Support NeoGAF

[In Cold Blood]

They can’t do that. CMA blocked Microsoft from purchasing Activision

If MS wanted that deal, they needed to ask the CMA BEFORE their decision

Their decision is only relevant in the UK. They don't have jurisdiction for the entire world. Do you think if New Zealand decides to block the merger that it doesn't go through.
The CMA decision is one for the UK, so for their buisness in the UK they can just operate as two separate identities.
It's been done before.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Their decision is only relevant in the UK. They don't have jurisdiction for the entire world. Do you think if New Zealand decides to block the merger that it doesn't go through.
The CMA decision is one for the UK, so for their buisness in the UK they can just operate as two separate identities.
It's been done before.

Instead of spouting bullshit, why don't you educate that it was in the contract where CMA, FTC, and EU all had to unanimously agree. It is in the filings. New Zealand has nothing to do with the conversation, nor does CADE, or any of the countries that MS does not even sell their products in that fanboys were cheerleading when "approved."

You look ignorant, really.

 

[IFireflyl]

Their decision is only relevant in the UK. They don't have jurisdiction for the entire world. Do you think if New Zealand decides to block the merger that it doesn't go through.
The CMA decision is one for the UK, so for their buisness in the UK they can just operate as two separate identities.
It's been done before.

As DeepEnigma said, you need to read the actual SEC filing. Microsoft can't just change the terms of the acquisition after-the-fact.

 

[Dick Jones]

Nope. Just need a tattoo of Daddy Spencer somewhere on your body.

I'm getting the best Phil Spencer tattoo on my body in solidarity

Spoiler

It's been delayed until next year, give me a year or 10 to do this

 

[In Cold Blood]

His the guy who created this thread https://www.neogaf.com/threads/how-many-studios-do-you-think-microsoft-want-to-have.1655502/

Convinced ABK was going through with the CMA decision, fantasizing about the future.

Now his salty as fuck, having a meltdown he accuses others of.

Lol. I don't care about the ABK aquisition. I think there shouldn't be any reason for it to be blocked, but I have said 100 times here that I think that money could be better spent buying individual studios.
What do I get out of the aquisition? COD in GP. That's it. I don't play Blizzard games, and I don't play mobile, and Activision is just about COD.
For half that amount of money they could buy 40 studios the likes of Asobo, Certain Affinity, Squanch etc, and I would be getting close to 10 games extra in GP.

And as for that thread? Asking what is MSs ultimate goal with aquisitions is somehow something that is fawning over ABK going through?
Good grief boy, aim higher than that.

 

[In Cold Blood]

As DeepEnigma said, you need to read the actual SEC filing. Microsoft can't just change the terms of the acquisition after-the-fact.

SEC has nothing to do with the UK.
You don't understand jurisdictional differences.
So did the SEC filing say they also would also only do it if the FTC approved? Do you think that MS wouldn't appeal that decision and take it to court? Using your logic MS wouldn't appeal it and would lay down to the FTC ruling.

 

[Topher]

Their decision is only relevant in the UK. They don't have jurisdiction for the entire world. Do you think if New Zealand decides to block the merger that it doesn't go through.
The CMA decision is one for the UK, so for their buisness in the UK they can just operate as two separate identities.
It's been done before.

Wrong. If Microsoft wants to continue to operate in the UK then they are subject to UK laws. Microsoft cannot buy ABK as things stands. They cannot do this in UK or abroad.

SEC has nothing to do with the UK.
You don't understand jurisdictional differences.
So did the SEC filing say they also would also only do it if the FTC approved? Do you think that MS wouldn't appeal that decision and take it to court? Using your logic MS wouldn't appeal it and would lay down to the FTC ruling.

The SEC filing is the agreement between MS and ABK. They can negotiate a new agreement, but they won't because they both want to continue to operate within the UK. That is why the CMA is specifically referenced in the agreement. If UK ultimately blocks this deal then it is over.

And no, laying down to the FTC ruling isn't the logic here at all. MS will fight best they can but ultimately they must abide by the rulings of regulators in the US, UK, EU, and China. These four are highlighted in the agreement as make or break for the deal.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I mean.....we are talking about $20 billion in fines annually in order to make a $69 billion acquisition.

That's almost 1/3 of their annual profits. ABK is not worth that big of a dent, no company is.

 

[TheAmazingSpiderMan]

Let me understand

Microsoft will buy Activision
But it will be a seperate company... Owned by Microsoft
Unlike Activision Blizzard in the rest of the world which will operate as a seperate company.. owned by Microsoft
And to do this Microsoft will propose this structural remedy to the CMA? I expect there will be some time travel involved to go back to when structural remedies were on the table?

Haven’t you heard? Microsoft have contacted the Avengers to save this deal.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Lol. I don't care about the ABK aquisition.

His the guy who created this thread https://www.neogaf.com/threads/how-many-studios-do-you-think-microsoft-want-to-have.1655502/

Convinced ABK was going through with the CMA decision, fantasizing about the future.

Now his salty as fuck, having a meltdown he accuses others of.

 

[IFireflyl]

SEC has nothing to do with the UK.
You don't understand jurisdictional differences.
So did the SEC filing say they also would also only do it if the FTC approved? Do you think that MS wouldn't appeal that decision and take it to court? Using your logic MS wouldn't appeal it and would lay down to the FTC ruling.

Microsoft and Activision are both U.S. companies, and subject to U.S. laws and regulations. U.S. companies are legally required to file with the SEC for acquisitions/mergers, and the filing is legally binding. Per the filing with the SEC, Microsoft and Activision stipulated that the acquisition will fail if it does not have regulatory approval from one or more regulatory bodies, and the CMA was one such regulatory body.

 

[Pelta88]

Can microsoft just ignore the uk and proceed with the purchase? Opening an activision subsidiary in the uk?

That moment when you realize we got a whole year of this era spiced, uninformed, dribble.

 

[In Cold Blood]

Further to my comment about MS still being able to close the deal and operate as separate identities in the UK, it looks like the CMA has anticipated it and a few days ago put out an interim order banning MS and Activision from buying any part of each other until final determination.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/645cac312226ee000c0ae5fd/Interim_Order_.pdf

Except with the prior written consent of the CMA, Microsoft and all members of the Group of Interconnected Bodies Corporate to which it may belong must not:
(A) Acquire an Interest in Activision or any of its Subsidiaries; (B) Acquire an Interest in an Enterprise holding an Interest in Activision or carrying on the business of Activision from time to time; or (C) Hold an option to acquire an Interest referred to in subparagraphs (A) and (B) above."

 

[IFireflyl]

In reviewing the EU approval, I'd like someone to help me to break down the bold/italicized section below:

To address the competition concerns identified by the Commission in the market for the distribution of PC and console games via cloud game streaming services, Microsoft offered the following comprehensive licensing commitments, with a 10-year duration:

• A free license to consumers in the EEA that would allow them to stream, via any cloud game streaming services of their choice, all current and future Activision Blizzard PC and console games for which they have a license.
• A corresponding free license to cloud game streaming service providers to allow EEA-based gamers to stream any Activision Blizzard's PC and console games.

Today, Activision Blizzard does not license its games to cloud game streaming services, nor does it stream the games itself. These licenses will ensure that gamers that have purchased one or more Activision games on a PC or console store, or that have subscribed to a multi-game subscription service that includes Activision games, have the right to stream those games with any cloud game streaming service of their choice and play them on any device using any operating system. The remedies also ensure that Activision's games available for streaming will have the same quality and content as games available for traditional download.

It looks like the EC stated that any consumer who purchases an Activision Blizzard game that on a PC or console store have a right to stream the game with ANY cloud game streaming service of their choice. Wouldn't this technically mean that if someone bought Call of Duty on Xbox, then Microsoft has to find a way to allow the consumer to play this on Amazon Luna (just as an example)? This seems like a pretty tough thing for Microsoft to accomplish. The only way I can see this working is if Microsoft works with every cloud gaming provider to perform an account link with an Xbox account.

Am I misreading this?

 

[Topher]

Further to my comment about MS still being able to close the deal and operate as separate identities in the UK, it looks like the CMA has anticipated it and a few days ago put out an interim order banning MS and Activision from buying any part of each other until final determination.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/645cac312226ee000c0ae5fd/Interim_Order_.pdf

Exactly what I said to you earlier....

Microsoft is prohibited from investing (or acquiring) in ABK in any way. ABK is prohibited from investing in Microsoft in any way. This is a corporate level ruling. It has nothing to do with cloud or Game Pass.

 

[Topher]

In reviewing the EU approval, I'd like someone to help me to break down the bold/italicized section below:



It looks like the EC stated that any consumer who purchases an Activision Blizzard game that on a PC or console store have a right to stream the game with ANY cloud game streaming service of their choice. Wouldn't this technically mean that if someone bought Call of Duty on Xbox, then Microsoft has to find a way to allow the consumer to play this on Amazon Luna (just as an example)? This seems like a pretty tough thing for Microsoft to accomplish. The only way I can see this working is if Microsoft works with every cloud gaming provider to perform an account link with an Xbox account.

Am I misreading this?

Yeah, that's what I'm reading as well. Technically, doesn't this also mean that a PS owner of an ABK game can stream this game on PS+? This seems incredibly wide reaching. I'm guessing there is fine print that EU isn't telling us. This doesn't seem feasible.

 

[Dick Jones]

Further to my comment about MS still being able to close the deal and operate as separate identities in the UK, it looks like the CMA has anticipated it and a few days ago put out an interim order banning MS and Activision from buying any part of each other until final determination.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/645cac312226ee000c0ae5fd/Interim_Order_.pdf

I think the CMA do it for all blocks so to avoid a scenario when two groups behave dishonestly. I don't think there is anything special in this case compared to other blocked acquisitions.

 

[azertydu91]

Can microsoft just ignore the uk and proceed with the purchase? Opening an activision subsidiary in the uk?

It's weird how a lot of xbox centric gamers seems to think that same thing at the same time ... With the exact same wording.

 

[Iced Arcade]

I went from thinking the deal would go through easily and I would get a few games on gamepass that I would never pay for to thinking the deal was dead and happy, because I don't want to pay more for gamepass for a few games I would never pay for.

Now I think some weird shit is going to go down eventually.

 

[adamsapple]

Now I think some weird shit is going to go down eventually.

Brexit 2.0, this time with micro transactions.

 

[Topher]

Now I think some weird shit is going to go down eventually.

I'm in that same place.

 

[Iced Arcade]

My favorite part is Fey's flip flops

 

[Dick Jones]

It's weird how a lot of xbox centric gamers seems to think that same thing at the same time ... With the exact same wording.

Go gentle on them, they listened to Pachter...unironically.

 

[adamsapple]

 

[Topher]

Folks can say what they want about CMA, but there process and decision making has been much more transparent than anything from the EU. Where are the the corresponding documents from the EU like what we have had access to with the CMA. I mean.....look at this page filled with documents and timelines:

Microsoft / Activision Blizzard merger inquiry

The CMA investigated the anticipated acquisition by Microsoft Corporation of Activision Blizzard, Inc.

www.gov.uk

I guess EU is entirely behind closed doors with zero insight into their decision. I mean......am I missing something similar to CMA's 400+ page decision? This is it?

Mergers: Commission clears acquisition of Activision Blizzard by Microsoft, subject to conditions

The European Commission has approved, under the EU Merger Regulation, the proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard (‘Activision') by Microsoft.

ec.europa.eu

 

[noise36]

I'm getting pretty bored of this take.

MS are going all in on the cloud, and we still have people going on about it being a tiny market.

MS are expecting this to be the future of gaming.

You are either being narrow sighted about this or believe everyone at MS is an idiot for going for the cloud market.

it doesn't really matter if you think it's going to get big, MS clearly do and they are trying to corner the market early so no one else bothers.

The facts today - Cloud gaming is a tiny niche loss making market that no one will pay for unless bundled with things people actually want like Gamepass

CMA couldn't find any harm to the actual gaming market today from ABK deal.

The facts in the future - no one knows what the gaming market will look like in the future. Not CMA, not MS, not Sony, not you.

CMA gazed into their crystal ball and manufactured a future that the gaming market was harmed by the ABK deal.

People are now claiming MS corporate PR speak, their hopes and someday maybe dreams is the sound basis for a regulatory decision like this, its farcical!

The cognitive dissonance is off the charts, MS xbox/gaming division is poorly managed, making bad business decisions and incompetent, but at the same time going to rule the industry in the future which will be all cloud as they hoped and dreamed.

EU: ABK games at a lower cost than RRP and accessible in more ways is good for consumers. i.e. lower the price of entry relative to the status quo
CMA: ABK games at full RRP and accessible in less ways good for consumers i.e. increase the price of entry relative to the alternative

 

[reinking]

What I am getting out of all of these 10-year commitments/agreement from MS is they are confident that 10 years will be enough for them to get a strangle-hold on the streaming market.

 

[Topher]

The cognitive dissonance is off the charts, MS xbox/gaming division is poorly managed, making bad business decisions and incompetent, but at the same time going to rule the industry in the future which will be all cloud as they hoped and dreamed.

By virtue of a two trillion dollar mega-corporation willing to buy that future? Yeah, pretty much.

 

[adamsapple]

If anyone thinks EU are giving MS a blanket pass, they're not. They have approved this acquisition but are also probing in other Cloud related ventures.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Microsoft Cloud Service Under Scrutiny From EU Antitrust Arm​

• Regulators quizzed rivals, customers over possible breaches
• EU’s moves could signal that a formal probe will come soon

Microsoft Corp.’s Azure cloud business has been targeted by the European Union’s antitrust arm, amid concerns the US software firm is leveraging its market power to squeeze out rivals.

As part of an informal probe, regulators are quizzing competitors and customers about how Microsoft may be abusing its access to business-sensitive information belonging to cloud firms it has commercial dealings with, according to documents seen by Bloomberg.

EU antitrust enforcers want to know whether Microsoft then leverages such confidential information to compete with cloud-service providers on the market, said two people familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

 

[noise36]

By virtue of a two trillion dollar mega-corporation willing to buy that future? Yeah, pretty much.

So MS who has failed for decades to buy or accurately predict the future of gaming , will now suddenly buy success and all their predictions will come true? Both a failure and a sucess at the same time, which ever narrative you need to fit your world view.

 

[Topher]

So MS who has failed for decades to buy or accurately predict the future of gaming , will now suddenly buy success and all their predictions will come true?

No....they are spending $69 billion with the intent of continuing to suck at gaming.

Jesus Christ

 

[ZehDon]

What I am getting out of all of these 10-year commitments/agreement from MS is they are confident that 10 years will be enough for them to get a strangle-hold on the streaming market.

I'm of two minds about those deals. At a glance, I think it's the opposite: I think Microsoft know cloud isn't growing or improving fast enough in those 10 years to meaningfully impact them. 10 years sounds like a long time, but due to the size of the cloud market against its in-built limitations (speed of light problem) it's akin to offering 10 year licenses for COD in the metaverse - the metaverse is more than 10 years away, so the license covering that period isn't really worth as much as one might think. Playing CoD, Diablo IV, Tony Hawk, or Guitar Hero in the cloud in a comparable manner to local compute devices? Not in this decade, as far as I can see. With that said, necessity is the mother of all invention, so my other mind kicks in: if ABK cloud deals are, effectively, free, then some startup might just have the incentive to figure out how to make cloud gaming work in order to get COD on their service - something that wouldn't happen without those deals, thus, spurring innovation and competition. Will it happen though? Who knows.

 

[poppabk]

No....they are spending $69 billion with the intent of continuing to suck at gaming.

Jesus Christ

So you think the only mistakes MS has made in gaming so far is not spending enough money?

 

[Topher]

So you think the only mistakes MS has made in gaming so far is not spending enough money?

That was me being sarcastic, but no I don't think that.

 

[Raven77]

It just be nice living in your own delusional reality where you can just make shit up.

It’s been explained endlessly — and by Microsoft themselves to the Securities and Exchange Commission — why the CMA matters. Without unanimous approval, the deal is dead.

They’ve blocked it.
The end.
Full stop.

No amount of money being thrown will change their current findings. The ONLY money Microsoft can spend is on lawyers to try and appeal. And appeal that has an infinitesimally small chance of success.

After the last 200 pages of people repeatedly pointing this out you still choose to live in your delusional fanboy fantasy land, more power to you.

But you are wrong.

Edit: As for your last line about “time will tell”, history is already chock full of examples of what happens when mega corporations merge. Here’s the cliff’s notes version: It’s never been good for consumers, innovation, or workers; it’s only been good for executives and those at the top of the profit chain.

It'll go through in all likelihood, why? Because money. Not saying bribes or anything as overtly illegal as that. It'll go through because the investors that matter (read, not people like us), and several major companies want it to go through. They'll influence and deal until it happens.

And your extreme generalization about all mega mergers is, like, your opion, man.

This merger...

 

[DeepEnigma]

It'll go through in all likelihood, why? Because money. Not saying bribes or anything as overtly illegal as that. It'll go through because the investors that matter (read, not people like us), and several major companies want it to go through. They'll influence and deal until it happens.

And your extreme generalization about all mega mergers is, like, your opion, man.

This merger...

CMA already made their decision.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Microsoft and Activision are both U.S. companies, and subject to U.S. laws and regulations. U.S. companies are legally required to file with the SEC for acquisitions/mergers, and the filing is legally binding. Per the filing with the SEC, Microsoft and Activision stipulated that the acquisition will fail if it does not have regulatory approval from one or more regulatory bodies, and the CMA was one such regulatory body.

MS will just pull out of the SEC. Done.

 

[Raven77]

CMA already made their decision.

So if it's a done deal then why did the EU even bother approving? And why is Microsoft appealing the CMA decision?

This is far from over. Me personally, I don't care THAT much either way since I always buy every console. Guess we'll see what happens.

I am calling this is a completed deal early 2024.

 

[Thirty7ven]

If anyone thinks EU are giving MS a blanket pass, they're not. They have approved this acquisition but are also probing in other Cloud related ventures.

http://[URL]https://www.bloomberg.c...crutiny-from-eu-s-antitrust-arm?sref=ExbtjcSG

[/URL]

Slap a fine on them, collect the money. Done.

EC in a nutshell.

 

[Thirty7ven]

I'm of two minds about those deals. At a glance, I think it's the opposite: I think Microsoft know cloud isn't growing or improving fast enough in those 10 years to meaningfully impact them. 10 years sounds like a long time, but due to the size of the cloud market against its in-built limitations (speed of light problem) it's akin to offering 10 year licenses for COD in the metaverse - the metaverse is more than 10 years away, so the license covering that period isn't really worth as much as one might think. Playing CoD, Diablo IV, Tony Hawk, or Guitar Hero in the cloud in a comparable manner to local compute devices? Not in this decade, as far as I can see. With that said, necessity is the mother of all invention, so my other mind kicks in: if ABK cloud deals are, effectively, free, then some startup might just have the incentive to figure out how to make cloud gaming work in order to get COD on their service - something that wouldn't happen without those deals, thus, spurring innovation and competition. Will it happen though? Who knows.

But they don’t get any revenue from COD so you are talking about a stupid amount of spending for what? How much will you have to charge for the subscription?

Easy for Nvidia, the only ones other than MS truly gaining from this.

 

[SHA]

Yippee!!!

 

[SHA]

Nope, but it happened unfortunately.

 

[Topher]

So if it's a done deal then why did the EU even bother approving? And why is Microsoft appealing the CMA decision?

This is far from over. Me personally, I don't care THAT much either way since I always buy every console. Guess we'll see what happens.

I am calling this is a completed deal early 2024.

It isn't a done deal, but chances are slim for MS to win on appeal. EU isn't going to just assume either way. Yes, it is far from over. Everything hinges on CMA as always.

 

[LordCBH]

MS will just pull out of the SEC. Done.

Microsoft to the Big 12 confirmed.

 

[Topher]

Yippee!!!

Nope, but it happened unfortunately.

 

[IFireflyl]

Yeah, that's what I'm reading as well. Technically, doesn't this also mean that a PS owner of an ABK game can stream this game on PS+? This seems incredibly wide reaching. I'm guessing there is fine print that EU isn't telling us. This doesn't seem feasible.

At least I'm not the only one who can't wrap my mind around that phrasing. At first I thought it was straightforward. But either I looked at it for too long, or this truly has some vague wording that puts Microsoft/Activision in a pretty tight box (at least for EU consumers).

 

[freefornow]

I have probably missed it amongst todays news, but can someone explain why the CMA has been so "reactionary" to the EU announcement? Not sure why they felt they needed to tweet a response.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I have probably missed it amongst todays news, but can someone explain why the CMA has been so "reactionary" to the EU announcement? Not sure why they felt they needed to tweet a response.

EU mentioned that they agreed with the CMAs concerns. Hence the response like,

 

[reinking]

In reviewing the EU approval, I'd like someone to help me to break down the bold/italicized section below:



It looks like the EC stated that any consumer who purchases an Activision Blizzard game that on a PC or console store have a right to stream the game with ANY cloud game streaming service of their choice. Wouldn't this technically mean that if someone bought Call of Duty on Xbox, then Microsoft has to find a way to allow the consumer to play this on Amazon Luna (just as an example)? This seems like a pretty tough thing for Microsoft to accomplish. The only way I can see this working is if Microsoft works with every cloud gaming provider to perform an account link with an Xbox account.

Am I misreading this?

It is a weird concession regardless of how you try to interpret it.

I could be wrong, but I took it to mean MS has to provide a free license for streaming to both the customer and the store in which the Activision Blizzard game is being purchased. For example, if I chose to purchase COD on the PlayStation store, MS has to give me and Sony a free license to allow me to stream on PlayStation Plus. That still seems like a nightmare.

Also, what are the details? Is this no strings attached? Or, is this like the 10-year deals MS was passing around that MS gets all DLC revenue? What if other stores/services do not want to provide this? I could see some services would not want to allow an account link to Xbox.

 

[noise36]

I have probably missed it amongst todays news, but can someone explain why the CMA has been so "reactionary" to the EU announcement? Not sure why they felt they needed to tweet a response.

Because they know their decision is based on logical fallacies and someday maybe hopes and dreams.

They made an ideological decision then went searching for a way to justify it, the basis of which was manufactured in their heads and doesn't exist in the real world.

EU appears to have stayed in the realm of reality and avoided manufacturing something out of nothing.