Support NeoGAF

[Heisenberg007]

Been rethinking it.

Perhaps MS was about to start renegotiation with ABK and that's why the FTC filed for an injunction.

Convincing the shareholders that "it's only the CMA, we have already filed an appeal. please renew the contract" might be easier than convincing them when it's both the FTC and the CMA that have "blocked" it.

 

[X-Wing]

Been rethinking it.

Perhaps MS was about to start renegotiation with ABK and that's why the FTC filed for an injunction.

Convincing the shareholders that "it's only the CMA, we have already filed an appeal. please renew the contract" might be easier than convincing them when it's both the FTC and the CMA that have "blocked" it.

Nah. I think the FTC simply doesn’t have a case and is just throwing in the towel.

 

[Banjo64]

And the results of the FTC case would be used in the CAT appeal. Microsoft would tell CAT the CMA are the outlier because every other jurisdiction accepted the deal. Not sure if that would work with the CAT judge but its damning good evidence.

no, it’s not.

 

[ZehDon]

Nah. I think the FTC simply doesn’t have a case and is just throwing in the towel.

It could also read that the FTC believes it has a very strong case is keen to show it. We won't know either way until they present it.

 

[IFireflyl]

Nah. I think the FTC simply doesn’t have a case and is just throwing in the towel.

Suing to block the acquisition is a weird way to concede.

 

[X-Wing]

It could also read that the FTC believes it has a very strong case is keen to show it. We won't know either way until they present it.

I hope that's the case but I'm not feeling it.

Their complaint is full with inaccuracies like still talking about Stadia pro and the upcoming release of Redial. It's like they have put no effort on it.

Giving my two cents about the whole thing though.

I always said big tech had become too big to be regulated, and this is what we are seeing.

Microsoft is effectively bullying governments and independent government agencies because they don't get their way, they should have never been allowed to become this big and if they did it is mostly due to weak regulation in the US that is now impacting everyone else.

I personally don't care for Call of Duty or any Activision IP in particular, but they do have a lot of IPs and we all know that as soon as those 10 year contracts end those IPs will only be available if you are in Microsoft's ecosystem. We all now know that the acquisition of Bethesda was only meant to remove content from the competition. That much should now be clear to everyone.

Microsoft is also only offering 10 year contracts to companies that cannot compete against them (those companies will also not make a dime from those games during those 10 years).
I see a greater chance for Boosteroid to be acquired by Microsoft in the future than for it to ever become a real competitor in the Cloud Gaming market, Microsoft is billions of dollars of investment ahead, of any of the companies they have offered deals to, on the infrastructure front. I also think this is the reason why the CMA doesn't agree with these remedies, they want these smaller competitors to have a chance.

Then other things about all of this disgust me, the behavior of Brad “clown” Smith, the lies and hypocrisy of both Phil Spencer and Bob Kotick. The clear signs of power by lobbying (corrupting) US senators… the campaign to manipulate and disinform public opinion…

It is all just too cynical and, to a degree, dangerous. Today it is about videogames, but who knows what Microsoft’s next whim will be.

So I hope this deal crashes and burns, and in case it doesn’t I hope stronger and better regulation laws will be put in place to prevent another circus like this to ever happen again.

 

[Bojanglez]

Trying to butter up a US federal judge obviously. So the arguments are about US workers, US companies, US this and that. Trying to appeal to nationalism.

It's certainly a change in tactic from threatening a country's jobs and national security. Maybe they are learning.

 

[ZehDon]

... I always said big tech had become too big to be regulated, and this is what we are seeing...

I tend to agree specifically with this part. The largest companies in the world wield too much power, so much so that Governments now change the laws to get them what they want. When I see Microsoft buying Activision, though, I ask myself: if Activision is up for grabs, who would I rather buy it instead? Tencent? Amazon? It's kind of a "lesser of two evils" thing in my mind. I'd prefer no one buys anyone, and for Microsoft to compete by building new studios and fostering talent and growing the industry instead of consolidating it. But we don't live in that world. So, if someone put a gun to my head and made me choose, I suppose Microsoft's a better choice than the alternatives. But boy oh boy do I wish we didn't live in this world.

 

[X-Wing]

I tend to agree specifically with this part. The largest companies in the world wield too much power, so much so that Governments now change the laws to get them what they want. When I see Microsoft buying Activision, though, I ask myself: if Activision is up for grabs, who would I rather buy it instead? Tencent? Amazon? It's kind of a "lesser of two evils" thing in my mind. I'd prefer no one buys anyone, and for Microsoft to compete by building new studios and fostering talent and growing the industry instead of consolidating it. But we don't live in that world. So, if someone put a gun to my head and made me choose, I suppose Microsoft's a better choice than the alternatives. But boy oh boy do I wish we didn't live in this world.

If it was Tencent you would see public opinion massively be against it.
For the rest, I think it's evident that Microsoft doesn't need Activision to compete, but I'm not gonna discuss that all over again.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Putting the FTC to one side, it seems beyond comprehension that any company; particularly Microsoft, would be stupid enough to try and ignore the immense power of the CMA/CAT to try and close this deal, which has got me thinking.

Take a worst civil case scenario of them closing without consent from the CMA. They get fined an extra $17b for year one, and maybe another $20b in year two before the issue resolves itself. But in return they've mortally wounded the consumers choice of high end AAA gaming platform to the tune of around $2b per year for those two years and completely dominated mindshare.

Even if they were then forced to sell off ATVI at a massive loss ($30b) the damage to PlayStation would be permanent relative to where XGS would be positioned financially and the whole thing would still only have cost them the same depreciating $70-80b and made it look like the CMA lost, given them time to lobby in the UK to hinder the CMA being powerful enough to block all their future acquisitions.

At the moment, if the CMA blocks this deal, Microsoft's +30year MO is done. They have seen their share price multiply every decade since the start, and that came initially from product success and foreclosing rivals in their primary markets(OS/Productivity software) to dominate - rather than compete, giving them financial success and plenty of cash to reward shareholders and launch products in new markets, until they became so big that to avoid giving shareholders too much dividend - which they would then spend on competing shares like Google, Amazon, Meta, Apple, etc, today - they needed to spend all that extra money on acquisitions to keep the share price growing to keep the shareholders - and new investors - invested long term.

In short(IMHO), Microsoft have outlived their usefulness as a company to create or innovate, or do anything but consume others, and distribute spoils to shareholders, rinse and repeat.

Without the ability to consume at ATVI value level - because the CMA might block all those deals - Microsoft has no way to use their money to quickly keep their share price growing, and would either have to use it for large buybacks as a one off, or raise the return via dividends (IMO) which will get spent elsewhere, or leave it in the business, where it is at risk of depreciating or being eyeballed by shareholders to push for a higher dividend.

/edit
So my point being, these actions are possibly because this deal is the tip of the spear, and it failing means their demise. So it is the actions of them being in a corner with no better option.

 

[feynoob]

If it was Tencent you would see public opinion massively be against it.
For the rest, I think it's evident that Microsoft doesn't need Activision to compete, but I'm not gonna discuss that all over again.

Activision is a lucky star. If it weren't for that sexual harassment investigation, the company wouldn't have sold itself to MS.
That incident put them around 55+ share.

Think of it like how cyberpunk 2077 affected cdpr stock. That would have been an easy buy for MS.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Putting the FTC to one side, it seems beyond comprehension that any company; particularly Microsoft, would be stupid enough to try and ignore the immense power of the CMA/CAT to try and close this deal, which has got me thinking.

Take a worst civil case scenario of them closing without consent from the CMA. They get fined an extra $17b for year one, and maybe another $20b in year two before the issue resolves itself. But in return they've mortally wounded the consumers choice of high end AAA gaming platform to the tune of around $2b per year for those two years and completely dominated mindshare.

Even if they were then forced to sell off ATVI at a massive loss ($30b) the damage to PlayStation would be permanent relative to where XGS would be positioned financially and the whole thing would still only have cost them the same depreciating $70-80b and made it look like the CMA lost, given them time to lobby in the UK to hinder the CMA being powerful enough to block all their future acquisitions.

At the moment, if the CMA blocks this deal, Microsoft's +30year MO is done. They have seen their share price multiply every decade since the start, and that came initially from product success and foreclosing rivals in their primary markets(OS/Productivity software) to dominate - rather than compete, giving them financial success and plenty of cash to reward shareholders and launch products in new markets, until they became so big that to avoid giving shareholders too much dividend - which they would then spend on competing shares like Google, Amazon, Meta, Apple, etc, today - they needed to spend all that extra money on acquisitions to keep the share price growing to keep the shareholders - and new investors - invested long term.

In short(IMHO), Microsoft have outlived their usefulness as a company to create or innovate, or do anything but consume others, and distribute spoils to shareholders, rinse and repeat.

Without the ability to consume at ATVI value level - because the CMA might block all those deals - Microsoft has no way to use their money to quickly keep their share price growing, and would either have to use it for large buybacks as a one off, or raise the return via dividends (IMO) which will get spent elsewhere, or leave it in the business, where it is at risk of depreciating or being eyeballed by shareholders to push for a higher dividend.

/edit
So my point being, these actions are possibly because this deal is the tip of the spear, and it failing means their demise. So it is the actions of them being in a corner with no better option.

Regarding para #3, PlayStation would not be damaged in that case.

Xbox cannot take COD off PlayStation until 2025 (2024?) anyway because of Sony's marketing deal. During that time, Microsoft would be penalized and still wouldn't be able to take COD off PlayStation. And by the time the deal is reversed, or MS is forced to divest COD, so COD will be back on PlayStation.

 

[feynoob]

Take a worst civil case scenario of them closing without consent from the CMA. They get fined an extra $17b for year one, and maybe another $20b in year two before the issue resolves itself. But in return they've mortally wounded the consumers choice of high end AAA gaming platform to the tune of around $2b per year for those two years and completely dominated mindshare.

CMA won't fine MS 10% globally. That law isn't on effect yet.
So they won't lose that much.
However if they take effect, then that is a different case.

 

[Corrik]

Again, this is NOT the actual case proceeding. A judge not agreeing to their preliminary injunction request is not them "losing the case". It simply means a judge refused a temporary block before their case is heard. That their case might not be heard until after the deal went through.

In the American legal system, if the block is denied then generally they believe you have no ground to stand on. The case could proceed, but if the judge thought you had no ground to stand on to even just temporarily pause it until resolution, then you are pretty much dead in the water as far as the case goes.

Microsoft has to be thrilled beyond belief they filed this now.

 

[Astray]

In the American legal system, if the block is denied then generally they believe you have no ground to stand on. The case could proceed, but if the judge thought you had no ground to stand on to even just temporarily pause it until resolution, then you are pretty much dead in the water as far as the case goes.

Microsoft has to be thrilled beyond belief they filed this now.

Yeah this isn't a risk-free play from the FTC.

 

[NickFire]

In the American legal system, if the block is denied then generally they believe you have no ground to stand on. The case could proceed, but if the judge thought you had no ground to stand on to even just temporarily pause it until resolution, then you are pretty much dead in the water as far as the case goes.

Microsoft has to be thrilled beyond belief they filed this now.

It can also mean the judge does not see a threat of imminent harm. That is a precursor requirement for preliminary injunction. So if MS convinces they have no intent to close before all reviews are successful, it would be denied Without the judge touching the merits.

 

[Astray]

It can also mean the judge does not see a threat of imminent harm. That is a precursor requirement for preliminary injunction. So if MS convinces they have no intent to close before all reviews are successful, it would be denied Without the judge touching the merits.

One thing to keep in mind is that the idea of "imminent harm" is debatable in this case.

Prices aren't going to go up immediately the day after the merger closes, and Activision still has at least one more year of guaranteed COD plus who knows what else with Playstation.

The judge could easily go "let them prematurely close and if you manage to win in Federal court then they will he forced to divest"

 

[X-Wing]

FTC asks court to prevent Microsoft closing Activision Blizzard deal early

At a glance:

www.gamesindustry.biz

FTC asked for the restraining order to be issued no later than Thursday.

 

[Thirty7ven]

I tend to agree specifically with this part. The largest companies in the world wield too much power, so much so that Governments now change the laws to get them what they want. When I see Microsoft buying Activision, though, I ask myself: if Activision is up for grabs, who would I rather buy it instead? Tencent? Amazon? It's kind of a "lesser of two evils" thing in my mind. I'd prefer no one buys anyone, and for Microsoft to compete by building new studios and fostering talent and growing the industry instead of consolidating it. But we don't live in that world. So, if someone put a gun to my head and made me choose, I suppose Microsoft's a better choice than the alternatives. But boy oh boy do I wish we didn't live in this world.

ABK didn’t have to sell, Tencent or Amazon would’ve kept all of ABK multi platform.

If the deal is blocked then MS really was the best option ironically enough, with the added bonus of showing what kind of company MS really is.

A separate note on this, but if nothing else this has been quite a ride and it’s a case study for how brands AstroTurf and manipulate a fanbase to go to war for them. It was also great to see how the games media covered this, from shaming Jim Ryan and Sony to turning a blind eye on MS’s incendiary rhetoric.

And who doesn’t love the hypocrisy from the fanboys who were screaming against corruption when there was none, and now are screaming for corruption when it’s in plain sight.

 

[Ogbert]

ABK didn’t have to sell, Tencent or Amazon would’ve kept all of ABK multi platform.

If the deal is blocked then MS really was the best option ironically enough, with the added bonus of showing what kind of company MS really is.

A separate note on this, but if nothing else this has been quite a ride and it’s a case study for how brands AstroTurf and manipulate a fanbase to go to war for them. It was also great to see how the games media covered this, from shaming Jim Ryan and Sony to turning a blind eye on MS’s incendiary rhetoric.

And who doesn’t love the hypocrisy from the fanboys who were screaming against corruption when there was none, and now are screaming for corruption when it’s in plain sight.

No one’s ‘going to war’ for MS.

It’s this thread and about 50 nerds on Twitter sniping at each other.

 

[jm89]

The judge could easily go "let them prematurely close and if you manage to win in Federal court then they will he forced to divest"

Can they do that without CMA approval though?

Or they remove the CMA from their list of required approvers and risk CMA taking legal action for closing over them. Both scenarios i can't imagine looking good for them with the CAT.

 

[X-Wing]

Or Microsoft has been making bluff so that the FTC would rush for the injunction...

 

[dotnotbot]

No one’s ‘going to war’ for MS.

It’s this thread and about 50 nerds on Twitter sniping at each other.

And era and reddit and a lot of comments under articles even on sites like yahoo and so on and so on, no one at all lol

 

[Thirty7ven]

No one’s ‘going to war’ for MS.

It’s this thread and about 50 nerds on Twitter sniping at each other.

You’re wrong obviously. From incendiary YouTube shills with thousands and dozens of thousands of listeners, to Twitter where the CMA is bombarded, or the FTC with Khan being the subject of constant character assassination.

The only question is why do you want to turn a blind eye on this?

 

[Ar¢tos]

Can they do that without CMA approval though?

Or they remove the CMA from their list of required approvers and risk CMA taking legal action for closing over them. Both scenarios i can't imagine looking good for them with the CAT.

CMA approval is required even if it isn't a requirement in a new deal, because both MS and Activision operate in the UK. If they go over the regulator they'll face fines and might be forced to divest.

 

[Astray]

Can they do that without CMA approval though?

Or they remove the CMA from their list of required approvers and risk CMA taking legal action for closing over them. Both scenarios i can't imagine looking good for them with the CAT.

All options are on the table at this phase imo.

It's do or die time.

 

[Edmund]

No one’s ‘going to war’ for MS.

It’s this thread and about 50 nerds on Twitter sniping at each other.

 

[Ogbert]

You’re wrong obviously. From incendiary YouTube shills with thousands and dozens of thousands of listeners, to Twitter where the CMA is bombarded, or the FTC with Khan being the subject of constant character assassination.

The only question is why do you want to turn a blind eye on this?

There are dickheads on the internet.

Just to be clear, is your claim that MS is waging a paid,
coordinated campaign of online warfare, with an army of Xbox zealots?

Here’s what’s more likely. Those YouTube shills are trying to make money and realise that people click on their videos when they talk about this stuff. No more, no less.

If a company is prepared to risk billion dollar fines and close a deal without the permission of the CMA and FTC, they don’t need some bellend in his basement making shitty videos.

 

[Ogbert]

 

[Thirty7ven]

There are dickheads on the internet.

Just to be clear, is your claim that MS is waging a paid,
coordinated campaign of online warfare, with an army of Xbox zealots?

Oh no, pro bono shilling is a thing. But MS does use astroturfers, and they do use their “friends” in the media, and the lobbying firms, and use their PR to stroke the flames of their fanboys. Not to mention their own rhetoric against government when decisions don’t go their way.

Appalling behavior top to bottom, no point pretending otherwise or trying to clean it up a bit just because they are not the company that you have particular feelings about for some weird reason or another.

 

[Astray]

There are dickheads on the internet.

Just to be clear, is your claim that MS is waging a paid,
coordinated campaign of online warfare, with an army of Xbox zealots?

Here’s what’s more likely. Those YouTube shills are trying to make money and realise that people click on their videos when they talk about this stuff. No more, no less.

If a company is prepared to risk billion dollar fines and close a deal without the permission of the CMA and FTC, they don’t need some bellend in his basement making shitty videos.

My friend, public perception matters when it comes to big deals. You have to be willfully obtuse to not see it.

There's a reason we're getting puff interviews for example, and a concerted PR campaign (both in public and more surreptitious ways) are definitely real.

We literally had some 40-year-old lobbyist socking on here and his discovery was one of the bigger moments of this thread.

 

[OmegaSupreme]

Which one of you is this?

 

[Ogbert]

Oh no, pro bono shilling is a thing. But MS does use astroturfers, and they do use their “friends” in the media, and the lobbying firms, and use their PR to stroke the flames of their fanboys. Not to mention their own rhetoric against government when decisions don’t go their way.

Appalling behavior top to bottom, no point pretending otherwise or trying to clean it up a bit just because they are not the company that you have particular feelings about for some weird reason or another.

Just out of interest, do you believe that any negative publicity against the deal is funded by the impacted parties, for example Sony?

Is there counter-lobbying?

 

[Thirty7ven]

My friend, public perception matters when it comes to big deals. You have to be willfully obtuse to not see it.

There's a reason we're getting puff interviews for example, and a concerted PR campaign (both in public and more surreptitious ways) are definitely real.

We literally had some 40-year-old lobbyist socking on here and his discovery was one of the bigger moments of this thread.

Exactly, and look how that has flown under the radar. Can you imagine the shit storm if he were representing Sony’s interests? We wouldn’t hear the end of it, it would’ve been plastered all over the internet ad noseum. Shit, Jim Ryan went public because Phil Spencer and co made it public, and we had a barrage of crying Jim, Sony evil articles and internet discourse.

Even my brother in law who is a PC gamer through and through, and is largely anti big tech, had a conversation with me where he adopted all those arguments that were flying around about how it was inadmissible that Sony had the power to stop this deal. Now he knows, now he understands, because he’s not actually a moron. Simply fell victim to indoctrination for a moment.

 

[Astray]

Just out of interest, do you believe that any negative publicity against the deal is funded by the impacted parties, for example Sony?

Is there counter-lobbying?

I think Sony has been doing shit too, they have been aiding the gamers lawsuit for example, and lobbying regulators.

These are big corpos and they will do what's necessary to get what they want.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Just out of interest, do you believe that any negative publicity against the deal is funded by the impacted parties, for example Sony?

Is there counter-lobbying?

Show me, let’s not deal in hypotheticals here and just show me members of congress/parliament turning on the heat against MS-ABK, or publications like eurogamer and the like running a smear campaign against MS and Phil Spencer, people like Florian running pseudo psy ops, you gotta have something. Something other than “it makes sense to deduce” or anything extremely hypothetical that we haven’t witnessed during this charade.

So far what we have is evil Sony presented their case against the merger to regulators, and lost.

Either way what’s your interest in white washing MS’s actions, which have been very public, by way of speculative whataboutism?

 

[Ogbert]

Show me, let’s not deal in hypotheticals here and just show me members of congress/parliament turning on the heat against MS-ABK, or publications like eurogamer and the like running a smear campaign against MS and Phil Spencer, people like Florian running pseudo psy ops, you gotta have something. Something other than “it makes sense to deduce” or anything extremely hypothetical that we haven’t witnessed during this charade.

So far what we have is evil Sony presented their case against the merger to regulators, and lost.

Either way what’s your interest in white washing MS’s actions, which have been very public, by way of speculative whataboutism?

For heaven’s sake man, I’m not whitewashing anything. Lord there are some sensitive souls on this thread.

I’m not talking about puff pieces on websites. Rather this strange paranoia that has taken over this thread where anyone person that puts forward an alternative opinion is immediately tarred as an astroturfer or bot. This has truly turned into the weirdest echo chamber where the same six or seven people post over and over again, almost as if they’re convincing themselves of the outcome.

For what it’s worth, I’ve agreed with many of your points. I’ve always said that I expect some version of the deal to go through, simply because these companies invariably get their way. I’m also not fully convinced on the cloud point with the CMA - or, rather, I think it’s something that MS will be able to navigate.

I’m also not expecting as much from the FTC, as they have a higher standard to meet.

What’s always surprised me about this case is the focus on cloud, when there were very significant competition points that could have been raised about the status of ABK to the industry. That’s where I think it should have been challenged.

 

[Thirty7ven]

For heaven’s sake man, I’m not whitewashing anything. Lord there are some sensitive souls on this thread.

I’m not talking about puff pieces on websites. Rather this strange paranoia that has taken over this thread where anyone person that puts forward an alternative opinion is immediately tarred as an astroturfer or bot. This has truly turned into the weirdest echo chamber where the same six or seven people post over and over again, almost as if they’re convincing themselves of the outcome.

For what it’s worth, I’ve agreed with many of your points. I’ve always said that I expect some version of the deal to go through, simply because these companies invariably get their way. I’m also not fully convinced on the cloud point with the CMA - or, rather, I think it’s something that MS will be able to navigate.

I’m also not expecting as much from the FTC, as they have a higher standard to meet.

What’s always surprised me about this case is the focus on cloud, when there were very significant competition points that could have been raised about the status of ABK to the industry. That’s where I think it should have been challenged.

Not being sensitive, I'm just not subtle enough in my forum writing style. I agree that cloud was a surprise, but also recognize that the surprise mostly comes from having accepted that regulators do nothing to protect nascent markets and the last two decades have been nothing but big tech consolidating nascent markets in their infancy.

To me it made more sense to look at the console market, which is its own market, with only three players, and use what seemed to me trivial understanding and plain common sense that you shouldn't allow one of these players to go around eating third party publishers for breakfast. Bethesda was weird but still small enough that you just accept it, but ABK? And for the regulators in UK and US, where Playstation and Xbox are competitive with one another, to not be able to stop this very anti competitive acquisition from going through was and still is insane but...

 

[Astray]

I’m not talking about puff pieces on websites. Rather this strange paranoia that has taken over this thread where anyone person that puts forward an alternative opinion is immediately tarred as an astroturfer or bot. This has truly turned into the weirdest echo chamber where the same six or seven people post over and over again, almost as if they’re convincing themselves of the outcome.

That's the bad effect of using astroturf tactics tbh, one or two astroturfers get discovered and it becomes very difficult to view positive things about the brand with good faith. If I've already discovered shills, then how do I know that I'm still not being shilled on something afterwards?

(not accusing you of shilling btw)

 

[Ogbert]

Not being sensitive, I'm just not subtle enough in my forum writing style. I agree that cloud was a surprise, but also recognize that the surprise mostly comes from having accepted that regulators do nothing to protect nascent markets and the last two decades have been nothing but big tech consolidating nascent markets in their infancy.

To me it made more sense to look at the console market, which is its own market, with only three players, and use what seemed to me trivial understanding and plain common sense that you shouldn't allow one of these players to go around eating third party publishers for breakfast. Bethesda was weird but still small enough that you just accept it, but ABK? And for the regulators in UK and US, where Playstation and Xbox are competitive with one another, to not be able to stop this very anti competitive acquisition from going through was and still is insane but...

Fully agree.

My discomfort with the acquisition is that I consider it to be very close to horizontal consolidation. I would put
EPIC and Rockstar in the same category; where alternative versions of the same product (battle royale and third person adventure) simply cannot compete. They are products of cultural significance. The fact that this was waived away by both the UK and EU really surprised me. They seem to be operating under the traditional assumption that the buyer, MS, will not cut its nose off to spite its face, and leave the games on all platforms to recoup revenue. I’m not convinced. I think MS are big enough and nasty enough to make them exclusive, hence the 10 year talk.

Now, on a personal level, I’m not a huge fan of regulators and nascent markets. They have enough trouble regulating mature sectors, let alone developed ones. I don’t think it’s their job to interfere at such an early stage.

Fine the shit out of them later.

 

[feynoob]

 

[Thirty7ven]

Now, on a personal level, I’m not a huge fan of regulators and nascent markets. They have enough trouble regulating mature sectors, let alone developed ones. I don’t think it’s their job to interfere at such an early stage.

Fine the shit out of them later.

The thing with fines is that they mostly serve to condition small companies and poor people to play by the rules, while most times it’s just a cost effective measure for big companies and wealthy people to play by their own rules.

 

[X-Wing]

Fully agree.

My discomfort with the acquisition is that I consider it to be very close to horizontal consolidation. I would put
EPIC and Rockstar in the same category; where alternative versions of the same product (battle royale and third person adventure) simply cannot compete. They are products of cultural significance. The fact that this was waived away by both the UK and EU really surprised me. They seem to be operating under the traditional assumption that the buyer, MS, will not cut its nose off to spite its face, and leave the games on all platforms to recoup revenue. I’m not convinced. I think MS are big enough and nasty enough to make them exclusive, hence the 10 year talk.

Now, on a personal level, I’m not a huge fan of regulators and nascent markets. They have enough trouble regulating mature sectors, let alone developed ones. I don’t think it’s their job to interfere at such an early stage.

Fine the shit out of them later.

That's the mistake that was made in the past, that's the mistake that is being made now on a much larger scale with AI. They absolutely should intervene in the start of a new market, otherwise it is too late.

 

[gothmog]

We should all be against people who in general are arguing in bad faith. Shills are the worst and drive threads into pages and pages of useless back and forth argument.

 

[bxrz]

Again, this is NOT the actual case proceeding. A judge not agreeing to their preliminary injunction request is not them "losing the case". It simply means a judge refused a temporary block before their case is heard. That their case might not be heard until after the deal went through.

If a judge doesn’t agree with the FTC during the preliminary injunction, why would the judge magically agree with them after the deal has gone through? The judge will continue to not agree with them unless some major development happens, which is very unlikely at this point

If the FTC loses this federal case, they’re done here with this acquisition. Period.

 

[ToadMan]

But how if they don’t fulfill the requirements?

Are they trying to scare ABK here? Something is off.

As far as ATVI shareholders are concerned - they’re just waiting for the cash to sell their shares. “They” (the ATVI shareholders) don’t care what MS does with ABK, if ABK is successful or if MS is successful after acquisition or whatever.

The requirement for regulatory approvals in the acquisition terms are to protect MS from buying something they cannot recognise the value from - for example buying ABK only to find their products are barred from sale and/or held separate from MS due to regulatory obstacles.

So, ATVI doesn’t need to consent now - the shareholders get paid, their shares are squashed and they’re removed from being listed on Nasdaq.

After that, MS faces the ensuing problems which could be

1. The existing block (remember the order that MS-ABK would not acquire each other without prior apporval by the CMA) in the UK which leaves MS open to very large fines and

2. Potentially falling foul of US federal court actions if they go ahead before an injunction is in place.

Both of which would hit MS stock price - partly because they spent $69bn on a purchase they cannot use, partly because a large portion of their global revenue is then at risk of forfeiture through fines, partly because regulators would probably look to force retrospective divestment on ABK leading to a loss on the deal after years of limbo, and in extremis may leave MS open to a monopoly busting break up in the US as happened with Bell/AT&T.


All those corporate level risks to get a leg up in gaming?

I’m beginning to wonder why MS is prepared to jeopardise everything on an industry which isn’t that lucrative anyway.

 

[wolffy66]

If a judge doesn’t agree with the FTC during the preliminary injunction, why would the judge magically agree with them after the deal has gone through? The judge will continue to not agree with them unless some major development happens, which is very unlikely at this point

If the FTC loses this federal case, they’re done here with this acquisition. Period.

Are they more worried about a judge or a jury tho?

 

[DarkBatman]

If a judge doesn’t agree with the FTC during the preliminary injunction, why would the judge magically agree with them after the deal has gone through? The judge will continue to not agree with them unless some major development happens, which is very unlikely at this point

If the FTC loses this federal case, they’re done here with this acquisition. Period.

But the point of this injuction is just that the FTC fears that MS will close the deal before the scheduled court date and should be prevented from doing so, right?
So if the judge determines that this danger does not exist and therefore does not see the desired block as appropriate, that doesn't say anything about the overall attitude towards the deal, does it?

 

[Varteras]

In the American legal system, if the block is denied then generally they believe you have no ground to stand on. The case could proceed, but if the judge thought you had no ground to stand on to even just temporarily pause it until resolution, then you are pretty much dead in the water as far as the case goes.

Microsoft has to be thrilled beyond belief they filed this now.

If a judge doesn’t agree with the preliminary injunction, why would the judge magically agree with them after the deal has gone through? The judge will continue to not agree with them unless some major development happens, which is very unlikely

If the FTC loses this federal case, they’re done here with this acquisition. Period.

If a judge declines to grant a preliminary injunction requested by the FTC to prevent an acquisition, it does not necessarily mean that the FTC's case is over. A preliminary injunction is a temporary measure intended to maintain the status quo while a case is being litigated. It is granted when a court believes there is a likelihood of success on the merits and that irreparable harm would occur if the injunction is not granted. If a judge declines to grant a preliminary injunction, it means that the court does not find the FTC's arguments convincing enough to warrant an immediate halt to the acquisition. However, the case itself can still proceed, and the FTC can continue its legal efforts to challenge the acquisition through other means.

The judge's decision on a preliminary injunction does not represent a final judgment on the merits of the case. The FTC can still present its evidence, arguments, and pursue further legal avenues to prove its case and seek remedies if it believes the acquisition violates antitrust laws. The judge's ruling on the preliminary injunction is only one aspect of the overall legal process.

It is certainly a type of litmus test for the feelings of the courts prior to the full proceeding that the FTC was going to have to go through anyways. Microsoft was already believed to be willing to close the deal as long as the CMA said yes, seeing as how the FTC was clearly going to drag the case out well beyond the closure date. Not to mention, there was already the general feeling that the courts were going to deny the FTC later. Which has been Khan's crusade this whole time. To show the FTC as toothless and get reforms so that the FTC has similar power in the US to the CMA in the UK, without always having to answer to courts. In processes that are highly political.

As far as how this affects the CMA. It won't either way. The FTC still agrees with the CMA, even if US courts deny them. The difficulty for the FTC to perform its tasks in the US would certainly be highlighted in any attempt to paint the CMA as a loner. In addition to the EC openly sharing the same concerns with the CMA, just being more willing to accept different remedies that the CMA has made clear in the past they find ineffective and very inconvenient. Two important regulatory bodies agree with them. Just that one was willing to deal with behavioral remedies and the other has little of its own power. Not a strong ground to prove irrationality.

 

[Thirty7ven]

As far as ATVI shareholders are concerned - they’re just waiting for the cash to sell their shares. “They” (the ATVI shareholders) don’t care what MS does with ABK, if ABK is successful or if MS is successful after acquisition or whatever.

They have a standing order, and sec submitted contract that demands a different outcome.

MS spreading rumors of intent forces a reaction, but it doesn’t mean they follow through.