Topher
Identifies as young
SenjutsuSage
will be around to tell us that getting the marketing deal was the plan from the beginning. That guy is always two steps ahead of the rest of us.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
SenjutsuSage
will be around to tell us that getting the marketing deal was the plan from the beginning. That guy is always two steps ahead of the rest of us.
.Pennywise
Banned
CMA: "k you can buy Coca-Cola but you can't sell soda, ok?
SneakersSO
Member
I can promise you -there is no universe in which either ATVI or MS agree to divest any portion of ABK in order to facilitate this deal. Like, if MS is being honest about them simply wanting to expand their foothold into mobile (narrator: they aren't), then the options presented by the CMA to have ATVI divest the portion of the business that is mobile centric (King) would be enough, but we both know that MS has nearly 0 interest in that.
Cheezewizz
Banned
Well the deal certainly appears to be on death's door at this point.
The more I look at it, the more it appears as though the deal is dead for sure. The CMA made sure to make it clear that they are open to proposed remedies. But I'm thinking anything CoD related is completely off the table for MS. This is largely due to the way the CMA worded their report. They stress the importance of both consoles having equal access to CoD content as the reason for their concerns. Yet later in the report they made sure to be a bit vague when reiterating that point in their summary. My only guess is so that it gives the CMA an out if anyone points out that Playstation has been getting exclusive CoD content for years.
Definitely not Jim's biggest fan, but he definitely got the win here. Never has that gif of Jimbo laughing been more appropriate.
The more I look at it, the more it appears as though the deal is dead for sure. The CMA made sure to make it clear that they are open to proposed remedies. But I'm thinking anything CoD related is completely off the table for MS. This is largely due to the way the CMA worded their report. They stress the importance of both consoles having equal access to CoD content as the reason for their concerns. Yet later in the report they made sure to be a bit vague when reiterating that point in their summary. My only guess is so that it gives the CMA an out if anyone points out that Playstation has been getting exclusive CoD content for years.
Definitely not Jim's biggest fan, but he definitely got the win here. Never has that gif of Jimbo laughing been more appropriate.
RickMasters
Member
your that guy that takes people's words out of context and rephrases them. get a job at a tabloid paper....What doesnt sit well with me is governing bodies telling companies what terms they can make purchases on, especially when their reasoning is....I cant be any clearer than plane english.... but go ahead and remix that, DJ......
bitbydeath
Member
That's the job lol
RaZoR No1
Member
Endgame is to "burn" the 4 or 69 billions to pay less taxes
That guy is always two steps ahead of the rest of us.
Topher
Identifies as young
Take that, Uncle Sam!
gothmog
Gold Member
Won't somebody think of the trillion dollar companies?
demigod
Member
Wait is Idas really an MS lawyer? Jesus what a clown if so.
IFireflyl
Gold Member
SneakersSO
Member
Sony getting exclusive CoD content is known to the CWA, and is considered a fair market practice - any piece of exclusive content that Sony gets was, in theory, bid over, and Sony won out; that is market competition at work. Whatever factors determine that bidding and the cost presented for either party is obviously a factor, but rest assured: just like MS is ponying up dough to buy all of ATVI, if MS truly wanted to, they could outbid Sony on all marketing deals, exclusive in-game content, etc., for forever.
I'm not gonna say the deal is dead outright, but it goes without saying this is the closest its ever been to dying. This is going to come down to how the CMA feels on the potential behavioral remedies that MS will present them. The issue with behavioral remedies is that their success rate with the CMA is abysmal (less than 3% apparently). The other issue is that loads of behavioral remedies have, in the past, had loop holes baked into them, especially on behavioral remedies that included licensing agreements with specific entities; one of the reasons the CMA is standing their ground here is because they have rubber stamped loads of problematic mergers in the past that have come back and bit consumers in the ass.
Obviously, the big things MS can offer as a behavioral remedy are contractual assurances with any platform holder that CoD will appear on their platform as long as the platform is capable of running it, but even that definition (capable of running it) and perpetuity will be heavily scrutinized. MS is also going to offer a cloud/streaming license agreement that anyone can purchase based on some fair market wage evaluation that the CMA will also have to approve of.
And then comes the enforcement mechanism, which is the big thing that causes the CMA to just reject behavioral remedies. Say, for example, MS decides to just ignore their concessions and just do w/e they want with CoD or ABK - the CMA will come down as the enforcer, but what happens? MS has to pay some fines? Divest ABK/CoD? The enforcement issue is one of the primary reasons the CMA tends to avoid behavioral remedies in the first place. Cause even if the CMA decides that sure, some concession MS agrees to is fine, if MS just breaks it and the fine is a few million, MS will cough that up as couch change. The CMA is well aware of this and has been burnt on this in the past.
So, yeah. We are back to a holding pattern on this, but anyone who tries to spin this as MS being in anything higher than a % chance that is > 10% is smoking some really great reefer.
Yoboman
Member
How many times has it changed?Remember the brief moment when it was all about King because PR said so?
We all come back full circle.
When the acquisition was first announced it was 100% about COD exclusivity. Hundreds of pages of people saying it would be exclusive
Then it became, it will be exclusive when current marketing deal expired
Then it was actually not about that and MS are generously offering 3 extra years and Jim Ryan would live to regret his rebuke
Then it was actually we can offer 10 years
Then it was, actually it was never even about COD, it was all about King. In fact what even is a COD?
Now we are back to the start. If there is no COD exclusivity at some point in the future, is the deal even worth it?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Goes hard in the paint like he is.
RickMasters
Member
I see nothing unique about this other than the fact size of it, which is hardly unique.... and the fact that MS are a big company ((quiete a few of those around spending billions, so this is just biz as usual... eye watering pricetag aside). And we can even say ABK were not in any kind of financial trouble yet are being sold (we all know why at this point). Its only the reason for the sale thats unique otherwise they would not be selling.
Im sure others made an offer but you go with the highest bidder, not the sentiments of gamers.
In Cold Blood
Banned
Nah, you will see my previous posts where I said the same thing.The coping starts
I have said MS should be able to buy ABK, but I would rather that money be spent on other companies that would have a better payoff for me as an xbox gamer.
Look at my post history.
In Cold Blood
Banned
So that shows you how the relationship has broken down between ABK and Sony. The fact that Sony isn't returning calls from the most important franchise on their system says alot.
We both know if it comes down to who has the bigger wallet to spend on COD.
In Cold Blood
Banned
Sure.
Was there some talking points paper passed around the Xbox fan meeting today?
However the point stands. It's a ridiculous statement which shows they have no idea about the gaming industry.
If it was to go to court a judge would absolutely learn how it works.
Topher
Identifies as young
If having the bigger wallet was all that mattered then Xbox would have never lost COD marketing in the first place.
Topher
Identifies as young
The point doesn't stand at all. "CMA saying that people won't be able to play cloud games without a console" is a false statement.
In Cold Blood
Banned
From the CMA
"The evidence suggests that making CoD partially or totally exclusive
could bring Microsoft longer-term strategic benefits. These would include
acquiring new loyal customers, growing the number of Game Pass
subscribers, and strengthening Microsoft's reputation as having a console with
attractive exclusive content."
Holy fucking shit. They literally said that one of the reasons MS shouldn't buy ABK is that it might bring more customers and more people would get GP. No only that but is would strengthen their reputation has having good exclusive games.
They are fucking retards. That's the way the whole competitive world works. Attracting customers with new and inviting products
Wow.
"The evidence suggests that making CoD partially or totally exclusive
could bring Microsoft longer-term strategic benefits. These would include
acquiring new loyal customers, growing the number of Game Pass
subscribers, and strengthening Microsoft's reputation as having a console with
attractive exclusive content."
Holy fucking shit. They literally said that one of the reasons MS shouldn't buy ABK is that it might bring more customers and more people would get GP. No only that but is would strengthen their reputation has having good exclusive games.
They are fucking retards. That's the way the whole competitive world works. Attracting customers with new and inviting products
Wow.
In Cold Blood
Banned
That's the same type of lingo used by Sony fans to say that MS would never give Xbox money to invest because MS had to fund everything through their own profits.
70 billion dollars later.....
Topher
Identifies as young
Ok? What's that have to do with anything I said? I'm not using anyone else's "lingo" here.
Except nothing you quoted there says these are reasons "MS shouldn't buy ABK".
Last edited:
In Cold Blood
Banned
It's in their finds about why they ruled against the merger.
They have said that by MS getting COD it will push their subscription and cloud gaming service forward at the expense of Sony.
It's literally the whole basis of them rejecting it.
Topher
Identifies as young
What are you talking about? The CMS haven't ruled against the merger and they haven't rejected anything. This is all provisional.
Last edited:
Yoboman
Member
Nobody is stopping them from doing that. They are stopping them from leveraging a market shifting, largest acquisition in videogame history to do that
In Cold Blood
Banned
They have objected to the merger sans remedy. This was their basis for objection. Don't try to make it more complex than it is.
Their whole brief comes across as trying to protect Sony's dominant position in the marketplace, which is exactly have the Brazilian regulators ruled.
In Cold Blood
Banned
They are trying to prevent any reduction in Sony's market dominance. Their whole brief is worded around how the merger would give MS an ability to grow their platform and services and that it might come at the expense of Sony.
It's not their place to protect a market leader.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
I'm pro-merger but let's look at the facts. MS is one of the largest companies on the planet. ABK is the largest 3rd party publisher of video games. You understand why there is scrutiny here, no?
reinking
Gold Member
It does say a lot. It says that Sony is being advised by a competent legal team. Activision has nothing to offer Sony unless this deal is blocked. I did not say "biggest wallet." I said, highest bid. There is a big difference as has been proven since Sony currently has a marketing deal in place. My hope is all of this pisses Microsoft off enough that they do get hungry and go back to competing head-to-head for some of these deals.
Throughout this process, I did not really care one way or another which way this deal went. I do not think it is the best move for the industry but I also do not think it will kill it. However, I am done with it and I do want it to fail. I want the industry to stabilize. For crying out loud, we just came off of a pandemic and supply issues. I want Microsoft to get their shit together and start delivering utilizing the 30 studios they currently have. That would be fantastic for all gamers. Frankly, what scares me more than this deal going through and Xbox taking over the industry, is this deal going through and we have a repeat of this thread 4-5 years from now because Xbox leadership has still failed to deliver.
Last edited:
Yoboman
Member
It's their place to rule on mergers and acquisitions that harm competition like this does
In Cold Blood
Banned
Sure, however MS is the fourth biggest gaming company behind Sony, Nintendo.and Tencent. The acquisition of ABK would put them in third place. It would spread that out over mobile, PC.and console. If it was Sony buying ABK then absolutely ot should be stopped, as you have the biggest gaming company becoming bigger.
Using your logic, you have the biggest gaming company buying Bungie, therefore increasing their already dominate position further.
No one objected to that. Sony never offered MS a ten year deal for Bungie games going forward. Destiny is a massive franchise. If Sony made Destiny exclusive to PS it would hurt MSs ability to attract gamers.
Topher
Identifies as young
These are provisional findings. There is nothing complex about that.
CMA is putting a hell of a lot more effort into this review than CADE ever did. CADE was a rubber stamp in comparison.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
That isn't using my logic lol. MS is 10x bigger than Sony and this ABK buyout price is almost as big as all of Sonys market cap, the company buying them has a sordid history of throwing their weight around and using anti competitive tactics. So yes, this deal should be scrutinized to hell and back.
bitbydeath
Member
Agreed, getting more cooks will only worsen their situation. MS deserves better leadership. They need to evaluate each of their teams and find out how to deliver better and more frequent content. They've just admitted GamePass is part of the problem.
It will be interesting where they go from here.
In Cold Blood
Banned
No, their job isn't to stop a smaller player from becoming more competitive.
Sony has chosen not to be competitive with GP by not adding their first party games day and date.
To then say by MS adding COD to GP is further going to make it more attractive to consumers is redundant. Anyone who says the GP gives consumers less choice is smoking crack.
You can play all MS first party games either on PC, Xbox or cloud. Sony again was uncompetitive by choosing not to put their games on PC.
MS is giving more choice, and Sony is giving less choice. The CMA is saying that because Sony has chosen not to compete in streaming, and chosen not to support other platforms, then the ABK will hurt them because they have neglected these other areas.
MS spent billions to build Azure. They spent millions putting all those server blades in the cloud to provide a streaming service, while Sony decided not to do that, but rather build more consoles. Now that this hard work and investment might start to pay off the CMA thinks that Sony's laziness might come back to bite them in the arse, so they need to restrict MS from expanding their service.
In Cold Blood
Banned
Let's not change the goalposts here. This is about gaming, and gaming only.
Sony is bigger than MS. Even after the ABK acquisition, Sony is still bigger than MS.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
Well. That's one way of looking at all of this, I suppose.
Yoboman
Member
So you're simultaneously suggesting MS (the trillion dollar company) is the smaller player? And that they are in market segments that they are much more competitive than Sony? And that they can use ABK to solidify their position in those markets?
Just making sure
recykle
Neo Member
I think in this case the merger would collapse and MS and ABK would agree to a exclusive "next-gen" deal once Sony's marketing exclusive deal runs out in 2024.
This could block PS5 from getting the game while PS4 would still have access to the game. It would be a much more petty and harder impacting move from MS as they could offer it on GamePass while completely blocking the game from the PS5 system. However, if it goes through now the game would most likely only be on GamePass while still being on both "next-gen" consoles.
People imaging that the CMA could block an exclusivity deal are living in lala land.
Yoboman
Member
Amazing how these guys think slightly altering the business model is justification to start buying the industry
reinking
Gold Member
That is silly. Microsoft is bigger than Sony. If you want to point out that PlayStation is bigger than Xbox then of course it is true. However, this acquisition actually does nothing for that argument because it shows that the Xbox division can rely on Microsoft's money to gain an unfair advantage in the gaming market.
Ezekiel_
Banned
A person who thinks ABK would agree to do it and MS to pay the sum required is living in lala land.
TheGodfather07
Member
If this is about gaming, why are Microsoft using non gaming money to buy publishers? That's the definition of unfair advantage and absolutely harms proper competition. Microsoft need to actually work to compete and not be allowed to throw around their massive wealth to bail them out when they please. How could anyone possibly compete if Microsoft were allowed to do this?
Last edited:
RickMasters
Member
Im sure they pay their people pretty handsomely on their boards of directors to do all the thinking about their well beings just fine. but atleast on gaf we can 'stick it to the man' , among ourselves, right?
Me? I just know I wouldnt want anybody telling me what to do with my purchases. Thats just principle. Thats just me. Thats all im saying. billions involved or not.
Hero of Spielberg
Member
It doesn't matter where the money comes from, just the outcome. Will the acquisition result in an uncompetitive environment? I don't believe so as Xbox trails PS by a fair margin, but regulators may disagree. If they do decide to allow this acquisition it doesn't set a precedent that MS can continue to make acquisitions like this just because they have money, because the regulators will do what they do, continue to regulate and ensure subsequent deals also don't result in uncompetitive outcomes.
- Status