Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
Varteras
Member
Nydius
Member
It also highlights the entire reason why many people, including myself, are opposed to this. Money is practically disposable at Microsoft. At the mere hint that Starfield might be console exclusive, timed or otherwise, they spent $7 billion dollars to buy the whole of Zenimax in order to tip the scales in their favor. Sony can't do that. Ever. A $7B purchase to a ~$120B valued company requires deliberation. To a $2T+ company, it's pocket change. Writing off $8B in the failed NOKIA experiment was a mere blip on Microsoft's financial radar.
This acquisition alone is more than half of Sony's entire valuation.
GHG
Gold Member
Solidus_T
Banned
Wait they did? I missed that part. It looked like they allowed him to forge the MS good guy narrative with his lawyer
Kilau
Member
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Then why didn't you close the deal with Zynga? If it's mainly about growth in mobile? You couldn't afford $12.5 billion but can afford $69 billion?
GHG
Gold Member
Yep, his words can't be bound to Microsoft as an organisation.
T-Cake
Member
Don Mattress?
splattered
Member
What are you talking about? Are you telling me Sony couldn't afford a 7 billion purchase? Cause pretty sure they could if they really wanted...
Vognerful
Member
FTC asked him if he can promise under oath to keep Diablo on PlayStation, which he did not respond.
Bernardougf
Member
Nothing can top a grown woman crapping on her own bad for shits and gigglesI don't think I've seen so many narratives unravel in less than two days. Even the Heard/Depp trial had fewer revelations. Jesus Christ
Venom Snake
Member
reinking
Gold Member
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Correct.
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
Phil said he was giving a statement under oath that they will not remove CoD from PlayStation.
The lawyer basically asked him if he could make this decision over his superiors and he didn't answer the question.
MS higher-ups aren't under oath, so they can take the heat off of Phil Spencer override his decision.
Last edited:
So Phil is saying they are buying Activision but they don't plan on using the I.Ps like COD to grow the Xbox brand but then turn around and have been making games from Bethesda exclusive? Also wanted to make Minecraft exclusive? That's what they been doing but they expect people to believe they will now suddenly not do this with Activision IPs?
Mr.NiceGuy
Banned
If the whole point or the major point of this deal is for mobile why did they refuse divestment remedy suggestion from CMA?
The lawyer need to ask him that.
The lawyer need to ask him that.
Thick Thighs Save Lives
NeoGAF's Physical Games Advocate Extraordinaire
Elder Scroll Online update, yawn.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
The part of the Showcase where we take food and/or potty breaks.
He didn't answer and so who reached the conclusion that he can't bind the company or higher executives?
Especially if he's about to retire
Thirty7ven
Banned
Listen blood ABK is about all that mobile, on the go, screen and battery access. Knowledge, 70B in knowledge, from a dev that doesn’t belong to ABK… wait… … water…
Last edited:
A lot of question dodging and I don't recall excuses when earlier he remembered everything clearly when talking to his lawyer.
BoxFresh123
Member
Thick Thighs Save Lives
NeoGAF's Physical Games Advocate Extraordinaire
Phil stumbling on his own words about gen 9 definition lol.
SirKicksalot
Member
This just turned into a radio drama by Gamespot's System Wars forum circa 2008
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
He respec'ed with the FTC lawyer taking the points out of mind and putting them into evasion.
Ronin_7
Member
Even the Judge is surprised at this point.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Pretty sure Don Mattrick left Zynga before 2019.
Unless MS tried buying them prior to that, but I doubt that.
Varteras
Member
He didn't answer and so who reached the conclusion that he can't bind the company or higher executives?
Especially if he's about to retire
That's exactly what a lot of people have been calling on and the FTC did exactly what they needed to do. Get it out of him that either this is fully legally binding to the organization, which many said wasn't true based on his word alone, or expose that there are loopholes to his oath that Microsoft can exploit. The other angle being that Spencer said they would put CoD on PS as long as Sony allows it. Not giving any clarity on if that means a conceivable scenario where Microsoft offers them bullshit terms and Sony declines, to which then Microsoft would use that as another loophole.
Thick Thighs Save Lives
NeoGAF's Physical Games Advocate Extraordinaire
I just can't about how Phil is spinning this 70bn deal lol.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
It also reduces the independent, open-market scale of the 3P publisher market, Phil Spencer. You can try to spin it all you want with fancy wordings but 3P exclusivity deals are inherently defined as being a part of fair competition. Buying out large 3P publishers for vertical M&As to "put (a direct competitor" out of business" is not.
You're failing under scrutiny.
You're failing under scrutiny.
Fired*He didn't answer and so who reached the conclusion that he can't bind the company or higher executives?
Especially if he's about to retire
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Does Rare have $375 million in value after 2001 (sans inflation)?
Almost everyone would say no, they don't. Their value is much less than that.
Almost everyone would say no, they don't. Their value is much less than that.
Nydius
Member
Varteras
Member
I would imagine that goes without saying. But when you're a company trying to spend upwards of $80 billion to outright own large chunks of the established industry instantly, how can you be outbid by a company making not even $10 billion a year in profits?
EDIT: Sorry. Misread your post.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked