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.
adamsapple

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Varteras said:
haha-fuck-you.gif
Click to expand...

We found the Ohio-an :messenger_grinning_sweat:
 
tryDEATH

tryDEATH

Member
Three said:
Isn't this what people are questioning though? Everyone is aware that they want to make things exclusive to benefit their service which is why they renegotiated the contract in the first place to cut out competitors. The fact that they see removal of PS as beneficial to their subscription service/platform and theirs alone, and not to their bottom line, is what the FTC are trying to prove.
Click to expand...
The financials behind putting the game on GamePass convolutes the reasoning of why they chose to omit PS in the renegotiation. It isn't a clear and cut we just wanted to cut PS out of it, but instead they can argue that the financials played a role, potential developer size issue and how it could effect it negatively pointing to Redfall as an example and how it hurt the brand and they don't ever want such a scenario to happen again. The FTC wasn't able to put them into a box and lock them in simply too much wiggle room for a lawyer to introduce doubt in FTC argument.
 
Kenysu

Kenysu

Neo Member
I had a few to many whisky sours tonight so
Our life, our consolation, and our hope, hail!
To thee we cry, the banished sons of Eve.
To thee we sigh, groaning and weeping,
in this vale of tears.
O thou our advocate, turn on us
thy merciful eyes,
and Jesus, the blessed fruit of thee womb,
show to us after this our exile.
O clement, O pius, O gentle Mary.

The Alpha and Omega sent from on high
a glorious solace to the suffering,
when from the highest rank of angels
the paranymph* Gabriel harmoniously declared:
Hail, Virgin Mary.
O clement, O pius, O gentle Mary.

O sheppards, rise before your God,
relate what you have seen of Christ.
Let the kings of Tharsis bear witness
that they saw the star appear:
Hail, Virgin Mary.
O clement, O pius, O gentle Mary.

Humble fountain, well giving forth
waters, rose of the world, divinge splendour,
fertile rod of Aaron,
be the glorious light of those that prey thee:
Hail, Virgin Mary.
O clement, O pius, O gentle Mary.
 
V

VinnyG

Banned
So after today's hearing we discovered that Ms knew that Sony was trying to get exclusivity for Starfield , and to avoid losing what they believed was too important a game to be more identified by gamers on the rival platform, she preferred to proceed (obviously in agreement with the publisher) with the acquisition. We've seen Spencer swore under oath that he doesn't want to steal COD from the playstation, ... and we also have a very important info that will surely also interest the English CAT regarding the google witness ... who clearly said that their cloud platform competed in the same market as the consoles. I don't think there is any basis for obtaining an injunction at this point....or does anyone think that'FTC wants to change course and arguments in the final speech?
 
Topher

Topher

Identifies as young
poppabk said:
The federal trade commission lawyer mischaracterizing an acquisition and getting called out by the witness? It's pretty funny.
Click to expand...

Eh....not really? Plenty of corrections are made to lawyers assertions. Doesn't make it funny. Detailed answer though, like adamsapple adamsapple said, sure.

But if you thought it was funny that's fine.
 
Last edited:
Varteras

Varteras

Member
Topher said:
Eh....not really? Plenty of corrections are made to lawyers assertions. Doesn't make it funny. Detailed answer though, like adamsapple adamsapple said, sure.

But if you thought it was funny that's fine.
Click to expand...

Super interested to see if the FTC attempts to corner Microsoft by asking their intention if the injunction is denied. To me, that will show if Khan actually has any real interest in seeing the deal stopped, or if this is just her attempt to build a reform case.
 
V

VinnyG

Banned
Varteras said:
Super interested to see if the FTC attempts to corner Microsoft by asking their intention if the injunction is denied. To me, that will show if Khan actually has any real interest in seeing the deal stopped, or if this is just her attempt to build a reform case.
Click to expand...
Of the injunction is denied under the their law ms can proceed with the merge and in case the ftc would win the case later ftc can reverse the merge. that's what ms would answer.
 
Topher

Topher

Identifies as young
poppabk said:
Pretty sure I've seen that kinda thing as a skit before. Simpsons did it maybe?
Click to expand...

Ah.....now if I had seen that then I'd probably think it was funny. lol

Varteras said:
Super interested to see if the FTC attempts to corner Microsoft by asking their intention if the injunction is denied. To me, that will show if Khan actually has any real interest in seeing the deal stopped, or if this is just her attempt to build a reform case.
Click to expand...

I don't know man. I think FTC is either half-ass'n this or really sucks at it. Just doesn't feel like they want to win. But that's what we've been saying for a while is the problem with the FTC. I think FTC folds if injunction is denied, which I'm nearly certain it will be.
 
Varteras

Varteras

Member
VinnyG said:
Of the injunction is denied under the their law ms can proceed with the merge and in case the ftc would win the case later ftc can reverse the merge. that's what ms would answer.
Click to expand...

The problem is the deal is blocked in the UK and the appeal doesn't even start until after the deadline. If Microsoft answers that they plan to go through anyways, that alerts the UK authorities to their intent and shows the judge Microsoft's contempt for authority. If they answer no, then if they attempt to do so after, they open themselves up to serious litigation in both countries.
 
Kilau

Kilau

Member
Topher said:
Eh....not really? Plenty of corrections are made to lawyers assertions. Doesn't make it funny. Detailed answer though, like adamsapple adamsapple said, sure.

But if you thought it was funny that's fine.
Click to expand...
It’s semantics at best. $70 billion in cash is leaving MS. Of course it’s viewed as an investment. It’s how my wife and I view our home purchase but that money sure as hell left our bank when we closed.
 
Topher

Topher

Identifies as young
Kilau said:
It’s semantics at best. $70 billion in cash is leaving MS. Of course it’s viewed as an investment. It’s how my wife and I view our home purchase but that money sure as hell left our bank when we closed.
Click to expand...

See.....that was funny.
 
Varteras

Varteras

Member
Topher said:
Ah.....now if I had seen that then I'd probably think it was funny. lol



I don't know man. I think FTC is either half-ass'n this or really sucks at it. Just doesn't feel like they want to win. But that's what we've been saying for a while is the problem with the FTC. I think FTC folds if injunction is denied, which I'm nearly certain it will be.
Click to expand...

If it's denied, FTC will drop its case and Khan will take that back to Congress as the body being powerless.
 
V

VinnyG

Banned
Varteras said:
The problem is the deal is blocked in the UK and the appeal doesn't even start until after the deadline. If Microsoft answers that they plan to go through anyways, that alerts the UK authorities to their intent and shows the judge Microsoft's contempt for authority. If they answer no, then if they attempt to do so after, they open themselves up to serious litigation in both countries.
Click to expand...
In really curious to see if the UK regulators have the courage (and the political support needed behind the scene) to be the only ones to block an acquisition of this entity and above all concerning two non-English companies that is accepted in all the major markets on the idea of possible future competition issues in a market that is practically dead today. I'm of the opinion that if the FTC loses the CAT will send everything back to the CMA forcing them to accept behavioral remedies in their country exactly like the rest of europe
 
T

Three

Member
tryDEATH said:
The financials behind putting the game on GamePass convolutes the reasoning of why they chose to omit PS in the renegotiation. It isn't a clear and cut we just wanted to cut PS out of it, but instead they can argue that the financials played a role, potential developer size issue and how it could effect it negatively pointing to Redfall as an example and how it hurt the brand and they don't ever want such a scenario to happen again. The FTC wasn't able to put them into a box and lock them in simply too much wiggle room for a lawyer to introduce doubt in FTC argument.
Click to expand...
It obfuscates it but what I'm saying is that they didn't explain how the financials would work to favour removal outside of benefiting their platform which is what the FTC is arguing anyway. Remember that the agency claims that after the acquisition, Microsoft would have a strong incentive to turn Activision's games into exclusive properties available only on its own platforms. It claims this would hurt competition in the separate markets for console gaming, games libraries available through subscription, and cloud gaming. They have only shown that incentive was there and MS haven't really shown why it made sense other than that obfuscation.

poppabk said:
The federal trade commission lawyer mischaracterizing an acquisition and getting called out by the witness? It's pretty funny.
Click to expand...
Can you explain what was mischaracterised? Is there some other context to Tom's tweet? It is an all cash payment isn’t it?
 
Last edited:
reinking

reinking

Gold Member
Varteras said:
The FTC was never likely to score a victory based solely on console concerns. If the CMA didn't agree, a US judge isn't likely to. I don't think that's the point of their case so far. They've been trying to build a picture of Microsoft as a company that has foreclosed right after acquisition despite prior assertions, has had a desire to do so even with big moneymakers like Minecraft, that their position in the market relative to direct competitors is stronger than they've tried to impress (when they parsed Nintendo out of the console concern), and that CoD (thus ABK) are incredibly important to the market.

Day 2, though, did nothing more to convince me that Lina Khan isn't hoping to use this case to push reforms. Some points were made, but a lot of meandering. I know court cases can go that way, but I don't feel the FTC had nearly as many good moments for them today as they did yesterday.

I'm still waiting for the bombshell question of Microsoft's intent if the injunction isn't granted. With the CAT appeal being beyond the deadline, and so far no renegotiation, that is such an easy trap card to play. The best Microsoft can hope for out of this case is that the injunction isn't granted and they can use that to convince ABK to renegotiate an extension while Microsoft tries to overturn the CMA. Because any course of action that tries to close the deal before then is incredibly risky and potentially devastating to the company.
Click to expand...
I agree.

People are watching this like it is TV show expecting big gotcha moments. It is a real-life court proceeding. Mostly mundane. It is not like they can ask Sarah Bonds or Phil Spencer if Microsoft will close the deal before the CAT/CMA appeal is decided. They will have no say in the matter. So far, we have had the FTC layout behaviors and a bit of Microsoft/Xbox executive responsibilities.

IMO (random thoughts and I admit I am far from an expert on this topic), I do not think the FTC has done a bad job up to this point. Their case is going to really depend on how they close and if they can get MS on record about closing the deal prior to the CAT decision. Frankly, I do not expect the FTC to get the injunction because this is America and corporate money talks. I think many of us have had the opinion since they blocked that the CMA was going to be the sole regulator that stands between MS and Activision. Even that is in doubt if MS decides to close before the appeals process is over. I am a bit confused why people think the FTC losing will impact the CAT/CMA. I think the only thing that will cause the CMA to reverse their decision (if it goes back to them) is if there are structural remedies that they asked for in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Varteras

Varteras

Member
VinnyG said:
In really curious to see if the UK regulators have the courage (and the political support needed behind the scene) to be the only ones to block an acquisition of this entity and above all concerning two non-English companies that is accepted in all the major markets on the idea of possible future competition issues in a market that is practically dead today. I'm of the opinion that if the FTC loses the CAT will send everything back to the CMA forcing them to accept behavioral remedies in their country exactly like the rest of europe
Click to expand...

There are issues with that as well. The EC, FTC, CMA, and New Zealand all agree that there are concerns. More specifically, cloud concerns. As all those regulatory bodies agree that something must be done about that, there can be no argument that the CMA stands alone. It can even be argued that the FTC would have blocked, had they the authority to do so.

It also wouldn't be the first time that the CMA alone blocked a deal. It just happened with Meta and Giphy. Meta closed the deal behind the regulators' backs. The CMA ordered immediate divestment. Meta appealed to the CAT, who granted them the appeal. The CMA looked at it again, said no, and Meta agreed to divest. Taking an 87% loss on the deal.

You're also forgetting that ABK has to agree to allow Microsoft to buy them, despite the contractual obligation of CMA approval not being met.
 
Bernardougf

Bernardougf

Member
Kenysu said:
I had a few to many whisky sours tonight so
Our life, our consolation, and our hope, hail!
To thee we cry, the banished sons of Eve.
To thee we sigh, groaning and weeping,
in this vale of tears.
O thou our advocate, turn on us
thy merciful eyes,
and Jesus, the blessed fruit of thee womb,
show to us after this our exile.
O clement, O pius, O gentle Mary.

The Alpha and Omega sent from on high
a glorious solace to the suffering,
when from the highest rank of angels
the paranymph* Gabriel harmoniously declared:
Hail, Virgin Mary.
O clement, O pius, O gentle Mary.

O sheppards, rise before your God,
relate what you have seen of Christ.
Let the kings of Tharsis bear witness
that they saw the star appear:
Hail, Virgin Mary.
O clement, O pius, O gentle Mary.

Humble fountain, well giving forth
waters, rose of the world, divinge splendour,
fertile rod of Aaron,
be the glorious light of those that prey thee:
Hail, Virgin Mary.
O clement, O pius, O gentle Mary.
Click to expand...
My favorite fucking drink
 
Varteras

Varteras

Member
reinking said:
I agree.

People are watching this like it is TV show expecting big gotcha moments. It is a real-life court proceeding. Mostly mundane. It is not like they can ask Sarah Bonds or Phil Spencer if Microsoft will close the deal before the CAT/CMA appeal is decided. They will have no say in the matter. So far, we have had the FTC layout behaviors and a bit of Microsoft/Xbox executive responsibilities.

IMO (random thoughts and I admit I am far from an expert on this topic), I do not think the FTC has done a bad job up to this point. Their case is going to really depend on how they close and if they can get MS on record about closing the deal prior to the CAT decision. Frankly, I do not expect the FTC to get the injunction because this is America and corporate money talks. I think many of us have had the opinion since they blocked that the CMA was going to be the sole regulator that stands between MS and Activision. Even that is in doubt if MS decides to close before the appeals process is over. I am a bit confused why people think the FTC losing will impact the CAT/CMA. I think the only thing that will cause the CMA to reverse their decision (if it goes back to them) is if there are structural remedies that they asked for in the first place.
Click to expand...

Yeah. The CMA is not going to change its stance on the outcome of a preliminary injunction with the FTC, who everyone knows is weak in the American system, just as they didn't when the EU decided on behavioral remedies. Which the CMA publicly chastised for choosing that route despite having the same concerns. Even the CAT has a difficult time finding fault in the CMA's methods. When they do, the CMA often comes back with the same conclusion. Especially in acquisitions. You and I both know that Microsoft will not agree to structural remedies. This is pretty much all or nothing. Which honestly makes it easier for the CMA to respond.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Microsoft has Closed the Activision Blizzard King Deal
22 23 24 25 26
1K
96K
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