• 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.

bender

What time is it?
No t-shirt?

Finally we get to see Phil in his natural habitat.

Look at those fingers.

seinfeld-jerry-seinfeld.gif
 
I am a lawyer (UK, though).

When you act as a witness and give evidence under oath, you are obviously required to tell the truth. If it can be demonstrated that you knowingly lied about points of material fact, you can face criminal charges.

But he’s making statements about MS future strategy that can only reasonably be levied against the company itself.

The logical conclusion of a single executive being responsible is that the moment they leave the company, that company is no longer required to honour those statements. It would make an absolute mockery of the whole judicial process.

I’m not saying that a company might not be stupid enough to try that. They could go exclusive and then claim Phil was a simpleton who didn’t know what he was talking about but, and I can’t stress this point enough, they would get torn to absolute fucking pieces.

CoD is not going exclusive.

Phil Spencer did not specify in what way COD would remain multiplat. For example, they could in fact remove the annual releases, but keep Warzone multiplat. That would be analogous to them making TES VI Xbox console exclusive, but keeping ESO multiplatform.

So Phil's answer to that question means effectively nothing.
 

Three

Member
Wish the FTC lawyer had pushed back on this.

Just ask why they cant put language to make it perpetually multiplatform like Notch made them do for Minecraft.
Is there any proof that Notch made them do this? I keep hearing this but I've never seen any source on it.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member

Sony isn't buying the largest publisher in the world, after already buying one of the largest. Sony isn't on trial.

If they were, they would be hammered just the same if not worse.

Don't expect the ignoramus segment to understand that.

Are these guys dumb to keep repeating this shit?
Very. Emotionally led tarddlers.
 
Last edited:

Draugoth

Gold Member
So what im seeing from this is that Xbox will keep releasing CoD until Playstation 5 life cycle ends.

If Sony had bought Square before the Embracer deal they would have the exclusivity deal on:

  • Final Fantasy
  • Dragon Quest
  • Hitman
  • Tomb Raider
  • Marvel Avengers
  • Just Cause
  • Deus Ex
  • Kingdom Hearts
  • Parasite Eve
  • Nier
I really dont care much over the situation but i have to admit that Microsoft made the best move.
 
Last edited:

Ogbert

Member
Regardless of your final point regarding PS5 COD, you cannot legally force a company to stick to what an executive said at a preliminary injunction hearing, specially if he leaves the company. Either way it contemplates PS5 alone and nothing else regarding parity or whatever.

You have to find precedence for that by the way, and if you find precedence, my money is on a measly fine having been paid.

Now can the judge use that for her decision regarding denying FTC’s prelim an injunction while forgoing every other point of concern? Absolutely.
He delivered a prepared statement (likely agonised over by MS lawyers for days).

He gave the economic argument for CoD remaining multi platform, but more importantly, called out the anger Sony gamers would have if it was made exclusive. Detrimental harm to the video game market. You just don’t say something like that unless you’re prepared to honour it.

A regulator can absolutely hold them to that standard. As I say, if you tried to reverse on that in the EU or UK, you would be hauled over coals within days.

I appreciate the US might be different. If witnesses are allowed to knowingly mislead regulators then it’s a pretty wild jurisdiction.
 

FUBARx89

Member
So what im seeing from this is that Xbox will keep releasing CoD until Playstation 5 life cycle ends.

If Sony had bought Square before the Embracer deal they would have the exclusivity deal on:

  • Final Fantasy
  • Dragon Quest
  • Hitman
  • Tomb Raider
  • Marvel Avengers
  • Just Cause
  • Deus Ex
  • Kingdom Hearts
  • Parasite Eve
  • Nier
I really dont care much over the situation but i have to admit that Microsoft made the best move.

Hitman left with IOInteractive. They own the IP. IOInteractive left well before SE sold off the western devs to Embracer. Just saying.
 

Slikk360

Member
Phil Spencer did not specify in what way COD would remain multiplat. For example, they could in fact remove the annual releases, but keep Warzone multiplat. That would be analogous to them making TES VI Xbox console exclusive, but keeping ESO multiplatform.

So Phil's answer to that question means effectively nothing.
This is why they in court legal obligation to not remove or alter content on other platforms if the deal goes through.
 

Topher

Identifies as young
I am a lawyer (UK, though).

When you act as a witness and give evidence under oath, you are obviously required to tell the truth. If it can be demonstrated that you knowingly lied about points of material fact, you can face criminal charges.

But he’s making statements about MS future strategy that can only reasonably be levied against the company itself.

The logical conclusion of a single executive being responsible is that the moment they leave the company, that company is no longer required to honour those statements. It would make an absolute mockery of the whole judicial process.

I’m not saying that a company might not be stupid enough to try that. They could go exclusive and then claim Phil was a simpleton who didn’t know what he was talking about but, and I can’t stress this point enough, they would get torn to absolute fucking pieces.

CoD is not going exclusive.

I don't trust lawyers. :messenger_winking:

But you are correct. I believe this describes what you are saying.


Rule (30)(b)(6) applies to depositions of both party and nonparty corporations. For nonparty deponent corporations, the rule requires that the noticing party issue a subpoena.

The rule has two basic requirements. First, the notice must describe with “reasonable particularity” the matters for examination.2 Second, once the organization receives the notice, it must educate the designee to testify about information known or reasonably available to the organization.

Once the corporation has designated a deponent on a particular issue, it becomes “bound” by the designee’s testimony.3 The testimony may be used “for any purpose” at trial, regardless of whether that individual is available to testify.4 When a corporation designates a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent, that witness is authorized to speak for the organization on the specified matters, unlike other employees deposed in the litigation.5 Furthermore, a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition does not foreclose a deposition by any other procedure under the Federal Rules.
Speak for Yourself: The 30(b)(6) Deposition (americanbar.org)
 
He delivered a prepared statement (likely agonised over by MS lawyers for days).

He gave the economic argument for CoD remaining multi platform, but more importantly, called out the anger Sony gamers would have if it was made exclusive. Detrimental harm to the video game market. You just don’t say something like that unless you’re prepared to honour it.

A regulator can absolutely hold them to that standard. As I say, if you tried to reverse on that in the EU or UK, you would be hauled over coals within days.

I appreciate the US might be different. If witnesses are allowed to knowingly mislead regulators then it’s a pretty wild jurisdiction.

MS have no issue with violating behavioral remedies, paying the (pocket change, to them) fines, and moving on.

They've been guilty of doing this within the past five years in fact, to my knowledge. And regulatory bodies like the EC have an infamous history of wanting to collect those fines, it's easy money for them.
 

Kilau

Member
Has FTC proved MS could and has incentive to foreclose games? Have they proved that MS will close the merger if not under injunction?
 

Draugoth

Gold Member
Why are you creating a situation that literally never happened?

Half of this list was already sold off by Square themselves.

yeah , i guess he missed this part

Because Sony could have bought them instead of Bungie when they still held the rights to these IPs, that's what im saying. They already have a strong relation with SE having paying off the exclusivity rights on FF.

Hitman left with IOInteractive. They own the IP. IOInteractive left well before SE sold off the western devs to Embracer. Just saying.

My bad.
 
Last edited:

DeepEnigma

Gold Member


No way...:messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy:

Propaganda at it's finest.

I'm not sure why he thinks Sony or exclusivity in general is on trial here. Cause they aren't.

Ultimately its the scale of this that is on trial. But today's trial is really just to determine if status quo should be maintained until the regulatory trial actually occurs.
"Just a news aggregate" "Trust us, bros!"
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom