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.
Banjo64 said:
I've already said, both things can be true (and clearly are in this case).

Sony don't want to negotiate.

Sony can still view Microsoft as acting in bad faith as they've clearly spelt out that they've had one offer from Microsoft a year ago, with dubious terms, and then Microsoft have been radar silent apart from when its media time.

Let's not forget it's Microsoft playing these 'deals' out in public. Sony aren't acting on bad faith by refusing to negotiate. Microsoft are acting in bad faith by playing this out to the gallery instead of trying to make major inroads.

Let's not forget it's Phillip who's constantly saying he's had good meetings with Sony's leaders etc. Clearly Sony have been open to communication from MS. It's just that MS clearly only want a 10 year deal, which isn't sufficient for Sony (or the CMA).
Click to expand...
They haven't had one offer. I've read criticism on here about MS first saying they'll honor the contract, then saying 3 years after the contract, then 10. That's at least 3 offers that we know about, and we don't know if the "all Activision/Blizz games" offer is #4.
 
Punished Miku said:
They haven't had one offer. I've read criticism on here about MS first saying they'll honor the contract, then saying 3 years after the contract, then 10. That's at least 3 offers that we know about, and we don't know if the "all Activision/Blizz games" offer is #4.
Click to expand...
Saying 'we'll honour the existing contract' isn't an offer, so technically you are right in that it's 2 offers.
 
Banjo64 said:
So someone knocks on your door and says 'I'm buying your house' - you just happily agree to negotiate instead of saying 'fuck off'?
Click to expand...
This is more like someone (MS) knocking at your door (Activision) to buy your house and you are perfectly fine with this, but your neighbor (Sony) disagrees.

Always listen to your neighbor, he knows better than you.
 
Last edited:
Banjo64 said:
So someone knocks on your door and says 'I'm buying your house' - you just happily agree to negotiate instead of saying 'fuck off'?

Stupid analogy? Probably. Trying to simplify it though as some people still can't seem to grasp it after all this time.
Click to expand...
My wife and I built our dream home here in Florida and we couldn't be happier with our living conditions

That said if someone knocks on our door and says they would like to buy my home my first question is how much before I tell them to fuck off
 
cireza said:
This is more like someone (MS) knocking at your door (Activision) to buy your house and you are perfectly fine with this, but your neighbor (Sony) disagrees.

Always listen to your neighbor, he knows better than you.
Click to expand...
Actually it's more akin to someone (a pimp) knocking on your neighbours door (Activision) to buy their house, with the intent to extend it to 6 stories high so you never get any sunlight, turn it in to an Amsterdam-esque red light mega-brothel complete with fag dimps and used johnnys in the front garden and back ginnel, with scum of the earth coming and going at all hours devaluing your own property by about half. Never listen to your neighbour, they're always twats.
 

Ozriel said:
What does any of this rambling narrative have to do with what we were discussing…namely your claims that MS is on an insidious path to 'extinguish' the competition with the Bethesda and Activision acquisitions?

In the three bubbles you cite - PC, Mobile and Consoles - these deals will not give them any form of dominance.
Click to expand...
I will use this analogy:

the both of us are competing for food. right?.

we could fight to the death. and the winner takes the food. you could say that is "extinguish competition" but IS NOT. because we just engage in a brutal fight.


extinguishing competition means that; eliminating the concept of competition. how in this analogy I could win the food without the need of fighting....easy:

becoming a parasite.

MS seeks to extinguish competition by gaining access to consumers(food) that they didn't fight for.
 
Banjo64 said:
Actually it's more akin to someone (a pimp) knocking on your neighbours door (Activision) to buy their house, with the intent to extend it to 6 stories high so you never get any sunlight, turn it in to an Amsterdam-esque red light mega-brothel complete with fag dimps and used johnnys in the front garden and back ginnel, with scum of the earth coming and going at all hours devaluing your own property by about half. Never listen to your neighbour, they're always twats.
Click to expand...
This is actually interpreting things however you see fit though. If you don't want this to happen, then buy the house yourself. But if you can't, then I don't think you have much to say. This is exactly what would happen with your example in a city, by the way.
 
Last edited:
Banjo64 said:
So someone knocks on your door and says 'I'm buying your house' - you just happily agree to negotiate instead of saying 'fuck off'?

Stupid analogy? Probably. Trying to simplify it though as some people still can't seem to grasp it after all this time.
Click to expand...

Except in this analogy, the ones dragging their feet aren't even the owners of the house, they're just renting one room. The owners of the house are ready to sell.

And there's no stupid analogies, only stupid arguments. We're all just having a discussion, probably more-so than Sony/MS have had on the matter :messenger_heart:
 
In Cold Blood said:
That's how you interpret that?
Like I said, fanboy narratives arnt consistent

It wasn't long ago that people of your ilk were saying that MS wouldn't invest in Xbox. Xbox would have to be able to sustain itself. No way MS would use profits from Office to prop up Xbox. If anything, MS would can Xbox.
In reality MS uses a massive amount of those Office profits to invest in Xbox. First it was Obsidian, Ninja Theory, Undead Labs, Double Fine, The Initiative, Playground, Compulsion and InXile.
Meh said the fanboys. These are just a group of AA and Indie devs to make Game Pass fodder. MS got them cheap.

Then MS bought Zenimax. That GP fodder narrative wasn't looking to good now.
Anyway, no way MS wont put games like Starfield or TES on PS5. No way they leave that PS money on the table.
When MS crushes that narrative by making them exclusive then all the Zenimax studios are trash anyway. No one was looking forward to Starfield. No doubt it would be a buggy mess. It's just like No Man's Land. Doom hasn't been good for decades, Arkane are stink average, and none of Zenimax games will be any good anyway.

Then lord and saviour Jim Ryan complains about how MS took Starfield away from PS5. Damm, we need to change that narrative of Starfield is meh again.
So out came the Phil is a fucking liar one. He took Starfield away from us. There was a PS5 version of the game and he scrapped it. Phil needs to be sacked.
No way he can be trusted with COD. He will take it away and hurt the PS5 sales.

And now MS has invested close to 80 Billion dollars of that Office profits into gaming, destroying the narrative of MS not really caring about games, the new narrative is that because MS would have already had AB games on Xbox ot doesn't really show they are all in.
Click to expand...
Dude, take a break.
 
cireza said:
This is more like someone (MS) knocking at your door (Activision) to buy your house and you are perfectly fine with this, but your neighbor (Sony) disagrees.

Always listen to your neighbor, he knows better than you.
Click to expand...
Banjo64 said:
Actually it's more akin to someone (a pimp) knocking on your neighbours door (Activision) to buy their house, with the intent to extend it to 6 stories high so you never get any sunlight, turn it in to an Amsterdam-esque red light mega-brothel complete with fag dimps and used johnnys in the front garden and back ginnel, with scum of the earth coming and going at all hours devaluing your own property by about half. Never listen to your neighbour, they're always twats.
Click to expand...
and so the HOA decides that the person you want to sell to isn't allowed to buy it
 
Banjo64 said:
Actually it's more akin to someone (a pimp) knocking on your neighbours door (Activision) to buy their house, with the intent to extend it to 6 stories high so you never get any sunlight, turn it in to an Amsterdam-esque red light mega-brothel complete with fag dimps and used johnnys in the front garden and back ginnel, with scum of the earth coming and going at all hours devaluing your own property by about half. Never listen to your neighbour, they're always twats.
Click to expand...
That's a whole lot of negative analogy descriptors for someone buying your neighbor's house lol. Mega brothel? I guess that's Gamepass. I can't follow the rest. Are the used Johnny's the Series S?
 
Sony said:
So Sony is pondering this idea that Microsoft can easily sabotage their versions of CoD with bugs and glitches and thus technical parity is impossible. Yet at the same time, Sony themselves require parity though clauses in contracts with third parties.

Click to expand...


Huge difference here and it comes down to enforceability.

They include it in their contracts, because a breach would mean that they can recover payments or withhold payments. That remediation doesn't exist with Microsoft...

reksveks said:
Just saying that MS aren't the ones to suggest a Trustee, that would be up to regulators to decide.

The other points are valid concerns and impact of performance parity on foreclosure is all subjective and won't know how regulators/trustees decided what's important.

Also 'parity' is already used in commercial contract so there is some level of definition there clearly. Recourse can be defined by regulators/appointed trustees.
Click to expand...

Microsoft will make suggestions and it's up to the CMA whether to move forward with those suggestions or to come up with their own and offer it to Microsoft in line with a behavioral remedy.

Initially they say they can police themselves, but that they're willing to have a trustee involved as well and yield to arbitration. The problem is arbitration can't do much to Microsoft here.

See above on parity and enforceability.

I hate when people just post GIF reactions to posts, but you've left me speechless:

spiderman GIF


If this moves forward Digital Foundry is VERY likely to be named as a potential monitor. Not sure what special monitoring groups you think exist in the gaming world that have this type of specialty. That you think this is funny is absolutely hilarious.
 
Banjo64 said:
So someone knocks on your door and says 'I'm buying your house' - you just happily agree to negotiate instead of saying 'fuck off'?

Stupid analogy? Probably. Trying to simplify it though as some people still can't seem to grasp it after all this time.
Click to expand...
Correct - A better analogy would be MS buying a common/shared entity (let's say a rare car) - that the owner (ABK) previously shared with others (Sony)...

Sony can certainly take the stance of "I want to continue to have access to the car like I previously did" .. but at some point - that stance becomes rather childish...
 
cireza said:
This is actually interpreting things however you see fit though. If you don't want this to happen, then buy the house yourself. But if you can't, then I don't think you have much to say. This is exactly what would happen with your example in a city, by the way.
Click to expand...
Except in this instance, the new house owner can also fuck over 65m people with their new mega brothel, which is why the CMA are looking at this deal - and it goes beyond the wants and wishes of corporations.
 
Last edited:
Punished Miku said:
That's a whole lot of negative analogy descriptors for someone buying your neighbor's house lol. Mega brothel? I guess that's Gamepass. I can't follow the rest. Are the used Johnny's the Series S?
Click to expand...
I don't know myself to tell you the truth. But me and @AssofCanWhooping are the scum of the earth coming and going at all hours.
 
Punished Miku said:
There's no counter negotiation from Sony. They're not even offering any details to work with other than "block the deal." You have to have a participating partner to negotiate back and forth.
Click to expand...
Microsoft is the one that needs a partner. If they were serious and not doing this as public theater it would be done. Or did you think Brad waving around the deal in his pocket was serious?
 
SneakersSO said:
The appeal process is a joke - it involves convincing another group that the CMA acted irrationally, which then causes that group to kick the case right back in front of the CMA.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree - But from there in principle there's a further supreme court round. This all buys time - time for MS to spin a new PR story is what can be bought in court processes.
 
bitbydeath said:
Can someone explain this like I'm 5?
Why's it bad that Sony would never accept the deal?
Click to expand...
It shows that Sony is intent on sabotaging the deal.

That means the CMA should not be using any Sony statements when evaluating if this is harmful for the industry. Once you know someone is acting in bad faith then their arguments can't be trusted.

It makes the CMA look like fools if they use any of Sony's rational in their decision.
 
Last edited:
gothmog said:
Microsoft is the one that needs a partner. If they were serious and not doing this as public theater it would be done. Or did you think Brad waving around the deal in his pocket was serious?
Click to expand...
MS and Activision are partners, and negotiated. Sony, as far as we know, is not trying or willing to negotiate on anything - but just trying to block the deal.

As far as MS PR strategy, I don't really care. I don't think it's some unforgivable breach of decorum to state publicly that you're willing to negotiate at a moment's notice the second Sony shows any hint of willingness to do it. I can't actually understand how that could be seen as a negative thing. He's just saying he's ready to negotiate.
 
BeardGawd said:
It shows that Sony is intent on sabotaging the deal.

That means the CMA should not be using any Sony statements when evaluating if this is harmful for the industry. Once you know someone is acting in bad faith then their arguments can't be trusted.

It makes the CMA look like fools if they use any of Sony's rational in their decision.
Click to expand...

But sony have already made it known they want the deal blocked? What are you talking about?
 
Last edited:
BeardGawd said:
It shows that Sony is intent on sabotaging the deal.

That means the CMA should not be using any Sony statements when evaluating if this is harmful for the industry. Once you know someone is acting in bad faith then their arguments can't be trusted.

It makes the CMA look like fools if they use any of Sony's rational in their decision.
Click to expand...
yes because Microsoft isn't spinning like crazy with their statements as well, they're acting completely in good faith :rolleyes:

some of you clearly have incredibly short-term memories for how Microsoft operates

edit: or took that Phil Spencer as Game Pass Jesus meme way too seriously
 
Last edited:
Punished Miku said:
MS and Activision are partners, and negotiated. Sony, as far as we know, is not trying or willing to negotiate on anything - but just trying to block the deal.

As far as MS PR strategy, I don't really care. I don't think it's some unforgivable breach of decorum to state publicly that you're willing to negotiate at a moment's notice the second Sony shows any hint of willingness to do it. I can't actually understand how that could be seen as a negative thing. He's just saying he's ready to negotiate.
Click to expand...

They aren't actually willing to negotiate in good faith.

There is probably a deal to be had here that satisfies Sony but probably wouldn't satisfy the aims of Microsoft. That's just what we call an impasse.

Microsoft has opened things up with the lowest possible terms and Sony isn't biting. Any negotiation Sony makes would be used against them in public and with the CMA and they recognize this. So it's best not to negotiate at all.
 
Last edited:
Punished Miku said:
MS and Activision are partners, and negotiated. Sony, as far as we know, is not trying or willing to negotiate on anything - but just trying to block the deal.

As far as MS PR strategy, I don't really care. I don't think it's some unforgivable breach of decorum to state publicly that you're willing to negotiate at a moment's notice the second Sony shows any hint of willingness to do it. I can't actually understand how that could be seen as a negative thing. He's just saying he's ready to negotiate.
Click to expand...
He's making theater to the public that there's this great 10 year deal that others got and they can just jump on. That's not negotiation. That's pressure tactics. Sony isn't taking the bait. As Jim said when he made public comments about it these discussions should be happening behind closed doors.

You're falling for a PR stunt.
 
HeisenbergFX4 said:
My wife and I built our dream home here in Florida and we couldn't be happier with our living conditions

That said if someone knocks on our door and says they would like to buy my home my first question is how much before I tell them to fuck off
Click to expand...
Right! Love my house too but that would be my first question "how much"? If the price is right I'd pack my shit and be out in a week lol
 
gothmog said:
He's making theater to the public that there's this great 10 year deal that others got and they can just jump on. That's not negotiation. That's pressure tactics. Sony isn't taking the bait. As Jim said when he made public comments about it these discussions should be happening behind closed doors.

You're falling for a PR stunt.
Click to expand...
I don't really care about Ryan's "closed doors" mindset on it. The CMA reveals a lot of what they're deliberating as well, and even asks for public participation. I don't care if it's PR. It makes sense to try and win support, considering the CMA literally asks for public opinion on it. All he said is he's ready to negotiate at any time, which is a positive thing. There's really no sense in trying to say it's a bad faith negotiation when Nintendo was fine with the deal, and so was Valve. I think 10 years is probably the most generous and extensive game contract ever signed in the industry. It's unprecedented.

After offering that and not having any response from Sony at all with a counter offer, it makes perfect sense to mention in public that you've tried. MS isn't the obstacle here. Not sure what would have changed behind closed doors. Probably exactly nothing. The "closed doors" comment is also PR to try and make MS look bad, while they were offering Sony a deal and trying to negotiate. Fixating on "closed doors" is just a way to avoid negotiating and spinning it.
 
Punished Miku said:
I don't really care about Ryan's "closed doors" mindset on it. The CMA reveals a lot of what they're deliberating as well, and even asks for public participation. I don't care if it's PR. It makes sense to try and win support, considering the CMA literally asks for public opinion on it. All he said is he's ready to negotiate at any time, which is a positive thing. There's really no sense in trying to say it's a bad faith negotiation when Nintendo was fine with the deal, and so was Valve. I think 10 years is probably the most generous and extensive game contract ever signed in the industry. It's unprecedented.

After offering that and not having any response from Sony at all with a counter offer, it makes perfect sense to mention in public that you've tried. MS isn't the obstacle here. Not sure what would have changed behind closed doors. Probably exactly nothing. The "closed doors" comment is also PR to try and make MS look bad, while they were offering Sony a deal and trying to negotiate. Fixating on "closed doors" is just a way to avoid negotiating and spinning it.
Click to expand...
Valve didn't sign a deal.

Edit: "Microsoft offered and even sent us a draft agreement for a long-term Call of Duty commitment but it wasn't necessary for us because a) we're not believers in requiring any partner to have an agreement that locks them to shipping games on Steam into the distant future b) Phil and the games team at Microsoft have always followed through on what they told us they would do so we trust their intentions and c) we think Microsoft has all the motivation they need to be on the platforms and devices where Call of Duty customers want to be."
 
Last edited:
BeardGawd said:
Why is this so hard to understand? To say no I don't care what any of the remedies are before even hearing them shows they are not a rational actor. If they are intentionlly sabotaging the deal it throws all their reasoning into question.
Click to expand...
But they have heard it. Jim Ryan and Phil Spencer were involved in private business discussions. Or have you forgotten about it?

It was a 3-year agreement. Not good enough. Sony declined.
Then it was a 10-year agreement. Not good enough. Sony declined.

Why didn't Microsoft offer a "forever" agreement or a 30-year agreement after that?

So does it mean it is Microsoft that's acting in bad faith and "intentionally sabotaging the deal" by not making a better offer to Sony?
 
Microsoft will make suggestions and it's up to the CMA whether to move forward with those suggestions or to come up with their own and offer it to Microsoft in line with a behavioral remedy.
Click to expand...
Microsoft doesn't put forth all suggestions, they are definitely not putting media companies forward as Trustee monitors.

Mibu no ookami said:
If this moves forward Digital Foundry is VERY likely to be named as a potential monitor. Not sure what special monitoring groups you think exist in the gaming world that have this type of specialty. That you think this is funny is absolutely hilarious.
Click to expand...

IMO no, DF are not going to be the Trustee Monitor. They may get used by the Trustee Monitor for their expertise in terms of gaming performance.
 
BeardGawd said:
Why is this so hard to understand? To say no I don't care what any of the remedies are before even hearing them shows they are not a rational actor. If they are intentionlly sabotaging the deal it throws all their reasoning into question.
Click to expand...

They did hear the remedies. They don't want to accept and want the deal blocked. What don't you understand? Sony have made their position clear to the CMA. The CMA will now look at all the relevant data and make a decision. Do you understand?
 
DeepEnigma said:
Because they're a storefront, not a platform.
Click to expand...
There is becoming less of a difference in terms of storefronts and platforms for regulators.

"Gatekeepers are large digital platforms providing so called core platform services, such as for example online search engines, app stores, messenger services."
 
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