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.
PaintTinJr said:
But from his words you could tell he was very sceptical that they could produce what he wanted, especially in Sony's change of heart to sign a deal. He is open minded but legally this decision could completely break the strength of all CMA draft decisions, costing the UK tax payer lots of money in litigation and weakening the CMA/CAT authority.

The more he thinks about this, and remembers he had to school both Microsoft and the CMA on the law in regards of the CMA duty to the public interest and their own determination of the deal being materially different/Special reason to grant a further look at remedies, fully without input from Microsoft, yet they couldn't provide evidence of that, and couldn't even confirm what the restructure was. So he is well aware they are now backfilling evidence.
Click to expand...
You said the same thing about CMA, and look what they did.
I suggest you don't put too much faith on these guys.
yxg_te.gif
 
Last edited:
laynelane said:
I sincerely hope you are simply making an unfunny joke with this line.
Click to expand...
As bad as it sounds, I wouldn't say its far from what Kotick might have done.
Sacrificing the moral decency of sacking people acting like total assholes on the altar of profit.

Imagine this (not saying this is the case by any means but a "thought experiment" as they say nowadays):
-Some of the core guys with deep (unique, as in no one else fucking remotely has) knowledge on how the engines ABK uses work and integral to the fundamentals of the whole development pipeline does this kind of shit. What can you do? Sack him? Let him do his thing because its really really really important for the business?

Expand that to other parts of the ABK business and I can see it being sort of a thing. There might be people there that are pretty much irreplaceable and they know it.
 
Last edited:
Punished Miku said:
It was obvious that was your intent, as I said.
Click to expand...
right-dr-evil.gif


Saying the CMA concerns were likely consumers losing cloud and MGS is moral posturing now.

Can't say that it's surprising you'd call that of all things "moral posturing" and not the countless cases of moral posturing throughout this whole thing by said corporate bootlickers who you feel were slighted in a throwaway comment. The whole "more games for 150M more gamers" and "exclusive deals are anticonsumer" brigade.
 
Last edited:
PaintTinJr said:
But from his words you could tell he was very sceptical that they could produce what he wanted, especially in Sony's change of heart to sign a deal. He is open minded but legally this decision could completely break the strength of all CMA draft decisions, costing the UK tax payer lots of money in litigation and weakening the CMA/CAT authority.

The more he thinks about this, and remembers he had to school both Microsoft and the CMA on the law in regards of the CMA duty to the public interest and their own determination of the deal being materially different/Special reason to grant a further look at remedies, fully without input from Microsoft, yet they couldn't provide evidence of that, and couldn't even confirm what the restructure was. So he is well aware they are now backfilling evidence.
Click to expand...

That's not the read I got at all. He was simply laying out the forms of evidence they would need. Regarding the restructuring of the merger, the CMA and MSFT/ABK were not able to speak about that in public (remember the hearing was live-streamed) as it would prejudice the parties involved who are presumably bidding for the (rumored) licensing rights, but both parties made it absolutely clear that they all considered the remedy being evaluated would be more than enough to be suitable to solve the proposed SLC. Regarding the production of evidence (witness statements and official documents) the Judge laid out exactly what he would need and, multiple times, opined that these evidentiary elements shouldn't be difficult to get in place. The CMA/MSFT just needed to get them submitted officially.
 
PaintTinJr said:
But from his words you could tell he was very sceptical that they could produce what he wanted, especially in Sony's change of heart to sign a deal. He is open minded but legally this decision could completely break the strength of all CMA draft decisions, costing the UK tax payer lots of money in litigation and weakening the CMA/CAT authority.

The more he thinks about this, and remembers he had to school both Microsoft and the CMA on the law in regards of the CMA duty to the public interest and their own determination of the deal being materially different/Special reason to grant a further look at remedies, fully without input from Microsoft, yet they couldn't provide evidence of that, and couldn't even confirm what the restructure was. So he is well aware they are now backfilling evidence.
Click to expand...
I'm really not following here; Smith literally said he would be surprised if they could not produce what he needs to be satisfied, laid it all out to them, and even gave them more time than asked for. I think you're characterizing Smith as a lot more skeptical/hostile than he really is; if he was of the same mind as you, he wouldn't have even given the conditional approval of the adjournment, he would've just scheduled another hearing like he said he would to hear evidence.
 
Last edited:
MarkMe2525 said:
We are lucky to have you living in this guy's head so that we may know what he is thinking.
Click to expand...
The part that is important is not in his head, but when everyone is dunking on CMA decisions at the 11th hour referencing this decision and this judge's name in the process, because it is effectively a silver bullet if anyone can just call material difference/special reasons to the CMA, and then they ignore their duty to test against that criteria and just take a company like Microsoft's word for it.

Sorry it doesn't match the deal is finished narrative, but the judge didn't make the decision conditional because he was happy with a lack of evidence, did he?
 
DrFigs said:
I guess I'm lost as to why the CMA would change its mind like this. Is their work really that shoddy that they can't stand by their own decisions? Blocking it over cloud was weird.. but it was THEIR decision. So it's confusing about the competency of regulators imo.
Click to expand...

We're missing the full picture.
And that means not only what happened behind the scenes but the reality of what Microsoft is now proposing.
The block was the result of CMA refusing a series of behavioural remedies as the solution to concerns about competition in the cloud market.
If Microsoft is now willing to divest their cloud based gaming business in the UK or keeping Activision independent there, the CMA should definetly at least consider that or their behaviour would be ideological.
The question is why they didn't try to defend their original decision first and only if the CAT didn't rule in their favour to start these negotiations but this is something we won't understand for a while.
We'll get there though based on what happens with CAT and what will be the final remedies.
 
Last edited:
Shanomatic said:
I'm really not following here; Smith literally said he would be surprised if they could not produce what he needs to be satisfied, laid it all out to them, and even gave them more time than asked for. I think you're characterizing Smith as a lot more skeptical/hostile than he really is; if he was of the same mind as you, he wouldn't have even given the conditional approval of the adjournment, he would've just scheduled another hearing like he said he would to hear evidence.
Click to expand...
He was merely being fair and not deciding in advance, to let them convince him with the evidence, but he was very unhappy at the contradictory setup and the CMA having served Sony up to Microsoft as it had appeared in the media he saw over the weekend.
 
DaGwaphics said:
I hope that's a joke post. Yes, the government agencies acting to preserve the law should act according to it, meaning they should bring cases that focus on the letter of the law and win those on the merits of the case. When the upholder of the law is trying to win by running out the clock rather than presenting a strong case that is a problem and was rightfully called out by the judge.

The FCT seems to be trying to find ways to work around the law and block deals that current US law doesn't give them the power to block, hence the recent string of losses.

I'm a "liberal" person by nature but it is because of shenanigans such as this that I tend to align more with the "conservative" viewpoint on the free market and business (though not always).
Click to expand...
It's in line with the argument that they've been making for years. The laws need to change
 
skit_data said:
As bad as it sounds, I wouldn't say its far from what Kotick might have done.
Sacrificing the moral decency of sacking people acting like total assholes on the altar of profit.

Imagine this (not saying this is the case by any means but a "thought experiment" as they say nowadays):
-Some of the core guys with deep (unique, as in no one else fucking remotely has) knowledge on how the engines ABK uses work and integral to the fundamentals of the whole development pipeline does this kind of shit. What can you do? Sack him? Let him do his thing because its really really really important for the business?

Expand that to other parts of the ABK business and I can see it being sort of a thing. There might be people there that are pretty much irreplaceable and they know it.
Click to expand...

That may indeed be a large part of it, but allowing people to behave that way was a decision he made. In many businesses there are knowledgeable people who do not act that way and would not be allowed to act that way. It was a failure of leadership through and through. And considering how many of the perpetrators were fired, and how well ABK is doing, none of them were irreplaceable.
 
Shanomatic said:
I'm really not following here; Smith literally said he would be surprised if they could not produce what he needs to be satisfied, laid it all out to them, and even gave them more time than asked for. I think you're characterizing Smith as a lot more skeptical/hostile than he really is; if he was of the same mind as you, he wouldn't have even given the conditional approval of the adjournment, he would've just scheduled another hearing like he said he would to hear evidence.
Click to expand...

Exactly
 
laynelane said:
That may indeed be a large part of it, but allowing people to behave that way was a decision he made. In many businesses there are knowledgeable people who do not act that way and would not be allowed to act that way. It was a failure of leadership through and through. And considering how many of the perpetrators were fired, and how well ABK is doing, none of them were irreplaceable.
Click to expand...
Of course, Kotick seems like a greedy psycho.
That's one of positive effects I can see come from the deal, MS will probably clean the house thoroughly from top to bottom.
 
PaintTinJr said:
The part that is important is not in his head, but when everyone is dunking on CMA decisions at the 11th hour referencing this decision and this judge's name in the process, because it is effectively a silver bullet if anyone can just call material difference/special reasons to the CMA, and then they ignore their duty to test against that criteria and just take a company like Microsoft's word for it.

Sorry it doesn't match the deal is finished narrative, but the judge didn't make the decision conditional because he was happy with a lack of evidence, did he?
Click to expand...
I watched the majority of the hearing and my take away was that he sided with letting it pass although he seemed concerned with the optics and messy paper trail. He then outlined what MS and CMA needed to submit to make everything kosher. Caution seemed to be taken to make sure that everything was being done by the book and allow appropriate channels were available to hear 3rd party concerns.

You and I are viewing this hearing through the filter of our confirmation bias so that is where the discrepancies are occurring. Ultimately, any issues he seemed to have where the product of rushed proceedings, and he seemed to suggest that they could be remeded through filing some additional paperwork.

Edit: again, I take no issue with a different perspective. I take issue with what I perceive as you stating your assertions as fact, and that many of these assertions seem to be of subject matter that neither you, I, or anyone else on Gaf are privy to.
 
Last edited:
Bernoulli said:
No the title is misleading
It says the CMA granted 2 months to pause the appeal
Click to expand...
I'm actually kind of with you. I'm not sure that CAT has granted CMA 2 months but the deal between MS and Activision has been extended by 2 months. CMA might have been given 2 months too but I'm not sure that is true, have they? I suspect the renegotiated deadline between MS/ABK is longer than the FTC/CMA timeline.
 
MarkMe2525 said:
I watched the majority of the hearing and my take away was that he sided with letting it pass although he seemed concerned with the optics and messy paper trail. He then outlined what MS and CMA needed to submit to make everything kosher. Caution seemed to be taken to make sure that everything was being done by the book and allow appropriate channels were available to hear 3rd party concerns.

You and I are viewing this hearing through the filter of our confirmation bias so that is where the discrepancies are occurring. Ultimately, any issues he seemed to have where the product of rushed proceedings, and he seemed to suggest that they could be remeded through filing some additional paperwork.
Click to expand...
When do we hear from him again?
 
Last edited:
Three said:
I'm actually kind of with you. I'm not sure that CAT has granted CMA 2 months but the deal between MS and Activision has been extended by 2 months. CMA might have been given 2 months too but I'm not sure that is true, have they? I suspect the renegotiated deadline between MS/ABK is longer than the FTC/CMA timeline.
Click to expand...
That's what I'm saying
There is a part of title about the extension until October That's ok
But the part about CMA appeal 2 months is misleading, we had no info from the CAT about this
 
feynoob said:
I already mentioned this before, this a good deal for kottick.
Click to expand...

No it's not

The scandal is yesterday's news. He claims there wasn't a systemic issue. The market has recovered even absent the deal

He's selling out his own company with hardly any premium to todays market value and he can't back out of it because the contract requires complete dismissal

It's a terrible deal for him in hindsight
 
Last edited:
James Sawyer Ford said:
No it's not

The scandal is yesterday's news. He claims there wasn't a systemic issue. The market has recovered even absent the deal

He's selling out his own company with hardly any premium to todays market value and he can't back out of it because the contract requires complete dismissal

It's a terrible deal for him in hindsight
Click to expand...
He wants that golden parachute and fly into the sunset
 
MarkMe2525 said:
I watched the majority of the hearing and my take away was that he sided with letting it pass although he seemed concerned with the optics and messy paper trail. He then outlined what MS and CMA needed to submit to make everything kosher. Caution seemed to be taken to make sure that everything was being done by the book and allow appropriate channels were available to hear 3rd party concerns.

You and I are viewing this hearing through the filter of our confirmation bias so that is where the discrepancies are occurring. Ultimately, any issues he seemed to have where the product of rushed proceedings, and he seemed to suggest that they could be remeded through filing some additional paperwork.
Click to expand...
What did you make about him saying that the CMA's evidence for him needed detail as it was also for third parties wishing to appeal the CMA final decision deal with Microsoft?

Did you not think him repeatedly saying he'd be surprised about them not being able to provide the evidence was him laying it on thick? and bordering on light sarcasm - knowing it was getting backfilled to fit the narrative they brought to his CMC?

He repeatedly stressed the public interest, because he was well aware they were all in agreement and his CMA weren't possibly the voice of the public anymore, IMO.

edit:
He also made it that the evidence was coming from the very top of the CMA, so there is no wiggle room to blame a rubbish solicitor. He wants any mistake hung on the head legal representative at the CMA (Mt Prevett IIRC)
 
Last edited:
PaintTinJr said:
But from his words you could tell he was very sceptical that they could produce what he wanted, especially in Sony's change of heart to sign a deal. He is open minded but legally this decision could completely break the strength of all CMA draft decisions, costing the UK tax payer lots of money in litigation and weakening the CMA/CAT authority.

The more he thinks about this, and remembers he had to school both Microsoft and the CMA on the law in regards of the CMA duty to the public interest and their own determination of the deal being materially different/Special reason to grant a further look at remedies, fully without input from Microsoft, yet they couldn't provide evidence of that, and couldn't even confirm what the restructure was. So he is well aware they are now backfilling evidence.
Click to expand...
Let's say he doesn't like whatever they show him later. In that scenario, is there any reason to believe he can do more than tell CMA and MS to either settle or begin the appeal?

I find it unlikely he can force them to do more than that.
 
James Sawyer Ford said:
No it's not

The scandal is yesterday's news. He claims there wasn't a systemic issue. The market has recovered even absent the deal

He's selling out his own company with hardly any premium to todays market value and he can't back out of it because the contract requires complete dismissal

It's a terrible deal for him in hindsight
Click to expand...
Poor Bobby, if only he could predict the future. I think he will be fine in the long run... with his billions of dollars and all.
 
James Sawyer Ford said:
No it's not

The scandal is yesterday's news. He claims there wasn't a systemic issue. The market has recovered even absent the deal

He's selling out his own company with hardly any premium to todays market value and he can't back out of it because the contract requires complete dismissal

It's a terrible deal for him in hindsight
Click to expand...
95 is already a premium.
No one is going touch that with that price tag.

As for the scandal, it didn't go away. This deal is overshadowing it.
If this deal fails, expect more people to come out and sue them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
‘Microsoft’ said they were streamlining 9000 people across XGS/ABK/ZM
Rumor 
19
454
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
Luipadre replied
Top Bottom