• 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?


  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster



Satya doesn't leave ringfencing the UK off the table.... Interesting


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.
 

Alesimage

Banned
"The most pro-competitive thing I've ever seen"

Is he joking? What the fuck has been stopping you from competing in this space for the last 20 odd years?
Xbox was a side business. Now it's one of the main pillars of Microsoft. That 70 billion is going somewhere for Xbox.
 

feynoob

Banned
I’m intrigued why the CMA appears to be so invested in this deal. It’s unlike the UK to be this defensive. Especially post-Brexit.

I don’t really buy the consumer protection angle. Consumers are awfully happy about Amazon’s total and utter monopoly. Now, it might be that the CMA is being quaintly principled and attempting to stave off an Amazon type scenario for cloud gaming. Valid, but again, that’s not actually for the benefit of consumers. Rather strict competition principles and encouraging a cartel of two or three as opposed to a monopoly of one.

Pick your poison.
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!

pk7LblQ.png


I'm just messing with you man :messenger_beaming:
 

Alesimage

Banned
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.
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
The restrictions comes from where the game is purchased from.
Xbox and PS don't offer their platform to any of cloud providers.
For the EU remedy to happen, you need those platform holders to approve their system to be streamed by other cloud providers.

Which leaves only PSnow and Xcloud to be the only people that can stream those games. Unless these two platforms allow other companies have access to their platform, your license is restricted to them.

PC games however can be streamed by everyone, as you can access steam and other launchers.

So far, console users has to allow users to stream their games like stadia. And MS can't deny PC cloud companies from streaming Activision content as the users own the content.

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
Xbox was a side business. Now it's one of the main pillars of Microsoft. That 70 billion is going somewhere for Xbox.

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
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.
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.
 

Three

Member
See the above. The remedy from the EU doesn't specify that the game can only be streamed via a streaming service that is restricted to a certain platform. It states that if a license for an Activision Blizzard game is held by an EU consumer, then the game has to be allowed to be streamed via ANY cloud streaming service in the EU. The remedy itself uses the word "any", and it makes no distinction of the platform that the original license was for, nor any distinction on which streaming services the EU consumer can use per platform.

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:

Alesimage

Banned
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?
Startups get bought all the time. That's probably the goal for many of them anyway.
 

feynoob

Banned
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.
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
Startups get bought all the time. That's probably the goal for many of them anyway.

That's exactly the problem in a nutshell.

Larger companies purchase them for no other reason than to remove competition for themselves.

Satya must be doing something right. Microsoft growth has been huge under his leadership.

And yet all you end up with is Redfall.

What are you guys even supporting anymore?
 
Last edited:

Alesimage

Banned
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?
I personally don't see any difference in buying exclusivity, buying devs, buying ips or even publishers. Ms just has more if it and will continue to do so.
 

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster
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.

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.
 

Alesimage

Banned
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.
It's not just this deal though. It's probably all other future deals being taken into consideration.
 

IFireflyl

Gold 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.

Yes, this is a 10-year deal.

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.

That may have been the intention, but that is not what the verbiage of the remedy states.

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.

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:

meernakh

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?

RIP compu-global-hyper-mega-net :(
 

Ogbert

Member
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.
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.
 

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster
It's not just this deal though. It's probably all other future deals being taken into consideration.

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
This isn't like setting up a separate UK entity. We are talking Microsoft abandoning the UK entirely in order to buy ABK.
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
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.
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
This isn't like setting up a separate UK entity. We are talking Microsoft abandoning the UK entirely in order to buy ABK.

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
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.

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
A $2 trillion corporation leaving an entire country the size of the UK is the definition of outlandish.
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
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.
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:

Alesimage

Banned
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.
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.
 
Just been catching up on the thread. Only just read the judgement (well, bits).

The CMA’s response is very, very odd. Really unusual to have that aggressive a reply to another regulator.

I have absolutely zero clue how this pans out.
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.
 

dotnotbot

Member
Of course Nadella won't say leaving UK is off the table. What are you expecting, they're putting as much pressure as possible so the deal goes through but in an interview he would say "UK is fine, we will do business here as usual regardless".
 

Topher

Identifies as young
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.

As much of a public spectacle as Microsoft has made this thing, in comparison, CMA showed restraint.
 

Ogbert

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.
One regulator telling another regulator they are wrong is very unusual.
 

Three

Member
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.
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
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom