Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
splattered
Member
Fine by me. I'll be there arguing with the same energy as I have had here. But what you are saying works both ways. We going to see the same pro-acquisition fervor when its Sony's turn?
By me or the community at large? I have no problem with these acquisitions, i'm an old fart that can afford multiple consoles and i'll game wherever i have to. If you mean all the twitter influencers and journalists then yeah i'm sure you'll see the same behavior from the Sony side of things. Both groups of fans are equally obnoxious when they get riled up.
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
The only difference is that the official xbox community on twitter is actually some sort of sanctioned media presence with financial backing. The sony twitter warriors are just that. Nobody is endorsing them. They don't fit behind massive influencer channels on YT or press outlets.
Historia
Banned
I haven't seen a single journos oppose this deal publicly or licking blue team boot as hard as Tom Warren, Destin, Jez Corden, DMRyan licking green team though.
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
Yep.
It's a huge risk to try and sell off Activision because there are limited buyers in the space that could even afford them. To be honest, they may be forced to sell to only another tech company, or find some kind of merger between two larger publishers (like EA).
Either way, unless the market really takes off over the next year while this plays out, Microsoft would likely need to eat a massive loss on that divestiture.
Aguero9320
Member
I kind of agree with what you say although I'm not anti Microsoft at all personally, but still don't agree it's a good idea to play games (no pun intended) in this area. I mean, these rules need to be defined and I'm not sure how you could even write down what you said officially without getting sued - hundred billion dollar companies of course can be ethical and do worthy deals too… So who decides which hundred billion dollar company is which - ethical or unethical? Better to treat each case the same within a framework IMO.
We can't have appointed, unelected officials making arbitrary decisions on these things…
Much better to have clearly defined and enforced rules around this IMO, set by lawmakers and enforced by the regulators, even if it means a few unpalatable deals are done because they can hire better lawyers…
If the FTC and CMA believe their cases are strong don't bump up against these deadlines - they can make their decisions and have review/appeals (which they would presumably win?) within the deal timeframes (as long as they are reasonable, which they were in this case I'd say) - scheduling proceedings for just after well publicised key milestone dates just looks disingenuous and even makes it look like they don't believe they can win. Because if they believed it they'd surely be motivated to get true validation officially than win on a sneaky time-based technicality. Helps with precedent too…
I don't think they will be able to run out the clock here though, even though they tried, and we'll get a real decision very soon. It seemed clear to me that the judge was motivated to hear the case and rule within the published timeframe, but we'll see. Too hard to predict what that will be even if I'm right though IMO, I suspect the injunction will be denied, but everyone else's guess is as good as mine!
Kilau
Member
Why.. if ABK gets to go through its all a green light... who cares at that point, industry is completely open for business. Clearly theres a large contingent of xbox fans who dont give a F about Consolodation. i dont want Sony to acquire a publisher but MS has left them with no other choice if they go down that route, they cant just sit by
Last edited:
ToadMan
Member
The vast majority of corporations that exist work with regulators - they negotiate and come to an accommodation. That is how it is supposed to work.
They do that because the costs of court battles are expensive and to the majority of companies those court battles are expensive enough to be a deterrent.
Then you have a smaller number of very wealthy companies who are prepared to throw away a few tens of millions on lawyers and hearings because it is inconsequential to them. Its rolling the dice and beating up regulators out of hubris. Throw enough shit and see if anything sticks.
MS could have negotiated in both the UK and US. The UK made it clear they had a problem and divestment is what they wanted but also offered MS a chance to make a meaningful offer that would accommodate them.
MS offered some cloud deals, just one of which has any impact in the UK and is far from sufficient.
In the US, MS has offered nothing of substance at all and just been combative from the beginning - at one stage they said the FTC was unconstitutional and then retracted that claim very quickly.
Since then they've litigated, obstructed and tried to buy a win. The FTC has responded in kind using the resources it has available.
MS is using money because that is it's strength. The regulators are 100% entitled to use whatever means are at their disposal to get the result they believe is best for consumers - time is a valid way to do that when the opponent has resources that MS has and a belligerent attitude to go with it.
Last edited:
DeltaPolarBear
Member
There you go projecting again. Sony makes money from making and selling consoles and games. They don't have to buy publishers because it is more profitable to charge 30% rent with these publishers. Sony wouldn't do this because they are not desperate for relevance. Xbox is falling apart and doing a hail Mary, don't go and say others would do the same, they are not Xbox.
bitbydeath
Member
CMA was listed as a required approver because Xbox needs them, they're it's second biggest market and they have numerous other studios there, including big money maker Minecraft.
It's not something they can ignore.
IFireflyl
Gold Member
I am voting granted. The judge can decide whatever she wants, but the FTC showed probable cause to grant the injunction in my opinion. That isn't to say that the FTC would win in court whether or not the injunction is granted.
DeltaPolarBear
Member
I need you to understand this; the only reason the deal required these 4 major organizations to accept the merger, is because if any of them said no then Activision would be useless to Microsoft. The requirement was put into the contract BY MS and Activision themselves, because both knows the approvals are necessary.
To argue now that UK approval doesn't matter is both dishonest and stupid, and whoever say that is either of low IQ or is trying to deceive people. Microsoft know they need UK approval and they themselves made it clear. Anything else is either lies or words of the insane. And it is interesting how many stupid and/or lying words are coming out of people who own or play on Xbox
POKEYCLYDE
Member
I'm pro-acquisition, if Sony goes for someone I wouldn't be against it. In fact I hope Sony buys Square Enix. I feel SE under Sony would be amazing.
Ar¢tos
Member
What exactly do gamers in general gain with the ATK merger, outside of a general reduction of Activision games budgets because sales will be sacrificed for more GP users?
Varteras
Gold Member
Really, not much. PlayStation gamers will almost certainly have future ABK games outside of CoD removed. Microsoft's deal with Nintendo is a moot point, as Kottick has already publicly stated a desire to get more of their games on the next Nintendo platform.
Warzone, Overwatch, Heroes of the Storm, Hearthstone, StarCraft, Arclight Rumble, and Diablo Immortal are F2P games. The latter two designed as mobile games. StarCraft is an abandoned RTS, which historically don't do well on consoles and have even struggled in the PC space today. Heroes is an abandoned game that never made its way to consoles anyway. Hearthstone also never made it to consoles, has a mobile version, and is easily playable on a very wide range of PCs. World of Warcraft is F2P up to level 20 out of 70 levels and is highly unlikely to ever see the light of day on consoles.
You don't need a sub service to play or try these games out. So you'd get Diablo, Crash Bandicoot, and mainline Call of Duty titles on GamePass. Overwatch 2 and Diablo 4 are already out. You might be talking another 10 years for the next main Diablo to go exclusive, and Overwatch may just continue on as a F2P live service game, with no future sequels. Possibly whatever this Blizzard survival game is, assuming it isn't canceled by now or already locked in for a PlayStation release.
The benefits, across the board, don't really add up. I had to point out to my step-brother, who became really in favor of the deal because, "I'd get Call of Duty for free", that it doesn't make much sense for him. He plays CoD, Warzone, and Fortnite. Pretty much it. Sometimes Valorant on his PC. Three of those are F2P. So he'd be paying $200 a year for GPU to get CoD "for free" instead of just paying $70. It doesn't even make sense for him to have GPU now. He doesn't use it. He got bored of the offerings and too much of his time is spent playing those games I mentioned.
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
100%. To add to this, ABK is moving more and more towards F2P and mobile gaming now. Phil Spencer even said in his internal email that Kottick is making ABK a mobile company.
There is a very strong possibility that future COD games are shipped without a single-player campaign, especially now that Battlefield launched without a campaign. And several of COD's closest competitors now also don't have a campaign: Fortnite, Apex, etc.
The "COD on Game Pass for free" that costs you $204 per year doesn't make much sense when you really think about it.
The benefit is cash flow. Activision is expensive because it costs money to make money, and they make a lot of it. People just aren't thinking like a business would if they seriously think MS would walk from COD $$$.
Varteras
Gold Member
The question was the deal's benefit to consumers. Not Microsoft.
Anothergamer
Neo Member
What is this
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
We were talking about benefits to consumers of ABK content, not benefits for Microsoft.
More specifically, consumer benefits of the acquisition in the context of Game Pass.
Ar¢tos
Member
Even his point of Sony acquiring Square doesn't make much sense. Sony would turn it into another "deeply emotional 90+ MC walking Simulator" and/or GAAS factory line. Gamers are much better with Square being independent, even if they make games mostly for PlayStation (for now, we all know that Square has mood swings).
ToadMan
Member
You're happy paying more for the same content?
As you said - MS isn't giving this money away, they're buying ATVI with the money we will all pay.
And in exchange we don't get anything new out of it.
Just a different splash screen logo and more bills for what we were getting already. Oh and less genuine options of where and how to play than if ATVI remained independent.
Varteras
Gold Member
That's the ultimate reality of these large acquisitions. They're rarely ever to the consumers' benefit as a whole and they spur competitors to make the same moves.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Unknown Soldier
Member
Up to 40% of CoD players actually play only the single player campaign. It varies year to year but ABK has the internal numbers on this and it's unlikely they'll ever stop including a single player campaign with CoD because why would they just throw customers away for no reason like Battlefield did by not having a single player campaign?
Battlefield are the ones who fucked up here, CoD has no reason to imitate Battlefield on fuckups.
Clintizzle
Lord of Edge.
I'd be pretty confident when I say no one who only plays COD would subscribe to GamePass anyway.
The Endgame is content for Microsoft and their usebase. That's the advantage to the consumer.
In one year, GP is getting 1 x AAA racing sim, 1 x AAA RPG and a bunch of AA games. Imagine adding a AAA FPS to that mix as well. $204 looks cheap there.
I get that MS doesn't need to buy ABK to make that happen, but they obviously see other benefits (mobile) from the aquisition.
Dick Jones
Banned
I think the injunction will be denied. There are enough questions on MS posed by the FTC that it should be given the injunction until the court case. However, courts in the US are a different animal.
Dick Jones
Banned
I see Bobby staying on to oversee the transition. There will always be another made up reason to keep Bobby in the industry.Correction: Folks are paying for Bobby Kottick's Sting parties.
Cut to three years later and Bobby is running the Xbox show. Then we'll listen to the sexual assault apologists that emerge to protect team green.
Exactly I'm not sure why so many people on this website are still opposed to this deal, you get a stronger more competitive Xbox and a Sony that will have to start taking some risk's in order to stay on top, like if they feel so threatened by Microsoft owning Call of Duty they could just you know revive they're old classics like Killzone, Resistance,Mag and Socom in order to become competitive in the FPS genre again, also after the ABK deal ( if it's approved which I bet it will be ) the eye's of all regulators in the world will be on Microsoft to make sure they can't a acquire another jaggaurnaut like EA or Take Two, meanwhile no one will be able to complain if Sony starts buying major player's like Square Enix or Konami not after they're biggest competitor bought the largest third party publisher in the world, it's a win win for everyone.
Last edited by a moderator:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Oh for sure. He'll be partying with Sting because he'd be a Microsoft executive then. Also, would have earned $400 million because of this acquisition.
Dick Jones
Banned
Welcome back.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
I really feel for the mods, man. They must be fuckin' tired by now of banning these alts.
Ar¢tos
Member
Last edited:
Virex
Banned
Do you like Phil Collins? I've been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, Duke. Before that, I really didn't understand any of their work. Too artsy, too intellectual. It was on Duke where Phil Collins' presence became more apparent. I think Invisible Touch was the group's undisputed masterpiece. It's an epic meditation on intangibility. At the same time, it deepens and enriches the meaning of the preceding three albums. Listen to the brilliant ensemble playing of Banks, Collins and Rutherford. You can practically hear every nuance of every instrument.
In terms of lyrical craftsmanship, the sheer songwriting, this album hits a new peak of professionalism. Take the lyrics to Land of Confusion. In this song, Phil Collins addresses the problems of abusive political authority. In Too Deep is the most moving pop song of the 1980s, about monogamy and commitment. The song is extremely uplifting. Their lyrics are as positive and affirmative as anything I've heard in rock. Phil Collins' solo career seems to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying, in a narrower way. Especially songs like In the Air Tonight and Against All Odds. But I also think Phil Collins works best within the confines of the group, than as a solo artist, and I stress the word artist. This is Sussudio, a great, great song, a personal favorite.
Dick Jones
Banned
Any opinion on Huey Lewis & The News?
Virex
Banned
I actually do
Their early work was a little too new wave for my tastes, but when Sports came out in '83,I think they really came into their own, commercial and artistically. The whole album has a clear, crisp sound, and a new sheen of consimante professionalism that really gives the songs a big boost. He's been compared to Elvis Costello, but I think Huey has a far much more bitter, cynical sense of humour.
In '87, Huey released Fore, their most accomplished album. I think their undisputed masterpiece is "Hip to be Square", a song so catchy, most people probably don't listen to the lyrics. But they should, because it's not just about the pleasures of conformity, and the importance of trends, it's also a personal statement about the band itself.
Dick Jones
want to go hang out at Dorsia?
Last edited:
laynelane
Member
Banjo64
cumsessed
Doing a great job though
Is there some Inside joke I'm not getting, this is literally the first time I've created a GAF account, only yesterday did I receive an email saying it was approved, the only people who could possibly recognize me here are people that remember my old reddit account where I had the exact same username.
Banjo64
cumsessed
How can you call anyone else an idiot when you've typed all of that as one sentence?
Last edited:
I'm not a native English speaker, sometimes i forget to end sentences, why do you care about my grammar and how is that in anyway an argument against my statement.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Twitter is an absolute goldmine right now 
We are straight up asking God to intervene now
We are straight up asking God to intervene now
Last edited:
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
Microsoft needs ABk just to be competitive?
You're saying, "This will force Sony to bring back old classics like Killzone and Resistance to have a competitive FPS."
If it was that easy then Microsoft wouldn't need Call of Duty because they had Halo, right? lol
Having Sony and Microsoft acquire more major publishers would be bad for the industry. Leave third-party studios third party and allow Sony, Microsoft, AND others to compete.
Microsoft doesn't need ABK to be more competitive. This is just an excuse for the poor leadership within the past 10 years.
Ar¢tos
Member
Where have I heard those words before?
Hmmm....
Banjo64
cumsessed
German I'm guessing.
I care about your grammar because you are calling people idiots.
I wasn't attempting to present an argument against your statement, I was asking you a question.
Dick Jones
Banned
How is Xbox not as popular in non English speaking countries? All the posters here where English isn't their first language love Xbox.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked