking about a video game transaction. IMO, if the general public reads that CMA made MS pay a fine for buying a video game company before they gave green light, the VAST majority of people will say the CMA won.
Click to expand...
Who gives a shit on what the vast majority of people think lol. Most people don't even know the CMA exists.

What matters is what those big companies like MS will be seeing unfold. They will see CMA folded on their strict remedies/block by them just closing over them and taking pocket change fines.

That temporary victory lap will mean nothing for the long run.
 
Last edited:
jm89 said:
Who gives a shit on what the vast majority of people think lol. Most people don't even know the CMA exists.

What matters is what those big companies like MS will be seeing unfold. They will see CMA folded on their strict remedies/block by them just closing over them and taking pocket change fines.

That temporary victory lap will mean nothing for the long run.
Click to expand...

Hence the last minute posturing/theatre attempting to make it look like they didn't just fold. I mean hell they could have come to an agreement the day after their original ruling for all we know? What is being said publicly versus what goes on behind closed doors we just aren't privy to.
 
splattered said:
Hence the last minute posturing/theatre attempting to make it look like they didn't just fold. I mean hell they could have come to an agreement the day after their original ruling for all we know? What is being said publicly versus what goes on behind closed doors we just aren't privy to.
Click to expand...
Their work has to meet the CAT standards, and needs to be publicly available for transparency and being validated by the public and markets their work impacts.

None of those things happen in a climb down like you are suggesting. The CMA would be breaking the law - possibly bordering on treason - and the CAT would also be in breach of the law by letting them do it now the report is published.
 
Last edited:
James Sawyer Ford said:
How would it backfire?

Why would Sony want to continue co marketing CoD on PlayStation when it's now owned by Microsoft?

Best thing for Sony to do is to spend those marketing dollars elsewhere
Click to expand...

If only battlefield didn't shit the bed, well they got the FIFA (eafc) marketing deal still at least I guess.
 
jm89 said:
Who gives a shit on what the vast majority of people think lol. Most people don't even know the CMA exists.

What matters is what those big companies like MS will be seeing unfold. They will see CMA folded on their strict remedies/block by them just closing over them and taking pocket change fines.

That temporary victory lap will mean nothing for the long run.
Click to expand...
We are on the exact same page in all respects but one.

Where we differ is our faith in the people who make / enforce policy. In my view, the people at the top generally care more about perception than principles. I genuinely hope to be proven wrong in this particular instance. I doubt anyone who regularly engages with me would question that. My hopes and my expectations simply vary on this.
 
Pipoqueiro said:
CMA = Only true antitrust regulator in world?

F03SY4hX0AArQ_9
Click to expand...
I don't know what this image is supposed to show as far as antitrust goes? Unless there is some cartel situation where somehow Google, Amazon and Microsoft are working together, that seems like a fairly healthy and competitive market all things considered.
 
IFireflyl said:
What I don't understand is why everyone, the judge included, is acting like the PI is the last leg of the case. Everyone is saying that the FTC lost, but the FTC still hasn't gone to court over the actual acquisition issue. The PI was just to say, "Hey, can you tell Microsoft they're not allowed to close before we have our day in court?" This isn't to say that I think the FTC will win in court. I just don't understand why losing the PI is the nail in the coffin. Winning it would have been the nail in the coffin, but losing it would just mean no change in the status of the acquisition.
Click to expand...
If I understand correctly, once the deal has actually closed, the threshold that the FTC needs to demonstrate to force divesture is substantive harm. That's nearly an insurmountable hurdle, especially when the scrutinised entity is not the market leader.

And even if harm was demonstrated, MS would likely be looking at fines rather than divesture.

The CMA was always potentially more effective in that regard - as their threshold (potential harm vs actual harm ) gave them more power.
 
Last edited:
James Sawyer Ford said:
How would it backfire?

Why would Sony want to continue co marketing CoD on PlayStation when it's now owned by Microsoft?

Best thing for Sony to do is to spend those marketing dollars elsewhere
Click to expand...
Man this deal is not about now. It is about the future. This gen for Sony probably will be a Pyrrhic victory.

Whats is there chances on the long term without cod? When MS get great sub numbers on gamepass people will no go back to the model of buying games.

Sony sp games are great but are 1-2 per year. How they can compete with 16 studios?

Ms is not stopping there. They will target more pubs. If they take cdpr they will have almost all relevant wrpgs studios.

Sony need a partner. The investments they will need to do to compete on the long term are really BIG. They have 3.6bi left to spend on investments this year. MS can outbid they in any offer.

I will repeat this deal is not about 2023, 2024, 2025 or this gen. It is about the future. It is a deal to shake markets and make substantial number of players to exchange platform in a digital library era.

Later when u have the users on your platform and consolidate studios and pubs then enforce gamepass and even cloud when infrastructure is ready in enough countries.
 
NickFire said:
We are on the exact same page in all respects but one.

Where we differ is our faith in the people who make / enforce policy. In my view, the people at the top generally care more about perception than principles. I genuinely hope to be proven wrong in this particular instance. I doubt anyone who regularly engages with me would question that. My hopes and my expectations simply vary on this.
Click to expand...
Perception is insignificant when your power as a regulator is made worthless.
 
Sanepar said:
Man this deal is not about now. It is about the future. This gen for Sony probably will be a Pyrrhic victory.

Whats is there chances on the long term without cod?
Click to expand...

They are still getting CoD, they just aren't going to pay for the marketing.

No use throwing good money at bad. There's no future in which it makes sense to invest in your competitor and become even more dependent on CoD

Best thing for Sony to do is invest heavily into Bungie and other studios to develop their own live service killer so they don't need CoD as much, and that's what they are doing
 
Sanepar said:
I will repeat this deal is not about 2023, 2024, 2025 or this gen. It is about the future. It is a deal to shake markets and make substantial number of players to exchange platform in a digital library era.
Click to expand...

It is for Microsoft's future

But Microsoft's past shows that this acquisition is on shaky ground. Activision studios are already struggling, and add a Microsoft management layer on top of that, and who knows how relevant they will continue to be over the long term.

IPs can fail - just look at Halo.
 
James Sawyer Ford said:
It is for Microsoft's future

But Microsoft's past shows that this acquisition is on shaky ground. Activision studios are already struggling, and add a Microsoft management layer on top of that, and who knows how relevant they will continue to be over the long term.

IPs can fail - just look at Halo.
Click to expand...

MS should def be more hands on and possibly adventurous, maybe take sledgehammer off of cod combine them with Raven see what they can do with halo etc...
 
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
Revolutionary replied
Top Bottom