Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
Because the "divesture" that is being PRed through the fan channels is laughable, and would be against everything the CMA stands for. We started off initially that they would just shut down xCloud in UK, all the way to now they would devest just the UK xCloud to someone else, when the CMAs concerns were that of a global market as well.
We don't have the details of the proposal put before the CMA. Why are you taking random speculation as factual information?
That's because Boosteroid, like GeForce Now, allows you to stream games you buy on other stores. Steam, EGS, Battle.net, Origin etc. those are the platforms actually selling the games and the revenues go to the storefront and the games publishers.
Boosteroid and GFN make their money from subscriptions to have access to cloud streaming. Not MTX or software sales.
MS literally can't keep 100% of MTX revenue in these cases since they have to pay the storefront (Steam, Epic etc) their 20% - 30% cut.
Timberwolf25
Member
Nothing*Rises from the grave*
What's the news? What I miss?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Like I said, the rumored "divestures" from the fancamp is painfully transparent; to inflict the least amount of perceived loss to MS.
And if accepted, the CMA would then be laughably bad.
Jigsaah
Gold Member
The CMA would be 'laughably bad' for accepting a merger that's received near unanimous approval globally, including in the EC with specific, measurable and enforceable commitments to keep Activision's popular multiplayer games on all existing markets?
Yeesh. And to think Cloud gaming used to be an easily dismissed laughing stock on this forum just months ago.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Your first paragraph is intellectually dishonest. Considering they were 2/2 in the markets that mattered in their contract. But if the island nation Nauru and tons of markets they're not even sold in matter, then use that playah!
I know right? Was universally laughed at until xCloud was announced. But hey, The Power of the Cloud™ was only coming from one brand 99% of the time the past 10+ years.
PaintTinJr
Member
The Microsoft proposal document to the CMA - which I linked the pdf of back on page 1605 - is the document the CAT president/judge said - in the last CMC - would be for scrutiny by any third parties wishing to give feedback on challenge the CMA final decision
It's intellectually dishonest of you to claim the EU didn't matter in their contract.
The facts remain in place that the CMA's opposition is currently an outlier. Certainly nothing that deserves a 'laughably bad' claim if they eventual accept the deal after concessions.
I'm pretty sure the laughter intensified after xCloud was announced.
'Power of the Cloud' from the Xbox One era didn't have anything to do with game streaming. But you already knew that.
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
I mean of course such an offer would be designed to meet the CMA's complaints while inflicting the least amount of loss for MS...
If MS basically takes cloud out of the picture for the UK (the rumor), then... the CMA has no arguments left.
Why would that be laughably bad from their perspective?
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Where did I say this?
That marketing is expanded beyond just Xbox. They uses it for their productivity as well.
The "remedies" being proposed by the fans are laughable. It really isn't that hard to parse what I said.
Elder Legend
Banned
This deal needs to hurry up and close already. I want to play WoW on Xbox and earn achievements and watch others enjoy this magnificent masterpiece.
Last edited:
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
That does not in any way explain "why" they are laughable, which is what I asked you about.
CMA's argument: ABK content will give MS too much of a benefit in the emerging cloud market
The rumored new deal: MS does not have any ABK content in their cloud in the UK in the future, and competitors instead can license it.
Seems pretty straightforward of a proposal that exactly fits the CMA's complaint.
Elder Legend
Banned
I know this is off topic, but according to your tag, can you please tell me more about your wife's perfect butthole? I must know for research purposes, promise.
On topic - i wonder if they will decide on or before October 18th.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Considering the CMA was speaking on the global market of cloud beyond just the UK, it would be a strange backpedal for just the UK.
But again, I don't think that's enough to sway.
PaintTinJr
Member
Either this is you being unaware of what has been said by the CAT judge or being dishonest if you've been active in the thread as an Alt.
The CAT judge expressly took issue with the CMA being influenced in such a way by outside authorities - as it undermines his appeal court authority and the legislation of the United Kingdom by which the CMA are duty bound to follow.
Being a lone voice of opposition, as the fire-starter is completely normal in the UK.
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
I mean, not really? Their findings generally say "in the UK" over and over again.
PaintTinJr
Member
The CMA published their reasoning/facts post CAT judge accepting the cancelling of the JR appeal*Rises from the grave*
What's the news? What I miss?
And this Microsoft's new merger/special reasons angle document.
PaintTinJr
Member
In recent years the CMA blocked an American Airline, that doesn't operate in the UK, buying up a airline booking system company - despite worldwide clearance when the FTC lost their case - because its global impact would have negative impact in the UK.
Last edited:
Banjo64
cumsessed
There is simply no way that this is Microsoft's "revised" offer to the CMA, right?
I might have misunderstood, but I thought this was their rationale to get the original ruling quashed and they needed to do that in order to submit a new proposal with actual remedies.
PaintTinJr
Member
What do you mean by quashed ruling? Are you talking about the CMA findings or the cancelling of Microsoft's appeal for judicial review?
The former was never quashed, it just sits in limbo AFAIK until the inquiry panel decides if the new submission and feedback changes anything.
Pelta88
Member
My understanding...
CMA ruled against, Microsoft appealed to CAT then asked to suspend CAT appeal process to submit new proposals...
MS new proposal is based, at least in part, on EU ruling (which CMA Dismissed or doesn't agree with) and the fact that Sony signed a 10 year deal. What's problematic here is that the CMA stated that MIcrosoft would be dumb to take COD off the PS platform, and that "exclusive" aspect wasn't a factor in their ruling against...
Other than that, we await news.
Last edited:
bitbydeath
Gold Member
So do we think MS will keep fighting when it gets blocked again, or is this it?
Unknown Soldier
Member
If they are blocked again they'll just go to Plan B which is have the US military invade the UK under false pretenses that Putin's Russia controls their government
Pelta88
Member
Microsoft doesn't own Activision and Activision's duty is to it's shareholders. I don't think Activision would accept losing the UK market, which is it's 2nd/3rd most profitable. If they can't convince the CMA it's over. I know that "Closing over the UK" is a weird fantasy amongst a certain segment.
But that's not a viable option due to the gargantuan recurring/yearly fines the CMA can lawfully impose. But more importantly, because it would damage Microsoft's standing and hamper future acquisition, beyond the gaming division.
Last edited:
Timberwolf25
Member
Going off Phil Spencer's email to Xbox employees, they will close the deal over the CMA. And probably will fight it out in the UK courts or pay the fines.
Negotiator101
Member
That's in there yes, it certainly can't hurt having remedies in there even if it doesn't pertain to the CMA ruling. We now know that Microsoft have come up with a plan that they believe should satisfy the requirements of the CMA. As you say we don't know exactly what their proposal is but I'm sure the Microsoft legal team will get the deal passed.
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
That's quite the leap of logic there.
Timberwolf25
Member
Well it's not my leap. It's in his email or tweet. It's a few pages back in this thread
D
Deleted member 848825
Unconfirmed Member
Lol, you could convince me of either of these. But I just cant imagine MS closing over the CMA in all honesty - the fallout would I'd assume be massive on so many levels. I still think the CMA will accept some kind of new merger proposition though, but at the same time I think DeepEnigma's take is pretty compelling. In short, I really dont have a scooby doo
:
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
The email sent after the FTC win?
That one just basically announced they are looking to re-structure the deal to work with the CMA.
Unless I'm missing something here, that was the opposite of indicating they will close over the CMA.
Timberwolf25
Member
Lol, you could convince me of either of these. But I just cant imagine MS closing over the CMA in all honesty - the fallout would I'd assume be massive on so many levels. I still think the CMA will accept some kind of new merger proposition though, but at the same time I think DeepEnigma's take is pretty compelling. In short, I really dont have a scooby doo
This has the email I'm referring to.
My take, is they think the CMA is more amicable to a resolution to the deal after the FTC lost, but if they are not, they will close the deal in the US.
They obviously would rather not do that, hence both the CMA/MS asked the judge for the pause.
In the end, I think they will come to an agreement.
Timberwolf25
Member
It's in the first paragraph talking about closing in the US. Reads to me that they could close, but they think they can get a deal done due to recent development (FTC lost) and an agreement to ask for a pause from the CAT judge for MS/CMA jointly.
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
I see what you posted above, but I still am back to... that's quite the leap.
"We can technically close" doesn't really indicate anything to me. It would be a total disaster for MS to close over the CMA; it's just.. not gonna happen, IMO.
Jigsaah
Gold Member
Must feed....
Edit:
Ok so the CMA is saying that it's not usually their practice to take material changes under consideration, but the CAT hearing led the CMA to consider these changes...
Microsoft then lays out these changes, including the deals with Nvidia and Boosteroid...as well as the Sony agreement. I just kinda skimmed through the rest. Did I miss that there was little else to deal with the cloud?
Are they saying the Sony deal should be enough to get the CMA to approve?
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 848825
Unconfirmed Member
Thanks for sharing that. Its not my interpretation from that though. The fact that he says they extended the timeline solely to appease the CMA, infers its pretty damn important to them that they get their approval. I'm not sure from that how we jump to them closing over the CMA.... but we all have our own opinions.
Topher
Identifies as young
He says they can "technically" close in the US. He says nothing about closing the deal over the CMA. That's not going to happen either way.
Last edited:
Pelta88
Member
People still pushing that "Well Phil Spencer said" horse manure? We've seen page upon page of legally binding submission which showcase that Phil Spencer is a stone cold liar and has an adverse reaction to any form of communication that isn't wrapped up in PR.
Phil Spencer saying "We can technically close in the US" is pure obfuscation. He can't close over the cma and cost ATVI, their UK sales. Plain and simple.
Last edited:
gametimedecision
Gold Member
If that happened I think not only would they probably quit I really think they would leave gaming I mean…the numbers look horrendous and they are easily the most hated brand in gaming of the 3 by far so it doesn't really look like they could make up any mindshare no matter what they did at this point, this was clearly a Hail Mary attempt to get back in it.I guess you could see what starfield does for you and if it's not enough you can the division tbh.
But I really think it's gonna go through so we probs won't have to see that reality but imagine how bad that would be. The activision deal is a life-raft and not only would that be gone you owe 5 billion and you are still distant 3rd lol what would be the point anymore.
Last edited:
kvltus lvlzvs
Member
Ok, this is now the gaming timeline I want to see, as long as it ends with the death of Microsoft.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
They'll become a third party publisher.
PaintTinJr
Member
The point hasn't changed since day 1.
Just add Xbox losses to Windows wins and chalk it up as a success that other companies can only dream about.
Direct-X- box is a vanguard for Windows anti competitive use of the closed source single platform proprietary graphics API (DirectX) that lets them control GPU and CPU manufacturers and then by extension hardware OEMS, and gives them a 95% marketshare for PC gaming OSes, which gives them a prebuilt OS monopoly for cloud gaming.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Actually it's the CAT Judge who first brings it up himself, as per the transcript, he mentions the FTC and the coincidence in timing in his opening remarks where he took the CMA to charge.
Last edited:
freefornow
Member
COD exclusivity deal with Activision. US$1.5B per year for 10 years.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
Problem with that is they'll first have to wait for Sony's existing contract to expire.
PaintTinJr
Member
IIRC Sony said worldwide - including MTX - they get $2.4b revenue from CoD and give ABK 70% or 80% of that, so it wouldn't even break even in earnings IMO.
You'd also need some way to guarantee that it didn't result in them losing their 110m per month active userbase, otherwise you've just valued CoD at $15b when in 10years it has lost it prominence by being exclusive. So I'm not sure there is a deal that makes sense without having the players.
Last edited:
kvltus lvlzvs
Member
Wait so did something happen that has led to us discussing it failing in the UK? I thought that Ms seemingly had this all tied up. I've been out of the loop for a bit because, while the bants are fun, it is exhausting to keep up to date
Topher
Identifies as young
No.....just our typical speculation of possibilities. Primary question is what is CMA's angle in all this.
Topher
Identifies as young
The judge was adamant in the adjournment hearing that this had better be nothing more than coincidence and that what happens in the US should have no bearing on what happens in the UK. Now whether that is truly the case......only the CMA knows. The judge was essentially saying the FTC's outcome shouldn't prompt these actions, but that is different from what they are calling "new evidence" arising from the FTC case.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked