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.
GHG said:
No t-shirt?

Finally we get to see Phil in his natural habitat.
Click to expand...

Look at those fingers.

seinfeld-jerry-seinfeld.gif
 
Ogbert said:
I am a lawyer (UK, though).

When you act as a witness and give evidence under oath, you are obviously required to tell the truth. If it can be demonstrated that you knowingly lied about points of material fact, you can face criminal charges.

But he's making statements about MS future strategy that can only reasonably be levied against the company itself.

The logical conclusion of a single executive being responsible is that the moment they leave the company, that company is no longer required to honour those statements. It would make an absolute mockery of the whole judicial process.

I'm not saying that a company might not be stupid enough to try that. They could go exclusive and then claim Phil was a simpleton who didn't know what he was talking about but, and I can't stress this point enough, they would get torn to absolute fucking pieces.

CoD is not going exclusive.
Click to expand...

Phil Spencer did not specify in what way COD would remain multiplat. For example, they could in fact remove the annual releases, but keep Warzone multiplat. That would be analogous to them making TES VI Xbox console exclusive, but keeping ESO multiplatform.

So Phil's answer to that question means effectively nothing.
 
SlimySnake said:
well, lets hope the FTC lawyers bring this up because i dont have a good feeling about this since it came directly from the judge.
Click to expand...
I wish I listed to it instead of reading along. Viewing would be better. Sometimes judges interject questions in frustration when they believe someone is being evasive. Tone and body language can tell a lot.
 
SlimySnake said:
Wish the FTC lawyer had pushed back on this.

Just ask why they cant put language to make it perpetually multiplatform like Notch made them do for Minecraft.
Click to expand...
Is there any proof that Notch made them do this? I keep hearing this but I've never seen any source on it.
 
So what im seeing from this is that Xbox will keep releasing CoD until Playstation 5 life cycle ends.

If Sony had bought Square before the Embracer deal they would have the exclusivity deal on:

  • Final Fantasy
  • Dragon Quest
  • Hitman
  • Tomb Raider
  • Marvel Avengers
  • Just Cause
  • Deus Ex
  • Kingdom Hearts
  • Parasite Eve
  • Nier
I really dont care much over the situation but i have to admit that Microsoft made the best move.
 
Last edited:
Three said:
Is there any proof that Notch made them do this? I keep hearing this but I've never seen any source on it.
Click to expand...
The proof was earlier when Phil Spencer's emails said he wishes Minecraft Dungeons could be exclusive and that he's trying everything he can to work around it.
 
Thirty7ven said:
Regardless of your final point regarding PS5 COD, you cannot legally force a company to stick to what an executive said at a preliminary injunction hearing, specially if he leaves the company. Either way it contemplates PS5 alone and nothing else regarding parity or whatever.

You have to find precedence for that by the way, and if you find precedence, my money is on a measly fine having been paid.

Now can the judge use that for her decision regarding denying FTC's prelim an injunction while forgoing every other point of concern? Absolutely.
Click to expand...
He delivered a prepared statement (likely agonised over by MS lawyers for days).

He gave the economic argument for CoD remaining multi platform, but more importantly, called out the anger Sony gamers would have if it was made exclusive. Detrimental harm to the video game market. You just don't say something like that unless you're prepared to honour it.

A regulator can absolutely hold them to that standard. As I say, if you tried to reverse on that in the EU or UK, you would be hauled over coals within days.

I appreciate the US might be different. If witnesses are allowed to knowingly mislead regulators then it's a pretty wild jurisdiction.
 
adamsapple said:
Click to expand...


You'll have to forgive Benji. He's a bit of a smooth brain who constantly talks about his mental issues. He doesn't understand that the FTC is trying to show Microsoft's foreclosure tactics. Which involve them being permanently in control of the companies making those games. So no one else can negotiate.
 
Draugoth said:
If Sony had bought Square before the Embracer deal they would have the exclusivity deal on:

  • Final Fantasy
  • Dragon Quest
  • Hitman
  • Tomb Raider
  • Just Cause
  • Deus Ex
  • Kingdom Hearts
  • Parasite Eve
  • Nier
Click to expand...
Why are you creating a situation that literally never happened?

Half of this list was already sold off by Square themselves.
 
Draugoth said:
So what im seeing from this is that Xbox will keep releasing CoD until Playstation 5 life cycle ends.

If Sony had bought Square before the Embracer deal they would have the exclusivity deal on:

  • Final Fantasy
  • Dragon Quest
  • Hitman
  • Tomb Raider
  • Marvel Avengers
  • Just Cause
  • Deus Ex
  • Kingdom Hearts
  • Parasite Eve
  • Nier
I really dont care much over the situation but i have to admit that Microsoft made the best move.
Click to expand...

Hitman left with IOInteractive. They own the IP. IOInteractive left well before SE sold off the western devs to Embracer. Just saying.
 
thicc_girls_are_teh_best said:
Phil Spencer did not specify in what way COD would remain multiplat. For example, they could in fact remove the annual releases, but keep Warzone multiplat. That would be analogous to them making TES VI Xbox console exclusive, but keeping ESO multiplatform.

So Phil's answer to that question means effectively nothing.
Click to expand...
This is why they in court legal obligation to not remove or alter content on other platforms if the deal goes through.
 
Ogbert said:
I am a lawyer (UK, though).

When you act as a witness and give evidence under oath, you are obviously required to tell the truth. If it can be demonstrated that you knowingly lied about points of material fact, you can face criminal charges.

But he's making statements about MS future strategy that can only reasonably be levied against the company itself.

The logical conclusion of a single executive being responsible is that the moment they leave the company, that company is no longer required to honour those statements. It would make an absolute mockery of the whole judicial process.

I'm not saying that a company might not be stupid enough to try that. They could go exclusive and then claim Phil was a simpleton who didn't know what he was talking about but, and I can't stress this point enough, they would get torn to absolute fucking pieces.

CoD is not going exclusive.
Click to expand...

I don't trust lawyers. :messenger_winking:

But you are correct. I believe this describes what you are saying.


Rule (30)(b)(6) applies to depositions of both party and nonparty corporations. For nonparty deponent corporations, the rule requires that the noticing party issue a subpoena.

The rule has two basic requirements. First, the notice must describe with "reasonable particularity" the matters for examination.2 Second, once the organization receives the notice, it must educate the designee to testify about information known or reasonably available to the organization.

Once the corporation has designated a deponent on a particular issue, it becomes "bound" by the designee's testimony.3 The testimony may be used "for any purpose" at trial, regardless of whether that individual is available to testify.4 When a corporation designates a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent, that witness is authorized to speak for the organization on the specified matters, unlike other employees deposed in the litigation.5 Furthermore, a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition does not foreclose a deposition by any other procedure under the Federal Rules.
Speak for Yourself: The 30(b)(6) Deposition (americanbar.org)
 
Ogbert said:
He delivered a prepared statement (likely agonised over by MS lawyers for days).

He gave the economic argument for CoD remaining multi platform, but more importantly, called out the anger Sony gamers would have if it was made exclusive. Detrimental harm to the video game market. You just don't say something like that unless you're prepared to honour it.

A regulator can absolutely hold them to that standard. As I say, if you tried to reverse on that in the EU or UK, you would be hauled over coals within days.

I appreciate the US might be different. If witnesses are allowed to knowingly mislead regulators then it's a pretty wild jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

MS have no issue with violating behavioral remedies, paying the (pocket change, to them) fines, and moving on.

They've been guilty of doing this within the past five years in fact, to my knowledge. And regulatory bodies like the EC have an infamous history of wanting to collect those fines, it's easy money for them.
 
Has FTC proved MS could and has incentive to foreclose games? Have they proved that MS will close the merger if not under injunction?
 
Astray said:
Why are you creating a situation that literally never happened?

Half of this list was already sold off by Square themselves.
Click to expand...

Vognerful said:
yeah , i guess he missed this part
Click to expand...

Because Sony could have bought them instead of Bungie when they still held the rights to these IPs, that's what im saying. They already have a strong relation with SE having paying off the exclusivity rights on FF.

FUBARx89 said:
Hitman left with IOInteractive. They own the IP. IOInteractive left well before SE sold off the western devs to Embracer. Just saying.
Click to expand...

My bad.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MS/ABK is advertising games that don't exist for data collection
46
2K
POKEYCLYDE replied
My apologies to Ubisoft, Sony, Activision, EA, MS etc. for making a big deal out of $70 games
2 3 4
156
6K
MDSLKTR replied
Microsoft, Activision Deny Report Regarding Financial Performance
Business Hardware  2 3
131
11K
Jaybe replied
What happened to all the people that were cheering over that MS Activision acquisition?
Drama  5 6 7 8 9
414
18K
GateofD replied
Microsoft has Closed the Activision Blizzard King Deal
22 23 24 25 26
1K
99K
MasterCornholio replied
Top Bottom