Support NeoGAF

[Topher]

What's the concern even for lmao?

Oh no, they're working to ensure COD doesn't get pulled from PlayStation, the horror

So does the entire Xbox community on Twitter just think Phil Spencer is a lying sack of shit? Phil Spencer says CoD isn't leaving PS and "yawn".

This goofball says it and....

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

This goofball says it and....

 

[adamsapple]

Was he ever a part of the body that's making the decision?

Who can say. He's a representative of EU regardless of whether he was always on this committee or not.

Read Hoegs response above, it's a nice summary.

 

[anthony2690]

 

[MasterCornholio]

What's the concern even for lmao?

Oh no, they're working to ensure COD doesn't get pulled from PlayStation, the horror

That actually wouldn't be bad for anyone. No idea why people would be in favor of that.

 

[Topher]

Who can say. He's a representative of EU regardless of whether he was always on this committee or not.

Read Hoegs response above, it's a nice summary.

He is in an entirely different department. But yes, he should be more mindful of what he tweets in the future now that he knows that rabid console warriors on twitter are a thing.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Who can say. He's a representative of EU regardless of whether he was always on this committee or not.

Read Hoegs response above, it's a nice summary.

Well his actual position would say that. Suggesting he was kicked out from the committee is a bit much IMO. Sounds more like fantasy than anything else.

Now did he say something he shouldn't have. That's a different question.

He is in an entirely different department. But yes, he should be more mindful of what he tweets in the future now that he knows that rabid console warriors on twitter are a thing.

Did he say something he shouldn't have? Maybe. Did he ever have power to make those decisions? Based on his position he didn't.

 

[anthony2690]

Hey, I gave you that Riders Republic beta code

 

[bender]

Hey, I gave you that Riders Republic beta code

And I've never forgiven you for that act.

 

[anthony2690]

And I've never forgiven you for that act.

 

[feynoob]

Aside of this useless drama. I got us some good news from our friend idas.
I am going to break it parts.

Here goes the first part about concessions/remedies.

These days I'll complete the other two questions and I'll threadmark this post.

I've included one or more examples for every type of possible remedy/concession. Some of them are more logical than others, so don't take them too seriously.

What are remedies and how could they affect the deal?

Remedies are tools used by competition authorities or regulators to maintain or restore competition in the market when an investigation about a transaction and the analysis of the different theories of harm reveals that the merger will likely result in substantial harm of competition.

In those cases, implementing some specific obligations, concessions and conditions to the transaction (remedies) can help to avoid the identified harms to the market, the merger can still go ahead and it doesn't have to be prohibited.

The terminology is a bit confusing because there are different ways to says almost the same. The general term is "remedy/remedies", but the European Commission calls them "commitments", the CMA refers to them as "undertakings in lieu" or UILs and in the US they are called "consent orders" (FTC) and "consent decrees" (DOJ).

Here we are going to call them remedy/remedies.

Parties start talking about remedies as soon as the negotiation of the deal begins. This means that between November 2021 and January 2022 MS and ABK started talking about them. The merger agreement is the instrument used by the parties for this.

When the Activision Blizzard Board of Directors considered the risks of the merger, the regulatory ones where obviously there (page 46):

The possibility that regulatory agencies may delay, object to or challenge the merger or may impose terms and conditions on their approvals that adversely affect the business or financial results of Activision Blizzard or Microsoft and the fact that Microsoft is not required to agree to remedies that would reasonably be expected to (x) result in a material adverse impact on Activision Blizzard and its subsidiaries, taken as a whole, have a material impact on the benefits expected to be derived from the merger by Microsoft or (z) have more than an immaterial impact on any business or product line of Microsoft.

This means that MS can sell, license or restrict assets and rights from ABK to get the merger approved but only if that doesn't have a material effect on ABK, the benefits that MS was expecting from the deal or if that could even affect MS's businesses.

So, could MS accept to sell the Activision Publishing subsidiary (COD, Crash, Tony Hawk, etc) as a remedy to get the merger approved? In theory yes, but I think that such an operation would affect the benefits that MS is expecting from the merger. Therefore, very unlikely.

 

[feynoob]

What types of remedies can be accepted and/or imposed?

They are generally classified as structural remedies when they require the divestiture of a business, an asset or IP rights or behavioural remedies when they impose an obligation to engage, modify or constrain the future conduct of the parties.

Examples of structural remedies:

- Divesting all or part of the business acquired to a suitable purchaser (for example, MS sells Activision Publishing to Take2 and keeps King and Blizzard).

- Carving a divestiture package out of the two merging businesses, with the purchaser keeping some of both businesses and selling some of them too (for example, Take2 buys Activision Publishing and some studios from MS, keeps COD and all the studios working on it but sells everything else to EA and Ubisoft).

- Keeping the acquired business and divesting the business already owned (for example, MS sells almost all the Xbox game studios but keeps ABK complete).

- The sale of key assets (for example, MS keeps ABK complete but sells all the studios working on COD excluding Treyarch, Infinity Ward and Raven).

Examples of behavioural remedies:

- Price controls (for example, Sony gets access to COD and other ABK games on the same terms and fees for 10 years).

- Commitments to continue supplying certain customers (for example, Sony gets access to COD until 2028). In fact, this is the one that MS is offering right now.

- Licensing/assigning brands and/or IP rights; although this one can be a mix of structural and behavioural remedy (for example, MS keeps ABK almost complete but licences the COD IP + sells some ABK studios to Take2; or MS has to licence Windows Server to any new entrant on the cloud gaming market on fair and equal terms for 10 years).

- Firewall provisions, to restrict the access to and dissemination of competitively sensitive information within a company (for example, MS agrees to not access commercially sensitive information from Sony that ABK has obtained during the marketing agreement with them).

- Hold separate provisions, when the relevant business is run independently of the merged entity (for example, MS gets ABK complete but Activision Publishing starts operating separately, as a competitor.)

- Non-discrimination, or to treat other market participants in a fair and even-handed manner (for example, Sony and other competitors will get access to COD on the same date, with the same features, with the same level of interoperability, etc. until 2030).

- Anti-retaliation provisions, to prevent the merged entity from retaliating against customers or other market participants for transacting with the merged entity's competitors (for example, MS won't rise fees to EA or Ubisoft if they start working with Sony on a competitor to COD).

- Prohibitions on certain contracting practices, like exclusivity, bundling or tie-in (for example, MS cannot sign agreements with PC manufacturers to offer free promotions of Gamepass PC until 2030).

- Prior approval provisions, to impose additional filing or reporting obligations in respect of future transactions (for example, MS must inform regulators before any gaming acquisition from now on).

 

[GHG]

Man this thread is a dumpster fire of people trying to score points or trigger each other.

I just want the deal to go through so I know all my friends or family will have diablo 4 when it lands, so I have no shortage of people to enjoy it with.

Seriously can't wait for that game

Now to leave this thread and never return

If it's any consolation I'm sure all your friends and family will be able to play Diablo 4 when it releases regardless of what happens.

 

[feynoob]

There a few more, but I think that these ones are the most common and relevant for this case.

Remedies, and not prohibitions, as the primary tool used by regulators (in the US, Europe and beyond) to address anticompetitive effects from mergers.

All the regulators have a preference for structural remedies because they are more useful to prevent significant impediment to effective competition and they don't require monitoring measures (always expensive for the regulator). But at the same time, regulators also accept behavioural remedies in certain cases (specially in vertical mergers, like the ABK one).

Dynamic industries or markets characterised by rapid change, innovation and disruption present unique challenges for merger control, as it is not always clear how a potential remedy can affect competition. The ABK case affects a couple of nascent markets (cloud gaming and subscription services) as well as a dynamic industry (videogames).

In any case, sometimes no remedy is good enough to deal with the adverse effects identified or maybe it's so complex that the regulator cannot determine if effective competition will be restored. In those cases, the deals are usually abandoned, or if not, prohibited.

Both of these are still in the process. Waiting for Idas to get more info.
How are remedies negotiated and implemented?
How do remedies work at the FTC, CMA and European Commission?

 

[bender]

If it's any consolation I'm sure all your friends and family will be bale to play Diablo 4 when it releases regardless of what happens.

 

[GHG]

 

[anthony2690]

If it's any consolation I'm sure all your friends and family will be able to play Diablo 4 when it releases regardless of what happens.

 

[Topher]

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Did he say something he shouldn't have? Maybe. Did he ever have power to make those decisions? Based on his position he didn't.

Regardless of whether he personally has the power to make the decisions, he's obviously close enough to the department that does to comment on their goals when it comes to the acquisition. It comes across very poorly.

As people continue to point out on here, this is a large deal, which justifies the scrutiny from regulators. If you're a member of one of those regulatory bodies, to suggest that you personally benefit from affecting its outcome in anyway is incredibly stupid. Hence him going into warp-speed reverse on his earlier tweet and laughably attempting to make is comment appear personal despite his language e.g. 'The Commission is …', 'our to-do list', etc.

 

[DarkMage619]

What's weird to me is seeing so called professionals with checkmarks shilling for Xbox, you don't see that very often with PlayStation or Nintendo…

Destin Lagarie
Tom Warren
Jez Corden
Brad Sams

And many more influencers…

Holy shit

What's weird is someone who doesn't really care for Xbox knows all the personalities on Twitter. Why would you even care?

 

[GHG]

What's weird is someone who doesn't really care for Xbox knows all the personalities on Twitter. Why would you even care?

Aww come on. You're just upset he forgot about you. No need to lash out.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Regardless of whether he personally has the power to make the decisions, he's obviously close enough to the department that does to comment on their goals when it comes to the acquisition. It comes across very poorly.

As people continue to point out on here, this is a large deal, which justifies the scrutiny from regulators. If you're a member of one of those regulatory bodies, to suggest that you personally benefit from affecting its outcome in anyway is incredibly stupid. Hence him going into warp-speed reverse on his earlier tweet and laughably attempting to make is comment appear personal despite his language e.g. 'The Commission is …', 'our to-do list', etc.

I highly doubt the commission are a bunch of Sony fanboys if that's what your suggesting. The playstation part was in reference to himself for the most part. Any non Microsoft platform is the comissions concern which includes playstation.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

What's weird is someone who doesn't really care for Xbox knows all the personalities on Twitter. Why would you even care?

Indeed. Very weird for someone who posts on a gaming forum to know some of the most prolific gaming personalities. Very weird indeed

 

[anthony2690]

 

[feynoob]

 

[Topher]

I highly doubt the commission are a bunch of Sony fanboys if that's what your suggesting. The playstation part was in reference to himself for the most part. Any non Microsoft platform is the comissions concern which includes playstation.

Exactly. Are we really suggesting that "personally benefitting" from a $70 billion acquisition means not having to buy a new video game console? That's the conflict of interest here?

 

[laynelane]

My chest...




@SenjutsuSage come talk to us lad.

"Yikes", indeed.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Exactly. Are we really suggesting that "personally benefitting" from a $70 billion acquisition means not having to buy a new video game console? That's the conflict of interest here?

I mean their job is to study how this will affect the competition. In order to do that they have to see what would happen to the competition if a huge multiplatforn publisher stops releasing games on those platforms.

From what I'm seeing the commission are just doing their jobs. Doesn't mean it won't happen but they are obligated to ask these questions. Nothing to do with the console wars mind you.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

I highly doubt the commission are a bunch of Sony fanboys if that's what your suggesting. The playstation part was in reference to himself for the most part. Any non Microsoft platform is the comissions concern which includes playstation.

You may laugh but in my country anti-corruption goes so far as govt departments not accepting biscuits in a meeting as it may be seen as bribery. It may seem trivial, but keeping COD on his PlayStation was something important enough for him to include in his tweet.

 

[MasterCornholio]

You may laugh but in my country anti-corruption goes so far as govt departments not accepting biscuits in a meeting as it may be seen as bribery. It may seem trivial, but keeping COD on his PlayStation was something important enough for him to include in his tweet.

So Sony is bribing who now?

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Exactly. Are we really suggesting that "personally benefitting" from a $70 billion acquisition means not having to buy a new video game console? That's the conflict of interest here?

I mean, yes. I know it's not in the same league as him getting a cut of COD sales on PS or anything but for these regulators any perception of personal bias can seriously undermine their perceived impartiality.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

So Sony is bribing who now?

Me with their AAA biscuits

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

So Sony is bribing who now?

No one's being bribed it was just an example of the lengths departments go to to protect their perception of impartiality.

 

[feynoob]

I mean, yes. I know it's not in the same league as him getting a cut of COD sales on PS or anything but for these regulators any perception of personal bias can seriously undermine their perceived impartiality.

That is some american shit right here.

 

[Topher]

I mean, yes. I know it's not in the same league as him getting a cut of COD sales on PS or anything but for these regulators any perception of personal bias can seriously undermine their perceived impartiality.

 

[MasterCornholio]

No one's being bribed it was just an example of the lengths departments go to to protect their perception of impartiality.

So why even say it in the first place? I mean in relation to this case.

 

[Banjo64]

Me with their AAA biscuits

What was in Jim Ryan's briefcase when he visited the CMA and EU regulators?

That's right;

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

So why even say it in the first place? I mean in relation to this case.

Because I imagine the EU are as keen on protecting their perception as incorruptible as the Australian government. And in my experience that extends to things as seemingly trivial as accepting biscuits. For someone to publicly state they benefit in any way from affecting the outcome of a decision the body they work for is regulating, it can undermine their perceived impartiality in the process.

 

[laynelane]

So does the entire Xbox community on Twitter just think Phil Spencer is a lying sack of shit? Phil Spencer says CoD isn't leaving PS and "yawn".

This goofball says it and....

I've seen the idea floating around that MS will make concessions surrounding Cod and once the deal is finalized, reverse course and pull CoD from PS. Perhaps that has something to do with it? (I realize this is not a thing that will happen, but perhaps some of the Twitter mobs believes this is feasible.)

 

[Topher]

My sanity can only handle so much...

 

[MasterCornholio]

Because I imagine the EU are as keen on protecting their perception as incorruptible as the Australian government. And in my experience that extends to things as seemingly trivial as accepting biscuits. For someone to publicly state they benefit in any way from affecting the outcome of a decision the body they work for is regulating, it can undermine their perceived impartiality in the process.

If there was no crime then I don't see what the big deal is.

Someone said something that might have been inappropriate but it doesn't mean there's any corruption happening. I know I've seen some suggest that but I really don't believe it's the case here.

Merely the commission are doing their jobs but some are dragging the console wars into this.

 

[feynoob]

Why are people thinking everyone is against MS?

This is a freaking trillion dollar company, who spent $68b to purchase, one of the biggest publisher in the gaming world. And the worth of that publisher is even bigger than a freaking nintendo.
Activision basically have WoW, COD, and Overwatch series. A 3 big games, which have a big influence.

Regulators are within their rights to critize this deal.

Consumers should not defend this company. They dont care about you. Xbox one e3 should have showed their true intention.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

What was in Jim Ryan's briefcase when he visited the CMA and EU regulators?

That's right;

And when Phil comes down with a packet of Asda Smart Price digestives it's no wonder why the CMA is taking Jim's side

 

[Thirty7ven]

Rats out there wildin because MS is being treated like a trillion dollar company looking to buy the market. Oh no

 

[GHG]

What was in Jim Ryan's briefcase when he visited the CMA and EU regulators?

That's right;

Hobnobs? Jim Ryan always struck me as more of a Rich Tea kind of guy.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

If there was no crime then I don't see what the big deal is.

Someone said something that might have been inappropriate but it doesn't mean there's any corruption happening. I know I've seen some suggest that but I really don't believe it's the case here.

Merely the commission are doing their jobs but some are dragging the console wars into this.

He obviously feels it was serious enough that he now has stated it as his personal opinion. Again, I don't believe he is affecting this deal personally or the EU are Sony fanboys or anything crazy like that. Im just commenting of the optics of this man's public comments on the deal.

 

[MasterCornholio]

He obviously feels it was serious enough that he now has stated it as his personal opinion. Again, I don't believe he is affecting this deal personally or the EU are Sony fanboys or anything crazy like that. Im just commenting of the optics of this man's public comments on the deal.

OK I honestly don't see any reason to drag this out. I'm sure it was just a mistake and what the commission is doing is completely normal.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

OK I honestly don't see any reason to drag this out. I'm sure it was just a mistake and what the commission is doing is completely normal.

It's a notable comment from a regulator on the thread topic. Hence the discussion.

 

[Banjo64]

Hobnobs? Jim Ryan always struck me as more of a Rich Tea kind of guy.

I'm sorry but Rich Tea aren't 'AAA biscuits' - they're like the equivalent of Pentiment's budget.

 

[Banjo64]

It's a notable comment from a regulator on the thread topic. Hence the discussion.

He's not a regulator, but does work for a regulatory body.