• 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.

Alesimage

Banned
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.
It appeared petty. I don't recall the other 9 regulatory bodies making a Twitter statement after cma made their decision.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
FwQmktVaUAAX6Lr




 
Last edited:
One regulator telling another regulator they are wrong is very unusual.
I certainly haven't heard of it happening much, but it may not be something on my radar. But this is also a pretty unique situation and I think it's a lot more nuanced than a lot of ppl are making it out to be. There is a lot of double speak, unavilable details, and straight up slight of hand happening that is lost on most ppl, including myself BTW. I don't blame the CMA for disagreeing. Their loyalty is to their ppl, if they don't believe it's a good deal for them then they block.
 
Last edited:

wolffy66

Member
I certainly haven't heard of it happening much, but it may not be something on my radar. But this is also a pretty unique situation and I think it's a lot more nuanced than a lot of ppl are making it out to be. There is a lot of double speak, unavilable details, and straight up slight of hand happening that is lots on most ppl. I don't blame the CMA for disagreeing. Their loyalty is to their ppl, if they don't believe it's a good deal for them then they block.
From the hearing today, it sounded more like they just default to block and go from there.
 
It appeared petty. I don't recall the other 9 regulatory bodies making a Twitter statement after cma made their decision.
I don't think the UK had any choice but to send out a response. They are the outlier... EVERYONE is looking at them. I can guarantee you that a lot of ppl who have an interest in this was wanting and expecting a response. In fact, they would probably be asked straight up about their response to the EU approving. So no matter what, they would have had to make a statement.
 

Bojanglez

The Amiga Brotherhood
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.
And probably having to also pay them Windows licensing fees
 

NickFire

Member
I don't think the UK had any choice but to send out a response. They are the outlier... EVERYONE is looking at them. I can guarantee you that a lot of ppl who have an interest in this was wanting and expecting a response. In fact, they would probably be asked straight up about their response to the EU approving. So no matter what, they would have had to make a statement.
Are they really the outlier though?

By my count it is 2 opposed, 1 in favor. If the deal is conditioned on approval outside of US, UK, or EU, I reserve the right to change my opinion.
 
Are they really the outlier though?

By my count it is 2 opposed, 1 in favor. If the deal is conditioned on approval outside of US, UK, or EU, I reserve the right to change my opinion.
I believe they're the only ones in their region, aka Europe, that seems to be straight up against it. From what others have said or "reported" it seems like the others are more open to the approving the deal.
 

Astray

Member
A lot of people have brought up the question of what pulling out of the UK would do for Microsoft, but not a lot talked about Activision.

If you are curious about that part of the equation then this piece is for you.

 

Three

Member
It appeared petty. I don't recall the other 9 regulatory bodies making a Twitter statement after cma made their decision.
That's because there was not a PR campaign by a trillion dollar company to appeal their decision, or slander the nation and authority's rationality. If they faced some pushback and lobbying I'm sure other regulators would have been defending their decision more publicly too. The CMA are a lot more open to the public in their process but they and the FTC are the only ones facing this PR and lobbying backlash from a massive conglomerate.

His reaction says a thousand words. They are definitely gonna try to work around it.

That wasn't a "yeah that would be difficult" look. It was more "lol yeah for sure"
Seemed more like I'm not saying a word but I want that threat to linger in your mind.
 

Ogbert

Member
I certainly haven't heard of it happening much, but it may not be something on my radar. But this is also a pretty unique situation and I think it's a lot more nuanced than a lot of ppl are making it out to be. There is a lot of double speak, unavilable details, and straight up slight of hand happening that is lost on most ppl, including myself. I don't blame the CMA for disagreeing. Their loyalty is to their ppl, if they don't believe it's a good deal for them then they block.
It’s certainly a unique scenario. I’ve not known a regulatory investigation to have such public interest.

I have to say, the CMA position always has, and continues to, surprise me. I simply do not understand why they are so invested in the cloud point. And that’s not really anything to do with MS or Sony, rather why a UK regulatory body is being so aggressive.

It’s very unusual for a regulatory body to be so defensive of a nascent market. It’s far easier to let the big fellas have at it and then fine the winner. This approach often works out for the consumer. Economies of scale allow Amazon to undercut the hell out of everyone. Where the outrage for Amazon delivering us everything? Consumers love a monopoly when it makes things cheaper.

So CMA appear to be taking a strict competition approach and protecting other businesses (principally Sony and Nintendo) as opposed to consumers. Which is why I would expect the licensing arrangement to be sufficient.

It may well be that MS behaved like total and utter bellends and irritated everyone at the CMA. Would explain the speed and directness of the CMA’s response.

Make no mistake though, this does put some pressure on the CMA. Nothing huge and it doesn’t mean they will change their position, but eyebrows will be raised.
 

Alesimage

Banned
That's because there was not a PR campaign by a trillion dollar company to appeal their decision, or slander the nation and authority's rationality. If they faced some pushback and lobbying I'm sure other regulators would have been defending their decision more publicly too. The CMA are a lot more open to the public in their process but they and the FTC are the only ones facing this PR and lobbying backlash from a massive conglomerate.


Seemed more like I'm not saying a word but I want that threat to linger in your mind.
Cma needs to stay in their lane. Reeks of insecurity.
 

LoveCake

Member
The EU is just kicking the can down the road, when it will be too late to do anything to regulate MS, Xbox, GamePass and the Cloud, consolidation is a bad thing in any industry and I fail to see the EU's point that that the "Activision Blizzard acquisition is good for competition".
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member

Their test (EU) has always been about levying fines. This has been their modus operandi for the past 20+ years now.

Look at all the shit they are investigating now. It won't stifle these companies, it won't help stall their anti-competitive practices, it will only enrich the EU through levies.

Create the problem, provide the solution (enrichment).
 
Last edited:

vj27

Banned
His reaction says a thousand words. They are definitely gonna try to work around it.

That wasn't a "yeah that would be difficult" look. It was more "lol yeah for sure"
Everyone’s saying MS will pull out of the UK but couldn’t they just not put COD on gamepass/xcloud out there? Why is everyone going straight to pulling the entirety of Xbox out of the UK instead of just 1 game in the cloud. Is something preventing that which I’m missing or?
 

Sanepar

Member
It’s certainly a unique scenario. I’ve not known a regulatory investigation to have such public interest.

I have to say, the CMA position always has, and continues to, surprise me. I simply do not understand why they are so invested in the cloud point. And that’s not really anything to do with MS or Sony, rather why a UK regulatory body is being so aggressive.

It’s very unusual for a regulatory body to be so defensive of a nascent market. It’s far easier to let the big fellas have at it and then fine the winner. This approach often works out for the consumer. Economies of scale allow Amazon to undercut the hell out of everyone. Where the outrage for Amazon delivering us everything? Consumers love a monopoly when it makes things cheaper.

So CMA appear to be taking a strict competition approach and protecting other businesses (principally Sony and Nintendo) as opposed to consumers. Which is why I would expect the licensing arrangement to be sufficient.

It may well be that MS behaved like total and utter bellends and irritated everyone at the CMA. Would explain the speed and directness of the CMA’s response.

Make no mistake though, this does put some pressure on the CMA. Nothing huge and it doesn’t mean they will change their position, but eyebrows will be raised.
They are protecting the audience. Consumers. Biggest player base is on playstation how the hell will be good to force part of a install base to move to other platform to play games already available on both?

Explain to me how this bring benefits to playstation consumers on the long term?
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Everyone’s saying MS will pull out of the UK but couldn’t they just not put COD on gamepass/xcloud out there? Why is everyone going straight to pulling the entirety of Xbox out of the UK instead of just 1 game in the cloud. Is something preventing that which I’m missing or?
No.

They can't own ABK if the CMA doesn't budge. Hell, both companies can't even purchase heavy amounts of shares in one another.
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
Cma needs to stay in their lane. Reeks of insecurity.
I applaud it. It's more that MS and insecure people will and have used the EC decision to slander the CMA so they publicly clarified why they've taken a different view. The CMA and FTC (Lina especially) will face constant scrutiny by MS's PR machine and lobbying power. If MS screw over the UK market rest assured that they would try and launch a campaign to blame the CMA for abandoning the UK while pretending all they wanted was the best for everyone. The CMA need to make it be known that their goal is preserving competition and not silently give in to the PR campaign of the merging parties. Make their own statements where they can. It's not like MS, Activision and their cronies aren't with far less professional posts.
 
Last edited:

Ogbert

Member
No.

They can't own ABK if the CMA doesn't budge. Hell, both companies can't even invest in one another heavily either with their ruling.
Easily circumvented.

They would spin off MS UK, a separate entity, and offer MS services independent of their parent company. ABK games would be removed from cloud services.

An enormous headache and would take years, but it could be done. Obviously the assumption is that MS would choose not to do this.

A UK regulator can’t dictate terms outside its borders.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Easily circumvented.

They would spin off MS UK, a separate entity, and offer MS services independent of their parent company. ABK games would be removed from cloud services.

An enormous headache and would take years, but it could be done. Obviously the assumption is that MS would choose not to do this.

A UK regulator can’t dictate terms outside its borders.
GIF by Giphy QA


 
Last edited:

Ogbert

Member
They are protecting the audience. Consumers. Biggest player base is on playstation how the hell will be good to force part of a install base to move to other platform to play games already available on both?

Explain to me how this bring benefits to playstation consumers on the long term?
That’s not protecting consumers. That’s protecting Sony’s share of the consumers.

You’re arguing for less competition.
 

IFireflyl

Gold Member
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.

It isn't saying that at all. It specifically says if they have a license, then the game can be streamed via ANY streaming service that operates in the EU. There is nothing in the EC's remedy that says that the type of license and the type of streaming service must match. That's why I'm telling you that what you're saying might have been their intention, but that's not what they said.
 

Alesimage

Banned
I applaud it. It's more that MS and insecure people will and have used the EC decision to slander the CMA so they publicly clarified why they've taken a different view. The CMA and FTC (Lina especially) will face constant scrutiny by MS's PR machine and lobbying power. If MS screw over the UK market rest assured that they would try and launch a campaign to blame the CMA for abandoning the UK while pretending all they wanted was the best for everyone. The CMA need to make it be known that their goal is preserving competition and not silently give in to the PR campaign of the merging parties. Make their own statements where they can. It's not like MS, Activision and their cronies aren't with far less professional posts.
Microsoft Activision should be able to comment all they want. They are the parties involved. Cma making comments on ec decisions is weird.
 

Ogbert

Member
That is an interim provision which reminds MS and ABK that they can’t be cute and have the purchased entity pretend to buy the purchaser.

The scenario I am talking about (which you will note I said ‘could take years’) is where they set up a wholly new UK subsidiary that offers MS’ services on unique, UK domestic terms.

It’s unlikely, but entirely possible.

Seriously, stop being such a fanboy. A couple of lawyers at a domestic regulator do not get to determine the entire international strategy of MS, or Sony, or Amazon or anyone outside their borders.
 
BLOCKADE THE UK!
When I posted this at at 9:20pm last night I was mostly joking.

But I'm glad that Satya is now openly threatening (ok, more of a wink) to do as much.

Exit the UK.

The CMA is not the world's police. They are one regulatory group amongst a sea of many. This move would set precedent and show that they are fairly toothless without the backing of the EU. The UK is not essential in a post console world.

BLOCK THEM SATYA. DO IT. Force UK citizens to play endless hours of AAA PS5 single player games like I do.
 
Last edited:

X-Wing

Member
Microsoft Activision should be able to comment all they want. They are the parties involved. Cma making comments on ec decisions is weird.

Regulators commenting on each other decisions and explaining why they reach different conclusions is common.
 

Alesimage

Banned
Regulators commenting on each other decisions and explaining why they reach different conclusions is common.
Can you show me the comments made by the 9 other regulatory bodies on the cma decision. Id like to check them out. Maybe they did stated cma is incorrect.
 
I don't think the UK had any choice but to send out a response. They are the outlier... EVERYONE is looking at them. I can guarantee you that a lot of ppl who have an interest in this was wanting and expecting a response. In fact, they would probably be asked straight up about their response to the EU approving. So no matter what, they would have had to make a statement.

It's a game of chicken at this point. If the CMA doesn't back down and Microsoft exits from the UK. It's going to set a precedent that's going to have long lasting impacts to the UK and it's citizens. The CMA is going to look pretty foolish.

I know M$ has a healthy console market in the UK (#2 for XBOX I believe) but I'm sure Microsoft has already done the math and at the end of the day that's pretty meaningless.
 
Last edited:

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
On the flip side, this is what the EU had to say today

FwPW3_CXgAIW1Sk
Goes against MS's PR that past 10 years (and as recent as last year), but WTF do we know, it only came from their own mouths of their plans. Remember the "3 billion gamers?"

Oh and this,
yjjVx7M.jpg


All this “cloud gaming isnt important”looks funny now.
bored jack nicholson GIF
 
It’s certainly a unique scenario. I’ve not known a regulatory investigation to have such public interest.

I have to say, the CMA position always has, and continues to, surprise me. I simply do not understand why they are so invested in the cloud point. And that’s not really anything to do with MS or Sony, rather why a UK regulatory body is being so aggressive.

It’s very unusual for a regulatory body to be so defensive of a nascent market. It’s far easier to let the big fellas have at it and then fine the winner. This approach often works out for the consumer. Economies of scale allow Amazon to undercut the hell out of everyone. Where the outrage for Amazon delivering us everything? Consumers love a monopoly when it makes things cheaper.

So CMA appear to be taking a strict competition approach and protecting other businesses (principally Sony and Nintendo) as opposed to consumers. Which is why I would expect the licensing arrangement to be sufficient.

It may well be that MS behaved like total and utter bellends and irritated everyone at the CMA. Would explain the speed and directness of the CMA’s response.

Make no mistake though, this does put some pressure on the CMA. Nothing huge and it doesn’t mean they will change their position, but eyebrows will be raised.
The CMA already dropped the console SLC component prior to the final decision on April 26th, so why are you mentioning Sony and Nintendo here when that's not the issue being cited by the CMA, but rather protecting the nascent cloud gaming market from being monopolized by Microsoft in the future?
 

Alesimage

Banned
When I posted this at at 9:20pm last night I was mostly joking.

But I'm glad that Satya is now openly threatening (ok, more of a wink) to do as much.

Exit the UK.

The CMA is not the world's police. They are one regulatory group amongst a sea of many. This move would set precedent and show that they are fairly toothless without the backing of the EU. The UK is not essential in a post console world.

BLOCK THEM SATYA. DO IT. Force UK citizens to play endless hours of AAA PS5 single player games like I do.
The UK government would get involved and call a special session if Microsoft was bold to carry out this move. It would be as shocking as Ms buying Activision blizzard.. Haha
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom