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.
They can block Microsoft games from PS Store in an attempt to bleed them harder than it would be for Sony, yes, but would it be worth it? Wouldn't that make the whole industry shocked and wary of making business with a company who can signal it can kick anyone that they feel it might be an opposition?
 
Dane said:
They can block Microsoft games from PS Store in an attempt to bleed them harder than it would be for Sony, yes, but would it be worth it? Wouldn't that make the whole industry shocked and wary of making business with a company who can signal it can kick anyone that they feel it might be an opposition?
Click to expand...
wet dreams
 
Kvally said:
Not sure why Sony will care if MS owns Activision anyway. The game will still be on PlayStation, and Sony will still get money for each copy sold. The only thing Sony loses is their logo on the game trailer and their timed exclusive content. PS fans are still going to buy COD on their PS no matter what. The game will STILL sell more on PS vs. Xbox, especially considering all the COD games will be "free" on Game Pass.
Click to expand...
In all honesty, im fine with this outcome if true (as it's similar to cod during ps3 gen),

However i just have serious doubts the likes of MS would have ever keep cod on PS after the 10 year period (of regulators accepted that remedy), which is where all our fears lies honestly…..
 
b6a6es said:
In all honesty, im fine with this outcome if true (as it's similar to cod during ps3 gen),

However i just have serious doubts the likes of MS would have ever keep cod on PS after the 10 year period (of regulators accepted that remedy), which is where all our fears lies honestly…..
Click to expand...
Meh. I am not even sure COD will be a thing after 10 years.
 
Dane said:
They can block Microsoft games from PS Store in an attempt to bleed them harder than it would be for Sony, yes, but would it be worth it? Wouldn't that make the whole industry shocked and wary of making business with a company who can signal it can kick anyone that they feel it might be an opposition?
Click to expand...

Who is "they" in this context ?

If you mean MS, if they had intended to do that, they would have done that long before announcing the Activision acquisition. There's a dozen or so games from MS first party studios currently on PS consoles and even their PS+ services.

Can we please lessen on the doom-posting ?
 
adamsapple said:
Who is "they" in this context ?

If you mean MS, if they had intended to do that, they would have done that long before announcing the Activision acquisition. There's a dozen or so games from MS first party studios currently on PS consoles and even their PS+ services.

Can we please lessen on the doom-posting ?
Click to expand...
I'm not doomposting, i'm saying that sony wouldn't do this because even if they wanted Microsoft to bleed they would severely damage their reputation with developers.
 
Dane said:
I'm not doomposting, i'm saying that sony wouldn't do this because even if they wanted Microsoft to bleed they would severely damage their reputation with developers.
Click to expand...

Oh I misread, I thought you meant MS will take their games off. But you're saying Sony will take MS games off?

It wouldn't be viable in any way at all the other way either. Sony gets revenue cuts from each sale, they have no incentive other than spite to take those games off.
 
Lasha said:
Minecraft already requires a Microsoft account to enable crossplay on PS consoles. It's not the issue that you think it is.
Click to expand...
Minecraft's acquisition made no claims that they wouldn't degrade the PlayStation version to regulators that could reverse the acquisition and force divestment, so slightly different IMO.
 
adamsapple said:
Oh I misread, I thought you meant MS will take their games off. But you're saying Sony will take MS games off?

It wouldn't be viable in any way at all the other way either. Sony gets revenue cuts from each sale, they have no incentive other than spite to take those games off.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's what i'm saying, I really doubt Sony would do this.
 
adamsapple said:
Oh I misread, I thought you meant MS will take their games off. But you're saying Sony will take MS games off?

It wouldn't be viable in any way at all the other way either. Sony gets revenue cuts from each sale, they have no incentive other than spite to take those games off.
Click to expand...
Playstation is kicking ass with the current status quo, not sure why they would do anything to upset it any further. The closer they can keep things to the current situation as possible the better for them.
 
The idea that Sony would block Activision games from coming to PlayStation because of the acquisition is absurd.
That's like thinking that if Pepsico and The Coca Cola company would merge that some retailer would ban their products.
It would harm that retailer more than the company they would be targeting.
 
Last edited:
200.gif
 
poppabk said:
Playstation is kicking ass with the current status quo, not sure why they would do anything to upset it any further. The closer they can keep things to the current situation as possible the better for them.
Click to expand...
But the status quo changes if the acquisition is cleared.

Sony's earnings go from being 2 or 3 times Microsoft's earning from ATVI/CoD to then being less than half of Microsoft's, so their market share is damaged directly from the deal. Even so, I do wonder if they will embrace the crappy situation and bring forward a big PS5 price cut by a few years (in the UK/US) to coincide with the length of the CoD marketing deal, effectively ramping up the PS5 install base in comparison to either X or S in the US and UK where the deal could cause them most damage.
 
adamsapple said:
Oh I misread, I thought you meant MS will take their games off. But you're saying Sony will take MS games off?

It wouldn't be viable in any way at all the other way either. Sony gets revenue cuts from each sale, they have no incentive other than spite to take those games off.
Click to expand...

Great. You just gave SenjutsuSage SenjutsuSage more shit to post on Twitter. For the love of god, stop typing!
 
PaintTinJr said:
Completely plausible if PlayStation kill CoD' cross-play, but that would fall foul of degrading CoD on PlayStation and failing to honour the parity agreement because Xbox/PC players would then only have one account/password login, whereas PlayStation would have an inferior (non-parity) situation with two - PSN account & Microsoft account - so getting that remedied by regulators like the CMA should be pretty easy.

In fact, PlayStation baiting Microsoft into doing partial foreclosure stuff like that could be an easy way for them to get this deal reversed, given that they are binding themselves to certain behaviours for at least a decade.

I still suspect that if/when the CMA pass the deal Sony will begin suing ATVI over the marketing deal they have, saying that selling to a competitor breaches the contract and makes it impossible for Sony to enjoy the "good will" that was probably written into the contract that ATVI were supposed to provide.
Click to expand...
The contract between Sony and Activision would have included survivability language that specifies what happens in the event Activision sells the company or some other question of ownership arises. If there were something in that contract that Sony could sue for they probably would have done it when the acquisition was announced and wouldn't have tried to influence regulators to block the deal. If Sony sues for anything post-acquisition it would probably be to terminate their marketing agreement so they're not spending thieir marketing budget to promote a competitor's IP.
 
ReBurn said:
The contract between Sony and Activision would have included survivability language that specifies what happens in the event Activision sells the company or some other question of ownership arises. If there were something in that contract that Sony could sue for they probably would have done it when the acquisition was announced and wouldn't have tried to influence regulators to block the deal. If Sony sues for anything post-acquisition it would probably be to terminate their marketing agreement so they're not spending thieir marketing budget to promote a competitor's IP.
Click to expand...
But that's why I said after the CMA result - where the deal hasn't fully cleared but it is already looking like clear waters to clear the following month at the EC.

I also think if that was on the cards, they wouldn't be suing to cancel the contract, but to block the sale until the contract was fully realised - as the delay in itself could potentially kill the acquisition.

I was also thinking they wouldn't go earlier on suing because if the CMA had blocked the deal, then they wouldn't have needed to do anything and would still be in best position to extend the marketing deal in the following years - based on the renegotiation terms I read about here on Gaf by someone IIRC.
 
Last edited:
people talking about sony removing games but they won't

the strongest part of playstation is marketing, wonder how well cod will work without full playstation amrketing ( not marketing deal, i mean playstation advertising for the game not the exclusive beta and stuff)
 
Three said:
MS can't block something from windows but it can block whatever it likes from the windows store. The same goes for the Apple app store. You can argue that Apple devices should allow sideloading but you can't argue that Apple are not allowed to deny sale of whatever they like on the Apple store. Even if sony has a current publisher contract it usually asks for parity of releases much like MS contracts do, then they can refuse to sell it on their store. There is nothing illegal there, but it's doubtful they will cut off their nose to spite the face.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you lot are leaving out the SLC and foreclose aspect of my post. I'm talking about specifics, you're talking about in general.
 
do we have a timeframe when it's going to be released?
i remember Jez Groden knew about the CMA news some hours before they announced it
 
Last edited:
Sony said:
I don't understand why you lot are leaving out the SLC and foreclose aspect of my post. I'm talking about specifics, you're talking about in general.
Click to expand...
Because it's ridiculous to argue that there is an SLC or foreclosure aspect upstream by not offering something for sale on their store. Add to the fact that MS were arguing that them removing it from playstation would not be an issue because it isn't essential input and can be duplicated by Sony but now you think without it coming to playstation it's a foreclosure risk to MS? There is nothing stopping them from doing it because it's their store and they have no obligation to offer it on their store. I don't think it would be a good move to do it but regulators can't force you to sell something in your store.
 
Last edited:
Bernoulli said:
people talking about sony removing games but they won't

the strongest part of playstation is marketing, wonder how well cod will work without full playstation amrketing ( not marketing deal, i mean playstation advertising for the game not the exclusive beta and stuff)
Click to expand...
Will work just fine as ABK will market it.

Ozriel said:
Did you even bother to read the thread? I feel like you just outed yourself for reading the first tweet and jumping to the wrong conclusion.
Click to expand...
Lulu is triggering people left and right :messenger_tears_of_joy: She needs to be promoted to chief marketing troll or something.
 
Last edited:
PaintTinJr said:
But that's why I said after the CMA result - where the deal hasn't fully cleared but it is already looking like clear waters to clear the following month at the EC.

I also think if that was on the cards, they wouldn't be suing to cancel the contract, but to block the sale until the contract was fully realised - as the delay in itself could potentially kill the acquisition.

I was also thinking they wouldn't go earlier on suing because if the CMA had blocked the deal, then they wouldn't have needed to do anything and would still be in best position to extend the marketing deal in the following years - based on the renegotiation terms I read about here on Gaf by someone IIRC.
Click to expand...
It's highly unlikely that they can wait until after the acquisition is complete to sue for anything unless the actual contractual terms are violated or any survivability requirements aren't met. It's doubtful that there's some master move Sony is saving here that ultimately shifts something to their favor. It would require that Microsoft do something in contradiction to the terms of the contract. If buying Activision violated the contract with Sony in some way they would have probably been in court before it even hit regulators. Besides, given their involvement in the regulatory process it's doubtful that such a lawsuit would be seen favorably by a judge. It would be in their best interest to exercise their rights as early as possible.
 
Bernoulli said:
people talking about sony removing games but they won't

the strongest part of playstation is marketing, wonder how well cod will work without full playstation amrketing ( not marketing deal, i mean playstation advertising for the game not the exclusive beta and stuff)
Click to expand...
Microsoft will have take that cost on. You can get good marketing agencies but the biggest issue seems to be MS willingness to spend money on it.
 
Three said:
Because it's ridiculous to argue that there is an SLC or foreclosure aspect upstream by not offering something for sale on their store. Add to the fact that MS were arguing that them removing it from playstation would not be an issue because it isn't essential input and can be duplicated by Sony but now you think without it coming to playstation it's a foreclosure risk to MS? There is nothing stopping them from doing it because it's their store and they have no obligation to offer it on their store. I don't think it would be a good move to do it but regulators can't force you to sell something in your store.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that:
If the availibility of [Game X of Publisher X] on [Console maker, competitor and Publisher Y] has been availible on said [Console Y] is deemed essential input, and blocking that essential input on [Console Y] to hurt [cometing publisher X] will lead to SLC and foreclosure of [publisher Y], then it can absolutely be blocked by regulators. It's the exact opposite arguement of what CMA is making. That does not mean that I agree that CoD is essential input, that's dumb.
You're arguing that Sony can always block games regardless, I'm arguing that Sony can block games, unless.
So yeah, they can absolutely force availibility, especially given Sony is market leader by far.
 
OCL said:
Didn't the FTC also have to approve the deal ? Why only the CMA ?
Click to expand...
All 4 of the major regulators are named.

The CMA is percived to be the hardest one partially due to the fact that the courts/appeal process has proven to be more difficult historically. The EC always seemed a bit more flexible. The FTC has the issue of having to take this to Federal court to block the deal and many see that as a losing battle. If the other two accept a deal with remedies, the ftc could find it harder.
 
Last edited:
OCL said:
Didn't the FTC also have to approve the deal ? Why only the CMA ?
Click to expand...
CMA has the hardest appeal process. So if the CMA were to block, Microsoft would have to prove the CMA acted irrational, with procedurally impropriety or illegality.

Where as the FTC doesn't approve deals, they can only stop deals. They'd have to win their case against Microsoft in federal court. (The sentiment around that happening has been that it's highly unlikely)
 
It's the New York Post so a pinch of salt

https://t.co/2pr68fiwok

Microsoft is making plans to complete its $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard — despite the Federal Trade Commission's December move to block the deal over antitrust concerns, The Post has learned.

Microsoft is feeling optimistic about securing UK approval for its acquisition — which has has been attacked by FTC Chair Lina Khan as an unfair mega-merger that will stifle competition across the video-game sector — this week, according to sources close to the tech giant.
Click to expand...
"They are going to cram this down the FTC's throats," a source close to the situation said.
Click to expand...
"The FTC will be out there alone and it will make it more difficult for it to get any decision approved by the court," Penn University Professor and Anti-trust Expert Herbert Hovenkamp told The Post.

Legal experts have said for months they believed the FTC complaint was already going to be difficult to win.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Sony said:
I'm saying that:
If the availibility of [Game X of Publisher X] on [Console maker, competitor and Publisher Y] has been availible on said [Console Y] is deemed essential input, and blocking that essential input on [Console Y] to hurt [cometing publisher X] will lead to SLC and foreclosure of [publisher Y], then it can absolutely be blocked by regulators. It's the exact opposite arguement of what CMA is making. That does not mean that I agree that CoD is essential input, that's dumb.
You're arguing that Sony can always block games regardless, I'm arguing that Sony can block games, unless.
So yeah, they can absolutely force availibility, especially given Sony is market leader by far.
Click to expand...
I think you mean foreclosure of [Publisher X] not Y. It also isn't the opposite of what the CMA was arguing, it's the exact opposite of what the publisher itself was arguing to be able to remove its games freely.

You also have no obligation to sell something in your store. I can't argue that walmart no longer wants me as a supplier so walmart is obligated to offer what I sell on their shelves in perpetuity. The store is owned by Sony and they can decide what to sell there and who their suppliers are. You can't force availability in your store. If what you are saying were true MS could even force Sony to offer gamepass on PS too. What you're saying is nonsense.
 
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