Support NeoGAF

[Hero of Spielberg]

So you're saying Woman Judge who happens to be a woman ignores multiple pieces of evidence and testimony in favor of monopolistic mega-corp...


Someone check her bank account(s)

Good to see we've swung to full blown conspiracy mode in this thread now

 

[Chiggs]

This was not a turn of events I was expecting but if this holds, then Lina Khan is one of the biggest morons the FTC has ever seen. An ideological bonehead who has lost to nearly everyone she has gone up against. She has no clue on how to win and all she has are booksmarts.

Here's CNBC dunking on her:

Microsoft-Activision ruling highlights Lina Khan's struggles to fight tech

The FTC's challenge of the $68.7 billion deal between Microsoft and Activision has been one of its biggest swings under Chair Khan, but it faces a major hurdle.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Kilau]

So you're saying Woman Judge who happens to be a woman ignores multiple pieces of evidence and testimony in favor of monopolistic mega-corp...


Someone check her bank account(s)

Somone check to see if her son has been leaving bags of coke around the MS offices.

 

[Danknugz]

Like seriously just less then a week after all findings submitted, 3 days instead of 5 days delay.

There is no precedent ever like this in court. This is not an emergency issue. This is oligarchy nightmare.

what happened, is it approved? not about to search through literally 1000 pages

oh shit i just googled it. and wow at the responses here.

 

[mayham2199]

Been posted about this?

Yes this was posted. There was another article saying they only gave the remedy to CMA not that it was agreed upon. So no one really knows what's happening with that. I think one way or the other this deal is either going to be closed or dead on Monday.

 

[aliadiere25]

I see the people who acted like everyone who said this would be denied and the deal eventually go through were wrong and in for a rude awakening and yadda yadda, are now unable to accept it was they that actually were wrong in the end.

I didn't think it would, but I'm not surprised that it has. The judge was very biased. Also, money talks.

She really thinks this is good for future gamers, yet she's taking it away from millions of users if Xbox makes their games exclusive, which I think they will do... despite what lying Phil states. I also believe games that weren't exclusive before should be exclusive after the fact. And as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, it's going to put plenty of people out of work.

What Phil has to worry about if Apple and Amazon get into the gaming market. They have far more money, and they will have far more support. By trying to buy their way ahead of Sony and Nintendo, they basically opened the door for future companies to buy whatever they want without restrictions. Those companies can just make the argument and say, "well, you let Microsoft spend 78 billion on 2 companies."

One more thing, I wonder what Microsoft's excuse will be if they still can't catch up to Nintendo and Sony. I guess they'll just buy EA for like 50 billion and Take-Two for 55 billion. I guess that always helps.

 

[Wingnut]

So you're saying Woman Judge who happens to be a woman ignores multiple pieces of evidence and testimony in favor of monopolistic mega-corp...


Someone check her bank account(s)

You mean the woman judge which was chosen by the ftc and not Microsoft?

 

[Kvally]

Microsoft never said to shareholders that GamePass is profitable.

They did.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Yes this was posted. There was another article saying they only gave the remedy to CMA not that it was agreed upon. So no one really knows what's happening with that. I think one way or the other this deal is either going to be closed or dead on Monday.

The fact that the CMA are now coming to the table is quite a change in rhetoric from their previous'we go to war' attitude. They'll seek to get sone concessions in time for the deal to close.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

You mean the woman judge which was chosen by the ftc and not Microsoft?

Didn't you know? They were in on it too! This goes all the way to the top

 

[NickFire]

The fact that the CMA are now coming to the table is quite a change in rhetoric from their previous'we go to war' attitude. They'll seek to get sone concessions in time for the deal to close.

Hold on - was that CMA rhetoric or MS rhetoric?

It's been a while, but I don't recall CMA tweeting about having tried to play nice.

 

[Gambit2483]

You mean the woman judge which was chosen by the ftc and not Microsoft?

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Hold on - was that CMA rhetoric or MS rhetoric?

It's been a while, but I don't recall CMA tweeting about having tried to play nice.

After the EU decision they doubled down then again in parliamentary questioning … there was no indication of anything but block from the CMA until now

 

[NickFire]

After the EU decision they doubled down then again in parliamentary questioning … there was no indication of anything but block from the CMA until now

I thought you were talking about something more specific.

 

[ChiefDada]

Hence my confusion.

This ruling (specifically the judge's reasoning)... This thread...

Oh, and I guess I gave her too much credit here:

Fair contention. I think it's safe to assume she has a relatively deep knowledge of antitrust law compared to overwhelming majority of the population. Which means she understands Section 7 of the Clayton Act which focuses specifically on mergers that have the potential to lessen competition, and makes no reference to the end consumer. This is the same regulation that the FTC is accusing Microsoft of violating. Therefore, it would be very weird for her to tell the FTC to stop talking about Sony (the competition) and focus on the end consumer. In fact, the FTC attorneys would be doing a shit job if that was actually their strategy to primarily lean on potential impact to the end consumer. The initiated parties (FTC, Microsoft lawyers, judge) already come in with an understanding of the FTC's core purpose, the goals of antitrust laws, and why they ultimately exists. The public isn't familiar with any of it (just check the twitter discourse). Her rebuttal only makes sense it she understands the higher than usual public interest in the case, she is aware that the proceedings are being publicly broadcasted, and she is aware of the ignorance of the public who won't be bothered to research law fundamentals, specifics of the case, regulatory citings, accusations, etc.

 

[GHG]

Unless we are talking about things with national security implications, I don't think we should be requiring approvals from political appointees before someone can sell their intellectual property. Just my two cents.

Can't say I agree with this stance. That's exactly how companies become too big and too powerful. Ultimately it comes down to whether or not you're happy for corporations to rule the world or not.

Reality is there is no argument that stacks up in this case. MS are too big, it will hurt Sony and the cloud just weren't good enough reasons to block the deal …

It's been proven that there are several arguments that do stack up though, hence for a very long time in this process Microsoft have been made to sweat. The biggest problem in the case of the FTC though was the fact that they didn't have anyone competent enough to appropriately outline why this deal is in need of a further look. I emphasised that because that's exactly what the PI is about and it's like they lost track of that somewhere along the line during the court process.

 

[mayham2199]

The fact that the CMA are now coming to the table is quite a change in rhetoric from their previous'we go to war' attitude. They'll seek to get sone concessions in time for the deal to close.

Agreed I'm thinking this gets closed.

The only thing is I don't know who wanted this meeting and why. For instance. Did MS come to the CMA and request a meeting to get all this dealt with because they know they can't get the contract extended past the 18th? It doesn't seem clear who requested the meeting. Everyone is just assuming the CMA folded and wanted a meeting with MS but that's not what was said. It seems to all intentionally be very vague from both sides. It's very possible that once MS realized that they couldn't get Bobby\Activision to extend the date they reached out to the CMA to try and negotiate something before it's to late.

The CMA in this position would be willing to accept the meeting because it only benefits them. They can still reject all remedies (if they don't agree with them) and now the the trial has been paused it's possible they can get dates moved and more time to build their case if it goes to the CAT.

All speculation though like I said originally I think this will be approved I just don't know what the CMA is looking to get out of it. I think anything that doesn't involve divestiture would be a failure for the CMA.

 

[thebigmanjosh]

Hold on - was that CMA rhetoric or MS rhetoric?

It's been a while, but I don't recall CMA tweeting about having tried to play nice.

Everything we've seen is via MS statements or CNBC, so MS rhetoric despite the way it's been presented.

The only thing the CMA has said is this: "We're ready to consider any proposals from Microsoft to restructure the transaction in a way that would address the concerns set out in our Final Report."

 

[Historia]

Can't say I agree with this stance. That's exactly how companies become too big and too powerful. Ultimately it comes down to whether or not you're happy for corporations to rule the world or not.



It's been proven that there are several arguments that do stack up though, hence for a very long time in this process Microsoft have been made to sweat. The biggest problem in the case of the FTC though was the fact that they didn't have anyone competent enough to appropriately outline why this deal is in need of a further look. I emphasised that because that's exactly what the PI is about and it's like they lost track of that somewhere along the line during the court process.

That's this US administration in a nutshell. Talk big, put diversity on forefront. But their execution has been dogshit all fronts. Cannot think of a single branch without failures.

 

[GHG]

Agreed I'm thinking this gets closed.

The only thing is I don't know who wanted this meeting and why. For instance. Did MS come to the CMA and request a meeting to get all this dealt with because they know they can't get the contract extended past the 18th? It doesn't seem clear who requested the meeting. Everyone is just assuming the CMA folded and wanted a meeting with MS but that's not what was said. It seems to all intentionally be very vague from both sides. It's very possible that once MS realized that they couldn't get Bobby\Activision to extend the date they reached out to the CMA to try and negotiate something before it's to late.

The CMA in this position would be willing to accept the meeting because it only benefits them. They can still reject all remedies (if they don't agree with them) and now the the trial has been paused it's possible they can get dates moved and more time to build their case if it goes to the CAT.

All speculation though like I said originally I think this will be approved I just don't know what the CMA is looking to get out of it. I think anything that doesn't involve divestiture would be a failure for the CMA.

There are only 2 possible scenarios now.

Either they come to some sort of an agreement with the CMA, or they close over the CMA's head and deal with the consequences later.

 

[Blendernaut]

I really cant understand how can people think this will somehow be good for gamers and the gaming industry? Apart from "winning" a battle between fanatics , is there any true reason why this could be positive in some way? Cant see it.

Please somebody explain to me

 

[mckmas8808]

Wow, what a soft headline in contrast.

One says "Anti-consumer"

The other,

"some concerns"

Do you even parse language, bro?


Where is the "Anti-consumer narrative"?

Those headlines are soft in comparison. We didn't say no criticism, but hard language perpetuating The Narrative™, nah.

I mean it's been 3 years worth of the media calling Sony anti-consumer too.

 

[In Cold Blood]

Wow so many people back in this thread that haven't been since the CMA block. Welcome back!

#wrestlingtagteam.gif

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Agreed I'm thinking this gets closed.

The only thing is I don't know who wanted this meeting and why. For instance. Did MS come to the CMA and request a meeting to get all this dealt with because they know they can't get the contract extended past the 18th? It doesn't seem clear who requested the meeting. Everyone is just assuming the CMA folded and wanted a meeting with MS but that's not what was said. It seems to all intentionally be very vague from both sides. It's very possible that once MS realized that they couldn't get Bobby\Activision to extend the date they reached out to the CMA to try and negotiate something before it's to late.

The CMA in this position would be willing to accept the meeting because it only benefits them. They can still reject all remedies (if they don't agree with them) and now the the trial has been paused it's possible they can get dates moved and more time to build their case if it goes to the CAT.

All speculation though like I said originally I think this will be approved I just don't know what the CMA is looking to get out of it. I think anything that doesn't involve divestiture would be a failure for the CMA.

I think they're already facing a lot of political and business scrutiny and now they're alone in the fight (so to speak) they're probably looking to be pragmatic and take a win. Call would have come from MS as soon as judgment came down and CMA said ok let's see what we can figure out.

 

[Astray]

I think there's a lot of cherrypicking going on here but this is worth reading imo.

 

[SoullessApples]

Someone drop me TL;DR

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

It's been proven that there are several arguments that do stack up though, hence for a very long time in this process Microsoft have been made to sweat. The biggest problem in the case of the FTC though was the fact that they didn't have anyone competent enough to appropriately outline why this deal is in need of a further look. I emphasised that because that's exactly what the PI is about and it's like they lost track of that somewhere along the line during the court process.

It hasn't been proven though, that's the point. When it's come up against scrutiny the arguments haven't stood up.

 

[Dick Jones]

I really cant understand how can people think this will somehow be good for gamers and the gaming industry? Apart from "winning" a battle between fanatics , is there any true reason why this could be positive in some way? Cant see it.

Please somebody explain to me

Outside Microsoft, it's a huge win for Amazon, Apple and Tencent. Free reign to consolidate the market. This may likely bite MS on the arse, opening this door.

 

[mayham2199]

There are only 2 possible scenarios now.

Either they come to some sort of an agreement with the CMA, or they close over the CMA's head and deal with the consequences later.

Yep this is why I think it's possible that MS is the one who was pushing for this. I think they want to try and close this deal without closing over the CMA. If they close over the CMA I think they lose period. It will be spitting in the face of the CAT and CMA and then they have to go in front of both and try to argue their case it wont look good at all.

 

[LoveCake]

Bad day for gamers if this deal gets done

 

[mayham2199]

I think they're already facing a lot of political and business scrutiny and now they're alone in the fight (so to speak) they're probably looking to be pragmatic and take a win. Call would have come from MS as soon as judgment came down and CMA said ok let's see what we can figure out.

Sure but they were facing the same thing with Giphy\Meta and they still proceeded to do what they wanted.

 

[In Cold Blood]

There's a lot more to what Sony is doing. The $5 billion you're likely referring to was just the remaining budget from their $18 billion 3-year plan. Which was set to end this coming March. Things have changed. Sony is now looking into spinning off their financial arm over the next couple years. It's speculated that could give them between 8 to 10 billion dollars more.

This slims their market diversity down. Their intention is to focus more on entertainment and image sensor investments. Also, not operating a bank means they don't have to worry about banking regulations. They currently have billions, possibly tens of billions, tied up in banking reserves that they're required to have. Future cash flow won't be tied up in that.

This is on top of the current $14.4 billion in cash they have. Which could continue to go up, as it has since last September. Of course, this doesn't get into stock swaps to reduce paying in full cash or simply getting loans to help finance a large investment.

Removing their banking division really cannot be overstated for how much that would change things. That will leave SIE as the largest revenue generator for the company by a large margin. With video games as the largest growth vector for the company and fueling their entertainment arm overall. Sony has stated they're very aware of the industry consolidation and they won't sit idle. Expect them to make big moves within the next few years. Regardless of how the ABK deal shakes out.

In Cold Blood Did I say something wrong here? Or do you just not like the idea that Sony probably isn't sitting still?

Sony won't sit still, but there is layers.
People thinking that Sony is going to suddenly spend 20% of their entire market cap on game company aquisitions is not reality.

 

[zapper]

Agreed I'm thinking this gets closed.

The only thing is I don't know who wanted this meeting and why. For instance. Did MS come to the CMA and request a meeting to get all this dealt with because they know they can't get the contract extended past the 18th? It doesn't seem clear who requested the meeting. Everyone is just assuming the CMA folded and wanted a meeting with MS but that's not what was said. It seems to all intentionally be very vague from both sides. It's very possible that once MS realized that they couldn't get Bobby\Activision to extend the date they reached out to the CMA to try and negotiate something before it's to late.

The CMA in this position would be willing to accept the meeting because it only benefits them. They can still reject all remedies (if they don't agree with them) and now the the trial has been paused it's possible they can get dates moved and more time to build their case if it goes to the CAT.

All speculation though like I said originally I think this will be approved I just don't know what the CMA is looking to get out of it. I think anything that doesn't involve divestiture would be a failure for the CMA.

"I think anything that doesn't involve divestiture would be a failure for the CMA."
correct, since an important divestment was the request after phase 2 to which ms replied "fuck you".

the meeting they had we do not know for sure how it happened but we know that previously the cma requested to move the case from the end of July to September, after having made a miserable figure in June and today it turned out that because of that meeting The ftc requested a preliminary injunction which was denied. so, it is plausible that the cma has dropped his pants and has accepted very mild remedies to avoid ms's lawyers, to assume otherwise is an act of faith

 

[GHG]

It hasn't been proven though, that's the point. When it's come up against scrutiny the arguments haven't stood up.

And who exactly has scrutinised anything? A judge who flat out admitted she had no industry knowledge on the case she was about to rule on?

Is that the benchmark now?

Whenever subject matter experts have taken a look at this it's resulted in it being blocked or at the very least remedies being sought.

 

[mckmas8808]

Well at least you understood what I meant this time! it's cool.


That's just my view. I can't claim to know MS motivations for what they buy I can only take a guess like everybody else and that's just my theory. Bethesda are close to MS, always have been. Aside from seeing the value in making their games exclusive to Xbox I think those Sony deals had something to do with it.


If you feel otherwise just say your reasons why…. . I'll entertain other theories. It remakes for better and more interesting reading than "nah, your crazy" differing points of view are just that… no need get emotional about it



What's your theory on why they bought Bethesda then?

Matt Booty has already said why in his emails to his co-workers.

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/matt-booty-we-are-in-a-unique-position-to-spend-sony-out-of-business.1658219/

It's that simple. Nothing more, nothing less.

That's this US administration in a nutshell. Talk big, put diversity on forefront. But their execution has been dogshit all fronts. Cannot think of a single branch without failures.

Why are you blaming diversity here? What does that have to do with anything?

 

[fred420170]

Damn, the CMA and MS already made a deal according to CNBC about 5 minutes ago.. Deal is closing.

 

[Historia]

And who exactly has scrutinised anything? A judge who flat out admitted she had no industry knowledge on the case she was about to rule on?

Is that the benchmark now?

It's just a video game, does it matters that much

Absolute ignorance though.

 

[Hayabusabruh]

So it's official? Microsoft owns Activision?

 

[adamsapple]

The fact that spencer talked about that Minecraft dungeon should be exclusive but they didn't manage to legally get there.

How do we know that wasn't purely a financial cost-benefit decision?

You'd think if there was such a contract, it would have been mentioned at least one in the many emails and document that leaked and many of which got their own dedicated news articles and topics.

But absolutely nothing on that front.

Citation needed. I keep hearing Xbox fans repeat this, but I have not seen a single news article. If I missed it, citation please.

Microsoft wanted to go to District of Colombia, FTC wanted to go to Northern California where the same court and judge was already overseeing the Gamers vs Microsoft lawsuit.

So it was FTCs ask to stay in the same place where the same judge was already working on a related case.

 

[fred420170]

So it's official? Microsoft owns Activision?

pretty much.

 

[Sleepwalker]

Been posted about this?

It's probably a small divestiture of the same kind as the one I just made in the toilet.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Finally sanity has prevailed.
The CMA is shitting itself, and the deal will close.
Any remedies that MS come up with for the CMA will mirror the EU deal. Any gives by MS will only be around cloud, as that was what the CMA blocked it on.

COD will stay multiplat forever. MS wants that money, and there is no way they backtrack on that after everything they have been through.

All other Activision games will most likely be Xbox exclusives, including the new Rumoured Infinity Ward IP..

COD will be in GP day and date, and you better believe that subs will increase as will sales of Xbox.

Microsoft won't try to buy another massive publisher like T2, Ubi, EA, Embracer etc.
Any futher aquisitions will be smaller studios like Certain Affinity, Asobo etc.

They may also buy a Japanese publisher like Square, Capcom or Sega.

This is great news for gaming. It shows MS is all in. Rumours of them getting out of gaming can now fuck off for good.

The meme "xbox has no games" will forever go on the scrapheap.

Sony will continue to build up their first party studio's, which is excellent news for PlayStation players. Hopefully they won't be all GAAS games.

Sony won't buy a major publisher like T2, EA etc, as they don't have the money, and it would never go through the regulators as we have seen.

A great day for gaming.

I think you are delusional and just buying into the narrative that Microsoft are in control - after a foregone conclusion of a judge not applying the law to side with the FTC in the US - and now think that smoke and mirrors show applies in the UK too. It doesn't, and the only reason the CMA will have agreed to this negotiation is because Microsoft will have gone cap in hand to avoid the block and lose their shareholders $3b.

Despite Microsoft acting like idiot children with the CMA and PR lobbying with our press, the CMA are above all that, and will still attempt to help Microsoft avoid the deal collapsing and costing them money. The major difference will be what the CMA consider "the deal" and what Microsoft considers "the deal".

CNBC have already implied that Microsoft have offered a divestment, as a structural remedy. The CMA wanted all of Activision divested originally IIRC, so we can assume if a solution comes, "the deal" is being carved up at the CMA's behest, and not the other way around.

It is really now a decision of how much Microsoft are prepared to concede - in the areas the CMA can't legally budge on and defend their work, too - to avoid losing $3b for nothing and having had all their laundry in public for 18months.

The negotiation is a sign the deal is dead on the 18th of July if an impasse isn't reached, because litigating beyond that date had no benefit to Microsoft - otherwise they would have "fought and won!" as the narrative has been.

 

[aliadiere25]

I really cant understand how can people think this will somehow be good for gamers and the gaming industry? Apart from "winning" a battle between fanatics , is there any true reason why this could be positive in some way? Cant see it.

Please somebody explain to me

It won't. It will mean more exclusives, game prices and monthly subscriptions going up an awful lot, and it also means future gaming companies doing exactly what Microsoft just did. It probably means Sony and Nintendo will make more of their games exclusive. Nobody believes Phil when he says those games won't be exclusive.

 

[splattered]

I think there's a lot of cherrypicking going on here but this is worth reading imo.

Why do people keep pointing out the Biden appointee part? I thought it was largely democrats that were against this deal and the republicans wanted to see it go through because Japan? Or maybe not... can't keep up.

 

[chrizzz09]

They did.

Bro, please stop with spreading this fake news. Go look up ANY of Microsofts official quarterly earnings reports. They NEVER mentioned the profitability of GamePass, nor did they EVER stated to shareholders that GamePass is being profitable.

MS and Phil can tell the media whatever the hell they want, to shareholders not so much.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

And who exactly has scrutinised anything? A judge who flat out admitted she had no industry knowledge on the case she was about to rule on?

Is that the benchmark now?

Whenever subject matter experts have taken a look at this it's resulted in it being blocked or at the very least remedies being sought.

Just about every other regulator in the world has also scrutinised it and found no reason to block.

 

[Godot25]

Well. There would not be any renegotiations necessary. Clearly.

Few meltdowns here and there. Few threats to quit gaming all together and then we will find out that nothing really changed...

 

[Astray]

Why do people keep pointing out the Biden appointee part? I thought it was largely democrats that were against this deal and the republicans wanted to see it go through because Japan? Or maybe not... can't keep up

I actually noticed the same and I'm unsure as to why.

Maybe some think that Biden admin is failing in effecting judicial change through its judicial picks? I personally haven't the slightest clue and welcome being corrected tho.

 

[ToadMan]

Agreed I'm thinking this gets closed.

The only thing is I don't know who wanted this meeting and why. For instance. Did MS come to the CMA and request a meeting to get all this dealt with because they know they can't get the contract extended past the 18th?

I know. This is the most irritating thing to me - I wanted to see how this played out on July 19. That could've been some juicy drama indeed

It doesn't seem clear who requested the meeting. Everyone is just assuming the CMA folded and wanted a meeting with MS but that's not what was said. It seems to all intentionally be very vague from both sides. It's very possible that once MS realized that they couldn't get Bobby\Activision to extend the date they reached out to the CMA to try and negotiate something before it's to late.

The CMA in this position would be willing to accept the meeting because it only benefits them. They can still reject all remedies (if they don't agree with them) and now the the trial has been paused it's possible they can get dates moved and more time to build their case if it goes to the CAT.

All speculation though like I said originally I think this will be approved I just don't know what the CMA is looking to get out of it. I think anything that doesn't involve divestiture would be a failure for the CMA.

To be honest, having seen how this has played out over the last 7 months or so - people interpreting the legalities, working out the meanings of contracts and trying to deduce the motivations of the various players. A lot of effort expended trying determine the connotations and ramifications of each step and decision…

What this last 6 hours or so seem to show, is that was all a waste of time, it's largely all just a roll of the dice. There's no 4D chess or grand scheme - it's basically headless chickens and oppostunism backed by a lot of cash.

They'd have been better off putting a poll up on a website 12 months ago and letting anyone who had ever played an ABK game vote on whether this acquisition was ok.

If nothing else we'd have probably got MS to give away a lot of free stuff to us.

 

[DeepEnigma]

How do we know that wasn't purely a financial cost-benefit decision?

You'd think if there was such a contract, it would have been mentioned at least one in the many emails and document that leaked and many of which got their own dedicated news articles and topics.

But absolutely nothing on that front.

Microsoft wanted to go to District of Colombia, FTC wanted to go to Northern California where the same court and judge was already overseeing the Gamers vs Microsoft lawsuit.

So it was FTCs ask to stay in the same place where the same judge was already working on a related case.

There are many federal judges in that area. The "chose her" while the other didn't "want her" seems like a stretch.