Support NeoGAF

[PaintTinJr]

They measured it on a Nvidia Shield and latency was similar to streaming it from the desktop PC client. If it's fine on 2016 mobile SoC then any modern device would have very little issue.

So completely home court advantage? and not representative of generic thin clients? SleepWalker has highlighted that features are being limited to Nvidia clients, where they will be using both client side rendering and cloud processing together, as a hybrid cloud gaming.

Did the test even say what the technical specs and model version of the Tegra chipset they used in the Shield device? I'm guessing if the TegraX2(?) in the Switch is good for 1080p60, then the Tegra in that shield was 4times that, and the Shield Pro for 4K 120 will be 8x and have DLSS in it too.

As I said before , let's see what a (high-end 2019) Android 10 smartphone can do with GeForceNow before agreeing with DF's Nvidia homecourt testing results.

 

[X-Wing]

So how they are trying to close the deal before July 18th if they now for sure hearings just start July 28th

They think the fine is worth it, probably hoping the fine gets dropped if the appeal is successful.

 

[DeepEnigma]

So how they are trying to close the deal before July 18th if they now for sure hearings just start July 28th

 

[SneakersSO]

So how they are trying to close the deal before July 18th if they now for sure hearings just start July 28th

Ringfencing. They were going to move to close the deal everywhere BUT the UK, then after the deal is closed, essentially dare UK regulators to try and fight in court for years to break them up, all while they move quickly to move ATVI operations out of the UK and into the EU at large, in the hopes of convincing UK courts that this isn't even in their jurisdiction anymore.

There is a long-standing, largely American US corporate law theory that breaking up a big company can cause way too much damage to the public at large (largely espoused by big corporations), so loads of judges tend to side with corporations in big break-up fights. Now, this legal argument hasn't held up anywhere near as strongly as it has in US courts elsewhere, but MS was probably hoping that, by moving ATVI UK assets out quickly, they'd be able to hopefully get one UK court to side with them in the long-term.

This leads me to believe that MS is probably underestimating just how big the ongoing fees the CMA can and will pile onto them will wind up becoming. This move also is the sort of thing that immediately would turn large groups of regulators against them overnight, so this is something MS is willing to do now and are praying this won't damage their deal making ability in the future, or even the need to make deals in the future.

 

[Zathalus]

So completely home court advantage? and not representative of generic thin clients? SleepWalker has highlighted that features are being limited to Nvidia clients, where they will be using both client side rendering and cloud processing together, as a hybrid cloud gaming.

Did the test even say what the technical specs and model version of the Tegra chipset they used in the Shield device? I'm guessing if the TegraX2(?) in the Switch is good for 1080p60, then the Tegra in that shield was 4times that, and the Shield Pro for 4K 120 will be 8x and have DLSS in it too.

As I said before , let's see what a (high-end 2019) Android 10 smartphone can do with GeForceNow before agreeing with DF's Nvidia homecourt testing results.

The Nvidia Shield runs the bog standard Tegra X1, same exact chip as the Switch (although clocked a bit higher). It is also just running Android. It does 4k 60 just fine. There is no special sauce in it. Any modern smartphone is significantly faster.

 

[NickFire]

Ringfencing. They were going to move to close the deal everywhere BUT the UK, then after the deal is closed, essentially dare UK regulators to try and fight in court for years to break them up, all while they move quickly to move ATVI operations out of the UK and into the EU at large, in the hopes of convincing UK courts that this isn't even in their jurisdiction anymore.

How would they close the deal in every country but one?

Anything is possible I suppose, but I am pretty confident that is not how a closing occurs.

 

[SneakersSO]

Just to add to my last post, specifically this part:

There is a long-standing, largely American US corporate law theory that breaking up a big company can cause way too much damage to the public at large (largely espoused by big corporations), so loads of judges tend to side with corporations in big break-up fights.

This is the exact legal theory MS was going to rely on to close in the US without FTC approval. Without a granted injunction, MS would be able to close the deal, and then it would be on the FTC to prove to a Federal Judge that the harm the newly merged company poses is greater than the potential 'public damage' that breaking them up would pose. And since the measurement seems to be 'Well, they merged and the world isn't on fire", most judges just side with the big corporation, and they big corp gets to steamroll their major anti-consumer merger through without issue.

 

[SneakersSO]

How would they close the deal in every country but one?

Anything is possible I suppose, but I am pretty confident that is not how a closing occurs.

I shouldn't say 'close' in the traditional sense here, you're right - it would still be 'closed' in the UK, but the legal battles and punitive fees are still something they'd be incurring and fighting. However, with MS having closed the deal, they'd be able to begin acting in a managerial capacity over ATVI, and thus moving out their UK business resources. One such move would be to take ATVI, move their UK HQ out into the EU, then move the UK business to a subsidiary that is 'good' in the eyes of regulators in the UK. In such a scenario, you'd see something like MS start publishing ATVI titles in the UK with some publisher - Ubisoft or Embracer. Who knows. This is designed to try and mitigate punitive damage, all while they argue in court that the CMA's findings were unjust/unsound, while also building a new jurisdictional case.

MS would fight it every step of the way and likely lose, but they're ultimately banking on either the CMA not having the will to keep fighting them (or funding), or that a UK court will simply side with them with regards to any number of arguments they could be making at that point (Lack of jurisdiction, arguing against the CMA's findings, etc.).

There still would have to be an amendment to the original MA, but that could be issued, and i'm sure ATVI will sign onto it.

 

[Varteras]

I shouldn't say 'close' in the traditional sense here, you're right - it would still be 'closed' in the UK, but the legal battles and punitive fees are still something they'd be incurring and fighting. However, with MS having closed the deal, they'd be able to begin acting in a managerial capacity over ATVI, and thus moving out their UK business resources. MS would fight it every step of the way and likely lose, but they're ultimately banking on either the CMA not having the will to keep fighting them (or funding), or that a UK court will simply side with them with regards to any number of arguments they could be making at that point (Lack of jurisdiction, arguing against the CMA's findings, etc.).

There still would have to be an amendment to the original MA, but that could be issued, and i'm sure ATVI will sign onto it.

I would be shocked if any UK authority looked at such events and ruled in MS's favor on some grounds that they're no longer operating ABK in the UK. As that would purely be a move to circumvent another UK authority, whom already declared that they shall not even invest in ABK at all for 10 years. Precisely for such an attempt.

 

[SneakersSO]

I would be shocked if any UK authority looked at such events and ruled in MS's favor on some grounds that they're no longer operating ABK in the UK. As that would purely be a move to circumvent another UK authority, whom already declared that they shall not even invest in ABK at all for 10 years. Precisely for such an attempt.

Large corpos thinking that rules, norms, and laws don't apply to them is a tale as old as time. MS didn't lose one of the biggest anti-trust cases in fiscal history in the 90s because they were playing above board.

 

[Varteras]

Large corpos thinking that rules, norms, and laws don't apply to them is a tale as old as time. MS didn't lose one of the biggest anti-trust cases in fiscal history in the 90s because they were playing above board.

I would imagine that such a move would pretty much derail their position in the CAT appeal. At that point they'd be saying they don't even care what the CAT thinks.

 

[harry mason 1989]

Ms will move there business to the Brics countries I think

 

[AJUMP23]

How would they close the deal in every country but one?

Anything is possible I suppose, but I am pretty confident that is not how a closing occurs.

You spin off a subsidiary or you run it from the EU and work around Brexit.

 

[fermcr]

Microsoft should just forget about Activision... and purchase Sony instead.

 

[MasterCornholio]

So how they are trying to close the deal before July 18th if they now for sure hearings just start July 28th

According to the filing they can't close the deal. However if they talk to ABK they can obtain an extension or renegotiate another deal. Then deal with the CMA through the appeals process. That would be the legal way of doing this.

 

[X-Wing]

Microsoft should just forget about Activision... and purchase Sony instead.

Are you tired of having good games?

 

[Banjo64]

You spin off a subsidiary or you run it from the EU and work around Brexit.

Bruh what do u mean?

 

[X-Wing]

According to the filing they can't close the deal. However if they talk to ABK they can obtain an extension or renegotiate another deal. Then deal with the CMA through the appeals process. That would be the legal way of doing this.

But indeed, they should be negotiating the extension now. And if they were, wouldn’t they be transparent about it?

 

[Topher]

Again, whether or not there was a possibility that MS would decide to close the deal without CMA approval, the appeal and doing everything possible to move forward was the only thing that could make sense. Both things are compatible .

It is assumed that closing without approval without UK would carry the support of Activision (new wording in contract?).

The only thing that remains a mystery is the reason that has made the FTC think that possibility existed and also the times to do it. These times only favor (a priori) MS who is clearly the happiest with the new situation.

Well sure.....they can rewrite the agreement to say whatever they want and remove any/all obligations being discussed. I'm just going by what we know right now.

As far as the FTC is concerned, it is all speculation like everything else. Could be this was part of their normal timeline at this point in the process. No idea.

 

[AJUMP23]

Bruh what do u mean?

Smart business things. I think I read about spinning off the British branch where since it wasn't approved in the UK you can spin out the ActV portion in the UK as a subsidiary that has some independence but is not wholly owned by MS.

 

[GHG]

Are you tired of having good games?

Can't be tired of good games if you never play them.

 

[Astray]

What happened to the quick trial being according to plan?

 

[ulantan]

Ms will move there business to the Brics countries I think

Come to Brazil.

 

[Banjo64]

Smart business things. I think I read about spinning off the British branch where since it wasn't approved in the UK you can spin out the ActV portion in the UK as a subsidiary that has some independence but is not wholly owned by MS.

and that works how exactly? Considering the CMA have implemented a 10 year banning order on Microsoft acquiring ABK. Considering Microsoft would still want to operate in the UK, and have other video game companies based in the UK?

 

[MasterCornholio]

But indeed, they should be negotiating the extension now. And if they were, wouldn’t they be transparent about it?

Once it's finalised we should hear about it. It's not something they will hide.

 

[AJUMP23]

and that works how exactly? Considering the CMA have implemented a 10 year banning order on Microsoft acquiring ABK. Considering Microsoft would still want to operate in the UK, and have other video game companies based in the UK?

I explained it but I am not a business lawyer. So someone paid a lot more than me will figure it out.

 

[Banjo64]

I explained it but I am not a business lawyer. So someone paid a lot more than me will figure it out.

What you described was not a reasonable scenario and if Microsoft did that they would still be subjected to fines from the CMA and future regulation would be a nightmare for Microsoft.

 

[harry mason 1989]

Come to Brazil.

Brazil and China too

 

[Stardust_Dragon]

What happened to the quick trial being according to plan?

That sure doesn't sound like Microsoft is going to get an extension on the merger agreement with ABK beyond the July 18th deadline, and that they really are planning to go all in with completing the merger prior to that deadline if they can get the injunction denied. But that's just me though, maybe there's more to their response than is being shared currently.

 

[Elios83]

What happened to the quick trial being according to plan?

So they didn't expect the FTC moving.
And they still talk like there is no future for the deal past July 18th.
It's funny that in the UK they asked to speed up things and here it's the opposite

In any case at this point it's hard to predict what's going to happen. Too many speculations, all of them have flaws and contradictions. The only thing clear is that the fate of this deal will rely on what happens in the next 3-4 weeks.

 

[DeepEnigma]

What you described was not a reasonable scenario and if Microsoft did that they would still be subjected to fines from the CMA and future regulation would be a nightmare for Microsoft.

It will also create a FFA vacuum for other large corporations which governments will then step in and start dismantling before it gets too out of control. Otherwise, why bother having regulation? Let these monopolies monopolize and fuck over every single industry because gamers are petty shits who cheer on the owning of the "other team."

 

[IFireflyl]

No thanks, i am not so invested that i am going to go back and pour through months of news articles.

You obviously were invested enough to tell the lie, and then to double down on it. Either be prepared to prove the claims you make, or don't make the claims. If I correct someone on something, I am always prepared to corroborate my claim.

What actually happened is you believed that Sony said they would collapse without Call of Duty because you heard someone say it at some point, and then you doubled down on it when I told you that wasn't true, and then you couldn't find anything that corroborated the claim. Sorry, bro. Eat more vegetables.

 

[SixPin]

I have like 30 more pages to go through. I am sick for 2 days and this revision is dropped, christ.

The CMA will accept behavioral remedies in a few instances, one of them, the one Microsoft will argue is that there are relevant customer benefits (RCB) that would disappear absent the merger. These RCBs would also have to outweigh any potential SLC concerns.

With the console SLC, this was hard to accept. Without the console SLC, it'll be easy.

Nvidia and the 2 smaller cloud gaming companies would have never gotten access to ABK games absent the merger. ABK's actions prior to this acquisition show that. It can be argued that cloud gaming rivals lose nothing if this acquisition goes through, but they will lose something if the acquisition is blocked.

This doesn't entirely stop the concerns around Microsoft's cloud gaming dominance and worry that having access to CoD will be such an advantage that no one can compete, but behavioral remedies should suffice.

I'm at 75/25 it's going to pass.

Interestingly enough if the reports are true that Microsoft's remedy package to the EC didn't focus on consoles, it could mean that Sony won't be able to sign the 10 year deal that's been offered to them. Microsoft's offer of parity was to squash any SLC. But if the main regulators don't view partial foreclosure (access to a mode) as damaging to competitors, I could see Microsoft making CoD on Xbox "The best place to play".

I expect to see news stories within the month about Sony signing the 10 year deal, or Sony complaining that Microsoft isn't offering the same deal anymore. (The latter being more likely to try and convince regulators Microsoft is not to be trusted.)

(Side note: Sony will probably announce a major acquisition by the end of summer, now that they see the writing on the wall that they won't be able to stop this acquisition, they'll want to make an acquisition while Microsoft is tied up and can't outbid them, if they were smart they would try for Capcom.. that is probably the biggest bang for their buck, though I'd personally want them to go for Square Enix.. get that company away from NFTs please)

Then why haven't they?

That's not how it works, my man.

The acquisition hasn’t been closed anywhere.

It hasn't been closed. What the EC has done is say that it was okay to close it with those concessions. Big difference.

Microsoft doesn't own ABK at this moment.

This acquisition hasn't been "closed" anywhere. It has received approval from the EU. Not the same thing.



The CMA has prohibited Microsoft from acquiring ABK.

Closed or allowed?

You all are right, I take the L. Closed would mean that activision is part of Microsoft, it's not the same as approved, you are right.

I don't think that Microsoft would close over the CMA..but I guess the FTC don't want to risk, which seems unfortunate because this might give Microsoft a better chance to win this.

SixPin

Great gif lol

 

[AJUMP23]

What you described was not a reasonable scenario and if Microsoft did that they would still be subjected to fines from the CMA and future regulation would be a nightmare for Microsoft.

well it wasn't my idea just one i read.

 

[Sony]

 

[DeepEnigma]

well it wasn't my idea just one i read.

Shouldn't that goose be chasing Todd Howard to make sure he doesn't repeat the physics tied to the framerate mistake again?

 

[jm89]

Just like when they wanted the CAT judge to speed things up. Probably all for a nervy abk.

 

[Topher]

 

[Banjo64]

Just like when they wanted the CMA judge to speed things up. Probably all for a nervy abk.

They’re hurtling towards that $3b payout like a baby flying out of the womb.

 

[feynoob]

Finally some freedom.

 

[ToadMan]

So how they are trying to close the deal before July 18th if they know for sure hearings just start July 28th

Those dates are for the CMA in the UK.

But MS and ABK shares are traded in the USA - its there in the nasdaq exchange the transaction would be completed by MS paying the money, taking all the ATVI shares and removing them from trade. At that point they are owners of ABK…

As of 13 June, MS is barred from doing that in the USA by a federal restraining order.

So even if MS went to the ATM today, withdrew $69bn cash, and then went to the Nasdaq floor to buy ATVI stock - they, and anyone assisting them would be committing a federal crime. Of course no one would assist them so the deal cannot be done now.

That situation will exist until at least next week when the Fed court will hear the case for a longer injunction to cover the FTC court proceedings scheduled for August/September. We will probably hear the outcome of that proceeding around the 26th June I’d guess.

If that injunction is approved, MS cannot close anywhere until the FTC approves which may be never.

If that injunction is not upheld, MS can close in the US before the July 18 date if they choose but doing so brings serious consequences - they would be breaking UK law and the terms of their acquisition agreement with ATVI.

So in this latter scenario they’d be open to punitive fines in the UK and potentially USA if the FTC continued its case and got a federal court decision down the line.

It’s up to MS to decide if they’re prepared to break UK law and their own contract.

Is that the kind of company MS is? It does seem like a lot of the cheerleaders for this action by MS are those kind of people

 

[DeepEnigma]

They’re hurtling towards that $3b payout like a baby flying out of the womb.

Man, gaming commercials were so bad ass back then. I remember Sony's creepy baby ones as well as the Kevin Butler and Crash ads, lol.

 

[Darsxx82]

So they didn't expect the FTC moving.
And they still talk like there is no future for the deal past July 18th.
It's funny that in the UK they asked to speed up things and here it's the opposite

In any case at this point it's hard to predict what's going to happen. Too many speculations, all of them have flaws and contradictions. The only thing clear is that the fate of this deal will rely on what happens in the next 3-4 weeks.

If I'm not mistaken, there says that they are asking for a cuple more days to be able to properly present expert testimonies ... ... I don't think a couple of days is incompatible with its preference for speeding up the times....

 

[Pelta88]

This speaks volumes. Activision isn't in the same position they were a year ago. Microsoft's 3 Billion will likely put their current stock price beyond their projections and accelerate the stock price further. If Microsoft believes the deal is dead if they go beyond July 18, then the board at activision is likely against them at this point. In terms of a conglomerate Microsoft have demonstrated nothing but incompetence at every turn.

Sarah Bond is sounding more and more like she's in prep for the leadership role. Phil losing his job is a certainty if this deal fails.

He boasted and took ownership of the deal. Praising himself for setting it in motion. If Microsoft has to make a payout of 3 Billion for the deals failure, the buck stops with him and his position is untenable. They'll dress it up, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned into an event with a glossy vid talking about Phil's "accomplishments." But however they dress it up, his time is up. And good riddance because I can't stand the overpromising PR and the consistent failure to deliver.

 

[Sanepar]

Those dates are for the CMA in the UK.

But MS and ABK shares are traded in the USA - its there in the nasdaq exchange the transaction would be completed by MS paying the money, taking all the ATVI shares and removing them from trade. At that point they are owners of ABK…

As of 13 June, MS is barred from doing that in the USA by a federal restraining order.

So even if MS went to the ATM today, withdrew $69bn cash, and then went to the Nasdaq floor to buy ATVI stock - they, and anyone assisting them would be committing a federal crime. Of course no one would assist them so the deal cannot be done now.

That situation will exist until at least next week when the Fed court will hear the case for a longer injunction to cover the FTC court proceedings scheduled for August/September. We will probably hear the outcome of that proceeding around the 26th June I’d guess.

If that injunction is approved, MS cannot close anywhere until the FTC approves which may be never.

If that injunction is not upheld, MS can close in the US before the July 18 date if they choose but doing so brings serious consequences - they would be breaking UK law and the terms of their acquisition agreement with ATVI.

So in this latter scenario they’d be open to punitive fines in the UK and potentially USA if the FTC continued its case and got a federal court decision down the line.

It’s up to MS to decide if they’re prepared to break UK law and their own contract.

Is that the kind of company MS is? It does seem like a lot of the cheerleaders for this action by MS are those kind of people

MS I don't think so. But xbox management are those kind of people. They behave like fanboys and not proper c-levels.

 

[Ogbert]

Smart business things. I think I read about spinning off the British branch where since it wasn't approved in the UK you can spin out the ActV portion in the UK as a subsidiary that has some independence but is not wholly owned by MS.

This is the sort of thing that is legally possible, but in practise is just untenable. It would need MS to fundamentally restructure its entire UK business; contracts, patents, legal permissions to simply provide a crappier version of Gamepass in the UK.

Companies have navigated Brexit because the UK regulators have bent over backwards to accommodate them and set up temporary permissions regime. The same generosity would not be extended here.

If MS are bullish, what is more likely is that they simply offer the products in the UK and face the prospects of fines. That said, still unlikelyx

 

[ToadMan]

They think the fine is worth it, probably hoping the fine gets dropped if the appeal is successful.

Yeah that would be my guess.

If the FTC injunction fails, then MS will use that decision to close in the US before the FTC case (and the FTC may back out of that) and take that judgement to the CAT.

If they get the CAT to remit the decision back to the CMA, then MS will use the Fed and CAT decisions to argue against fines in a UK court.

Then its up to the CMA to review - they’ll probably reject the acquisition again, and it just becomes a case of managing/minimising the fines for MS until they find a longer term solution.

 

[IFireflyl]

you guys actually making me go back and search for this crap ugh haha

Sorry, it wasn't specifically stated as "If MS acquires COD we may never recover" it was "If MS acquires COD and releases a degraded version of COD on Playstation we may never recover"

Close enough either way, if MS gets ahold of COD we may never recover...

Jim Ryan: 'Our Business Would Never Recover' If Microsoft Degraded Call of Duty on PlayStation

Sony Interactive Entertainment President and CEO Jim Ryan in the company's response to the UK regulator, the Competition [...]

www.vgchartz.com

This isn't the same thing as saying that Sony said they wouldn't recover from Call of Duty being acquired from Microsoft. This is just common sense. If you have an extremely popular product being released on two platforms, and the product is degraded on one of those platforms, the platform that has the degraded product will suffer. This is exactly what they said:

Any degradation in the price, performance, or quality of play on PlayStation or any delays on release would quickly harm SIE’s reputation and cause a loss of engagement and of players. As SIE’s CEO, Jim Ryan, explained to the CMA at the Remedies Hearing, if PlayStation received a degraded version of Call of Duty, it would “seriously damage our reputation. Our gamers would desert our platform in droves and network effects would exacerbate the problem. Our business would never recover.”

Degraded quality of product leads to damaging of reputation. Degraded quality of products and damaged reputation leads to abandonment of the platform. It's one thing to make a product exclusive. It's another to release a defective product on another platform just to see people that use that platform get pissed with it and potentially switch to your platform. This is a logical (albeit, slightly hyperbolic) conclusion.

P.S. Sony is going to say whatever they can to get this deal blocked. I don't think that Microsoft would intentionally degrade the quality of the game. But that is the only scenario in which Sony said that they could experience irreversible harm.

 

[DeepEnigma]

This speaks volumes. Activision isn't in the same position they were a year ago. Microsoft's 3 Billion will likely put their current stock price beyond their projections and accelerate the stock price further. If Microsoft believes the deal is dead if they go beyond July 18, then the board at activision is likely against them at this point. In terms of a conglomerate Microsoft have demonstrated nothing but incompetence at every turn.

Sarah Bond is sounding more and more like she's in prep for the leadership role. Phil losing his job is a certainty if this deal fails.

He boasted and took ownership of the deal. Praising himself for setting it in motion. If Microsoft has to make a payout of 3 Billion for the deals failure, the buck stops with him and his position is untenable. They'll dress it up, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned into an event with a glossy vid talking about Phil's "accomplishments." But however they dress it up, his time is up. And good riddance because I can't stand the overpromising PR and the consistent failure to deliver.

She lacks a charismatic stage presence, but that can be coached, which does happen for these public speakers. Or, they may go a more subdued route like Sony or Nintendo and not the public speaker brand mascot celebrity approach of constantly doing interviews and being in the news cycle. More than likely the former, however since she checks all the right boxes in many ways.

 

[Thirty7ven]