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.
If call of duty is indeed going to switch, my K/D ratio will definitely go way up. Free frag for everyone not playing on switch.
 
image.png
 
adamsapple said:
I don't know where these signs are, Kotick's direct quote is

""I think we would consider it once we had the specs but we don't have any at present"".

'would consider' is hardly a smoking gun.




Well, I can't vouch for what every user said but my post history is pretty transparent. I've also maintained that when they (MS) say bringing the games to Nintendo hardware, it likely means the next one. Not the current one.
Click to expand...

Q Before Switch was coming to market, did you consider releasing Call of Duty on Switch?

Yes

Q Why didn't you?

I made a bad judgement. When I saw a prototype of the Switch, it was different...I thought Wii was the most extraordinary video game system ever created. When I saw Switch prototypes, I was concerned...they were trying to accomplish a lot. I didn't think it was going to be successful.
Click to expand...


Q Even without microsoft buying activision, it's likely that ATVI would make COD available on future Nintendo hardware?

I think it's possible. We'd consider the specs.

Q Repeat question

Like I said, once we have the detailed specifications. We missed out on this past generation on Switch, I would like to think we'd be able to do that, but we'd have to wait for specs. We don't have any present plans to do so.
Click to expand...


- His decision not to bring Call of Duty to Switch was due to bad judgment on the specs and how well it would perform on the market. He admitted to being wrong on both points.

Internal documents from Bobby
Given closer alignment of Gen8 platforms and our previous offerings on PS4 Xbox One, it's reasonable to assume we can make something compelling for NG switch as well
Click to expand...

Doesn't reflect his testimony as he's more confident they can do something with the next Switch console.
 
Varteras said:
The FTC set the administrative court date many months ago. The ball was then in MS's court to decide how to proceed. EVERYONE was waiting on the CMA decision. When they said no, the FTC likely thought that was either the end of it, or that the deadline would be extended because of how long it takes to argue with the CMA. MS, knowing both situations, did not extend. The FTC started hearing that MS may just close. They were likely caught off guard with the situation or Lina Khan wanted to use this somehow, so they jumped. No matter how you try to slice it, MS knew months ago what the situation was and either wouldn't or couldn't extend.

The strength of the FTC case is irrelevant to the point. Blaming the FTC for the timeline of events is absurd.
Click to expand...
My problem and point is why is everyone waiting on the CMA, specifically the FTC?

They already knew they were suing. Why not just proceed with that immediately?
 
The FTCs point about the judges standard is pretty big and might have merit in an appeal.

Explains why their court case was so trash. They just wanted to delay which is obvious so when the lawyers, numbers, and experts started coming out they were caught in a case where they were unprepared and put up an embarrassing performance.

If the standard is much lower and they just need enough to delay/punt then their court performance doesn't look so bad cause they never planned on winning.

Let's see if the appellate judges agree to give them more time in a lost case. 🤔 I mean they might be legally entitled to it.
 
zapper said:
so what's the point of doing all this if they'll never make it in time? lol
Click to expand...
havoc00 said:
And then what more waiting? Isnt there a deadline for a reason lol
Click to expand...
This deadline was known and the FTC decided to go the route they did and they dropped their shot

And no neither Court HAS to reply by said deadline though its likely the Appeals Court will but Judge Corley does not even have to answer hers
 
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo said:
so is the appeal granted ot dismissed? i have seen people saying Khan is being destroyed today
Click to expand...
Wasn't related, but she absolutely did not get destroyed - she was very good in general. There wasn't a lot on Microsoft tbh, and if I was a staff member at the FTC I'd be a little pissed at her that when she was pressed she distanced herself personally a bit (she said they were staff decisions to file for the injunction and then appeal the decision, not her own - which she did get called out for by one of the representatives) but on the whole she's very eloquent, very smart and doesn't take the typical congressional bait.
 
Jigsaah said:
My problem and point is why is everyone waiting on the CMA, specifically the FTC?

They already knew they were suing. Why not just proceed with that immediately?
Click to expand...

Preliminary injunctions are only sought when the FTC suspects that the company will close the deal ahead of the normal proceedings. At the time, thanks largely to the CMA saying no, the FTC would have reasonably assumed that a PI was unnecessary because either the deal would just end or MS would extend the deadline.
 
rofif said:
Then there is likes of EA which tries to destroy even steam version of their games.
Mass Effect 2 now has new [edition] which now requires launcher with their account.
Gta 4 now requires rockstar launcher and it didn't for the first year I owned it.... oh and they removed a bunch of music few years ago.

Digital sucks = therefore I am all against m$ getting any upperhand. Look at ff16? full real game on a disc. No need to even patch it.
Click to expand...
Well to be fair - if MS buys Activision, R* and EA will be off the market shortly after anyway.
Of course MS's take on digital storefronts is at least as bad as any of them - but then we have Epic around to make everyone else look good in comparison.

Anyway what was I saying again - yea Digital does have its problems - but it sucks dramatically worse when you remove consoles from the equation - so we have a great future all around to look forward to.
 
kvltus lvlzvs said:
I agree with your sentiment. These companies have tons of money to blow bow but this will not last forever. Disney plus, for example, bleeds a billion every quarter and Disney only has 10b cash on hand. Stadia. Luna. Netflix has never been profitable and only exists because of stonk hype and ever decreasing interest rates on loans.

The streaming rent everything model isn't working so well, but companies are still fighting for dominance within the sphere.
Click to expand...

Thank god there's more people on GAF that realize this "Everything lives on a subscription service" is a fraud and ends up harming the creative process and business it's implemented in. It fundamentally goes against the normal Business -> Consumer payment model.

These corps haven't found a way to maintain both (Subscription service and Pay to own model) at the same time. Only gaming is doing it today, but Microsoft is here to ruin that as we speak.
 
Varteras said:
Preliminary injunctions are only sought when the FTC suspects that the company will close the deal ahead of the normal proceedings. At the time, thanks largely to the CMA saying no, the FTC would have reasonably assumed that a PI was unnecessary because either the deal would just end or MS would extend the deadline.
Click to expand...
That does not answer my question. They already knew they were going to sue. If they went went to court prior to Microsoft's threat to close there would be a full trial, not a hearing for a PI. Why didn't they just go for the full trial ahead of time?

Hindsight notwithstanding, let's say we didn't know the apparent strength of the case (or lack thereof). If they were confident in suing in the first place, why not just proceed?

This feels like a self inflicted injury for the FTC.
 
HeisenbergFX4 said:
I think it closes instantly IF the Courts miss this midnight deadline, they are not near as concerned about the CMA as they are this FTC battle
Click to expand...
I mean, they agreed to pause CAT litigation and submit a new structured deal to the CMA.

Would be a scorched earth nuclear option to close on the original.
 
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4 said:
I think it closes instantly IF the Courts miss this midnight deadline, they are not near as concerned about the CMA as they are this FTC battle
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem smart to me. What does MS know that we don't? How can they feel it's okay to step all over the UK's regulatory body like that with little to no push back?
 
ckaneo said:
The FTCs point about the judges standard is pretty big and might have merit in an appeal.

Explains why their court case was so trash. They just wanted to delay which is obvious so when the lawyers, numbers, and experts started coming out they were caught in a case where they were unprepared and put up an embarrassing performance.

If the standard is much lower and they just need enough to delay/punt then their court performance doesn't look so bad cause they never planned on winning.

Let's see if the appellate judges agree to give them more time in a lost case. 🤔 I mean they might be legally entitled to it.
Click to expand...

LOL...wut?

Seriously--think about this. The FTC isn't going to put any sort of trash effort into any case because it will potentially bite them in the ass for future cases (ahem...Stare Decisis). To think they would purposely tank a case to delay and lose significantly, and then purposely tank to appeal... :messenger_grinning_sweat:
 
mckmas8808 said:
That doesn't seem smart to me. What does MS know that we don't? How can they feel it's okay to step all over the UK's regulatory body like that with little to no push back?
Click to expand...
I dunno, maybe MS knows Acti has said no to an extension and be demanding their 3 Billion, can't really answer that honestly I just dont know

I just feel the CMA is not going to stop it if the FTC loses again

Possibly behind closed doors CMA/MS has something laid out

I just dont know but I would bet large sums of money MS closes if the Appeals Court says no to the FTC
 
Topher said:
No they are not. CMA order still stands.
Click to expand...
i said in the US they would be clear to close. now whether they close the merger on the 17th, nobody knows for certain.
and if the CMA block was an absolute roadblock to close, the FTC would have had no reason to file a PI request.
 
Jigsaah said:
That does not answer my question. They already knew they were going to sue. If they went went to court prior to Microsoft's threat to close there would be a full trial, not a hearing for a PI. Why didn't they just go for the full trial ahead of time?

Hindsight notwithstanding, let's say we didn't know the apparent strength of the case (or lack thereof). If they were confident in suing in the first place, why not just proceed?

This feels like a self inflicted injury for the FTC.
Click to expand...

The administrative court date was set for August. They had, in fact, already sued. The FTC was already going through their normal motions. There was no reason for them to jump into a PI right off the bat. They had already established what you are accusing them of not. A hearing on the deal.

They likely considered a PI as a possibility in the event the CMA allowed the deal and if there was no indication that MS was going to extend the deadline for the hearing with the FTC. As the court date was set outside the deadline. But there was no reason to move on it just then. When the CMA said no, and considering the history of the CMA on denying acquisitions, the FTC, as I said, had a reasonable assumption that it was either the end of the deal or that MS would extend just to battle the CMA alone.

Something spooked the FTC into a PI. That, or, my tinfoil theory is that Khan was worried about losing a chance at a big case and either winning it or using the loss to fuel her political ideals for reforms.

The point is, the PI looked entirely unnecessary. Until, suddenly and for reasons we may not understand for a while yet, they deemed it was.
 
HeisenbergFX4 said:
I dunno, maybe MS knows Acti has said no to an extension and be demanding their 3 Billion, can't really answer that honestly I just dont know

I just feel the CMA is not going to stop it if the FTC loses again

Possibly behind closed doors CMA/MS has something laid out

I just dont know but I would bet large sums of money MS closes if the Appeals Court says no to the FTC
Click to expand...
How much you wanna bet?

I say M$ are the CMA's bitch, and I'm willing to put £2.80 on the line.
 
M16 said:
i said in the US they would be clear to close. now whether they close the merger on the 17th, nobody knows for certain.
and if the CMA block was an absolute roadblock to close, the FTC would have had no reason to file a PI request.
Click to expand...
FTC can't be looking like it depends on CMA, they are acting on their own as it should be as an American standard. Not gonna follow UK
 
VectorVictor said:
LOL...wut?

Seriously--think about this. The FTC isn't going to put any sort of trash effort into any case because it will potentially bite them in the ass for future cases (ahem...Stare Decisis). To think they would purposely tank a case to delay and lose significantly, and then purposely tank to appeal... :messenger_grinning_sweat:
Click to expand...
The goal is to delay and stop the merger.

The bar for that with a naturally slow court system is low enough to try and meet for them
 
Last edited:
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