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.
Topher said:
It shouldn't be seen by anyone but Microsoft and the court. This isn't for public consumption and shouldn't be.



Huh? We've been discussing this back and forth between Sony and Microsoft for a while now as far as what Microsoft will be allowed to obtain. But that doesn't mean any of it will be "revealed" to us unless it is somehow leaked like in the Epic-Apple lawsuit.

Who told you Sony had nothing to do with this?
Click to expand...
I would have to go back and dig through replies to my posts which I can do if you really want to but I'm driving and that would be a pain in the ass but yeah I've been told multiple times that nothing from Sony will be revealed from this because they have nothing to do with it
 
Ozriel said:
Why in the world would Microsoft make any promises to the EU, unprompted?

From MLex



There were no commitments made to the EU regarding distribution of future Bethesda games.
Click to expand...
"Unprompted". you do know that MS had to pass the regulators and submitted documents with the Zenimax purchase too right?
 
Ozriel said:
Why in the world would Microsoft make any promises to the EU, unprompted?

From MLex



There were no commitments made to the EU regarding distribution of future Bethesda games.
Click to expand...

Your claims have been disproved countless times. If you want to live in a fantasy land and not accept the evidence (which was the response from Microsoft to the CMA/EU/whichever place had it), go for it.
 
Not going to lie.. would be nice to see the exclusivity practices of both Sony and Microsoft dating back to 2012. Kind of sucks that I got cut off to 2019 like WTF
 
Ozriel said:
The FTC claimed Microsoft made promises of non-exclusivity for Bethesda to the EU regulators. The EU regulators refuted it.
Click to expand...
Regulators said there was no commitment made. FTC never claimed they committed to it.
Ozriel said:
When did the CMA claim that MS reneged on a promise for Bethesda? Provide a source!
Click to expand...
The report has been posted hundreds of times in this thread.

People have told you this before and you continue to repeat the same lies over and over again. This is why people don't take you guys seriously.
 
If xbox exits the console space, nobody will be able to enter. It's too risky with Sony being there. Xbox has the best chance to compete.

Unless two or three third party publishers merge and make their own console ,which is better than google, apple etc. entering without studios or history.

I would buy a Capcom console. A Take Two/EA console could be competition. A box that has Madden, Fifa, 2k, red dead, bioshock, gta, apex legends, star wars jedi, titanfall etc. As exclusives could compete better than whatever xbox is doing.
 
Last edited:
IFireflyl said:
Your claims have been disproved countless times. If you want to live in a fantasy land and not accept the evidence (which was the response from Microsoft to the CMA/EU/whichever place had it), go for it.
Click to expand...

If a direct quote from Mlex won't convince you, nothing else will.

Three said:
"Unprompted". you do know that MS had to pass the regulators and submitted documents with the Zenimax purchase too right?
Click to expand...

The EU said their decision to pass the Bethesda sale did not consider any future or current stance on exclusivity. In that scenario, why would Microsoft have made any commitments?
That's what I mean by 'unprompted'.


DForce said:
Regulators said there was no commitment made. FTC never claimed they committed to it.
Click to expand...

Really?

the FTC pointed to Microsoft's record of acquiring and using valuable gaming content to suppress competition from rival consoles, including its acquisition of ZeniMax, parent company of Bethesda Softworks (a well-known game developer). Microsoft decided to make several of Bethesda's titles including Starfield and Redfall Microsoft exclusives despite assurances it had given to European antitrust authorities that it had no incentive to withhold games from rival consoles.
Click to expand...

DForce said:
The report has been posted hundreds of times in this thread.
Click to expand...

And that same report does not say MS broke any commitments on Bethesda exclusivity.
Posting a 277 page document as rebuttal makes no sense. Cite a section.

DForce said:
This is why people don't take you guys seriously.
Click to expand...

I assure you, I lose no sleep over this.
 
Ozriel said:
Really?

And that same report does not say MS broke any commitments on Bethesda exclusivity.
Posting a 277 page document as rebuttal makes no sense. Cite a section.

I assure you, I lose no sleep over this.
Click to expand...

You can assure something to someone that doesn't require a contract. This is what you call a verbal agreement. That's what you're failing to understand. If it was a commitment, then documents would have been signed the FTC would have shown the signed document.

This is the same thing cited in the CMA report.

I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

The EU regulators said there wasn't a commitment made, they never disputed anything about what was said.
 
Will have a look at the judges decision tomorrow re the MS subpoena

feynoob said:
@GHG R reksveks
Today we cooked everton.
Coffee Time Movie GIF
Click to expand...

I am having a growing level of confidence but I shouldnt
 
Topher said:
Hmmm, @anthony2690 I may wrong in what I said about being publicly available. I was assuming this was like the Epic-Apple lawsuit. Shows what I know



Edit: Someone else is saying there is already a protective order in place to keep this from the public's eyes. I don't think anyone knows what they are talking about. lol
Click to expand...

What about the rights of the 3rd party publishers? I assume they can all petition the court separately to have their info redacted/sealed if it would undermine their ability to get good negotiated terms in future? And on that same point, I suspect in this game of chicken, Microsoft lawyers heavy handedness could be damaging Xbox relationships with third parties by using courts to have PlayStation divulge contract terms that they(the third parties) and PlayStation had agreed to keep confidential.
 
Topher said:
Xbox isn't going anywhere. Need to understand that first. Only way a company is going to enter the market as a platform at this stage is going to be through streaming.


Summary from the other site says otherwise....

  • Sony has to produce "All drafts of and Communications regarding SIE's President and CEO Jim Ryan's declaration titled 'SIE Declaration to FTC on MS-ABK Transaction"
  • Sony has to produce "an executed copy of every Content licensing agreement You have entered into with any third-party publisher between Jan 1, [2019] and present."
    • This is interesting, though the original request was 2012, the date has been granted only to 2019 per above. Could have some juicy details here.
Click to expand...

Goddamn that's a lot, wonder if this info will be made public. Getting to see that info about third party deals would be pretty juicy stuff.
 
Last edited:
PaintTinJr said:
What about the rights of the 3rd party publishers? I assume they can all petition the court separately to have their info redacted/sealed if it would undermine their ability to get good negotiated terms in future? And on that same point, I suspect in this game of chicken, Microsoft lawyers heavy handedness could be damaging Xbox relationships with third parties by using courts to have PlayStation divulge contract terms that they(the third parties) and PlayStation had agreed to keep confidential.
Click to expand...

There's already a confidentiality order in place for this trial.

Basically the documents from all respondents are limited to court personnel and legal teams where marked as confidential - which I assume they all will be.

We'll rely on leaks to get info, if this gets to the FTC court.

So far despite thousands of documents from MS and ABK being reviewed, nothing seems to have leaked but maybe a law office here or there may drop something.
 
ToadMan said:
There's already a confidentiality order in place for this trial.

Basically the documents from all respondents are limited to court personnel and legal teams where marked as confidential - which I assume they all will be.

We'll rely on leaks to get info, if this gets to the FTC court.

So far despite thousands of documents from MS and ABK being reviewed, nothing seems to have leaked but maybe a law office here or there may drop something.
Click to expand...
but MS will use [redacted] to formulate its arguments which we could infer some juicy info.
 
Topher said:
Guy on era said it won't be public
Click to expand...

The court hearing will in all likelihood be public - probably good to fall asleep to.

But the data used in the hearing will be confidential - so there'll be a lot of "refer to doc X" and redacts and whatever.

But we may get some leaks - maybe some smeary intentional ones …

This is the original confidentiality order
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ft...-governing-confidential-material-public_0.pdf

And the important bit :

7. Confidential material shall be disclosed only to: (a) the Administrative Law Judge presiding over this proceeding, personnel assisting the Administrative Law Judge, the Commission and its employees, and personnel retained by the Commission as experts or consultants for this proceeding; (b) judges and other court personnel of any court having jurisdiction over any appellate proceedings involving this matter; (c) outside counsel of record for any respondent, their associated attorneys and other employees of their law firm(s), provided they are not employees of a respondent; (d) anyone retained to assist outside counsel in the preparation or hearing of this proceeding including consultants, provided they are not affiliated in any way with a respondent and have signed an agreement to abide by the terms of the protective order; and (e) any witness or deponent who may have authored or received the information in question.
 
Ozriel said:
They're building teams. The Initiative is new, and they've expanded Playground into another team for Fable.

Ironically, we've had threads on Fable with complaints that the new team hadn't put out an open world RPG in 4+ years.

They've also partnered with external studios like IOI and Avalanche. Not to mention a substantial first party base that's already working on games.

Their main issue is how slow their pipeline is to delivery, combined with shoddy marketing and baffling decisions made in the past. Not to mention some leadership issues. It'll get rolling eventually, but for now there are glaring gaps in their AAA output.

They want Activision for mobile, Gamepass content and COD revenue. None of that requires COD exclusivity.
Click to expand...

They started their aggressive acquisition spree in 2018. Hellblade 2 still hasn't released. These teams aren't getting enough out to really start working on their own franchises and to make matters worse, they're now internally competing against Bethesda and soon to be ABK. It's like Naughty Dog not releasing a title in five years, polyphony just pumping out an iteration of Gran Turismo every year and God of War coming out every few years.

Microsoft have done very little to establish franchises that they're simply buying them. Claiming they're a victim and hopelessly have no chance of ever increasing market share, despite doing all the stupid things you mentioned that ruin their good work.

Microsoft want Activision because the exclusives they can make for their platforms, as well as Bethesda and the teams they continue to run/build/buy will make the console a must have. That'll increase market share and in turn revenue. And it would only cost the wider market two major publishers, arguably one of the biggest in the market.

ironmang said:
So they have more control over the franchise and can put it on gamepass or prevent Sony from getting exclusive content deals.

Unlike console warriors, these companies care about whatever makes the most money, not just who has the most exclusives.

Why'd they buy Minecraft if they're just going to share it with everyone?
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Come on. They want Call of Duty to be exclusive and realistically the same for Minecraft. The only reason they aren't outright doing that is because Microsoft don't own the majority share of the console market. If they did of course they would and it'd massively hurt the competition. Business is business.

The statement about caring what makes the most money literally makes no sense. XBOX hardware doesn't make money, Microsoft admitted it barely ever has. GamePass isn't increasing in subscribers the way Microsoft need it too. It's not profitable. Microsoft are literally losing money to try and buy love from gamers and buy market share.

They own incredible IP from Bethesda, that library is going to massively expand in the future. Are they going to port every Spyro, Crash, Tony Hawk, WoW and Diablo game in the future to all platforms? People are so hung up on CoD they don't even talk about everything else involved in this deal.

And if they keep it all multiplatform, what's the point in being a console manufacturer.

By your logic, the console manufacturers should buy up every publisher and developer, just to ensure all games come to all consoles and nobody gets exclusivity rights.
 
Thirty7ven said:
One thing I don't understand, why is the prevalent notion that MS will have access to those docs 2019 to present, and not specifically the FTC?
Click to expand...

Sony (and many other companies) have been subpoenaed by the FTC for information.

And MS has had it's legal counsel also subpoena Sony and others for information.

FTC want's information to support its complaint against MS, and MS wants data to refute that complaint.

Right now all sides are accumulating data and potentially even court presentable evidence to support their positions.

The subpoenas describe what information is required but also limit what can be used whether that's an FTC or MS initiated subpoena.

What we saw today is MS not getting everything it asked for in its subpoena on Sony.
 
Barakov said:
#1 reason why this deal shouldn't go through.
Click to expand...
To be clear, I want everyone to be able to enjoy apples. If I walk into a store for apples, and there is one apple left, and I decide to buy the last apple, that does not make me a hypocrite. The idea that "no one else can have this" is the last thing on my mind when deciding to purchase said apple. Of course the analogy isn't perfect, but no analogy is.

One can be motivated to have ownership of an industry leading development team for a multiple of reasons other than "keep away". In this case you are projecting intent into a scenario that doesn't necessarily require it.

Now in saying that, he very well could be a hypocrite, or their current distribution plans make the most financial sense long term. I for one don't make it a habit to pretend I know what other people are thinking.
 
Barakov said:
#1 reason why this deal shouldn't go through.
Click to expand...
Starfield and Redfall didnt have a playbase to take from.

Neither xbox, nintendo, steam, or sony had those games. While games like ESO, Fallout 76, Ghostwire, Deathloop remain on the platforms that were planned fully.

Never lied but misinterpreted.
 
Gobjuduck said:
Starfield and Redfall didnt have a playbase to take from.

Neither xbox, nintendo, steam, or sony had those games. While games like ESO, Fallout 76, Ghostwire, Deathloop remain on the platforms that were planned fully.

Never lied but misinterpreted.
Click to expand...
So will TES 6 be released on PS5? :pie_thinking:
Cause you know, there's a playerbase already on PlayStation for the franchise.
 
Last edited:
Ozriel said:
If a direct quote from Mlex won't convince you, nothing else will.
Click to expand...

Why would a direct quote from a third-party help convince me more than the actual EC document? Here you go:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021M10001&qid=1677718087174&from=EN


Yb8XV3C.png
8OGTj6o.png
CMpbnmS.png
1IorR1s.png


The "Notifying Party" is defined as Microsoft. The EC's own website shows that:
  1. Microsoft did claim that they have no incentive to cease or limit making ZeniMax games available for purchase on rival consoles (section 114 specifically, but really all of 107 through 114).
  2. The EC actually DID consider this information during the acquisition (section 115).
I kept the page numbers I was on in the screenshots I took as well. Just to help you find the info yourself in case you think that's somehow doctored or that I'm cherry picking.
 
Last edited:
Snowdonhoffen said:
So will TES 6 be released on PS5? :pie_thinking:
Cause you know, there's a playerbase already on PlayStation for the franchise.
Click to expand...
Franchises are not protected from going exclusive, unless that was set before the deal, which it never was (nothing binding was set, except this vague statement from xbox didnt SWAY the legal process). TES 6 wasn't promised to any platform before the deal.
 
