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.
splattered said:
Nah... both companies take advantage of their strengths. You could simply say "Man what is wrong with Sony?
Click to expand...
Being able to use your company's capital to push the competition out is not playing to your strength.

Using their own cloud infrastructure to make a superior experience for the player would be an example of playing to their strength. Buying out the market to make it more difficult for smaller companies to compete is the reason monopoly laws exist in the first place.
 
Captain Toad said:
Being able to use your company's capital to push the competition out is not playing to your strength.

Using their own cloud infrastructure to make a superior experience for the player would be an example of playing to their strength. Buying out the market to make it more difficult for smaller companies to compete is the reason monopoly laws exist in the first place.
Click to expand...

They aren't "buying out the market" ... there is BEYOND plenty of market left. And as time goes on esp after this acquisition new publishers and devs will pop up along the way. I suspect once Acti/Blizz is acquired we will see lots of people depart to go to new/different studios outside of the Microsoft umbrella. It's only natural. You can't just sit here and say "Microsoft should never be allowed to buy developers or a publisher because it isn't fair." It obviously is something that IS allowed, as long as it doesn't cause foreclosure of competitors... that's why this process exists in the first place, and we are going through due process and will know the outcome soon enough.

Sony is the market leader 2:1 or maybe even more by now in this gen, they aren't some poor "small company" and in no way are they so dependent on Activision games that this will cause them to close shop or even lose their market position, especially if Microsoft offers a legal binding contract to put those games on their systems anyway. Sony seem to be more scared of Microsoft's mindshare and image improving over time than they are of the actual harm of losing a few games on their own system.
 
DaGwaphics said:
When you get to court with the FTC in the US things get very mathematical and exact, the numbers are in MS's favor in regards to this deal. The government deciding they don't like big, bad tech companies doesn't hold a lot of water at this level.
Click to expand...

So what is the FTC record of wins vs losses in Federal Court over the last 25 years?
 
ToadMan said:
So what is the FTC record of wins vs losses in Federal Court over the last 25 years?
Click to expand...

09a5d985-db3a-4dd1-a492-78170872950c_text.gif
 
Mr.Phoenix said:
What is really disturbing, is that those that are for this deal, basically are ok with the idea that those games... All those games, could very well just be exclusive to xbox. Games that you ready have access to, that everyone has access to. This is the dark side of GP... the narrative is shifting from we get Xbox FP games day 1 and we get at est this two or three great games each year...to ets get everything as day 1 and the more IPs MS owns the better for us. That may be good for GP, and those of us that have a GPsub, but how is that good for the industry in general if we aow MSbe the gatekeeper?
Click to expand...

That whole narrative is a joke when it comes to gaming though. Game software development isn't a field with an unimaginable entry cost or where any existing IP has that much power or is even guaranteed any specific level of success. New studios pop up every day as do new IPs. Some of the biggest hits in gaming over the last couple decades have been brand new IPs.

MS isn't doing hostile takeovers or corporate espionage here, they are just buying what is available for sale. Just like Netflix, Hulu, and all the media subscription services, MS needed to build a machine for in-house content, they have just chosen to do that primarily via acquisition (it's the quickest method and they can afford it). Even if they took every IP they purchased exclusive, they would still hold only a small piece of what is out there (but we know that isn't happening with CoD as there will be stipulation that it doesn't - which MS clearly hasn't cared about since the day the deal was announced).
 
ToadMan said:
So what is the FTC record of wins vs losses in Federal Court over the last 25 years?
Click to expand...

They lose in about 25% of cases, but it is typically obvious when they are pushing beyond the antitrust laws that are in place. The general consensus of the business pendents in the states is that the current antitrust laws don't have the teeth to stop this merger and it is more of a political power play by Lina Khan (she is trying to trigger the creation/passage of new antitrust laws by demonstrating why, in her mind, the existing laws aren't strong enough), which is why she has openly stated that she will move to sue even in cases when she knows she will lose.
 
Last edited:
The Tourmaline Gorilla said:
That point is baseless, when using Zenimax as an example. MS and Phil never said or promised Zenimax games would stay on PS. They said, they'd take those considerations into account on a game-by-game basis. They never "created any expectations, and then changed the terms post acquisition", as it regards the Zenimax acquisition.
Click to expand...

They absolutely did by expressing to regulators they would run Zenimax as a reasonable and rational business post acquisition - i.e. for reasonable profit.

Then post acquistion, they run Zenimax as a loss leader exclusives factory to coerce gamers to MS platforms.

24/26 before acquisition - 4/4 post acquisition so far. Those are the numbers - irrefutable. And we still await Zenimax's first mulitplat post acquisition...

The Tourmaline Gorilla said:
People who are running with that narrative are simply wrong. That is a false narrative that is easily refuted by what MS and Phil have actually said. Initially, it was hinted that Zenimax games might still be multiplat, but there was never any strong statements to indicate this, conclusively. The most conclusive, sure statement we have from MS on that is, they'd take it on a case-by-case or game-by-game basis.
Click to expand...


See above.
 
Last edited:
ToadMan said:
So they win 75%?

Which makes it "likely" the FTC will win in federal court vs MS.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

It doesn't no. :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Most of the cases they win are much more cut and dried than this one. Like I said, even Lina Khan has acknowledged herself that she is going to lose a lot of cases, that's part of her plan to build the framework of new law. She is openly trying to push the boundaries.
 
Last edited:
ToadMan said:
I get it - math is hard....

75/25 W v L for the FTC in Federal courts.

The rest is spin.
Click to expand...

It isn't spin for literate people with a passing interest in how the process actually works in the US. We'll see what the end result is.

For those that want to bother reading:

thehill.com

The case against the FTC

If this were a business, the firm’s shareholders might be asking for new management.
thehill.com thehill.com

fortune.com

In dropping challenge to Meta buying a virtual-reality startup, FTC hands Chair Lina Khan a stinging defeat

Khan had been trying to reinvigorate antitrust enforcement under the Biden administration, but this case serves as a major setback.
fortune.com fortune.com

The 25/75 ratio is lifetime, their recent record is a lot more loss happy. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 
Last edited:
FoxMcChief said:
You see, if you just keep moving your eyes to the right of "ok" that will help you get back on track and should help you from getting lost in the future. Oh, and if you see there aren't any more words to the right, you go down a line, and start from the left.
Click to expand...

Yeah I could but... why? Just more nonsense ...
 
DaGwaphics said:
It isn't spin for literate people with a passing interest in how the process actually works in the US. We'll see what the end result is.
Click to expand...

This is bizarre. You've just been provided with statistical evidence that proves they win more cases than they lose and instead of taking the "let's see approach" you're deciding to dig your head even further into the sand?

Sorry man, in the interest of having a factual discussion you should be open minded enough to at least acknowledge a variety of possibilities. Logic over emotion.
 
GHG said:
This is bizarre. You've just been provided with statistical evidence that proves they win more cases than they lose and instead of taking the "let's see approach" you're deciding to dig your head even further into the sand?

Sorry man, in the interest of having a factual discussion you should be open minded enough to at least acknowledge a variety of possibilities. Logic over emotion.
Click to expand...

Context and reading competency are huge.

Donald Trump GIF


It isn't bizarre at all. There is a subset of politicians that feel that US anti-trust laws are toothless and broken. Khan is one of those individuals. This subset of legislators believe that a string of high profile failures will demonstrate this weakness and lead to a rewrite of the existing laws. They literally say as much in plain English. Most of the talking heads on US business networks agree that MS/Activision is a case where the thresholds of the existing laws are not being met.
 
Last edited:
adamsapple said:
Activision can continue to be the CoD factory, but it would open up the possibility of all the IPs locked in their drawers to be utilized by other studios and/or revivals of classics with remasters, re-releases etc.

Also, massive dumps of various classics on game pass.

Try to look at the positives, not negatives all the time.
Click to expand...

Have Microsoft said they would do this? I mean Microsoft are already sitting on a bunch of old ips and don't do anything with them? Killer instinct, mech warrior, blue dragon, project Gotham racing.
 
Moridianae said:
The real worry I have, if this is to go through, is it'll create a perception that Microsoft can do whatever they want with the money they have, and the reality is it won't stop with ABK.

It'll create an image that the checks and balances are just there for show and nothing else.

It may even start Sony into going for, say, Square or whomever, creating a bidding war wherein nobody wins for gaming.
Click to expand...

Potentially yes.

The precedent is a problem because every smaller deal will have to be green lit to counteract the effect of this one.

Divestment is the only genuine solution imo at this stage, and should probably be accompanied by a covenant on MS not to engage in further gaming acquistions for 10 years. That should allow other companies to enter the market and get established before it is bought up entirely.
 
splattered said:
Ok cool... then Sony needs to stop making deals with Japanese developers. Because they are a Japanese company and Microsoft are not. It just isn't fair!
Click to expand...

That is probably the dumbest attempt at equivalence I've ever seen. Microsoft can make deals with Japanese developers, didn't they just sign up KojiPro for an exclusive title?
 
DaGwaphics said:
That whole narrative is a joke when it comes to gaming though. Game software development isn't a field with an unimaginable entry cost or where any existing IP has that much power or is even guaranteed any specific level of success.
Click to expand...
DaGwaphics said:
Context and reading competency are huge.

Donald Trump GIF
Click to expand...
Speaking of context, why are you suggesting gaming does NOT have unimaginable entry costs in this thread? Games like COD (Diablo, etc.) most certainly do have unimaginable entry costs. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 
DaGwaphics said:
Context and reading competency are huge.

Donald Trump GIF
Click to expand...

In this thread? It's really not. Hence the mundane circular discussions that have been a frequent occurance. Facts are not important, just feelings. People have proven time and time again that when faced with facts they would rather just double down on feelings. It's a shame.
 
DaGwaphics said:
It isn't spin for literate people with a passing interest in how the process actually works in the US.
Click to expand...

Why post this insult?

You told me FTC loses 25% so simple math means they win 75%. I was correct in my comprehension of what you posted right?

So MS will "likely" lose in Federal court - that's fine, it's the point I was making in fact using the data you posted.
 
NickFire said:
Speaking of context, why are you suggesting gaming does NOT have unimaginable entry costs in this thread? Games like COD (Diablo, etc.) most certainly do have unimaginable entry costs. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
Click to expand...

It isn't though. The next PUBG can come from literally anywhere at any time. Some games being expensive to make != successful games have to be expensive to make.
 
FoxMcChief said:
This thread is all nonsense. Everyone participating in it. So many posts and yet no one really knows shit. You've got both sides and their dumb takes. That's really all this thread is, in a nutshell. Nonsense.
Click to expand...
Be careful. I said the same thing about 500 pages ago and I was called a fanboy and then a few users told me they totally understood deals like this at a level which makes their specific takes correct.
 
Context @ ToadMan ToadMan I don't know where you are from or whatever, I posted some article links to better explain the current phenomenon that is happening with anti-trust in the US.

I said, we'll see regarding this case, because even though the consensus is that the current laws do not consider this merger problematic there is a chance than new precedence could be set with any case. Like I said, we'll see how it works out. The numbers favor MS though, which is often what US anti-trust boils down to (not much room for feelings typically).
 
Last edited:
ToadMan said:
That's not the standard being applied by regulators - hence the deal being blocked pending remedies.

I didn't make the rules .... sorry.
Click to expand...
I'm speaking for consumers who have this mindset.

Sony didn't do me wrong as a primary Xbox player getting Final Fantasy 16 as a timed or full console exclusive simply because the previous entry was multiplatform.

Neither is MS doing anybody who are primary Playstation players wrong if future games from franchises that were previously multiplatform from studios they now OWN are made console exclusives.

Why? Future games are not obligated to release on your preferred platform of choice regardless of the reason.
 
DaGwaphics said:
It isn't though. The next PUBG can come from literally anywhere at any time. Some games being expensive to make != successful games have to be expensive to make.
Click to expand...
In the context of the debates around this deal you are telling me the next mobile smash could come from anywhere and on the cheap. OK. SURE. WHY NOT?
 
ToadMan said:
MS aren't interested in just monetising Sony - if they were this deal would be done already.

They're trying ti make a coercive monopoly - for that they'll lose money now to make more later. If all they get out of this is 30% return they'll sell xbox or just run it into the ground.

Look at the markets MS stays in - Windows, monopoly, office monopoly, azure - getting there. And they ditched phones, accessories and hardware devices, zune and … I've forgotten the others. They don't stay in "profitable" markets - they try to establish monopolies and if they can't they duck out.

As far as the regulators are concerned the endeavor to monopolise is fine. Where MS has problems is they're doing it the wrong way with this acquisition which is why it is dead awaiting resurrection in some other form.
Click to expand...
This couldn't be further from the truth. Xbox is 20 years old and no where near a monopoly and they continue to be in the business.

Azure is nowhere near a monopoly compared to AWS. Bing is nowhere near a monopoly with low single digit marketshare. Zune was canned because nothing could compete with iPods and iTunes at the time. Same for Windows phones. Nothing could compete with Android and iPhone.

This delusion you have in your head that MS is trying to monopolise games is ridiculous.
ToadMan said:
The principle is Phil and MS will say whatever before an acquisition to set "expectations" and then change the terms post acquisition - zeni being the most recent example. A point all 3 regulators have raised in their investigation to date, and why they are going to rely on formal remedies.
Click to expand...
MS clearly stated on a game by game basis. If you thought that meant they'd release everything on Playstation you have noone to blame but yourself.

This also neglects that we have no idea how they will treat future zenimax games. Perhaps they'll be only timed exclusive on Xbox. Noone knows. Maybe this is MS's way of forcing a 1st party only GamePass on Playstation? To say MS lied when they've only released a handful of games so far is disingenuous.
 
NickFire said:
In the context of the debates around this deal you are telling me the next mobile smash could come from anywhere and on the cheap. OK. SURE. WHY NOT?
Click to expand...
They are correct. The next big thing is usually not like the last big thing.

Look at the behemoth Minecraft is now compared to it's humble beginnings.
 
DaGwaphics said:
That whole narrative is a joke when it comes to gaming though. Game software development isn't a field with an unimaginable entry cost or where any existing IP has that much power or is even guaranteed any specific level of success. New studios pop up every day as do new IPs. Some of the biggest hits in gaming over the last couple decades have been brand new IPs.
Click to expand...
OK, sure, Sony can do that (as if they haven't already). Tell me this: why didn't or couldn't Microsoft do that? If it is as easy as you say. Why did they need to get two publishers with IP and talent? Why is this option not on the table for Microsoft in your assessment of the situation?

Sure, getting A&B may not immediately change MS's position in the market as most of you like to argue, and they will still be "third" as you all like to highlight, but no one is expecting for that to be the case immediately after it completes. That's just silly. If anything happens, it will happen over a course of time; how they handle ownership and the moves they make after getting it — what it will ALLOW them to do, could result in a situation where it might not be good. Of course the opposite can also be true. We just don't know.

DaGwaphics said:
MS isn't doing hostile takeovers or corporate espionage here, they are just buying what is available for sale. Just like Netflix, Hulu, and all the media subscription services, MS needed to build a machine for in-house content, they have just chosen to do that primarily via acquisition (it's the quickest method and they can afford it). Even if they took every IP they purchased exclusive, they would still hold only a small piece of what is out there (but we know that isn't happening with CoD as there will be stipulation that it doesn't - which MS clearly hasn't cared about since the day the deal was announced).
Click to expand...
These are not "small" moves made by Microsoft. It is a big play, and according to most of you, only they are the ones who can make a move like it, at least among the players in the gaming market, and the "small piece" that they hold won't stay small if it has adverse effects on their competition.

The only point I agree with you on is, that is this is the quickest method for them, and they can afford it, to fund creation of a content machine, which will feed their Game Pass sub.
 
Last edited:
sainraja said:
OK, sure, Sony can do that (as if they haven't already). Tell me this: why didn't or couldn't Microsoft do that? Why did they need to get two publishers with IP and talent? Why is this option not on the table for Microsoft in your assessment of the situation?
Click to expand...

Who said that isn't an option available to them? Obviously the one asset they have is huge piles of cash and acquisition is the quickest route to the desired ending for them.

Just because MS chose to make acquisitions did not mean that they could not/can not just invest in new studios. The content would have been further out though, where Bethesda will already be returning results for them this year. New studios would have probably needed 2 or 3 more years to show results at minimum.
 
RedC said:
They are correct. The next big thing is usually not like the last big thing.

Look at the behemoth Minecraft is now compared to it's humble beginnings.
Click to expand...
It's not the concept in general that I take issue with. It's applying it to the discussions around this transaction. This almost 80 billion dollar transaction. Which primarily pertains to a game that no one is going to replace on the cheap, moderately cheap, or even not so expensive basis.
 
DaGwaphics said:
Who said that isn't an option available to them? Obviously the one asset they have is huge piles of cash and acquisition is the quickest route to the desired ending for them.

Just because MS chose to make acquisitions did not mean that they could not/can not just invest in new studios. The content would have been further out though, where Bethesda will already be returning results for them this year. New studios would have probably needed 2 or 3 more years to show results at minimum.
Click to expand...
In a practical sense, I get that. I even understand it. It's clear why they are doing this.

My point was, and maybe you weren't saying this, that MS should just be able to get A&B because it will change nothing, and Sony does not need to worry because it is so easy to create new successful IPs. I was simply saying that if it were that easy, then 1.) we wouldn't be having this conversation, because 2.) MS would have done that already, and 3.) Sony is definitely concerned about how this could possibly affect them. Those are the realities.
 
Last edited:
akaFullmetal said:
Have Microsoft said they would do this? I mean Microsoft are already sitting on a bunch of old ips and don't do anything with them? Killer instinct, mech warrior, blue dragon, project Gotham racing.
Click to expand...

I don't have the list on me (I'm sure its frequently on one of the twitters) but I think pretty much every studio they have is currently working on one or more projects, some announced, some just with code names right now.
 
akaFullmetal said:
Have Microsoft said they would do this? I mean Microsoft are already sitting on a bunch of old ips and don't do anything with them? Killer instinct, mech warrior, blue dragon, project Gotham racing.
Click to expand...

KI is the only one that jumps out there as a clear miss. No idea what Phil et al are thinking with such a low hanging fruit. I'd throw Banjo-Kazooie or Conker to that list too, since Playtonic's looking for work.

PGR is probably not something they'd do, and it's understandable when you have two racing franchises running nearly back to back. Best thing they could do is fit it in as a mode/DLC for FH.
 
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
99K
MasterCornholio replied
Top Bottom