ChuckeRearmed
Member
Microsoft will renegotiate the agreement with Activision. They won't wait for FTC approval 100%.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
ChorizoPicozo
Member
that will be pretty dumb.
They will have to renegotiate the merger agreement if it gets approved by the CMA, EC and SAMR but the FTC is holding out.
If they don't, the deal will fail anyways so the question is what do they do after that.
Do they remove the stipulation re the FTC? In my opinion, probably would do.
In a world that the CMA and EU approves the deal, MS will feel rightly or wrongly pretty confident that the FTC won't position a genuine threat so why wouldn't they write them out? It does come with risk but they aren't going to wait an additional 7-8 months for the ftc process to happen or the federal process.
Last edited:
ChuckeRearmed
Member
The one is dumb is FTC there. They openly stated that their goal is to litigate just for drag the deals. If nothing illegal in deals - I expect a lot of companies just ignore FTC approval in merger agreements going forward (and there were rumors or article about that or something - that lawyers started to tell their clients to ignore FTC or something).
In their attempt to gain more powers, I think FTC will lose more.
What was the name of the company that Microsoft hired some time ago? Like I remember there was an article about that and a lot of folks speculated that it was about "divesture of Activision", but I always thought it was about renegotiation of the deal.
Last edited:
POKEYCLYDE
Member
Depends. Does the reality of development change for Fifa/Fortnite when they're acquired? For example.. if they were acquired by Amazon and Amazon was releasing their own console. My assumption would be that focus would be on Amazon's console, while PS5/XSX get secondary/tertiary development (increasing the likelihood of worse Xbox versions).
However if someone like Tencent acquired them and nothing really changed.. I would expect things to stay the same.
The truth is when ABK is under Microsoft, Playstation loses it's position as baseline console. The series consoles take that spot. Then probably PC. But also there'll be time devoted to getting a Nintendo port. I won't be surprised if the series versions are optimized and the extra development takes away from Playstation. (If only Sony signed a deal..)
Again.. nothing nefarious about this. No intentional degradation of Playstation versions, just a real possibility of focus shifting elsewhere.
If Sony acquired FromSoft I'd 100% not even expect to get the next Elden Ring on Xbox. But halving the framerate... Elden Ring is basically locked at 60fps. If they cut Xbox to 30fps, that's nefarious. If they worked really hard to allow the PS5 version to reach 120fps while kept Xbox at the baseline 60, that's fine.
You really seem to be arguing from the position that it's a foregone conclusion that CoD is going to run abysmally on Playstation. Personally I don't think anything is going to change really, and if it does, will be very minimal. Something that could be easily explained by development realities changing (and not nefarious sabotage mandates).
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Please explain.
Of what? Psychonauts 2? Both. Upcoming CoD games? Both.
Again MS is both developer and publisher for the titles mentioned and future CoD based on deal going through.
Which is what? MS is both publisher and developer for the titles mentioned before. Sony is the developer for MLB. They are responsible for the technical states of their respective games.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Even Hoeg has pointed out that MS 'ignoring' the FTC would be highly unconventional.
MS is not in position to do that. and is not only because ABK. They better play ball until the end.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
It should be reiterated that the FTC does not approve deals. It simply does not obtain an injunction in court to stop deals. They always reserve the right to sue at any time even after deals closes, even if they originally chose to not sue. If the FTC wants to stop this deal they must obtain a court injunction. At this point they have not successfully done so, so their protests currently are political theater.
This is a great system because it keeps rogue agencies from abusing their power by forcing them to prove the legal merits of their case in court. All regulatory agencies should have to meet this standard. It's only fair.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
FTC ignoring laws, their own judge (Grail) and their own staff (Meta) is "unconventional". Microsoft decided not to engage with a regulator acting is bad faith is just business.
Except in a position to do that - they have the support from everybody and everything. Including the law.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Again. Highly unconventional.
what MS just did?
MS better keeps a low-profile. things could get nasty....and not only for them.
PaintTinJr
Gold Member
In a renegotiation wouldn't the CMA and EC still have to rubber stamp it again briefly, as a modified agreement? and AFAIK a renegotiation means they have to pay ATVI the full deposit of a few billion dollars, and in that scenario, the "no maths makes sense to withdraw CoD from PlayStation" then becomes an invalid argument if Microsoft are prepared to waste billions and risk the FTC pursuing them retrospectively for an illegal merger.
I believe if it is widely thought that Microsoft will forego winning against the FTC first, then either the EC or CMA will put the brakes on the merger for further review time to make sure they have to answer the FTC's case and win on merit, Or the CMA would potentially reverse their decision if they were made party to a merger that gamed the system to bypassed FTC scrutiny.
It feels way too risky IMO, if it gets that far, which I still don't think it will because Sony have nothing to lose taking this all the way to the CAT if it goes against them in the UK.
Last edited:
bitbydeath
Member
Can they really get away with ignoring Americas approval?
When it was said the CMA wouldn't pass it we got a ton of speculation of Microsoft pulling out of the UK, we going to go through that again with the US?
Eotheod
Member
I can't wait for this all to be over. So much wasted brain capacity trying to understand what the fuck some people are talking about because of the horrible grammar and sheer absurd discussion points. Illogical content being connected to rabid fanbase theories is what most of this thread comprises of.
BrutalTruth_
Banned
it's a rabbit hole into a blender lmao
ChuckeRearmed
Member
There is nothing unconventional in non-negotiating with a regulator that acts like a small terrorist that uses the internal courts to delay deals, while not having real arguments. If FTC think that they have serious arguments, I am pretty sure that Microsoft would welcome them in the federal court. But we all know that FTC does not want that exactly because they have no arguments against the deal.
Yes, especially in USA. The american regulators (FTC or DOJ) do not approve deals - they either allow deals or sue them. They can even do that retroactively (like FTC with Meta but it did not work out properly for them). Unlike other regulators they do not "confirm" the deals. Arguably I think there were cases where companies ignored even CMA or EU and opted for fines instead.
I do no think that the original agreement between ABK and Microsoft required stamps from regulators. I believe It was something like "we agree to that merger deal with these conditions".
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
you should do the explaining.
trying to obfuscate MS as a Developer is ignorant at best.
MS/Sony OWNS studios....THEY published their games.
MS/Sony are publishers.
and i ask again.
who publishes MLB on Xbox?
who is Sony saying could "degrade" CoD on PS?
Infinity Ward, Treyarch, Sledgehammer Games, Activision or Microsoft?
trying to equate CoD to MLB is very stupidly ignorant.
bitbydeath
Member
Isn't "allow deals" the same as approvals?
If not, let me rephrase…
Can they really get away with America not allowing the deal?
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Hoeg Law said it, not me.
feynoob
Banned
ftc block was to stop EU and UK from approving this deal.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-settlement#xj4y7vzkg?leadSource=uverify wall
the reason for that was this move.
if EU and UK approve this deal, then the ftc might have to consider their stance, as they cant win againt ms in the court.
PaintTinJr
Gold Member
AFAIK when I checked the interweb on this issue month's ago, an article I read told me they needed formal approval from the US(FTC), EU(EC) UK)CMA) and China(?) by the required date to avoid paying the ATVI initial penalty cost that scaled by date.
Either way, I think the CMA would get a call from the FTC and then decide to reverse the decision if regulation in the US or EU was being bypassed in a deal they approved.
POKEYCLYDE
Member
Microsoft is gonna delegate CoD development on the PS5 to ChatGPT. The future is fucked.
feynoob
Banned
cma already got that call in december. it didnt change their mind, same with eu.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Honestly, it would be best for the industry if MS just buys Nintendo and Sony. Having so many platforms is too confusing for gamers. If only there was one platform only, like PC gaming. Once there is only Xbox then there can be peace in our time!
feynoob
Banned
bitbydeath
Member
Even if they couldn't win, they could drag it out for years which they could be banking on MS giving up over a long period of time.
PaintTinJr
Gold Member
Well if that was the substance of the call then, maybe the CMA process is currently just theatrics if they aren't going to outright block by a Cloud SLC and a 9month review will be announced this month. IMO It really isn't the way in the UK to enable processes to be bypassed, even if the process is different to how we do things.
Last edited:
ChuckeRearmed
Member
No. The thing is that when the deal is approved, it means that the regulator cannot retroactively unwind it. FTC and DOJ can. EC and CMA - can't.
Yes. Basically if they close the deal, FTC will be forced to go the federal court. File a federal injunction or whatever it is called. Companies used not to do that because court proceeding might create a situation where the company could lose in the court (I believe they sometimes did). In the case of ABK, there is no legal basis to block the deal thus probability of losing in the court is pretty small.
CMA will redirect the call to Sony's office, so both Jimbo and Lina could share their misery
A shoulder to cry on.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
Depends on what MS does. While FTC can drag this process, MS might be able to pull some strings.
Unlike UK and EU, political compass here is compromised by big techs. They can easily lobby those guys to accelerate the process.
feynoob
Banned
This is their final month for that. They will have to share their decision.
FTC is able to do that, because they blocked the deal. CMA will need to block the deal to do the same thing as ftc (dont know much about UK legal process).
We're making the assumption that a platform holder buys it and it results in a deviation of quality like we could have with MS buying ABK. Not tencent. So the reality whereby PS would get better versions of Fifa, Fortnite or whatever having bought the publisher.
Why would you automatically assume it's nefarious here? How would you know if it's nefarious or not? What if 30fps was the target like Bloodborne now but they 'worked hard' to get 60fps on one platform? The people I'm replying to are already assuming MLB running with slightly higher framerate is nefarious so they would need to look at it this way and tell me would they be OK if the next elden ring or Fifa started performing better on PS after an acquisition and would that be the same as MS releasing Ori on PS and it running slightly worse. It's really a yes or no question. Would they be ok with a multiplatform game getting bought out and it running worse?
I'm not making the assumption that it's a foregone conclusion. Only that it is a possibility that they would be trying to prevent through regulators and that a once single platfotm studio expanding out to do multiplatform releases isn't quite the same scenario as hard as they are trying to make the connection.
Last edited:
bitbydeath
Member
So if no blessing is received from the FTC and DOJ then we can expect they will unwind it?
We could say the same about many deals that fell through. Most of which weren't of this size, which is why it is being greatly criticised.
Flintty
Member
Peace in our time, led by a rogue AI because MS sacked the fluffy ethics guys.
DerivedDataCache
Member
Is it finally over?
Unknown Soldier
Member
Now look here, the AI might be merciful and offer to stick us all into the Matrix Powered by Xbox Gamepass instead of exterminating us! It's a win-win situation for humanity!
Peace in our time, led by a rogue AI because MS sacked the fluffy ethics guys.
feynoob
Banned
go back to hibernation. We have long way to go.
bitbydeath
Member
Try again next year.
Flintty
Member
And it will only cost us $1 for the privilege. Reports of large populous greatly exaggerated, right?
Edit: On a serious note, who owns the rights to Populous? Can MS buy them too and get us a modern version??
Edit 2: Ok, I wasn't really serious, before I get jumped on. But I would love to play Populous again. And Megalomania.
Edit 3: How the fuck did I start talking and thinking about Populous?
Last edited:
PaintTinJr
Gold Member
I'm pretty sure the CMA can extend the process of investigation quite easily without formally blocking the deal, although I wouldn't be surprised if that needed approved by a judge with a valid reason a judge agreed with. If not then the CMA would block the deal on cloud slc grounds and just use the appeal time to conduct a full review would be my guess... but that doesn't sound like the way we do things
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
The FTC have no chance in court, and less than zero if the EU and CMA give the go ahead. Whether they will drop an almost guaranteed losing case especially under political pressure or drag it out remains to be seen. It's not just big techs influence on politics though, its the fact that the FTC has to go to court and prove their case while the CMA and EU are government bodies that make the decision internally and are free from MS bringing insane legal pressure to bear.
Snake29
Banned
From the start of this gen. The PS5 has performed mostly the best in most third party games. Even day one back at launch, PS5 bitchslapped the Series X "12TF FULL RDNA2" narrative".
In your narrative you forget about the long list of games that have been released in these more than 2 years and the reality is there... Several recent games? Callisto? Howard legacy? Coincidence of games with strong Playstation marketing that have presented aberrant Bugs and failures in XSX needing infinite patches?? The latest big releases? It's funny because for example Dead Space, Fornite UE5, A plague tale and Witcher 3 say the opposite...
Rather it is that you do not like to see how your arguments are exposed and you prefer to turn the page...
Edit: The PS5 was also running and looking better in recent Xbox market games, so don't start lying. I know it's hard to see after what Xbox promised people with their chestbeating talk before launch.
Last edited:
The CMA did this with Giphy
feynoob
Banned
That was a rightfully decision, considering meta owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.
HoofHearted
Member
Once Bernie and Lizzie receive their payouts… this thing will sail through the FTC like a greased pig running through the Bacon and Sausage factory…
HoofHearted
Member
Considering the only major difference between these consoles on games today boils down to minor frame rate and resolution differences… not entirely surprising….Holy smokes. All of this over dropped frames in replays? A few of you really do need a win regardless of how ridiculous you look getting there.
Then again… this entire thread is droning on about a boring shooter way past its prime …
I miss the days when there were good discussions about the actual games being brought to the market…
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Last edited:
bitbydeath
Member
For it happening or not happening?
It's a formality at this point. For all intents and purposes, it's over.
Imo they wouldn't be ignoring the FTC but forcing them to federal court. They may then decided to wait for that process but I personally doubt it. MS are in the legal position to do so and not sure much would change if they do/dont play ball. The US seems to be the place that they have the least issues re regulators looking into their business.
It's about the status quo. The default is that deals are assumed legal and then regulators have block it if they believe it would be causing a monopoly.
1) no, I don't believe a renegotiation of the deal would require a rubbers tamp from the regulators but it's possible.
2) I doubt that ABK would be asking a couple of billion in terms of a deposit to add an addendum, they still would want the deal to go ahead. The existing payouts in case of failure would probably still apply.
More correctly if FTC wins in court that the mergers violates the law, then yes. You will see MS having to divest ABK, shit gets real interesting then.
Unfortunately the CMA legal framework seems to dictate much more the limits of how long that they can take.
Phase 2 is 24 weeks which can be extended by 8 weeks which they are already near the limits of.
The CMA could block and then delay it as MS/ABK would have to go through the CAT process but they can't just arbitrarily announce a 9 month review.
- Status