Banjo64
cumsessed
Depends. Will you keep shilling?Should I say thankfully no? Or will Microsoft stop sending me money?
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
feynoob
Banned
If you are not american, then don't insult our FTC.Should I say thankfully no? Or will Microsoft stop sending me money
Only we Americans do that to our governing bodies, while twerking for corporations.
reinking
Gold Member
You do realize that even MS and ABK understood that they had to go through the CMA and gave them that power in the agreement. Only four of those thirty-eight countries matter when it comes to approving this acquisition and currently two of them are fighting to block it. Correction, one of them has blocked it.
You're surprised they're pushing hard to make this deal go through when you know they've got to pay billions of dollars to Activision in penalties?
reinking
Gold Member
Then that should scare you.
I know they will have to pay out 3 billion dollars but to go this far? At the end of the day, this is one of the biggest company in the world worth more than 2 trillion dollars with a reputation to uphold. They're looking weak and desperate with their move like they're going to shut down the whole company if this deal dont go through.
Last edited:
Gone
Banned
For one CoD on Gamepass. Yes.
Banjo64
cumsessed
You'll still get paid then, don't worry.
Topher
Identifies as young
Last edited:
reinking
Gold Member
bitbydeath
Member
The US and UK are Xbox's two biggest markets, nobody else matters.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
I'd imagine the EU dwarfs the UK when it comes to Activision/Blizzard though.
Unknown Soldier
Member
If you are not american, then don't insult our FTC.
Only we Americans do that to our governing bodies, while twerking for corporations.
bitbydeath
Member
That may be true but the issue isn't with ABK.
MasterCornholio
Member
Microsoft wanted to make the deal depend on those 4 regulators. So that's what they will have to achieve if they want it to go though. You really can't say they didn't agree to this.
foamdino
Member
It's nothing to do with how they managed the IP - I'm not party to the fine print of the deal that may have included "you must keep it multiplatform" as conditions of sale?
The fact that Microsoft was one of very few entities that could have paid that asking price - this act (in my opinion) was the start of this acquisition spree which is leading to fewer independent game devs and less choice overall. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, just saying how I see it.
dotnotbot
Member
And? Sony only cared for console SLC, they never addmited cloud is an issue for them. But CMA is looking at a bigger picture.
You're behaving like what he said somehow contradicts Jim Ryan's stance.
Last edited:
And we thought 90's sega had the worst internal conflicts
Banjo64
cumsessed
Why is that an issue?
jm89
Member
What does that change with the case though? CMA see cloud gaming as a separate market to console so his comments don't conflict, not only that they dropped console market concerns.
Besides cloud gaming concerns isn't just about Sony.
MasterCornholio
Member
That doesn't make a difference here. It's the CMA that's blocking the deal not Sony.
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
He probably just saw "Sony," "cloud," and "console" in one sentence and came to this conclusion.
MasterCornholio
Member
He probably just saw "Sony," "cloud," and "console" in one sentence and came to this conclusion.
Some people are sending it to the CMA as we speak.
dotnotbot
Member
Sony called CMA's decision about dropping console concerns irrational and I believe they never made a comment about them blocking this deal because of cloud later. There wasn't any "thanks, good job" statement from Sony cause they mainly care about content being taken away from PS and probably wanted to set a precedent in this area to block future acquistions of similar scale.
So behaving like CMA and Sony are still good friends plotting against Microsoft is silly. CMA ignored Sony's arguments in the end.
So behaving like CMA and Sony are still good friends plotting against Microsoft is silly. CMA ignored Sony's arguments in the end.
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
MasterCornholio
Member
ShaiKhulud1989
Gold Member
CMA specifically blocked the deal on cloud grounds, dropping console arguments outright in preliminary findings. All this just to further strengthen it's future position specifically pointing to Crazy Brad and his fangirls to the fact, that it wasn't about MS vs Sony or taking off CoD from PS. It is also woth noting, while Sony is a cloud gaming provider, it's not a cloud infrastructure provider. Sony rents AWS and Gaikai for their business needs and PSN is running on third-party servers.
ShaiKhulud1989
Gold Member
You've got me (it's from Destin lol)
drganon
Member
The comment section was hilarious. Just one mouth breather after another.
Gamezone
Gold Member
It's not, but do you really expect Activision to do any of this without being bought?
Gamezone
Gold Member
It's an odd excuse. I have never met someone who's been into cloud gaming. There cloud gaming services out there are also very limited.
feynoob
Banned
Boosteriod has Activision games on their system. GeForce had them before. But because GeForce was profiting from their business, a lot of developers left the service.
Most companies are looking after their products. They don't want other entities to profit from their products, while they get nothing.
Unless there is a decision like EU for MS, you won't see big boys allowing their games on cloud without the cash.
Gone
Banned
The bigger picture of cloud gaming market?
No matter how much people try to spin this, blocking the deal on the basis of the cloud gaming is a pathetic decision.
Topher
Identifies as young
Bernardougf
Member
Dismiss the console SLC, just based on MS predatory history and the precedent stablished in the bethesda acquisitiom, also was a pathetic decision, either way good that this deal is been blocked, for whatever reasom they choose to.
feynoob
Banned
Sarcasm?
dotnotbot
Member
Yeah, what is highely likely to happen in the future. Prevention is better than cure as wise people say.
Last edited:
Topher
Identifies as young
No, you just don't like it, which is fine, but there is nothing "pathetic" about preventing a $2 trillion corporation from creating a stronghold in a nascent market that expected to have substantial growth in the future.
Gone
Banned
Creating a stronghold by adding Activision games? There are literally thousands other games.
And Microsoft already gave the necessary remedies to address any concerns regarding those games in the future and a more sensible agency already agreed to said remedies.
dotnotbot
Member
CMA already commented on remedies in details and why they don't see them being sufficient.
Kilau
Gold Member
I only expect Activision to do what they think is best for themselves. Same for any company. They have a cloud deal but don't seem interested in sub services out of fear of "brand dilution" which is funny coming from them with 20+ CoD games and 10+ guitar hero games.
Topher
Identifies as young
You know damn well "thousands of other games" don't hold a candle to the Call of Duty franchise.
And yeah, that remedy makes those other cloud providers dependent on Microsoft if they want to keep Call of Duty. Exactly why the CMA said that doesn't work.
Gone
Banned
X-Wing
Member
Well, they're
Gone
Banned
And you know damn well that even 15 years from now, maybe at most 10% of CoD players will be playing on the cloud and not natively.
And those cloud providers wouldn't get CoD either way if the deal doesn't go through or they'll have to pay significant amount of money to get it. And they can always go get the thousands other games.
Bojanglez
The Amiga Brotherhood
Unfortunately the EU decision doesn't stop this from happening, it just allows the exact same thing to happen now for anyone that doesn't agree to sign a specific deal with Microsoft or meets their criteria and in the future will potentially happen to those that even did sign the deal.
I true remedy would be a fundamental change to software licensing law that puts the power in the consumer's hands, allowing them to run software they have 'bought' (licensed) on any compatible device whether it is situated on their desktop or in the cloud. Even that is problematic because MS could change their licensing of Windows to disallow people from using that in certain ways that stops cloud services using it.
The end game for most corporations is that software 'ownership' becomes a relic and the only way to access things will be by subscription. It's the gift and the curse of cloud services.
What is really needed (but won't) is for regulators to work together to define open standards using open source technologies and licensing agreements that puts the power back in the hands of licensees. The true test may be can a consumer (legally) operate their own private cloud to run the software they have licensed themselves, without being beholden to a company like Microsoft to do so. It's maybe a bit too much to ask, but let's not fill ourselves that the EUs acceptance of limited scope, limited time deals is doing anything but slightly prolonging this more closed future.
Topher
Identifies as young
lol....not going to argue with your made up numbers. If/when cloud gaming becomes a big thing then Activision Blizzard is going to want to sell their games on those services just like they sell games on local platforms. An independent ABK ensures they attempt to get the most platform coverage for their games just as they do now. That isn't necessarily the case with a Microsoft owned ABK. The larger problem, to me, is that in 10 years Microsoft will be able to pull Call of Duty off competing platforms, both in cloud and local, and no one will be able to do anything about it. I'm sure Xbox die-hards love that idea, but it sucks for gamers in general.
- Status