-
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)
- Status
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Sure, like excluding one of their largest service markets isn't going to seriously hurt their margins! Especially as I imagine that the dispute might have to be applied retroactively with all existing ABK product affected. Bear in mind, that this is not just console and PC, this is mobile too.
Thirty7ven
Banned
If so, another win for MS's recent (and once open source non-profit) AI purchase.
Just the other day Google was saying they wouldn’t be able to compete with open source.
And people want to cape for these companies?
EU is a joke right now.
feynoob
Banned
Windows and azure.
MS has the resources to have a monopoly.
Plus Facebook and Disney are the reason why these regulators don't want these stuff to happen.
Topher
Identifies as young
Dude.....stop spamming the forum with all these long-winded posts!
I'm just messing with you man
Maybe corporations don't feel they need to follow the status quo. Maybe they need to make huge drastic moves that are uncharacteristic. Like purchasing Activision blizzard. Or maybe divesting from the UK.
IFireflyl
Gold Member
You're talking about standard license restrictions, and I understand license restrictions in today's current market. I get that if I buy Call of Duty on Xbox, I can't play that on PlayStation. But this is a completely new structure that the EC has proposed. They are saying that if an EU consumer holds a license for any Activision Blizzard game on any platform, that game must be allowed to be streamed by the consumer, for free, to any cloud streaming game service that is available in the EU. There are no license restrictions in the EC's remedy. You're still thinking that standard license agreements matter, but the EC said that if an EU consumer has a license for the game (with no restriction of platform) then the game must be allowed to be streamed, for free, to any cloud streaming game service (that is available in the EU) that the EU consumer chooses. That's what the actual verbiage of the remedy says.
GHG
Gold Member
So throwing 70 billion dollars around = "competition"? Got it. Is spending 70 billion dollars also "innovation" (another word he made reference to)?
What's also funny about this is the fact that he doesn't seem to understand why the regulators are taking the stances that they are taking. He references Microsoft competing with Google when referring to search and how that would benefit consumers and advertisers?
Search is the worst example because of what's been allowed to happen in that space. We have now reached a point where it would be impossible for start ups or even smaller/mid sized companies to compete with google there. So we have to rely on Microsoft of all people to "save" us? Who even asked for that?
How about we have options across all industries that are not just megacop vs megacorp? How about having room for start-ups and real innovation, especially so in the software space where the barrier to entry should be low if not for the megacorp red-tape? Ever think of that?
Last edited:
Ogbert
Member
But it’s for 10 years, right? Or have I got that incorrect?
MS are presumably happy to agree to that position for the duration of the period. But after 10 years, any new games developed by ABK will be potentially exclusive to MS and its cloud platform.
That was the exact point that Sony has been pushing back on.
This is referring to services like nvidia now or boosteriod who retain the right to a license to stream (ie xbox cannot limit streaming of ABK games in their EULA on their ecosystem or any ecosystem).
Nvidia and Boosteriod still become MS customers to the xbox/gamepass ecosystem and use Windows servers too though. The likes of PS+ and Amazon would be unlikely to want to adopt this business model though because they are foremost content providers and not a hardware rental service. For the reasons I gave in my previous posts it doesn't work for them to lose mtx and premium game sales margin through this and it would only increase their cloud service costs further.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Windows and azure.
MS has the resources to have a monopoly.
Thirty7ven
Banned
Still waiting to be explained how MS buying ABK is pro competitive, helps other publishers, etc
Last edited:
Satya must be doing something right. Microsoft growth has been huge under his leadership.
feynoob
Banned
It's not the regular license, but the way those games are being played.
You need the hardware to play those games, in order to have the same experience as your console. Meaning Xbox users experience won't have the same as PS experience or PC.
It's a nightmare experience.
GHG
Gold Member
That's exactly the problem in a nutshell.
Larger companies purchase them for no other reason than to remove competition for themselves.
And yet all you end up with is Redfall.
What are you guys even supporting anymore?
Last edited:
wOs
Member
Lol. The way I was reading the thread for some days were people arguing that the EU said no and that appealing was worthless.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
The UK has a population of 70million people, you really think that they'd risk access to that market for the sake of this deal?
The reality is that if the deal isn't recognized then they are looking at going after the legal system and government of a wealthy first-world nation. An entity that can levy fines and make whatever restrictions it chooses to businesses within its jurisdiction, its not a fight that's going to come cheap if either party decides to dig their heels in.
The question becomes is this deal worth the cost to their overall business? Especially with caveats imposed by the EC, which being the bureaucratic monstrosity it is, WILL enforce over a decade through fines and levies.
feynoob
Banned
"Activision gives us more revenue, in turn we give those money to publishers to put their games on our platform. Rinse and repeat"
satya
Thirty7ven
Banned
Oh what’s really good for me it’s kinda good to you too
It's not just this deal though. It's probably all other future deals being taken into consideration.
IFireflyl
Gold Member
Yes, this is a 10-year deal.
That may have been the intention, but that is not what the verbiage of the remedy states.
The issue here is that the EC's verbiage is awful. By the letter of the EC's remedy, an EU consumer could sue Microsoft/Activision for not being able to stream Call of Duty for free on Amazon Luna when they already purchased the game on Xbox Series X. As I said above, that might not be what the intention was when this remedy was proposed, but that is how they phrased this. When it comes to legally binding contracts and agreements, the phrasing is all that matters.
Last edited:
Ogbert
Member
Yes, 100%.
I mean, every financial services company has had to set up separate UK entities to accommodate Brexit! They’re used to it.
That’s obviously conjecture, but it’s not unreasonable.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Topher
Identifies as young
This isn't like setting up a separate UK entity. We are talking Microsoft abandoning the UK entirely in order to buy ABK.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
I disagree (apologies if I'm misinterpreting your point) in the sense that the point of contention is precisely this merger. If MS abandon or revise the deal to the CMA's satisfaction, the problem goes away. If they persist and try and force the issue, its inevitably going to end up costing them a lot of money both directly and indirectly.
My thinking is that its a fight that's absolutely not going to be beneficial in the long haul, as it potentially puts them at odds with an entire government and could precipitate a larger trade war.
Ogbert
Member
Indeed. It’s the sort of thing that bullish companies would consider. They could just not offer cloud gaming in the UK, but have the deal go through on static consoles.
I’m not saying it will happen, but it’s hardly outlandish.
As I say, it’s all very intriguing. I have no idea why the CMA is so invested in cloud gaming. It’s not the hill I would expect them to defend.
NickFire
Member
Honest question - do any of the financial service companies offer the UK a second rate service offering though?
I very well might be wrong, but it doesn't feel like a great idea to tell one of your biggest markets that your country's rules suck, so the best we can offer you is a watered down version of the service we need lots of you to pay for. Might as well just advertise for your competitor if that's the model IMO.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Yup. The problem is that if the merger goes through its not ABK in default with the UK authorities, its MS as a whole becoming liable.
Topher
Identifies as young
A $2 trillion global corporation leaving an entire country the size of the UK is the definition of outlandish.
Last edited:
Bojanglez
The Amiga Brotherhood
This would send a clear message out to every business in the world that Microsoft is closed for business, if a random regulatory authority decision doesn't go their way they could risk service continuity. People would pre-emptively jump ship (if there are any alternative ships left) to avoid such nonsense.
Ogbert
Member
No, it’s a good point. They do not.
And it’s an important distinction. UK Brexit arrangements are irritating for the companies, but from a consumer point of view, it makes no difference. It’s around regulatory permission and where you are located (as a company). The only consumers who may have seen a degradation in service are non-domiciled customers having to rely on a UK company.
So you’re 100% right. It would be an exceedingly bullish thing to do. I’m simply saying it is an option.
And, of course, a rather powerful threat.
Last edited:
My thinking was in more broader terms. If the cma is setting the terms of how MS can do business in the UK, then Microsoft can respond accordingly to their interests. Is it likely that Microsoft will leave the UK. No. But I also think there's are other options available where both parties can drive a compromise. People think something can't happen until it does.
Mr Moose
Member
Won't change anything even if they leave the UK, big 4 have to say yes, if one or more say no it's not happening.
Baldy doesn't scare anyone with his bullshit.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Last edited:
itsjustJEFF
Member
I actually thought the CMA's response was very professional and diplomatic. Especially in comparison to how Microsoft and ActivisionBlizz responded to CMA's blockage. Their responses were aggressive and threatening, especially so coming from one of the biggest and richest Corporations in the world.
Topher
Identifies as young
feynoob
Banned
* time stamped
He knows he is going to get eaten alive if he does leave UK.
* time stamped
They wont even leave Russia for fear of some other company stepping in and swooping a few Roubles with thier name on. The thought of leaving some Sterling on the table gives the likes of Natella sleepless nights. Anyone who thinks they will is fucking deluded.
Topher
Identifies as young
As much of a public spectacle as Microsoft has made this thing, in comparison, CMA showed restraint.
Ogbert
Member
One regulator telling another regulator they are wrong is very unusual.
They couldn't because the EULA (End User being the consumer here) for buying that game from xbox or anywhere doesn't prevent it. They (the end user) has a free licence to stream in their licence (EULA). That's all that verbiage is saying. The fact that Amazon Luna decides it doesn't offer the ability to stream that game from that content provider on their service has nothing to do with MS. MS would be happy to get access to the downstream Amazon users if Amazon wanted to, where MS are getting 100% of the premium game sale, gamepass, and mtx money from their store but streaming on somebody elses infrastructure.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked