• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

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.
feynoob

feynoob

Banned
NickFire said:
Are you talking about all Activision games day and date, or more like EA's system? Something like EA's system I could potentially see. But the chances that MS would pay for all Activision games day and date, or that Activision would even consider it, feel like too many hits from the bong IMO.
Click to expand...
They could, if they want to secure activision for long term.
They were ready to spend 68b on them.

Maybe not day 1, but they could do after 6 month-1 year type deal.
 
ShaiKhulud1989

ShaiKhulud1989

Gold Member
jm89 said:
www.bbc.co.uk

UK further restricts Microsoft and Activision merge

The UK competition regulator bans Microsoft and Activision from "acquiring an interest" in each other.
www.bbc.co.uk

CMA ain't messing around

Kicking bully boy brad in the nuts even harder
Click to expand...
Sucks to be Brad Smith lol. Maybe wanna threaten UK even more now?

In reality, the deal is dead and based on CMA stance it is beyond salvaging in CAT. Now we need to wait for July deadline and I hope this circus will be behind us.
 
Last edited:
NickFire

NickFire

Member
feynoob said:
They could, if they want to secure activision for long term.
They were ready to spend 68b on them.

Maybe not day 1, but they could do after 6 month-1 year type deal.
Click to expand...
Could is conceded. Would is my question. No way they would pay a fair rate in relation to Activision's lost sales is my position.
 
Bernoulli

Bernoulli

M2 slut
From idas, so while nothing is finalized they can't make any deal with them
I just checked the last 3 pages and I think that this hasn't been shared yet?

This is from today, an interim order from the CMA restricting MS and ABK from acquiring an interest in each other.

Except with the prior written consent of the CMA, Activision (and Microsoft) and all members of the Group of Interconnected Bodies Corporate to which it may belong must not:
(a) acquire an Interest in Activision/Microsoft or any of its Subsidiaries;
(b) acquire an Interest in an Enterprise holding an Interest in Microsoft or carrying on the business of Activision/Microsoft from time to time; or
(c) hold an option to acquire an Interest referred to in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above.
Part of the process until there is a final determination
Click to expand...
 
Ogbert

Ogbert

Member
feynoob said:
That is the thing.
CMA stated 10 years ban between the two of them.
MS could make investment deal like EA, and bring all activision blizzard games to gamepass. After 10 years, they can do deal the again.
This way, activision won't sell itself during this period and MS won't have to violate CMA guidelines.

If CMA restrictions includes that deal, then MS won't be able to make that type of move.
Click to expand...
The CMA restriction doesn’t include that type of deal. It prohibits investment; so attempts to incorporate the two companies by small, iterative steps.

They could, theoretically, do what you’re suggesting (deals on individual games) but it would be a very, very stupid idea.
 
FunkMiller

FunkMiller

Banned
This deal is getting worse all the time.

episode 5 GIF by Star Wars
 
feynoob

feynoob

Banned
NickFire said:
Could is conceded. Would is my question. No way they would pay a fair rate in relation to Activision's lost sales is my position.
Click to expand...
EA is not losing money from EA play, even though they put their games after 6 months in to that service.

Plus activision will get money upfront to put their games on gamepass plus the 1 year sales before putting it on the service. It works out for activision, considering COD is yearly game.
 
feynoob

feynoob

Banned
Ogbert said:
The CMA restriction doesn’t include that type of deal. It prohibits investment; so attempts to incorporate the two companies by small, iterative steps.

They could, theoretically, do what you’re suggesting (deals on individual games) but it would be a very, very stupid idea.
Click to expand...
MS isn't going to get activision if the deal gets blocked by everyone. That deal is their last hope if it fails. Otherwise, they won't be able to get activision games on their service easily.
 
NickFire

NickFire

Member
feynoob said:
EA is not losing money from EA play, even though they put their games after 6 months in to that service.

Plus activision will get money upfront to put their games on gamepass plus the 1 year sales before putting it on the service. It works out for activision, considering COD is yearly game.
Click to expand...
We aren't talking about whether an EA plan makes sense. We agree on that.
 
TheGodfather07

TheGodfather07

Member
Microsoft really think they can get something out of the CMA after their childish behaviour? Glad the UK and the CMA are doubling down with a fuck you! Who do Microsoft think they are? They really do think they can do whatever they want, don't they? use your billions and create you own content, you incompetent lazy fucks.
 
Ogbert

Ogbert

Member
MasterCornholio said:
So why do some think this is easy now?

Seems more complicated as time goes on.
Click to expand...
It’s not easy. This sort of deal is incredibly difficult to navigate.

It will fundamentally come down to whether or not MS is prepared to make the necessary concessions around its cloud service. It may well be that what is required, in terms of open access and fair pricing, makes the financials of the acquisition untenable and they walk away. Maybe not.

It depends on what’s more important to MS - growing its ailing gaming division or protecting its formidable cloud empire.
 
Last edited:
TheThreadsThatBindUs

TheThreadsThatBindUs

Member
If MS took the $70b they wanted to spend on this deal and spent it on making games, they could literally fund 350x GoW games with that cash.

Xbox gamers need to sit up and recognize how little MS cares about delivering great games for them. Instead of funding 350x AAA tentpoles, they'd rather buy a 3rd party to prevent games from going to their competitor platform... which adds nothing to Xbox gamers since they'd get to play COD anyway.
 
Bernoulli

Bernoulli

M2 slut
Wow i didn't know it was this bad
One dude got banned for calling the hypocrisy

Al the time in this thread: "Microsoft will be great for ABK staff, they'll let them unionise and everything!", "We care about the ABK staff welfare more than the free games, that's why we want the deal to go through!"

Today: "If they don't get their way, MS will just make you move countries if you want to keep your job"
Click to expand...
 
IntentionalPun

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Topher said:
Wow......CMA put a pretty massive exclamation point behind their ruling.

In the US, wouldn't this require some kind of injunction from a federal court? Seems CMA has a lot of power.
Click to expand...
CMA has an insane amount of power because no court can overrule them.

It's pretty fucking stupid setup lol

(glad the deal was blocked though, and man people are still really having trouble understanding this shit is dead as fuck)
 
thicc_girls_are_teh_best

thicc_girls_are_teh_best

Member
Ogbert said:
The CMA restriction doesn’t include that type of deal. It prohibits investment; so attempts to incorporate the two companies by small, iterative steps.

They could, theoretically, do what you’re suggesting (deals on individual games) but it would be a very, very stupid idea.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's my takeaway on this as well. Seems CMA's writing on this is intended to circumvent exactly the type of deal feynoob feynoob thinks the two can still do.

Since ABK agreeing to put their games on Game Pass Day 1 for a 10-year period is essentially equivalent (in many ways) to them doing the acquisition itself, getting many of the same exact benefits. Only difference (well, one of them) is that MS wouldn't be rolling that revenue into the Xbox division's.

skit_data said:
The CMAs little ”extras” doesn’t really come across as they made this decision on a whim.

No matter what you think about their decision, I don’t think that appeal is gonna do jack shit snd the deal is probably pretty damn dead (given the prerequisites of the deal).
Click to expand...

It's pretty much 99% deceased. Still, I'm going into the EC's statement expecting they approve the deal, because I did the same with the CMA. Either the EC approves as-is or they refuse approval but leave approval an option if stricter remedies are applied which come from the EC themselves. Then it's up to if MS adhere to those are just kick and scream in disapproval like they did with the CMA's calls for divestiture.

But seriously, I want this saga to be finished. It's like the Majin Buu arc that should've ended after Mystic Gohan vs Super Buu.

Ogbert said:
It’s not easy. This sort of deal is incredibly difficult to navigate.

It will fundamentally come down to whether or not MS is prepared to make the necessary concessions around its cloud service. It may well be that what is required, in terms of open access and fair pricing, makes the financials of the acquisition untenable and they walk away. Maybe not.

It depends on what’s more important to MS - growing its ailing gaming division or protecting its formidable cloud empire.
Click to expand...

They already had the chance to make those concessions when the CMA insisted on COD divestiture. Microsoft vehemently rejected it, which was basically spitting in the CMA's face.

While I'm thinking the EC will approve the deal as-is, they could also insist on yet more remedies including a structural one. Would not surprise me.
 
Last edited:
IntentionalPun

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
thicc_girls_are_teh_best said:
Yeah, that's my takeaway on this as well. Seems CMA's writing on this is intended to circumvent exactly the type of deal feynoob feynoob thinks the two can still do.

Since ABK agreeing to put their games on Game Pass Day 1 for a 10-year period is essentially equivalent (in many ways) to them doing the acquisition itself, getting many of the same exact benefits. Only difference (well, one of them) is that MS wouldn't be rolling that revenue into the Xbox division's.
Click to expand...
The CMA is absolutely not blocking any "deals" between the 2 companies.

They are blocking any actual purchasing of shares between the 2 companies.

That's all that separate ruling does.
 
IllegalLemon

IllegalLemon

Member
DeepEnigma said:
But they hired super lawyers nobody ever heard of until they had to google them.
Click to expand...
The hopium they're currently inhaling, has started to become ineffective, so they're trying to synthesise a more potent version of it. The old variant isn't doing it anymore for them. Googling a totally unknown person, is the only way to learn something new, in order to have something to say, because the current set of excuses isn't working anymore and they desperately need something else, to create more powerful hopium to give to the fan base of team green.
 
Last edited:
PaintTinJr

PaintTinJr

Member
For some reason it popped into my head today about the Nokia deal, where despite all of Iceland(?) that each had tiny individual holdings in the company -mostly as employees and family of employees - so were collectively the biggest shareholder 50 times over and didn't want to sell and kill their brand/workplace, the sale of the company still went ahead because one (IIRC) less than 5-10% institutional shareholder with major voting rights wanted the deal to go ahead, and fast forward to the outcome, all the lucrative telecoms patents - that the deal was for - all ended up owned by Microsoft.

Anyway, the point of that thought was that despite believing ATVI would vote against a continuation of the deal beyond the deadline, I began to wonder if the Warren Buffets of this world are actually in a similar decision making place with ATVI, and if so, even if the appeal to the CAT would eventually achieve nothing to let the deal happen, the question is whether Microsoft would see $3b as a viable cost to kill PlayStation's first refusal terms with ATVI for continued CoD marketing, as the deal would expire through the 2year CAT appeal process and ATVI would be locked out of renegotiating with PlayStation - presumably -, basically putting Xbox back on level terms with PlayStation for CoD in the UK and US markets, despite being outsold significantly by then worldwide.

I don't think that is the angle, but I'm now less sure that ATVI's refusal to extend the deal is such a sure thing because of how small a group of institutional shareholders might be needed to make that decision.
 
Last edited:
poppabk

poppabk

Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
PaintTinJr said:
For some reason it popped into my head today about the Nokia deal, where despite all of Iceland(?) that each had tiny individual holdings in the company -mostly as employees and family of employees - so were collectively the biggest shareholder 50 times over and didn't want to sell and kill their brand/workplace, the sale of the company still went ahead because one (IIRC) less than 5-10% institutional shareholder with major voting rights wanted the deal to go ahead, and fast forward to the outcome, all the lucrative telecoms patents - that the deal was for - all ended up owned by Microsoft.

Anyway, the point of that thought was that despite believing ATVI would vote against a continuation of the deal beyond the deadline, I began to wonder if the Warren Buffets of this world are actually in a similar decision making place with ATVI, and if so, even if the appeal to the CAT would eventually achieve nothing to let the deal happen, the question is whether Microsoft would see $3b as a viable cost to kill PlayStation's first refusal terms with ATVI for continued CoD marketing, as the deal would expire through the 2year CAT appeal process and ATVI would be locked out of renegotiating with PlayStation - presumably -, basically putting Xbox back on level terms with PlayStation for CoD in the UK and US markets, despite being outsold significantly by then worldwide.

I don't think that is the angle, but I'm now less sure that ATVI's refusal to extend the deal is such a sure thing because of how small a group of institutional shareholders might be needed to make that decision.
Click to expand...
All the shareholders get to vote. Not sure where you are getting your information from?
 
DeepEnigma

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
IllegalLemon said:
The hopium they're currently inhaling, has started to become ineffective, so they're trying to synthesise a more potent version of it. The old variant isn't doing it anymore for them. Googling a totally unknown person, is the only way to learn something new, in order to have something to say, because the current set of excuses isn't working anymore and they desperately need something else, to create more powerful hopium to give to the fan base of team green.
Click to expand...
Imagine if that energy was diverted into looking forward to great new and original games instead.
 
DJ12

DJ12

Member
Ogbert said:
It’s not easy. This sort of deal is incredibly difficult to navigate.

It will fundamentally come down to whether or not MS is prepared to make the necessary concessions around its cloud service. It may well be that what is required, in terms of open access and fair pricing, makes the financials of the acquisition untenable and they walk away. Maybe not.

It depends on what’s more important to MS - growing its ailing gaming division or protecting its formidable cloud empire.
Click to expand...
That time has passed.

If MS don't win at the CAT they cannot make any further concessions. I'm not 100% sure they can if they do as the case will just get passed back for additional review of evidence already presented.

They had their chance when the CMA were discussing it with them. They choose not to listen and offer all those little cloud companies dog shite 10 year deals like that would adequately deal with the CMAs concerns. It didn't.

This deal is essentially dead, it's just in a holding pattern until July when ABK gonna get paid 3 billion.
 
demigod

demigod

Member
PaintTinJr said:
For some reason it popped into my head today about the Nokia deal, where despite all of Iceland(?) that each had tiny individual holdings in the company -mostly as employees and family of employees - so were collectively the biggest shareholder 50 times over and didn't want to sell and kill their brand/workplace, the sale of the company still went ahead because one (IIRC) less than 5-10% institutional shareholder with major voting rights wanted the deal to go ahead, and fast forward to the outcome, all the lucrative telecoms patents - that the deal was for - all ended up owned by Microsoft.

Anyway, the point of that thought was that despite believing ATVI would vote against a continuation of the deal beyond the deadline, I began to wonder if the Warren Buffets of this world are actually in a similar decision making place with ATVI, and if so, even if the appeal to the CAT would eventually achieve nothing to let the deal happen, the question is whether Microsoft would see $3b as a viable cost to kill PlayStation's first refusal terms with ATVI for continued CoD marketing, as the deal would expire through the 2year CAT appeal process and ATVI would be locked out of renegotiating with PlayStation - presumably -, basically putting Xbox back on level terms with PlayStation for CoD in the UK and US markets, despite being outsold significantly by then worldwide.

I don't think that is the angle, but I'm now less sure that ATVI's refusal to extend the deal is such a sure thing because of how small a group of institutional shareholders might be needed to make that decision.
Click to expand...
It’ll be more than 3bil that ms has to cough up.
 
PaintTinJr

PaintTinJr

Member
poppabk said:
All the shareholders get to vote. Not sure where you are getting your information from?
Click to expand...
I read about it on groklaw years ago, maybe it was just that individual tiny holdings have next to no turn out, so the Warren Buffets with 7% or 9% get their way by default.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Microsoft has Closed the Activision Blizzard King Deal
22 23 24 25 26
1K
94K
MasterCornholio replied
Microsoft now says the CMA was ‘tough and fair’ over Activision Blizzard deal
Opinion Business Game Dev
17
3K
SportsFan581 replied
FTC appeals to block already-completed Microsoft-Activision deal
2
63
7K
Mythoclast replied
  • Locked
UK minister defends CMA's decision to block MS/ABK
News
0
1K
Daniel_Mallorca1985 replied
  • Locked
Microsoft to sell off Activision cloud gaming rights to Ubisoft in bid for UK approval
News Business 2 3 4
154
17K
Spyxos replied
Top Bottom