• 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?


  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Godot25

Banned
I have no doubts that MS had plans to buy Activision in 2019. The mail was sent, it was their strategy and the seed was planted. They were looking to stop the PS dominance and this was the idea/solution. They will say anything now to pass this deal and later change the rules.
Tin Foil Kiss GIF by Magenta
 

modiz

Member
I have no doubts that MS had plans to buy Activision in 2019. The mail was sent, it was their strategy and the seed was planted. They were looking to stop the PS dominance and this was the idea/solution. They will say anything now to pass this deal and later change the rules.
Thing is, nobody cares about your doubts, the court will do. They will decide what matters and will hear all the arguments, not neogaf (thankfully).
 

Godot25

Banned
I have no doubts that MS had plans to buy Activision in 2019. The mail was sent, it was their strategy and the seed was planted. They were looking to stop the PS dominance and this was the idea/solution. They will say anything now to pass this deal and later change the rules.
So let me get this straight
From redacted email (that we don't even know context and text of) that "Gamers" lawyers claim reveals Microsoft's secret plan plan to dominate games industry people figured out
- that Microsoft in that time was already in talks to acquire Bethesda. Reason? Because Sony talked to Bungie 20 months about merger so it's clear that even Microsoft had to communicate 20 months to buy Bethesda. Because clearly, if you want to buy a company, you need to talk to them for 20 months.
- that Microsoft could have predicted all problems ABK would face in three years time that would tank their stock value and offer them an entrance for "cheap" buy.

Boy. Those in charge of Xbox division are literally geniuses. Same people that "can't manage Xbox properly" according to some people around here.

Meanwhile CMA had to drop console SLC and are trying to block this deal on basis of almost non existing market, EU said that Sony would be fine even if Microsoft would made COD exclusive for Xbox, China did not even bothered and FTC is heading for slaughter with their excellent 0:8 score. Not one regulator thinks that this deal would ruin Sony in console business (FTC is trying but...whatever).

All while it's highly probable that CMA and FTC had access to this email and said "whatever."
 

supernova8

Banned
Obviously the ActivisionBlizzard takeover is to ultimately drive Sony out of the market
Obviously Microsoft is going to make CoD and all the other games Xbox/PC exclusive

Microsoft can say whatever they like to try and get the deal over the line, but I don't think they're fooling anyone.
I personally don't give a shit about COD and if I want to play WoW I'm sure it'll be on PC regardless. I also have no interest in Candy Crush anymore so... yeah let them have it.

I'd rather regulators let the deal through with the argument that Microsoft making COD exclusive isn't going to drive Sony out of the business, as opposed to some fairy tale bollocks about how Microsoft gave them a bunch of bullshit assurances.
 
Last edited:

Godot25

Banned
It’s with the regulators, how bout we let them decide?
I mean. Regulators already decided in terms of Microsoft "destroying Sony" with this merger, right?
- CMA dropped consoles SLC and their concern is only around cloud gaming
- EU said that Sony would be fine even with COD exclusive on Xbox
- China did not bothered at all
- Only FTC is still trying to claim harm in console space

So? Even regulators agrees that this merger will not drive Sony out of business. And yet. We have "concerns everywhere"
 

bitbydeath

Member
I mean. Regulators already decided in terms of Microsoft "destroying Sony" with this merger, right?
- CMA dropped consoles SLC and their concern is only around cloud gaming
- EU said that Sony would be fine even with COD exclusive on Xbox
- China did not bothered at all
- Only FTC is still trying to claim harm in console space

So? Even regulators agrees that this merger will not drive Sony out of business. And yet. We have "concerns everywhere"
This is new evidence that everyone can use.
 

Astray

Member

feynoob

Banned
The mail is evidence of a planned business strategy put in place in 2019 to try to put a competitor out of business.
What we have seen since 2020 until now is the execution.
Then, they have to provide the evidence for that.
No court is going to accept that without evidence that backs it up.
 

Godot25

Banned
It was never mentioned before and MS were just caught trying to hide it, so uh, yeah think I will believe that.
"It was never mentioned" doesn't mean that regulators did not read it. Of course, it is possibility.
Second possibility is that regulators read it when examining this case but they considered it not important so it wasn't in final reports.
And even California judge in "Gamers" case refused to grant PI despite the fact that she had access to this email.
 
Last edited:

feynoob

Banned
They have, that’s what everyone has been talking about, and the evidence will likely be used by others as well.
What they have is an email from 2019.
That is not going to get you that far in the court.

If it was 2021-2022, then yes. That would have meant something.
 
Last edited:

feynoob

Banned
The mail with an executive talking about such business strategy in place is the evidence.
Again, that is not going to get you anywhere.

A: the email is from 2019.
B: you have to prove that the email is connected to these purchases.

You prove these and you got yourself a case.
 

Bernardougf

Member
I dont understand the whole mess. So the FTC, who is supposed to be about competitive markets, is ok with Sony maintaining 70% market share? How exactly does Sony ending up with 80% market share protect consumers?

Plus they expect MS to buy studios in an attempt to compete and have exclusives (the key to selling consoles) but then not make the games exclusive? What a bunch of bs.

Oh no... we all know that if they are allowed to complete the merger they will make COD and all activions games exclusivise.. as they should by the way..... this was never in doubt .. apart from some of your friends here screaming to high heavens thst they would NEVER do that.
We already have some of them contradicting themselfs overhere
 

Mr Moose

Member
Again, that is not going to get you anywhere.

A: the email is from 2019.
B: you have to prove that the email is connected to these purchases.

You prove these and you got yourself a case.
 

Elios83

Member
Again, that is not going to get you anywhere.

A: the email is from 2019.
B: you have to prove that the email is connected to these purchases.

You prove these and you got yourself a case.

I don't think that FTC will build their case on a single mail.
Actually I think that FTC will basically try to leverage what happened with the CMA and the fact that even EU had concerns about the cloud market that required strict behavioural remedies to be addressed just in that particular market.
The rest is supporting evidence to paint the picture of a company that wants to destroy competitors and this mail is evidence of just that, has made an acquisition to foreclose contents to competitors (see Bethesda).
FTC needs to prove there are enough concerns to support a preliminary injunction. They need to prove that given that the acquisition has met incredible scrutiny around the world, it is currently blocked in the UK and there is evidence of anticompetitive behaviour, Microsoft can't be allowed to close the acquisition in the US before the full case on the merger is done.
 
Last edited:

GHG

Gold Member
I like how it's gone from "They didn't really say that, no evidence, it's redacted, lalala"

dumb-dumber.gif



To now being "it was 2019, it doesn't count".

If anything, the email being from 2019 only serves to build a pattern of behaviour considering what's happened since then.

And yes, it does count, there's a reason they asked for documents going that far back.
 
Last edited:

modiz

Member
i know it is the last straw of hope but this email was already part of the "Gamer's" lawsuit (incredible name) and the judge already didn't think it is relevant so where does that hope come from it will become relevant now? Desperation?
 

Drell

Member
I like how it's gone from "They didn't really say that, no evidence, it's redacted, lalala"

dumb-dumber.gif



To now being "it was 2019, it doesn't count".

If anything, the email being from 2019 only serves to build a pattern of behaviour considering what's happened since then.

And yes, it does count, there's a reason they asked for documents going that far back.
But it's ok they're the good guys remember? Microsoft is there to purge this market from evil and bring video games to everyone.
 

GHG

Gold Member
i know it is the last straw of hope but this email was already part of the "Gamer's" lawsuit (incredible name) and the judge already didn't think it is relevant so where does that hope come from it will become relevant now? Desperation?

First start by asking yourself why the information has surfaced now and what the purpose of it surfacing now is. Who and what does it pertain to?

That information is publically available if you feel like doing some fact finding.
 

modiz

Member
First start by asking yourself why the information has surfaced now and what the purpose of it surfacing now is. Who and what does it pertain to?

That information is publically available if you feel like doing some fact finding.
Because that Axios guy found a nothing burger, made a story about it and the Sony fans blew it up out of proportion because they see it as a big hope to save gaming from evil M$?
 

feynoob

Banned
The same people are in charge which makes it still relevant.
But that doesn't work though.
If they can connect the email to that purchase and prove it, then they have strong case.
I don't think that FTC will build their case on a single mail.
Actually I think that FTC will basically try to leverage what happened with the CMA and the fact that even EU had concerns about the cloud market that required strict behavioural remedies to be addressed just in that particular market.
The rest is supporting evidence to paint the picture of a company that wants to destroy competitors and this mail is evidence of just that, has made an acquisition to foreclose contents to competitors (see Bethesda).
FTC needs to prove there are enough concerns to support a preliminary injunction. They need to prove that given that the acquisition has met incredible scrutiny around the world, it is currently blocked in the UK and there is evidence of anticompetitive behaviour, Microsoft can't be allowed to close the acquisition in the US before the full case on the merger is done.
Would be a good strong evidence, if the content of the email aligns with that.
 

Astray

Member
I like how it's gone from "They didn't really say that, no evidence, it's redacted, lalala"

dumb-dumber.gif



To now being "it was 2019, it doesn't count".

If anything, the email being from 2019 only serves to build a pattern of behaviour considering what's happened since then.

And yes, it does count, there's a reason they asked for documents going that far back.
It's like they think they are addressing goldfish with no memories.

You would expect a company that's supposedly competing to actually respect the intellect of its prospective customers.. But no real need to respect them when you are planning to be their only choice.
 

Godot25

Banned

And this is problem...why exactly?
Microsoft can't tell anything about their next console to Bungie since they are owned by Sony and they are making multiplat games. And Sony San Diego is also making MLB games multiplatform.

Also. Since people around here are adamant that Microsoft is taking COD from PlayStation, why they would even need to tell ABK about next PlayStation console? :messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy:
 
Last edited:

zapper

Member
in my first post here I was wondering exactly how ps could send devkit to activision in case they ends up under ms, for me it's natural to be a problem. using mojang as an example of good behavior has nothing to do with it in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

Godot25

Banned
in my first post here I was wondering exactly how ps could send devkit to activision in case they ends up under ms, for me it's natural to be a problem. using mojang as an example of good behavior has nothing to do with it in my opinion.
So you won't send devkits early if you are worried about "secrets being leaked"
Same is for Microsoft with Bungie games and MLB games since both those studios are owned by Sony.
Of course you are then risking that first games on that platform would be badly optimised, but you need to weigh in risk factor.
 

modiz

Member
The Axios guy didn't "find" a "nothing burger", new documents and evidence have surfaced as part of the "gamers lawsuit" appeals process.
And how did the judge (the same actually that will do FTC) consider these in the other lawsuit?
 

Pelta88

Member
What they have is an email from 2019.
That is not going to get you that far in the court.

If it was 2021-2022, then yes. That would have meant something.

"If you send an email saying you're going to shoot someone in 2019, but don't actually buy the gun and commit said act until 2023, then that email isn't evidence of your intentions." - Feynoob's logic.
 
Last edited:

zapper

Member
So you won't send devkits early if you are worried about "secrets being leaked"
Same is for Microsoft with Bungie games and MLB games since both those studios are owned by Sony.
Of course you are then risking that first games on that platform would be badly optimised, but you need to weigh in risk factor.
leaks are not the problem, the problem is that your main competitor knows the hardware you will sell on the market, an advantage that I don't remember in gaming.
for example, microsoft could very well have made its dualsense if it had known it immediately, so as to cancel one of the advantages of ps. and applies to any feature of future competitor hardware
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom