• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

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.
ToadMan

ToadMan

Member
DarkBatman said:
I thought it was impossible to close the deal because CMA approval was one of the main conditions.
Click to expand...

“Conditions for whom?” is the thing…

The ATVI shareholders “subjectively” don’t care - they already agreed to sell for $95 per share.

So who was that clause for - who does it protect? It protects MS because without approval in all the territories ATVI wasn’t worth the $69bn.

But that was before a year of massive inflation and D4 launch.

Now maybe, ATVI is still worth $69bn to MS even with the law suits and other issues in the UK and so they’d proceed and run the risk.

Unless the FTC gets an injunction up that is.

DarkBatman said:
Or would the failure of the injuction somehow induce the CMA to change its own decision before the scheduled hearing dates?
Click to expand...

No it’s not that. The failure of the injunction allows MS to close the acquisition despite the UK opposition.

That’s been the case since day one - but in the CAT CMC, MS legal team openly implied this possibility while arguing about timescales.
 
Topher

Topher

Identifies as young
POKEYCLYDE said:
Page 1111, make a wish.
Click to expand...

I wish for page 2222

Sad Tb GIF by Hide The Pain Harold
 
X-Wing

X-Wing

Member
FireFly said:
AFAIK all of the recent Playstation ports are using DirectX, despite there being "no benefit" in your words.

But even if developers switch over to open APIs, the vast majority of the audience will be on Windows, so there will be a very strong incentive to ignore other OS, especially given the already limited resources allocated to PC porting.
Click to expand...

Some (maybe all, idk) also allows to use Vulkan. TLOU PC port ran without issues on Vulkan. The major problems reported were only present when using DX.
 
PaintTinJr

PaintTinJr

Member
FireFly said:
AFAIK all of the recent Playstation ports are using DirectX, despite there being "no benefit" in your words.

But even if developers switch over to open APIs, the vast majority of the audience will be on Windows, so there will be a very strong incentive to ignore other OS, especially given the already limited resources allocated to PC porting.
Click to expand...
No, quite the opposite actually. Devs typically position their dev resources that serves the sales of their product best. DirectX only makes sense because it is built into windows and it is mandatory for Xbox, Without Xbox, DirectX losses the low hanging fruit sales across Xbox from around 20-60m consoles - depending on when in a generation.

Going Vulkan or Opengl retains all the same Windows PC gamer market, but makes it very easy to then port to Nintendo or PlayStation's custom Vulkan APIs, and easier to port to MacOS, and provide native support to SteamOS, and look to the future by having a game using a graphics API that will natively work with all Cloud OS solutions. And AMD and Intel's graphics cards favour Vulkan, so it would also give devs more chance of getting marketing deals from any of the three graphics card vendors too.

Currently Xbox is the vanguard to make DirectX relevant, without its user base for sales and with cloud on the rise, high-end AAA game devs would choose vulkan as their primary target as it would maximises their chance to reach most platforms with least dev effort.
 
PaintTinJr

PaintTinJr

Member
Iced Arcade said:
API foolishness today lol. This thread is 8% on topic
Click to expand...
Follow it back to the conversation on the previous page where it starts.

DirectX - and by extension DirectXbox -has been at the centre of everything negative Microsoft have aimed at PlayStation/Sony since the beginning, when Sony turned them down to use the API on PlayStation, and is very much the reason why Microsoft want this deal to close and all the harm to PlayStation's ability to gamble on high end AAA games, that comes with the deal .
 
Last edited:
PaintTinJr

PaintTinJr

Member
Heisenberg007 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sorry forgot to reply to this interesting point.

The immediate damage of Microsoft closing the deal to PlayStation would come from Sony being forced to change strategy and work on the basis that Microsoft wouldn't be forced to divest ATVI in the end. At that moment PlayStation would start killing risker game projects and tightening its belt to ensure they could cope without that revenue.

And Microsoft could flippantly kill the CoD franchise in those two years so even when divestment happened all the talent and the player base were already gone, meaning PlayStation's earning capacity from CoD was also gone.
 
Shanomatic

Shanomatic

Member
Varteras said:
Wouldn't matter. This is the FTC, being led by a Biden-appointed official in a temporary injunction request. Not some random group filing a lawsuit. The US system is very politically motivated.
Click to expand...
This isn’t how judges or courts work in the US. The vast, vast majority of judges aren’t taking who appointed them into consideration in anything they do.

I know it’s a funny meme to dunk on the US and its institutions, but the judiciary remains incredibly independent of political pressures or influence like that. It’d be far more valuable to look at Corley’s previous rulings on matters like this to get an idea on how this is going to go.
 
dibella360

dibella360

Banned
Varteras said:
Dismissing lawsuits by a random group is not the same as hearing a temporary injunction request from the FTC, which is chaired by a Biden-appointed official. I'm curious if politics will be at play here.
Click to expand...
Seeing how Microsoft donated $17 Million to Joe Biden and Democrat super PACs ... this could go both ways.
 
Varteras

Varteras

Member
Shanomatic said:
This isn’t how judges or courts work in the US. The vast, vast majority of judges aren’t taking who appointed them into consideration in anything they do.

I know it’s a funny meme to dunk on the US and its institutions, but the judiciary remains incredibly independent of political pressures or influence like that. It’d be far more valuable to look at Corley’s previous rulings on matters like this to get an idea on how this is going to go.
Click to expand...

I call bullshit on judges not being politically motivated.

But just so we're clear, I'd prefer a Republican appointed judge to hear the case. I'd love to know that any hearing will be completely bereft of political influence or one not set up to be favorable to the plaintiff. I want decisions on facts alone.
 
Varteras

Varteras

Member
Astray said:
I personally wouldn't be sure of any outcome in particular.

FTC is incredibly defanged in general and I find it hard to consider them being a lock for winning tbh.
Click to expand...

I don't think the FTC would win in a high court over this. Certainly not as the US is a very "open for business" country in most respects. But I'm not a fan of a Biden-appointed judge being set to hear anything from a Biden-appointed official.
 
U

Unknown Soldier

Member
Astray said:
I personally wouldn't be sure of any outcome in particular.

FTC is incredibly defanged in general and I find it hard to consider them being a lock for winning tbh.
Click to expand...
I don't think they can win this. I also think MS was clearly bluffing, and the FTC called their bluff, and they are going to get the beat down from the judge on Thursday. I don't follow the saga of this Lina Khan person but they seem to be hopelessly inept and out of their league trying to run the FTC.
 
Varteras

Varteras

Member
Unknown Soldier said:
I don't think they can win this. I also think MS was clearly bluffing, and the FTC called their bluff, and they are going to get the beat down from the judge on Thursday. I don't follow the saga of this Lina Khan person but they seem to be hopelessly inept and out of their league trying to run the FTC.
Click to expand...

She's a sacrificial lamb, if you will. Sent to slaughter to push for reforms so that the FTC can have more teeth.
 
Shanomatic

Shanomatic

Member
Varteras said:
I call bullshit on judges not being politically motivated.

But just so we're clear, I'd prefer a Republican appointed judge to hear the case. I'd love to know that any hearing will be completely bereft of political influence or one not set up to be favorable to the plaintiff. I want decisions on facts alone.
Click to expand...
I mean, you’re free to be skeptical, but there are plenty of examples of appointed judges ruling against the interests of those who appointed them. It’s rare-ish, but only insofar that appointed judges usually align in their interpretation of the law with those who appointed them, for obvious reasons.

Biden isn’t some left-wing ideologue; he throws the occasional bone to the Progressive wing of his party, but the vast majority of his appointments have been milquetoast Democrat standard.

I don’t know much about Corley, but if she was as aggressive with her stance on merger law as Khan is, I find it hard to believe she wouldn’t have granted a Preliminary Injunction when she heard the class-action lawsuit. But who knows, we’ll see in a week regardless.
 
Stardust_Dragon

Stardust_Dragon

Banned
Didn't the FTC file for the preliminary injunction request in the Northern District of California on Monday? So I'm sure Lina Khan and the others at the FTC must have known there would be a high chance of this same judge who oversaw the gamers' lawsuit earlier this year to oversee this request, and yet the FTC still chose that district anyways to file for the injunction.
 
Varteras

Varteras

Member
Shanomatic said:
I mean, you’re free to be skeptical, but there are plenty of examples of appointed judges ruling against the interests of those who appointed them. It’s rare-ish, but only insofar that appointed judges usually align in their interpretation of the law with those who appointed them, for obvious reasons.

Biden isn’t some left-wing ideologue; he throws the occasional bone to the Progressive wing of his party, but the vast majority of his appointments have been milquetoast Democrat standard.

I don’t know much about Corley, but if she was as aggressive with her stance on merger law as Khan is, I find it hard to believe she wouldn’t have granted a Preliminary Injunction when she heard the class-action lawsuit. But who knows, we’ll see in a week regardless.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, if Corley rules in favor, we won't know how much of that was politics. Only if she denies will we know she really wasn't influenced.

And yeah. Biden just plays the game. That goes in all things. Including the parties sticking it to each other. With Republicans hounding Lina Khan from pretty much the moment she was appointed FTC chair by him. This wouldn't be about appeasing progressive constituents. Rather, sticking it to the opposition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Microsoft has Closed the Activision Blizzard King Deal
22 23 24 25 26
1K
94K
MasterCornholio replied
Microsoft now says the CMA was ‘tough and fair’ over Activision Blizzard deal
Opinion Business Game Dev
17
3K
SportsFan581 replied
FTC appeals to block already-completed Microsoft-Activision deal
2
63
7K
Mythoclast replied
  • Locked
UK minister defends CMA's decision to block MS/ABK
News
0
1K
Daniel_Mallorca1985 replied
  • Locked
Microsoft to sell off Activision cloud gaming rights to Ubisoft in bid for UK approval
News Business 2 3 4
154
17K
Spyxos replied
Top Bottom