Last edited:
IFireflyl said:
The EC actually DID consider this information during the acquisition (section 115).
Click to expand...
"The combined entity's incentive to foreclose rival console game distributors depends on the balance between: (i) the losses from not distributing ZeniMax games broadly on other consoles; and (ii) the higher profits obtained from the increased sales of Xbox consoles (and the related games and services) to new end-users interested in playing ZeniMax games. In light of this trade-off, the Commission concludes that the combined entity would not have the incentive to engage in an input foreclosure strategy by refusing to make ZeniMax games available on rival consoles or degrading the terms under which these games are made available."

"The Commission notes that an input foreclosure strategy would only be economically viable if ZeniMax games were able to attract a sufficiently high number of new players to the Xbox console ecosystem, and if Microsoft could profit enough from their game purchasing activity. 115 However, such an outcome is unlikely."
 
Last edited:
Gobjuduck said:
"The combined entity's incentive to foreclose rival console game distributors depends on the balance between: (i) the losses from not distributing ZeniMax games broadly on other consoles; and (ii) the higher profits obtained from the increased sales of Xbox consoles (and the related games and services) to new end-users interested in playing ZeniMax games. In light of this trade-off, the Commission concludes that the combined entity would not have the incentive to engage in an input foreclosure strategy by refusing to make ZeniMax games available on rival consoles or degrading the terms under which these games are made available."

"The Commission notes that an input foreclosure strategy would only be economically viable if ZeniMax games were able to attract a sufficiently high number of new players to the Xbox console ecosystem, and if Microsoft could profit enough from their game purchasing activity. 115 However, such an outcome is unlikely."
Click to expand...

Exactly. Thank you for confirming that I'm right. I'll just add these sections that you casually left out as if they have no relevance:

"In the Notifying Parties' view, it is implausible that Microsoft would achieve such results."

"Therefore, according to the Notifying Party, Microsoft would not have the incentive to cease or limit making ZeniMax titles available on other consoles."

Almost immediately after the acquisition was approved Microsoft turned around and said that a bunch of ZeniMax titles would no longer be made available on other consoles. Hence: they lied.
 
Gobjuduck said:
"The combined entity's incentive to foreclose rival console game distributors depends on the balance between: (i) the losses from not distributing ZeniMax games broadly on other consoles; and (ii) the higher profits obtained from the increased sales of Xbox consoles (and the related games and services) to new end-users interested in playing ZeniMax games. In light of this trade-off, the Commission concludes that the combined entity would not have the incentive to engage in an input foreclosure strategy by refusing to make ZeniMax games available on rival consoles or degrading the terms under which these games are made available."

"The Commission notes that an input foreclosure strategy would only be economically viable if ZeniMax games were able to attract a sufficiently high number of new players to the Xbox console ecosystem, and if Microsoft could profit enough from their game purchasing activity. 115 However, such an outcome is unlikely."
Click to expand...
I don't think that says what you hope it does.
 
Ozriel said:
The EU said their decision to pass the Bethesda sale did not consider any future or current stance on exclusivity. In that scenario, why would Microsoft have made any commitments?
That's what I mean by 'unprompted'.
Click to expand...
Because it wasn't a commitment when the EC passed it without remedies however MS submitted a document stating it has no incentive to remove zenimax games and did so.
 
Three said:
It wasn't referring to released games.
Click to expand...
Oh, so they haven't removed games from other platforms.

Edit: here is the quote.
"And if you go back to the Zenimax titles, all of the Zenimax games that we said are gonna ship on PlayStation, we have shipped on PlayStation. All of the games when we acquired Zenimax that were available on PlayStation, at the time that we acquired them, we have continued to do content updates on PlayStation and PC."

It sounds more like people took what he said out of context... That almost never happens.
 
Last edited:
MarkMe2525 said:
Oh, so they haven't removed games from other platforms.

Edit: here is the quote.
"And if you go back to the Zenimax titles, all of the Zenimax games that we said are gonna ship on PlayStation, we have shipped on PlayStation. All of the games when we acquired Zenimax that were available on PlayStation, at the time that we acquired them, we have continued to do content updates on PlayStation and PC."

It sounds more like people took what he said out of context... That almost never happens.
Click to expand...
Nobody is referring to that quote. Read the EC documents.


8OGTj6o_d.webp
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MS/ABK is advertising games that don't exist for data collection
46
2K
POKEYCLYDE replied
My apologies to Ubisoft, Sony, Activision, EA, MS etc. for making a big deal out of $70 games
2 3 4
156
6K
MDSLKTR replied
Microsoft, Activision Deny Report Regarding Financial Performance
Business Hardware  2 3
131
11K
Jaybe replied
What happened to all the people that were cheering over that MS Activision acquisition?
Drama  5 6 7 8 9
414
18K
GateofD replied
Microsoft has Closed the Activision Blizzard King Deal
22 23 24 25 26
1K
98K
MasterCornholio replied
Top Bottom