-
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)
- Status
X-Wing
Member
The 10 year period wasn’t the issue but who held the licensing rights. This will pass.
Bernoulli
M2 slut
the CMA said the 10 years deal was just a reaction from MS to make regulators happy
X-Wing
Member
And their chief said yesterday on TV that the issue with the remedies presented in the past was that Microsoft would have control over all the rights and that the provided contracts still kept the cloud licenses under control of Microsoft. This new deal addresses that, it's quite likely it will pass.
Schmick
Member
Yep, this is looking like a done deal now.
People should have realized at this point that it's better to just comment on facts as they unfold.
How many theories have we heard so far?
The deal was done before July 18th, Microsoft would have closed anyway over CMA, they were willing to leave UK, CMA would have dropped the block before August 29th, everything was already decided.
We're still here now waiting for October.
Bernoulli
M2 slut
no it's just limited for 15 years then MS takes control
Thirty7ven
Banned
It’s really weird that Ubisoft would do this considering they are a competitor.
bitbydeath
Member
The FTC appealed on deal 1, deal 1 is now dead so they’ll also be reassessing deal 2.
X-Wing
Member
Why is it weird? It’s a major win for them. They just won a huge load of content for their own services and the possibility to license that content to others.
Schmick
Member
Its my opinion based on this interview.
However as you have highlighted, there have been some crazy comments/ideas made by posters and Twitters users, for instance, leaving the UK.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Yeah the issue is MS seems to think they can just keep extending the deal in 5 years increments until it gets through.
The CMA might demand divestment in perpetuity. If this is the case, then MS will probably walk away. Probably. We don't know how insane they are yet.
bitbydeath
Member
Narrator: It didn’t.
freefornow
Gold Member
Man. Hats off to Sony for playing the long game to make their Q handheld relevant for the next 15 years.
Bravo Sony, Bravo.
Bravo Sony, Bravo.
In Cold Blood
Banned
At this point does anyone care anymore?
The CMA will accept the new deal, claiming they have saved cloud gaming from being monopoly, when all they have done is gimp one of the only companies who are trying to create it.
Even the most ardent Sony fans who don't want the deal to go through know that there is no big game streaming industry, that it's a long way off, and fuck all people actually use it.
This will just slow down MSs investment in it, which will make them knuckle down on the existing console and PC markets.
The CMA will accept the new deal, claiming they have saved cloud gaming from being monopoly, when all they have done is gimp one of the only companies who are trying to create it.
Even the most ardent Sony fans who don't want the deal to go through know that there is no big game streaming industry, that it's a long way off, and fuck all people actually use it.
This will just slow down MSs investment in it, which will make them knuckle down on the existing console and PC markets.
Ginzeen
Banned
CMA wants the cloud market to mature. Every game released under ABK for the next 15 years, Ubisoft will control those cloud rights for those games forever. 15 years is plenty of time for the CMA "rapidly growing cloud market" to mature.
bitbydeath
Member
It sounds like you do.
We’ve heard that a million times before.
Ginzeen
Banned
we've also heard the deal is dead a million times before
In Cold Blood
Banned
I couldn't give two fucks if it goes through. I get nothing out of it other than one COD game in GP.
That money could have bought around 270 studios the size of Insomniac, Playground or Obsidian. It could have bought 9 Zenimaxs.
What would you prefer for Playstation?
270 Insomniac size studios, or ABK?
So yeah, I think that money could have been spent better.
So while I wish they had of spent that money better, there is still no legitimate reason for the deal not to go through.
As for the CMA, do you think they have gone through this whole process, which included the tribunal judge getting pissed at them for doing it, for shits and giggles?
You think they are trolling MS to make them just waste time doing this new deal just to make them go past the deadline for the deal to close?
jm89
Member
And which deal were people referring to here?we've also heard the deal is dead a million times before
The old one right?
Is that deal dead?
Last edited:
If this passes we wont have to wait that long to find out, we should see the blizzard survival game in 2 to 3 years and if they manage to do to survival games what they did to mmorpgs it could be their new hit.
MasterCornholio
Member
I don't even think Microsoft refers to the new deal as the old deal.
Ginzeen
Banned
Same deal. MS still gets to keep all the ips if the deal gets cleared. Which is the most important part.
Bojanglez
The Amiga Brotherhood
It seemed that in the original deal the CMA didn't want to have to actively monitor behaviour for 10 years, they wanted divestment. The worry will be that this deal is not true divestment and will require the monitoring of not only Microsoft but now Ubisoft's activities too, for 15 years.
We are blind to the actual wording of the deal, but a lot of questions and concerns arise from this proposal.
We are blind to the actual wording of the deal, but a lot of questions and concerns arise from this proposal.
- Are MS 'picking winners' by choosing Ubisoft, what was the process for this
- Why weren't rights sold to an entity with no current relationship with cloud gaming or MS in any way?
- Was the Ubisoft deal sweetened in any way that may lead to lack of competition (like MS did with Nvidia using Windows licenses)
- Are there any restrictions on costs MS can charge to port to Windows alternatives? (how is this monitored or regulated)
- Would Ubisoft be independent enough to be in a position to make exclusive deals for streaming games to rival platforms?
- Would Ubisoft be independent enough to be able to dictate that a game could (or could not) appear on subscriptions and pay to own streaming services?
- Would Ubisoft be independent enough to sell off rights completely on the same terms to another entity? (presumably measures would be put in place to stop MS gaining these 15 years worth of titles rights back within or after the 15 years)
- What happens if Ubisoft is acquired by another party within the 15 years?
- What happens if Ubisoft ceases to exist within the next 15 years?
Thirty7ven
Banned
Major win? They should be focusing on their own shit and not rely on temporarily holding the bag for MS.
Just another sign of how badly run Ubisoft is.
Flutta
Banned
No. This just means that after 15 years MS will take control of the cloud rights which is exactly why CMA is blocking the deal to begin with.... so this deal doesn't address shit it just postpones the inevitable.
Basically MS is playing games and the CMA knows this.
jm89
Member
If it was the same deal CMA would not have had to do a phase 1 again. It is is obviously still going to be the case that they own those ips.
Roxkis_ii
Banned
It's kinda funny how people have been saying this same thing this whole deal and yet here we are.
Ginzeen
Banned
Nope. CMA wants the cloud market to mature. 15 years is plenty of time for that. Any game released from ABK for the next 15 years, Ubisoft will own those cloud rights for those games forever.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
Wrong. Whatever you think of Ubisoft's business, they just got a deal to distribute some of the biggest franchises in the world for 15 years. They'd be absolute morons to turn their backs on that and say "Sorry, we're a bit busy sorting out Rayman"
Flutta
Banned
$70b for pub type insane. Oh they're def in it for the long run. They've been humiliated by Sony for far too long and Phil can't take it anymore.
Ginzeen
Banned
I mean technicality you're right. But when people say the deal is dead, they mean MS won't own ABK. So the deal is very healthy.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
It does however give every company in the industry who want to get into cloud streaming 15 years to get their ducks in a line before Microsoft move the Acti/Blizz titles under their umbrella (assuming they don't instantly strike a deal with Ubisoft to have the titles they sold them the rights to on Gamepass - as it stands, I assume that's what they'd do).
Last edited:
Thirty7ven
Banned
It just means they are desperate.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
Doesn't mean anything of the sort, they may be desperate or not, but this is a great business opportunity for them. They wouldn't reject it under any circumstance.
bitbydeath
Member
The reason is that the CMA already rejected it as an alternative solution on the previous deal.
Could they change their minds? Sure.
But it’s not looking good by any stretch of the imagination.
bitbydeath
Member
And it did die.we've also heard the deal is dead a million times before
Flutta
Banned
No... The CMA wants to ensure a fair opportunity for anyone entering the cloud market. To achieve that, the most popular 3rd party games need to be available to all cloud providers.
What will Ubisoft do when they have to return the rights to ABK games after investing in them for 15 years? Their cloud service might face significant challenges likely "crashing and burning". Microsoft is not a charity organization; they appear to be pursuing a straightforward monopoly goal.
Ginzeen
Banned
It didn't because CMA and MS are on the verge of working things out .And it did die.
Ginzeen
Banned
Yes.... CMA sole issues were COD and MS cloud position in a fast emegering market. MS holds 80 percent of the cloud market according to the CMA(lol) and COD is apparently too popular for MS to have on their cloud services exclusively.
So MS gave the CMA what they wanted. MS will no longer own the cloud rights for every cod that releases in the next 15 years forever. AND it gives their cloud market time to mature without MS owning COD cloud rights.
D
Deleted member 848825
Unconfirmed Member
Good point. Personally, I don't see them releasing as cloud streamable only. But we'll see.
bitbydeath
Member
You must be trolling.It didn't because CMA and MS are on the verge of working things out .
CMA shut the deal down and MS submitted a new one.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
It didn't because CMA and MS are on the verge of working things out .
You can't negotiate with a terroist
D
Deleted member 848825
Unconfirmed Member
Such that the EU are now considering if they need to be revisiting and assessing the new deal proposal.
Ginzeen
Banned
technicality its dead, if you wanna be pedantic, but its really not. This new deal will achieve the same effect. MS owning ABK. If the deal is dead, MS can't own ABK. Their is no indication the deal is dead. sorry.
KungFucius
King Snowflake
Why? They argued that the merger would give MS too much power in the emerging cloud market. Shouldn't cloud gaming be out of the emerging state in 15 years? The CMA did not have any issues with consoles and the 10 year deals seemed to help that. The point is, MS would not have any control over this large IP for streaming until we are in the middle of the PS7 generation, which will also be the first generation where MS could conceivably have pulled CoD from other platforms because it hates making money.
Bitmap Frogs
Mr. Community
It's well established that when it comes to xbox microsoft is more than happy to lose potential earnings to prop up the division.
Last edited:
In Cold Blood
Banned
They didn't reject the same solution last time.
After the CMA released its findings that the aquisition would not pose a problem with thr console space, everyone including MS thought it was a done deal. Then, out of nowhere they blocked it on cloud concerns.
MS made no concessions about selling off streaming rights to their games last time around.
For the CMA to go against the rules and ask the judge for an adornment, so they could work to see if MS can come up with a new deal, it signalled they were open to it.
Another thing is that MS and ABK would have been in ongoing consultation with the CMA all the way the through these negotiations. MS would have been well aware of what the CMA would be happy with before they presented this.
From the way I read it, and of course anything is possible, I think the CMA will accept it.
Banjo64
cumsessed
No, it defiantly was the issue.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked