Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
MasterCornholio
Member
So no celebrating the death of the competition until it actually happens?
Just messing with you.
Has there been a definite answer to when the earliest a new COD can go on Game Pass is?
I think the Series S is going to be a huge factor in all of this, I'm not a big fan of the S, as I have an X and a PS5, and it's undoubtably holding current gen games back.
But thinking of my inner circle of friends, think mainly FIFA/COD players,
A few of them still have PS4's, none of them have PS5's, one has a Series X.
A Series S is £205 in the UK right now, and I think a big marketing campaign over Xmas for a Series S around £199,99 with Game Pass for 3 months (ft new COD) would probably be get people switching to current gen. Especially if COD is £70
I think the Series S is going to be a huge factor in all of this, I'm not a big fan of the S, as I have an X and a PS5, and it's undoubtably holding current gen games back.
But thinking of my inner circle of friends, think mainly FIFA/COD players,
A few of them still have PS4's, none of them have PS5's, one has a Series X.
A Series S is £205 in the UK right now, and I think a big marketing campaign over Xmas for a Series S around £199,99 with Game Pass for 3 months (ft new COD) would probably be get people switching to current gen. Especially if COD is £70
feynoob
Banned
So no celebrating the death of the competition until it actually happens?
Just messing with you.
I want everything to burn down.
MasterCornholio
Member
I want everything to burn down.
Of you do it's why your back. But only if it goes one way.
feynoob
Banned
I only got a trial for view, will last untill today or tomorrow sadly.Of you do it's why your back. But only if it goes one way.
Either outcome will satisfy my craving and I will go back to hibernation.
MasterCornholio
Member
Deal ends in 2024, it doesn't include the 2024 game so that's the first unreleased one.
Don't know what the marketing terms for old games exactly are, might prevent the last 1-2 games from gamepass until the deal ends.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
The injunction was denied.A permanent hibernation?
MasterCornholio
Member
They tried to perm you?
feynoob
Banned
The denied my request.
I am now have to suffer the same fate as you guys.
MasterCornholio
Member
Didn't know you asked to be permed.
Regardless knowing you I don't see why your not happy for this. Seemed like you always wanted this to happen.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
If I don't have access to something, I usually forget about them.
Did the same thing with reddit. Aside of football news, I don't visit that sit that much. Same thing will happen to this website.
Went 2 weeks without access. If it weren't for the court news, I wouldn't have come back at all.
MasterCornholio
Member
But you only came back because the news was positive for you right? If it went the other way you wouldn't have come back at all.
At least that's what I'm understanding.
Still not sure if you asked to be permed though.
You think people who buy real estate for rent purposes do so with the expectation that they'll make back the money used to buy the house with 2-5 years of rent?
feynoob
Banned
The news meant that this deal will close and I don't have to hear about it again.
That is all that matters to me. I don't want to hear anything about this deal again whether it's blocked or allowed.
1 and half year is too long.
MasterCornholio
Member
Still a minor chance that it won't. But I'm assuming the CMA will accept the divestment from Microsoft but that might not happen until next month.
The next big merger will probably be the same. We might have to go through a year of this pretty soon.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
I won't be around for the next merger.
Hopefully it doesn't pull me back again like the recent news
MasterCornholio
Member
It will when you want to cheer lead again.
LOL
You will return just like the other times you did with your other accounts. You can't help yourself.
Last edited:
Ar¢tos
Member
Just put the thread on ignore.
Think positive, even if the deal goes through, nothing of value is going to be lost.
Heck, MS could even buy EA and Ubisoft and still nothing of value would be lost, each one only published 1 game worth playing in the last 10 years (Activision - King's Quest, EA - Kingdoms of Amalur, Ubisoft - Valiant Hearts).
Where's the logic in you assuming Activision's revenue suddenly vanishes as soon as they're acquired?
The Board approved the deal because it adds approx $8bn to Microsoft Gaming division annual revenue, and anywhere from $1.5 - $2.5 annual profit. It'll also give them a foothold in Mobile.
They didn't approve it to win NPD console sales threads.
feynoob
Banned
Times have changed. I lost the motivation to get involved.
Right now I am using incognito to log in to this website, instead of the old regular login which I used to use before.
Getting less involved with heated argument and just enjoying the vibe.
I don't want to waste my energy for something that is meaningless. Did that before and all it did was waste my time.
MasterCornholio
Member
Ar¢tos
Member
I think it's more the combination effect of less full price sales on Xbox because of GP, less full price sales on Playstation because some players will move to Xbox to rent it on GP and MS magic management touch that turns everything it touches into complicated development hells.
buenoblue
Member
Huh! Spend 70 billion to make a few billion revenue. Makes sense. Why not invest that 70 billion???
Unknown Soldier
Member
Alright friend, see you again tomorrow lol
draliko
Member
Because they're not spending them in deals, they're buying assets that generate money, they're not paying for having exclusive 3rd party content, they're buying revenue streams even from competitors platforms
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
They did, they get the revenue and they own Activision, Blizzard and King, and their IP, including one of the world's biggest IPs. Those assets don't become worthless as soon as they make the sale, or even if they choose to sell all or part of them later on.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
All they care is quick growth. That is their history.
Zheph
Member
They have been bleeding since a while between remote policy and scandals
'World Of Warcraft' and 'Call Of Duty' developers allege Activision Blizzard is losing "amazing talent" due to remote working policy
One employee describes a " terrible, shortsighted, self-destructive policy"
www.nme.com
buenoblue
Member
To my o
To my original question, do you think this puts added pressure from Microsoft big bosses for Xbox brand to do better sales and revenue. Genuine question
Last edited:
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
"And they'll let us join a union? But we have to make Redfall 2? Decisions, Decisions."
Last edited:
CuteFaceJay
Member
Can we now get Diablo 4 on Gamepass please? 
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
I don't think so, while this is part of the brand strategy, it isn't explicitly about making Xbox make more money - in the way that most would imagine what that would mean. Much as buying Minecraft isn't seen as part of Xbox revenue per se, neither will this be.
That's the new copium if the deal passes?
Last edited:
So basically you're forecasting increased GP revenue, and that's a bad thing?
The last line doesn't make sense, since a hands off approach to Activision should see them continue to making games the way they've made them over the years.
You're also likely to see more sales if GeForce Now picks up, plus support for the likes of Steam Deck and the next gen Nintendo Switch.
Ar¢tos
Member
Pure curiosity. If Bungie at the "small" value 3bn needed 1bn for talent retention, how much would a 69bn purchase need?That's the new copium if the deal passes?
I don't care for Activision (or most AAA studios) to need copium.
Indies >>>>> AAA games
Microsoft is allowing unions, Kotick is most likely leaving and the employees are very supportive of this deal.
I think you'll have to look elsewhere for more hopium.
Banjo64
cumsessed
Didn't they just lay off 10k staff, and instead of giving anyone a pay rise they said 'invest in our stock'?
I think the days of selling this as 'good for the everyday man' left the building a long time ago.
Ar¢tos
Member
Yes, if the increase in GP revenue is less than than profit lost from full price sales.
If a gamer rents COD for 3 months, that's 30€, its a loss of 50€ from the full price game (80€), unless they eliminate monthly subscriptions and make it annual only.
When Fable releases I only intend to subscribe to GP for the time needed for the game, not a full year.
ZehDon
Member
Best answer we have right now is 2025. Even if Microsoft worked to make it earlier, I'd imagine 2024 is the actual earliest we'd see a new Call of Duty launching Day 1 on Game Pass.
PaintTinJr
Member
Apologies if this info was already posted, but I keep seeing people hanging on words like "special reasons" and the short 6 week time for the probe by the CMA, when for the official extenson notices the links to the legislation clearly illustrate both extension length and "special reasons" are just technical aspects of the legislation, I linked and bolded all the relevant parts below.
What is possibly more interesting, is that the extension notice refers to "person" or "persons", and then states that "persons" sent written representations, meaning that more than Microsoft gave feedback, and the reason Microsoft was singled out, is because they are refering to part of the legislation for circumstances significantly changing between provisional order and final order deadline to remove a block.
Whereas if the FTC had supplied information concerning Booty's email, that would presumably be under 41A 3) and 4) - assuming that email hadn't been made available to the CMA and the waiver for the FTC to previously share it had been removed, but as the FTC entered it into evidence for the PI request in early June IIRC, and the date for the CMA cut off ended after that date - that would just be an extra thing to support a block so wouldn't get an "In particular," like Microsoft's representation did in the notice, would be my guess.
"The CMA invited written representations on the proposed Order from any
interested person or persons with a deadline of 17:00 UK time on 19 June
2023. The CMA received written representations on the proposed Order from
interested persons which are currently under consideration. In particular, the
CMA received a detailed and complex submission from Microsoft claiming that
there are material changes in circumstance and special reasons under section
41(3) of the Act which mean that the CMA should not adopt the proposed
Order.
5. The statutory period for the CMA either to accept final Undertakings or make a
final Order currently ends on 18 July 2023.
6. The CMA considers that there is insufficient time remaining in the statutory
period for full and proper consideration of Microsoft's submission on the
proposed Order. As such, the Inquiry Group considers that there are special
reasons to extend by six weeks under section 41A(2) of the Act the period for
the discharge of its duty under section 41(2) of the Act. The revised period will
therefore end on 29 August 2023. However, the Inquiry Group aims to
discharge its duty as soon as possible and in advance of this date."
www.legislation.gov.uk
41 Duty to remedy effects of completed or anticipated mergers
(1)Subsection (2) applies where a report of the [F1CMA] has been prepared and published under section 38 within the period permitted by section 39 and contains the decision that there is an anti-competitive outcome.
(2)The [F1CMA] shall take such action under section 82 or 84 as it considers to be reasonable and practicable—
(a)to remedy, mitigate or prevent the substantial lessening of competition concerned; and
(b)to remedy, mitigate or prevent any adverse effects which have resulted from, or may be expected to result from, the substantial lessening of competition.
(3)The decision of the [F1CMA] under subsection (2) shall be consistent with its decisions as included in its report by virtue of section 35(3) or (as the case may be) 36(2) unless there has been a material change of circumstances since the preparation of the report or the [F1CMA] otherwise has a special reason for deciding differently.
(4)In making a decision under subsection (2), the [F1CMA] shall, in particular, have regard to the need to achieve as comprehensive a solution as is reasonable and practicable to the substantial lessening of competition and any adverse effects resulting from it.
(5)In making a decision under subsection (2), the [F1CMA] may, in particular, have regard to the effect of any action on any relevant customer benefits in relation to the creation of the relevant merger situation concerned.
www.legislation.gov.uk
41ATime-limit for discharging duty under section 41
(1)The CMA shall discharge its duty under section 41(2) within the period of 12 weeks beginning with the date on which it publishes the report concerned under section 38.
(2)The CMA may extend, by no more than 6 weeks, the period within which its duty under section 41(2) shall be discharged if it considers that there are special reasons for doing so.
(3)The CMA may extend the period within which its duty under section 41(2) shall be discharged if it considers that a relevant person has failed (whether with or without reasonable excuse) to comply with any requirement of a notice under section 109 which is given in relation to the reference.
(4)In subsection (3), "relevant person" means—
(a)any person carrying on any of the enterprises concerned;
(b)any person who (whether alone or as a member of a group) owns or has control of any such person; or
(c)any officer, employee or agent of any person mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b).
(5)For the purposes of subsection (4), a person or group of persons able, directly or indirectly, to control or materially to influence the policy of a body of persons corporate or unincorporate, but without having a controlling interest in that body of persons, may be treated as having control of it.
(6)An extension under subsection (2) or (3) comes into force when published under section 107.
(7)An extension under subsection (3) continues in force until—
(a)the person concerned provides the information or documents to the satisfaction of the CMA or (as the case may be) appears as a witness in accordance with the requirements of the CMA; or
(b)the CMA publishes its decision to cancel the extension.]
What is possibly more interesting, is that the extension notice refers to "person" or "persons", and then states that "persons" sent written representations, meaning that more than Microsoft gave feedback, and the reason Microsoft was singled out, is because they are refering to part of the legislation for circumstances significantly changing between provisional order and final order deadline to remove a block.
Whereas if the FTC had supplied information concerning Booty's email, that would presumably be under 41A 3) and 4) - assuming that email hadn't been made available to the CMA and the waiver for the FTC to previously share it had been removed, but as the FTC entered it into evidence for the PI request in early June IIRC, and the date for the CMA cut off ended after that date - that would just be an extra thing to support a block so wouldn't get an "In particular," like Microsoft's representation did in the notice, would be my guess.
"The CMA invited written representations on the proposed Order from any
interested person or persons with a deadline of 17:00 UK time on 19 June
2023. The CMA received written representations on the proposed Order from
interested persons which are currently under consideration. In particular, the
CMA received a detailed and complex submission from Microsoft claiming that
there are material changes in circumstance and special reasons under section
41(3) of the Act which mean that the CMA should not adopt the proposed
Order.
5. The statutory period for the CMA either to accept final Undertakings or make a
final Order currently ends on 18 July 2023.
6. The CMA considers that there is insufficient time remaining in the statutory
period for full and proper consideration of Microsoft's submission on the
proposed Order. As such, the Inquiry Group considers that there are special
reasons to extend by six weeks under section 41A(2) of the Act the period for
the discharge of its duty under section 41(2) of the Act. The revised period will
therefore end on 29 August 2023. However, the Inquiry Group aims to
discharge its duty as soon as possible and in advance of this date."
Enterprise Act 2002
An Act to establish and provide for the functions of the Office of Fair Trading, the Competition Appeal Tribunal and the Competition Service; to make provision about mergers and market structures and conduct; to amend the constitution and functions of the Competition Commission; to create an...
41 Duty to remedy effects of completed or anticipated mergers
(1)Subsection (2) applies where a report of the [F1CMA] has been prepared and published under section 38 within the period permitted by section 39 and contains the decision that there is an anti-competitive outcome.
(2)The [F1CMA] shall take such action under section 82 or 84 as it considers to be reasonable and practicable—
(a)to remedy, mitigate or prevent the substantial lessening of competition concerned; and
(b)to remedy, mitigate or prevent any adverse effects which have resulted from, or may be expected to result from, the substantial lessening of competition.
(3)The decision of the [F1CMA] under subsection (2) shall be consistent with its decisions as included in its report by virtue of section 35(3) or (as the case may be) 36(2) unless there has been a material change of circumstances since the preparation of the report or the [F1CMA] otherwise has a special reason for deciding differently.
(4)In making a decision under subsection (2), the [F1CMA] shall, in particular, have regard to the need to achieve as comprehensive a solution as is reasonable and practicable to the substantial lessening of competition and any adverse effects resulting from it.
(5)In making a decision under subsection (2), the [F1CMA] may, in particular, have regard to the effect of any action on any relevant customer benefits in relation to the creation of the relevant merger situation concerned.
Enterprise Act 2002
An Act to establish and provide for the functions of the Office of Fair Trading, the Competition Appeal Tribunal and the Competition Service; to make provision about mergers and market structures and conduct; to amend the constitution and functions of the Competition Commission; to create an...
41ATime-limit for discharging duty under section 41
(1)The CMA shall discharge its duty under section 41(2) within the period of 12 weeks beginning with the date on which it publishes the report concerned under section 38.
(2)The CMA may extend, by no more than 6 weeks, the period within which its duty under section 41(2) shall be discharged if it considers that there are special reasons for doing so.
(3)The CMA may extend the period within which its duty under section 41(2) shall be discharged if it considers that a relevant person has failed (whether with or without reasonable excuse) to comply with any requirement of a notice under section 109 which is given in relation to the reference.
(4)In subsection (3), "relevant person" means—
(a)any person carrying on any of the enterprises concerned;
(b)any person who (whether alone or as a member of a group) owns or has control of any such person; or
(c)any officer, employee or agent of any person mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b).
(5)For the purposes of subsection (4), a person or group of persons able, directly or indirectly, to control or materially to influence the policy of a body of persons corporate or unincorporate, but without having a controlling interest in that body of persons, may be treated as having control of it.
(6)An extension under subsection (2) or (3) comes into force when published under section 107.
(7)An extension under subsection (3) continues in force until—
(a)the person concerned provides the information or documents to the satisfaction of the CMA or (as the case may be) appears as a witness in accordance with the requirements of the CMA; or
(b)the CMA publishes its decision to cancel the extension.]
Last edited:
Bungie
Member
That type of gamer is exactly who the Series S is for. It's smart in ways because it's gets these people into the Xbox Ecosystem & that's what Xbox needs considering they said they lost the most important generation to lose, which was all these players building their digital library.
Last edited:
SportsFan581
Member
$2b in pure profits yearly isn't that bad of a return on a $70b investment. Especially when the purchase also strengthens other aspects of the business. This was an investment.
HeisenbergFX4
Member
Back to the dark side?
No idea honestly
Well Mike does meet and greet a lot of those people including meeting up for dinners unless you knew this and were being sarcastic, its too early for me to know
Jigsaah
Gold Member
I dunno, Vader? Dark Side? It's just a guess.Back to the dark side?
No idea honestly
Well Mike does meet and greet a lot of those people including meeting up for dinners unless you knew this and were being sarcastic, its too early for me to know
I specifically remember sometime ago Ybarra was on Dealer's show...RDX Podcast I think. Tim was basically talking about his friendship with Ybarra. I almost wanna say he's got some sort of inside track with Phil too. It was years ago, but I remember thinking it was odd that he would meet up and go out to dinner with Microsoft execs. My memory is light on details.
That's the only way I am aware of this.
HoofHearted
Member
Aside from the CMA process details you've noted above…Apologies if this info was already posted, but I keep seeing people hanging on words like "special reasons" and the short 6 week time for the probe by the CMA, when for the official extenson notices the links to the legislation clearly illustrate both extension length and "special reasons" are just technical aspects of the legislation, I linked and bolded all the relevant parts below.
What is possibly more interesting, is that the extension notice refers to "person" or "persons", and then states that "persons" sent written representations, meaning that more than Microsoft gave feedback, and the reason Microsoft was singled out, is because they are refering to part of the legislation for circumstances significantly changing between provisional order and final order deadline to remove a block.
Whereas if the FTC had supplied information concerning Booty's email, that would presumably be under 41A 3) and 4) - assuming that email hadn't been made available to the CMA and the waiver for the FTC to previously share it had been removed, but as the FTC entered it into evidence for the PI request in early June IIRC, and the date for the CMA cut off ended after that date - that would just be an extra thing to support a block so wouldn't get an "In particular," like Microsoft's representation did in the notice, would be my guess.
"The CMA invited written representations on the proposed Order from any
interested person or persons with a deadline of 17:00 UK time on 19 June
2023. The CMA received written representations on the proposed Order from
interested persons which are currently under consideration. In particular, the
CMA received a detailed and complex submission from Microsoft claiming that
there are material changes in circumstance and special reasons under section
41(3) of the Act which mean that the CMA should not adopt the proposed
Order.
5. The statutory period for the CMA either to accept final Undertakings or make a
final Order currently ends on 18 July 2023.
6. The CMA considers that there is insufficient time remaining in the statutory
period for full and proper consideration of Microsoft's submission on the
proposed Order. As such, the Inquiry Group considers that there are special
reasons to extend by six weeks under section 41A(2) of the Act the period for
the discharge of its duty under section 41(2) of the Act. The revised period will
therefore end on 29 August 2023. However, the Inquiry Group aims to
discharge its duty as soon as possible and in advance of this date."
Enterprise Act 2002
An Act to establish and provide for the functions of the Office of Fair Trading, the Competition Appeal Tribunal and the Competition Service; to make provision about mergers and market structures and conduct; to amend the constitution and functions of the Competition Commission; to create an...
41 Duty to remedy effects of completed or anticipated mergers
(1)Subsection (2) applies where a report of the [F1CMA] has been prepared and published under section 38 within the period permitted by section 39 and contains the decision that there is an anti-competitive outcome.
(2)The [F1CMA] shall take such action under section 82 or 84 as it considers to be reasonable and practicable—
(a)to remedy, mitigate or prevent the substantial lessening of competition concerned; and
(b)to remedy, mitigate or prevent any adverse effects which have resulted from, or may be expected to result from, the substantial lessening of competition.
(3)The decision of the [F1CMA] under subsection (2) shall be consistent with its decisions as included in its report by virtue of section 35(3) or (as the case may be) 36(2) unless there has been a material change of circumstances since the preparation of the report or the [F1CMA] otherwise has a special reason for deciding differently.
(4)In making a decision under subsection (2), the [F1CMA] shall, in particular, have regard to the need to achieve as comprehensive a solution as is reasonable and practicable to the substantial lessening of competition and any adverse effects resulting from it.
(5)In making a decision under subsection (2), the [F1CMA] may, in particular, have regard to the effect of any action on any relevant customer benefits in relation to the creation of the relevant merger situation concerned.
Enterprise Act 2002
An Act to establish and provide for the functions of the Office of Fair Trading, the Competition Appeal Tribunal and the Competition Service; to make provision about mergers and market structures and conduct; to amend the constitution and functions of the Competition Commission; to create an...
41ATime-limit for discharging duty under section 41
(1)The CMA shall discharge its duty under section 41(2) within the period of 12 weeks beginning with the date on which it publishes the report concerned under section 38.
(2)The CMA may extend, by no more than 6 weeks, the period within which its duty under section 41(2) shall be discharged if it considers that there are special reasons for doing so.
(3)The CMA may extend the period within which its duty under section 41(2) shall be discharged if it considers that a relevant person has failed (whether with or without reasonable excuse) to comply with any requirement of a notice under section 109 which is given in relation to the reference.
(4)In subsection (3), "relevant person" means—
(a)any person carrying on any of the enterprises concerned;
(b)any person who (whether alone or as a member of a group) owns or has control of any such person; or
(c)any officer, employee or agent of any person mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b).
(5)For the purposes of subsection (4), a person or group of persons able, directly or indirectly, to control or materially to influence the policy of a body of persons corporate or unincorporate, but without having a controlling interest in that body of persons, may be treated as having control of it.
(6)An extension under subsection (2) or (3) comes into force when published under section 107.
(7)An extension under subsection (3) continues in force until—
(a)the person concerned provides the information or documents to the satisfaction of the CMA or (as the case may be) appears as a witness in accordance with the requirements of the CMA; or
(b)the CMA publishes its decision to cancel the extension.]
Given all that has happened over the past 7 days and the various updates / changes in direction, especially over the weekend… what do you think is going to happen today?
Think about what happened last week… including the optics here..
- Outside of CMA - FTC was the only remaining key block - CMA and FTC were aligned
- there was a possibility that the FTC PI could be approved, it wasn't.
- there was a possibility that the FTC appeal could be appealed, it wasn't
- the courts unilaterally shut down FTC - in fact they actually rebuked FTCs core arguments and unilaterally agreed with MS arguments that this deal would actually promote competition
- FTC was called to session and berated for their overall performance and decisions
- in short - it wasn't a very good week at all for the FTC
- CMA and MS subsequently agreed to pause / extend - and CAT setup the meeting for today
Up until Friday CMA had backing and alignment with FTC - that has all changed significantly.
Now - CMA really only has two paths:
- stick to their original ruling and block the deal… full stop
- or, pause and further reevaluate and revise their ruling with a way forward to allow the deal to progress and find some common ground to address the remaining concerns
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
No clue. They hid it well. If i'd known the meeting would have ended before it began.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked