Support NeoGAF

[RoadHazard]

Hey according to some on Gaf, Activision and Blizzard have been shit for decades now. So MS buying a publisher that aint shit . ;D.

That being said, ND were a successful studio well before they got bought in 2001.
Insomniac got bought out in 2019 for 229 Million. Not exactly chump change either. The Gaming industry has increased a lot since then in terms of market ceiling. Paying 79billion for a publisher and several studios is actually a good deal in the long run.

ND were successful, but not TLOU successful. Or COD successful.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

MS noted 4 regulatory agencies that mattered. The rest of the world could say yay or nay and nobody would have cared.

Of the 4, half blocked the deal, one required remedies and the one no condition approval being China means very little.

But hey, a judge denied a PI so that means the deal was always great for everyone.

And half of the half that blocked it fumbled the ball on the kickoff of the legal part of the process and the other half is now in talks to settle the game before the next play. Hardly reeks of confidence in their legal position

 

[Varteras]

Hey according to some on Gaf, Activision and Blizzard have been shit for decades now. So MS buying a publisher that aint shit . ;D.

That being said, ND were a successful studio well before they got bought in 2001.
Insomniac got bought out in 2019 for 229 Million. Not exactly chump change either. The Gaming industry has increased a lot since then in terms of market ceiling. Paying 79billion for a publisher and several studios is actually a good deal in the long run.

Naughty Dog wasn't really successful until Crash Bandicoot. Which Sony published right up until they bought them. In other words, ND got good on Sony's dime.

Insomniac was bought after many, many years of Sony funding exclusives with them. Then they went multiplat, didn't do so hot, and went back to Sony. Who offered them a nice wad after Xbox went on a buying spree and surpassed Sony, again, in studio count.

Half of the studios Sony ever bought were in the 26 years prior to Insomniac. None of them were big deals or long running multiplatform studios where being bought was some loss to the others. The other half happened over the last 4 years. All but one of them over the last two years.

Bungie is truly the only time, thus far, where Sony snagged ownership over a big multiplatform company that would have sent shockwaves had they made their games exclusive.

 

[ChiefDada]

I'm glad "console warrior" is all you took from that. Cool.

As someone who is employed by a company that went through a merger where the FTC was heavily involved, I think I might have somewhat of an understanding. Also, concerning your bolded, the FTC claimed their intent to block the merger, what, a year ago and waited to the very last second to try and stall with an injunction. Listening to them try and plead their case in one of the biggest tech mergers to date was downright shameful on their part. They seemed very much unprepared, so in that regard, you think that another judge is going to grant an appeal based on flimsy evidence of the judge's ignorance and that the FTC is ready to plead their weak case again if an appeal is granted?

Where do I say "console warrior"? Also, did you not see me agree with your points in my first sentence? Do you at least agree that the judge's misquote of the regulation standard was incorrect? Both the FTC putting on an awful performance and the Judge misquoting applicable standards can be true at the same time. Did I ever state that I'm in favor of or support an appeal, or are you projecting? For the record, if an appeal is requested, yes I do believe they will win if they challenge the basis of Judge Corley's decision.

 

[graywolf323]

Hoeg sure was quick to get a video out for this news

 

[FalsettoVibe]

Supposedly, the existing marketing deal with Sony for CoD ends in 2024? So the earliest CoD can go Xbox exclusive in 2025?

That seems like what's going to happen now. Let's find out in 2 years if anyone who was here in this thread today still remembers then that MS "promised" CoD would not go exclusive in court proceedings to get the acquisition over the finish line.

It's not going exclusive. But it will be on GP, which is almost as good as exclusive. It won't even be exclusive at the beginning of next gen. But the fact that it will be on GP and be the definitive version due to Sony not providing PS6 information to MS effectively makes it exclusive.

 

[Kilau]

And half of the half that blocked it fumbled the ball on the kickoff of the legal part of the process and the other half is now in talks to settle the game before the next play. Hardly reeks of confidence in their legal position

Yep, FTC bungled what was probably unwinnable for them anyway and the CMA caved when they had no backup. Doesn't change the fact that half the regulators that mattered blocked it and 75% had issues.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Yep, FTC bungled what was probably unwinnable for them anyway and the CMA caved when they had no backup. Doesn't change the fact that half the regulators that mattered blocked it and 75% had issues.

It matters when they can't back up why they blocked it. It means that the reasons they blocked it were not the reasons they put forward

 

[Corndog]

So when does this finalize and when can I expect cod's and blizzard titles on gp ?

I think PlayStation has advertising right this year. So maybe not until next year.

 

[Astray]

The FTC's position (which the judge admittedly obliged to for the sake of their case) was that Sony was Microsoft's sole competitor in the high-end console market. The regulation they are citing in support of their position (Clayton Act) focuses on mergers' potential effects on competition; whether or not competition MAY be substantially lessened. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to not focus on Sony with their legal arguments.

I have no problem with the judge's decision, I have no problem with her son being a Microsoft employee, I have no issue with her political affiliation, etc. It is her reasoning that is very bizarre and runs counter to the regulation in question. She literally misquoted the most consequential portion of the legal standard, and elevated the threshold higher than what the regulation requires.

From what I've gathered, this is basically the FTC's core appeal argument in a nutshell.

No idea if it actually works though.

 

[tryDEATH]

It's not going exclusive. But it will be on GP, which is almost as good as exclusive. It won't even be exclusive at the beginning of next gen. But the fact that it will be on GP and be the definitive version due to Sony not providing PS6 information to MS effectively makes it exclusive.

I can see there being a delay release on PS as well. Xbox/GP would get the game at least 2 weeks to a month earlier to really crank up the FOMO while offering an insane value through GP, it would be an extremly effective tactic from MS/Xbox to leech users off PS.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Hoeg sure was quick to get a video out for this news

i am sure is frustrating for him.
but after listening to the video i think he is the only voice of reason among all the bullshiters experts who act like superior beings.

 

[Kilau]

It matters when they can't back up why they blocked it. It means that the reasons they blocked it were not the reasons they put forward

You don't know that and you are moving the goalposts. This was about you saying everyone else in the world looked at it and cleared it and I pointed out that half those that mattered looked at it and blocked it. Whether the FTC could win their fight or the CMA could stand under pressure is moot to the original point.

 

[DrFigs]

i am sure is frustrating for him.
but after listening to the video i think he is the only voice of reason among all the bullshiters experts who act like superior beings.

Why do you think that is?

 

[havoc00]

Xbros how we celebrating tonight?

 

[ZehDon]

Oh boy, just got caught up.

And man, sometimes I hate being right all the time:

... My honest expectation is ... magically, the CMA change their minds and now everything is OK and the deal closes. Not because everything actually is OK, but because the CMA got fucking leaned on behind the scenes by members of the British Government, who act more like the corporate-sponsored American Government each year. Trillion dollar corporations have a tendency to get their way, barring a few notable exceptions. Is this one of those exceptions? Who knows, but I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up going Microsoft's way at the 11th hour against all odds.

As an Xbox owner: yay, Game Pass is all but certainly going to get better, that'll save me a lot of money at a time when I can't play a lot of games due to finances. However, as a fan of a functioning legal system with independent regulators keeping the Government and Corporations in check: this more-than-a-little fucking sucks in my eyes. While I do think the CMA's cloud argument was flimsy, it was still their decision, and it should've held because that's the system. Microsoft should've gone to CAT and argued their case because that's the system. Pausing the due process because Microsoft decided it wanted to negotiate after the CMA had made its decision, and because the FTC just fumbled another case, feels... kinda scummy to me. Obviously it's all above-board, but it kinda rubs me the wrong way.

 

[Jigsaah]

You're braindead with that argument that have been parroted a million times

Both companies are going to use what they have to stamp out one another.

It's been this way for YEARS.

Anybody who says one company does it over the other is clearly delusional.

Every damn year we've discussed what Microsoft or Sony has coming out in first, second and third party exclusives and even smaller deals like timed exclusives and exclusive content.

I wasn't aware of Psygnosis back in the Nintendo and Sega era....but at that time, it seems Sony was where Microsoft is now, albeit with a much smaller warchest to pull from.

Psygnosis was 40% of the gaming output back then? That's kinda insane considering Sony was BRAND NEW to the market at that time.

They had games like Metal Gear, Ridge Racer, Battle Arena Toshinden, Tekken 1, Gran Turismo. I mean these are not home grown games at the time. They purchased exclusivity for them.

It wasn't until the Insomniac and Naughty Dog came along that they started doing the "organic" thing.

To be fair though, Microsoft had it's chance. Unlike Sony, they tried and failed (to usurp Sony and Nintendo). Both with acquiring studios in OG Xbox period and then shuttering many of them and their home grown business falling apart in the Xbox One era.

But who says they only get that one chance? If they haven't caved in and still want to compete and still have the resources? Given that this evidence shows that Sony was not always organic. I'm not sure there's a unwritten rule on this anymore.

Let them compete.

It certainly doesn't seem like it's in Sony's favor given the vast difference in resources between the two companies. However, Sony still has the best talent, the best first party games. They will still be able to make those. They will need to adjust and pivot though and this means more possibilities, not less.

It's time for Sony to stop resting on it's laurels and get back there releasing those bangers.

 

[SlimySnake]

A bet placed 10 minutes before the announcement

"Could just be lucky timing"

Options Action: Activision trader wins big on trade placed before FTC injunction denial — CNBC

Mike Khouw, Optimize Advisors president, joins CNBC’s Melissa Lee and the Options Action traders on Activison's bid trading day.

stocks.apple.com

We found the judge's other son.

 

[Solidus_T]

I called it the moment they happened.

Corruption from top to bottom, the American way. Perhaps the Judge and even some of the FTC laywers got a kickback as well.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Why do you think that is?

Well, I was following this case through his reporting and analysis for two reasons. First, he is a merger and acquisition lawyer, and second, his videos were the only ones in which he went through the documents and explained them bit by bit.

To me, this acquisition was sealed after watching one of his videos regarding the Brazilian documentation.

Too bad the stroke happened because the void (at least for the public) was filled with garbage reporting.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

Post number 69,420.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Right. Even the CMA dropped that weak shit and just focused on the cloud (which I thought was weak shit too, but that's just my opinion). For the FTC to continue the argument that the merger would hurt Sony's bottom line and not argue for consumers (All consumers, not just gamers that just own a Playstation) was probably one of the dumbest things the FTC could've done. If they would've joined with the CMA and focused more on cloud gaming, MAYBE a unified front had a chance.

I agree that the FTC focusing on how the deal hurt Sony was a mistake, but them tying that to how it'd affect Sony's customers would NOT have been a mistake. Because the truth is, it's impossible to make an argument how any deal hurts all customers without getting into hypotheticals, but it's a lot easier to say that "all customers" would mean "any" customers being affected, as well. I.e if a subset of customers are negatively affected, then that hurts all customers within the market, at least conceptually.

That's how the FTC should have tied in the console concerns IMO; showing clearly how Sony customers would be affected, and showing how those customers "just having" Microsoft Xbox or PC as options would not address that because Xbox or PC would not be getting those customers through putting out a better competitive product. They'd only be getting them because a direct competitor bought that content off the market and then foreclosed it on another direct competitor, which in turn hurt the customer base of that affected competitor.

And the difference between MS doing that with ABK content versus, say, Sony doing that with Square-Enix, is that Sony & Square-Enix would make their decision on selective exclusivity based on analyzing market data and past sales trends on competitor platforms creating a favorable environment for that exclusivity between Sony & SE, not to mention it is partial (or in other cases, temporary) foreclosure of selective content, made on a decision backed by data showing the vast majority of consumers of that content were on PS anyway and the exclusivity could create better quality of the content for those customers.

Microsoft can't claim any of that with ABK. The acquisition is a permanent foreclosure of partial or majority content assets, and not based on market data showing the majority of those customers were already on Xbox platforms or MS-owned PC and mobile storefronts. Meaning, MS have no way of proving that the transfer of control & distribution of that content is a net benefit for the majority of customers where they already are, and they certainly don't have a history of showing their own exclusivity arrangements result in better content for their own customers (Crackdown 3, Crossfire X, Space Jam etc.).

 

[TrueGrime]

Where do I say "console warrior"? Also, did you not see me agree with your points in my first sentence? Do you at least agree that the judge's misquote of the regulation standard was incorrect? Both the FTC putting on an awful performance and the Judge misquoting applicable standards can be true at the same time. Did I ever state that I'm in favor of or support an appeal, or are you projecting? For the record, if an appeal is requested, yes I do believe they will win if they challenge the basis of Judge Corley's decision.

Let's not mince words here. I know exactly what you meant. You're right, this is GAF and I've been on GAF for a decade.

Either way, if the FTC wants to appeal, they have that right and I'd like to see them try. I said this in the first part of the post you quoted me. Will they? Probably not. However, it's the FTC and I can absolutely see them bringing in random tweets from the court of public opinion on Judge C's ruling to try and win an appeal. Yet another loss for the FTC. Do they continue to roll around in shit and try for an appeal, or do they call it quits like they did with Meta and save some face?

I'm just here for the hilarity.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Both companies are going to use what they have to stamp out one another.

It's been this way for YEARS.

Anybody who says one company does it over the other is clearly delusional.

Every damn year we've discussed what Microsoft or Sony has coming out in first, second and third party exclusives and even smaller deals like timed exclusives and exclusive content.

I wasn't aware of Psygnosis back in the Nintendo and Sega era....but at that time, it seems Sony was where Microsoft is now, albeit with a much smaller warchest to pull from.

Psygnosis was 40% of the gaming output back then? That's kinda insane considering Sony was BRAND NEW to the market at that time.

They had games like Metal Gear, Ridge Racer, Battle Arena Toshinden, Tekken 1, Gran Turismo. I mean these are not home grown games at the time. They purchased exclusivity for them.

It wasn't until the Insomniac and Naughty Dog came along that they started doing the "organic" thing.

To be fair though, Microsoft had it's chance. Unlike Sony, they tried and failed (to usurp Sony and Nintendo). Both with acquiring studios in OG Xbox period and then shuttering many of them and their home grown business falling apart in the Xbox One era.

But who says they only get that one chance? If they haven't caved in and still want to compete and still have the resources? Given that this evidence shows that Sony was not always organic. I'm not sure there's a unwritten rule on this anymore.

Let them compete.

It certainly doesn't seem like it's in Sony's favor given the vast difference in resources between the two companies. However, Sony still has the best talent, the best first party games. They will still be able to make those. They will need to adjust and pivot though and this means more possibilities, not less.

It's time for Sony to stop resting on it's laurels and get back there releasing those bangers.

This is a pretty stupid argument when you think about how much money MS has compared to Sony.

Sony's only job now is to get themselves acquired by the best of a small number of companies as big and influential and powerful as MS. Apple, Google, Amazon are basically the only 3 American options because of the sheer dominance of American Big Tech over all other companies.

MS is powerful enough basically tell a sovereign nation state's government (the UK) that they are going to acquire a company and there is nothing they can do to stop it. There aren't a lot of companies in the world with that kind of power, and fewer in Sony's various markets. Only the Saudis and the Chinese have the kind of power MS has, and I don't think you want the Saudi PIF or Tencent owning Sony. Then again, the Saudi PIF wouldn't be so bad. The Saudis are very hands off and would allow Sony to operate with minimal interference.

 

[havoc00]

Next gen will be an absolute war

 

[onnextflix5]

Looks like they agreed the remedy with cma, they are just putting the final details, this 100% going through before the deadline, ftc won't appeal, when they have very little chance of winning.

 

[ChiefDada]

Bloomberg: FTC Leaning Towards Appealing Microsoft-Activision Loss

FTC Leaning Toward Appealing Microsoft-Activision Loss

The US Federal Trade Commission is leaning toward appealing a federal judge’s ruling against the agency’s bid to block Microsoft Corp.’s $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard Inc., according to a person familiar with the case.

www.bloomberg.com

It's paywalled, but this is an exception where the headline contains all necessary context.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

You don't know that and you are moving the goalposts. This was about you saying everyone else in the world looked at it and cleared it and I pointed out that half those that mattered looked at it and blocked it. Whether the FTC could win their fight or the CMA could stand under pressure is moot to the original point.

I'm not moving any goalposts.

Simply said that the deal was scrutinised by regulators around the world with vast majority approval.

I then pointed out that of the 2 that blocked, the only one to be tested legally was found not to have a compelling reason and then the other that blocked has immediately come to the table for resolution.

Then I speculate, if the case was seemingly so weak and 'unwinnable', are they really that incompetent? Or were they blocking for other reasons that they couldn't;t back up in court? I suggest the latter.

 

[graywolf323]

Both companies are going to use what they have to stamp out one another.

It's been this way for YEARS.

Anybody who says one company does it over the other is clearly delusional.

Every damn year we've discussed what Microsoft or Sony has coming out in first, second and third party exclusives and even smaller deals like timed exclusives and exclusive content.

I wasn't aware of Psygnosis back in the Nintendo and Sega era....but at that time, it seems Sony was where Microsoft is now, albeit with a much smaller warchest to pull from.

Psygnosis was 40% of the gaming output back then? That's kinda insane considering Sony was BRAND NEW to the market at that time.

They had games like Metal Gear, Ridge Racer, Battle Arena Toshinden, Tekken 1, Gran Turismo. I mean these are not home grown games at the time. They purchased exclusivity for them.

It wasn't until the Insomniac and Naughty Dog came along that they started doing the "organic" thing.

To be fair though, Microsoft had it's chance. Unlike Sony, they tried and failed (to usurp Sony and Nintendo). Both with acquiring studios in OG Xbox period and then shuttering many of them and their home grown business falling apart in the Xbox One era.

But who says they only get that one chance? If they haven't caved in and still want to compete and still have the resources? Given that this evidence shows that Sony was not always organic. I'm not sure there's a unwritten rule on this anymore.

Let them compete.

It certainly doesn't seem like it's in Sony's favor given the vast difference in resources between the two companies. However, Sony still has the best talent, the best first party games. They will still be able to make those. They will need to adjust and pivot though and this means more possibilities, not less.

It's time for Sony to stop resting on it's laurels and get back there releasing those bangers.

Sony had been in the market for 20+ years and failed miserably to compete?

edit: there's other things you got completely wrong too like saying that Gran Turismo wasn't a home grown game

 

[In Cold Blood]

Take Two paid a bunch of money to bring Zynga into the fold. They agreed to do a stock swap for half. In all, it meant T2 gave Zynga $12 billion in cash and stocks. Again, it was one company giving the other a bunch of money. And now Zynga is a subsidiary. You can play with definitions all you like. It doesn't matter. You've made nothing but a feeble attempt to claim Sony can't and won't do something for arbitrary reasons. Overemphasizing things that have no bearing on ability or intent. Keep trying. You'll get there.

You still don't get it. They are called a different name for a reason, because they are two different things. Basically, you are able to leverage alot more money in a merger than an aquisition.
So comparing what T2 did with a merger, to what Sony can do with an aquisition is not correct. If you find a company acquiring another with a straight money purchase, then we can talk.
There's no win here for you.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Oh neat, so CoD might be going exclusive next year.

If I were Sony, I would calling Amazon, Apple, Google, etc. and looking to get acquired ASAP. Survival chances against Microsoft going it alone will soon hit 0%. MS is going to continue acquiring the industry, and only another tech company with a trillion dollar-plus market cap is strong enough to fight MS.

EDIT: Maybe rash on my part, so edited my post. It's been hard to tell where some people are with some of their posts today, it's been hectic. Apologies.

As to your idea though...no, I don't think Sony need to go as far as to sell (or sell PlayStation) to one of the other Big Tech companies. Maybe look into a strategic alliance with one of them though (likely Google), for things pertaining to cloud hosting and expansion.

 

[Varteras]

Oh boy, just got caught up.

And man, sometimes I hate being right all the time:

As an Xbox owner: yay, Game Pass is all but certainly going to get better, that'll save me a lot of money at a time when I can't play a lot of games due to finances. However, as a fan of a functioning legal system with independent regulators keeping the Government and Corporations in check: this more-than-a-little fucking sucks in my eyes. While I do think the CMA's cloud argument was flimsy, it was still their decision, and it should've held because that's the system. Microsoft should've gone to CAT and argued their case because that's the system. Pausing the due process because Microsoft decided it wanted to negotiate after the CMA had made its decision, and because the FTC just fumbled another case, feels... kinda scummy to me. Obviously it's all above-board, but it kinda rubs me the wrong way.

More than anything, I'm honestly not looking forward to what this turns into. None of these companies are going to sit still after this just happened. Sony. Tencent. Microsoft again. Who knows who else. If ABK can be gobbled up, no one is going to take the chance that it won't happen to the rest. It won't happen tomorrow. It won't be literally everything. But it will be more of the industry in the hands of fewer companies. That is rarely ever a good thing. New companies will come around, sure. But the already big players in the market are going to be even bigger. Like NYC building huge towers right next to Central Park, those shadows are going to suck.

 

[Pedro Motta]

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.

 

[Varteras]

You still don't get it. They are called a different name for a reason, because they are two different things. Basically, you are able to leverage alot more money in a merger than an aquisition.
So comparing what T2 did with a merger, to what Sony can do with an aquisition is not correct. If you find a company acquiring another with a straight money purchase, then we can talk.
There's no win here for you.

What are you even attempting here besides splitting hairs? The fact remains that T2 made a huge move. Even the rougly $6 billion they spent in cash was huge compared to their market value. You're literally making up excuses.

 

[havoc00]

After this gamepass will truly be the best value in gaming

 

[ChiefDada]

Let's not mince words here. I know exactly what you meant. You're right, this is GAF and I've been on GAF for a decade.

Either way, if the FTC wants to appeal, they have that right and I'd like to see them try. I said this in the first part of the post you quoted me. Will they? Probably not. However, it's the FTC and I can absolutely see them bringing in random tweets from the court of public opinion on Judge C's ruling to try and win an appeal. Yet another loss for the FTC. Do they continue to roll around in shit and try for an appeal, or do they call it quits like they did with Meta and save some face?

I'm just here for the hilarity.

I was not being facetious at all with my post. As an M&A consultant, I've had to learn to not be so frustrated with people's ignorance (literal, not demeaning context) on technical fundamentals of a trade they don't participate in, as this is a gaming site, not a finance forum. I similarly appreciate when tech experts here are patient with me and my limited knowledge of the tech surrounding video games.

Also, I'm not above console/company preferences myself, and will admit I prefer Sony's approach to the gaming industry overall.

 

[Jigsaah]

This is a pretty stupid argument when you think about how much money MS has compared to Sony.

Sony's only job now is to get themselves acquired by the best of a small number of companies as big and influential and powerful as MS. Apple, Google, Amazon are basically the only 3 American options because of the sheer dominance of American Big Tech over all other companies.

MS is powerful enough basically tell a sovereign nation state's government (the UK) that they are going to acquire a company and there is nothing they can do to stop it. There aren't a lot of companies in the world with that kind of power, and fewer in Sony's various markets. Only the Saudis and the Chinese have the kind of power MS has, and I don't think you want the Saudi PIF or Tencent owning Sony. Then again, the Saudi PIF wouldn't be so bad. The Saudis are very hands off and would allow Sony to operate with minimal interference.

Yea dude. Sony gets acquired for the sole purpose of having a sugar daddy?

I think not. Sony can make other moves. I also believe there's a limit to what Microsoft will be able to do before the courts do see it as anticompetitive, even with this decision going in their favor.

I think Sony goes after Square-Enix. I think Konami is on the table. I think Capcom is up for grabs. Take two...I don't know that Sony can afford it. They're valued at 25 billion.

 

[Corndog]

Oh boy, just got caught up.

And man, sometimes I hate being right all the time:

As an Xbox owner: yay, Game Pass is all but certainly going to get better, that'll save me a lot of money at a time when I can't play a lot of games due to finances. However, as a fan of a functioning legal system with independent regulators keeping the Government and Corporations in check: this more-than-a-little fucking sucks in my eyes. While I do think the CMA's cloud argument was flimsy, it was still their decision, and it should've held because that's the system. Microsoft should've gone to CAT and argued their case because that's the system. Pausing the due process because Microsoft decided it wanted to negotiate after the CMA had made its decision, and because the FTC just fumbled another case, feels... kinda scummy to me. Obviously it's all above-board, but it kinda rubs me the wrong way.

Do you really think they just started negotiating today? Not likely.

 

[Astray]

Bloomberg: FTC Leaning Towards Appealing Microsoft-Activision Loss

FTC Leaning Toward Appealing Microsoft-Activision Loss

The US Federal Trade Commission is leaning toward appealing a federal judge’s ruling against the agency’s bid to block Microsoft Corp.’s $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard Inc., according to a person familiar with the case.

www.bloomberg.com

It's paywalled, but this is an exception where the headline contains all necessary context.

Not sure if this works on browser but it works with the Yahoo Finance app (just choose to proceed as guest if you don't want to give them your info)

FTC Leaning Toward Appealing Microsoft-Activision Loss

(Bloomberg) -- The US Federal Trade Commission is leaning toward appealing a federal judge’s ruling against the agency’s bid to block Microsoft Corp.’s $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard Inc., according to a person familiar with the case.Most Read from BloombergMassive US Oil Caverns...

finance.yahoo.com

 

[StreetsofBeige]

It matters when they can't back up why they blocked it. It means that the reasons they blocked it were not the reasons they put forward

IMO, here's what happened:

1. MS/Activision announce deal

2. It's a giant deal so governing bodies around the world look into it

3. CMA blocks it. Every other country except FTC oks it. CMA knew they had nothing to go, but held out as long as possible waiting to tag along the FTC as a big two man brick wall if FTC wins

4. FTC ends up losing. So instead of CMA standing firm like they have the whole time, they were bullshitters and announce they'll wheel and deal on concessions literally an hour after the FTC lost this morning.

What happened is if tons of countries all jumped on board to block, they were thinking MS/Activision wouldn't bother legally going after it in 10 different countries. Turns out it winded down to only two. MS says "Hey? Only two? We'll forge ahead!" CMA shitting bricks and the only way they'd keep up the fight is if the US FTC wins, so they could latch on as a tandem. If FTC loses, they bail because they had nothing the whole time.

 

[Kilau]

I'm not moving any goalposts.

Simply said that the deal was scrutinised by regulators around the world with vast majority approval.

I then pointed out that of the 2 that blocked, the only one to be tested legally was found not to have a compelling reason and then the other that blocked has immediately come to the table for resolution.

Then I speculate, if the case was seemingly so weak and 'unwinnable', are they really that incompetent? Or were they blocking for other reasons that they couldn't;t back up in court? I suggest the latter.

The FTC is weak and thank goodness for it, even if they have a good case they can't win it. Though the judge expanded the scope of the hearing and clearly the FTC didn't have their case ready.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Wonder what this means for the future games coming from Activision like Infinity Wards new IP

Haven't we heard (rumors anyhow) there are like 4 new Blizzard games coming?

 

[Kilau]

Wonder what this means for the future games coming from Activision like Infinity Wards new IP

Haven't heard (rumors anyhow) there are like 4 new Blizzard games coming?

Case by case.

 

[Darlingcognito]

Great day for Xbox, Steam, PC, cloud providers, Nintendo, Nvidia gamers.

Really sad day for people stuck on that one system. That's business eh?

 

[Jibran#one]

First order of business Phil , fire everyone at 343 and give halo to Id software or treyarch

 

[ZehDon]

More than anything, I'm honestly not looking forward to what this turns into. None of these companies are going to sit still after this just happened. Sony. Tencent. Microsoft again. Who knows who else. If ABK can be gobbled up, no one is going to take the chance that it won't happen to the rest. It won't happen tomorrow. It won't be literally everything. But it will be more of the industry in the hands of fewer companies. That is rarely ever a good thing. New companies will come around, sure. But the already big players in the market are going to be even bigger. Like NYC building huge towers right next to Central Park, those shadows are going to suck.

For as much as I'm not a fan of what's happening, I'll play Devil's Advocate and say this: Microsoft said their competitors were Google, Apple, Amazon, and so on. Google (rightfully) failed with Stadia, Apple already owns mobile gaming, and Amazon is busy burning billions on its TV endeavor. These big players are going to look at the video game industry quietly out-performing Hollywood, TV, and Music combined and eventually decide it's their next major growth market. Microsoft knows their likely moves, because it's the same set of moves they tried to make (trying to buy Nintendo?!) before they decided to build their own platform. Microsoft grabbed ABK because they know if they didn't, it was Amazon, Google, and Apples best bet to buy a seat at the table. In the hellish landscape unfolding, I'd straight up rather Microsoft double down on video games - a company who's taken their licks over the years - than a companies like Tencent or Apple. Better the devil you know, as they say. But I'll be reiterate: I don't like what's happened today. Microsoft getting their way in this specific manner feels like the wrong way for this to play out, because it feels like undermines the regulatory process as a whole. Anyway, guess I should buy up Game Pass time while it's cheap...

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Yea dude. Sony gets acquired for the sole purpose of having a sugar daddy?

I think not. Sony can make other moves. I also believe there's a limit to what Microsoft will be able to do before the courts do see it as anticompetitive, even with this decision going in their favor.

I think Sony goes after Square-Enix. I think Konami is on the table. I think Capcom is up for grabs. Take two...I don't know that Sony can afford it. They're valued at 25 billion.

Sony can afford Take-Two if Disney could afford Fox, if you catch my drift.

But it doesn't make for a sound acquisition IMO, for simply one IP, even if it's a huge one. They could buy lots of shares and make some investments into Take-Two instead.

 

[Jigsaah]

Sony had been in the market for 20+ years and failed miserably to compete?

edit: there's other things you got completely wrong too like saying that Gran Turismo wasn't a home grown game

I already stated that Microsoft tried and failed during two separate eras trying to acquire studios and shuttering them. Did you miss that part?

They are down but they are not dead. If they plan on continuing on, then continuing to compete is maybe better than the alternative.

The alternative is Sony exists in the AAA console space alone, with nintendo making it's brand of games.

Nothing gets better this way. Sony would have no pressure to improve themselves. That means they keep resting on their laurels like they have been.

They felt justified coming out first with $70 games. They felt comfortable not having to give us a real showcase for 3 whole years. When they do come back with something it's a glorified State of Play that most people were not happy with.

Like let's not pretend that Sony hasn't been given a pass on a lot of shyt. Now they can feel some pressure. They won't become 2nd or 3rd place because of this deal. However, they will feel some heat. Which means they will need to step things up for the consumers.

It's the silver lining in this deal going Microsoft's way.

 

[Corndog]

IMO, here's what happened:

1. MS/Activision announce deal

2. It's a giant deal so governing bodies around the world look into it

3. CMA blocks it. Every other country except FTC oks it. CMA knew they had nothing to go, but held out as long as possible waiting to tag along the FTC as a big two man brick wall if FTC wins

4. FTC ends up losing. So instead of CMA standing firm like they have the whole time, they were bullshitters and announce they'll wheel and deal on concessions literally an hour after the FTC lost this morning.

What happened is if tons of countries all jumped on board to block, they were thinking MS/Activision wouldn't bother legally going after it in 10 different countries. Turns out it winded down to only two. MS says "Hey? Only two? We'll forge ahead!" CMA shitting bricks and the only way they'd keep up the fight is if the US FTC wins, so they could latch on as a tandem. If FTC loses, they bail because they had nothing the whole time.

I think they've been negotiating for a while. There was just no point in announcing it until they knew the outcome of the ftc case. Because if Microsoft list that would have killed the deal.

 

[TrueGrime]

I agree that the FTC focusing on how the deal hurt Sony was a mistake, but them tying that to how it'd affect Sony's customers would NOT have been a mistake. Because the truth is, it's impossible to make an argument how any deal hurts all customers without getting into hypotheticals, but it's a lot easier to say that "all customers" would mean "any" customers being affected, as well. I.e if a subset of customers are negatively affected, then that hurts all customers within the market, at least conceptually.

That's how the FTC should have tied in the console concerns IMO; showing clearly how Sony customers would be affected, and showing how those customers "just having" Microsoft Xbox or PC as options would not address that because Xbox or PC would not be getting those customers through putting out a better competitive product. They'd only be getting them because a direct competitor bought that content off the market and then foreclosed it on another direct competitor, which in turn hurt the customer base of that affected competitor.

And the difference between MS doing that with ABK content versus, say, Sony doing that with Square-Enix, is that Sony & Square-Enix would make their decision on selective exclusivity based on analyzing market data and past sales trends on competitor platforms creating a favorable environment for that exclusivity between Sony & SE, not to mention it is partial (or in other cases, temporary) foreclosure of selective content, made on a decision backed by data showing the vast majority of consumers of that content were on PS anyway and the exclusivity could create better quality of the content for those customers.

Microsoft can't claim any of that with ABK. The acquisition is a permanent foreclosure of partial or majority content assets, and not based on market data showing the majority of those customers were already on Xbox platforms or MS-owned PC and mobile storefronts. Meaning, MS have no way of proving that the transfer of control & distribution of that content is a net benefit for the majority of customers where they already are, and they certainly don't have a history of showing their own exclusivity arrangements result in better content for their own customers (Crackdown 3, Crossfire X, Space Jam etc.).

Yes! Good post here. It would've definitely been better for the FTC to focus on Sony consumers, rather than Sony as a company themselves. I posted the CADE's ruling on the merger earlier and they specifically address that they are not there to protect the interests of Sony. However, they also state..

After all, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the holder of the legal assets protected by Law No. 12,529/2011 is the collectivity, and not the competitor/economic agent as an individual entity. In this sense, although it is recognized that part of the users of PlayStation consoles (from Sony) could decide to migrate to Xbox in the event that Activision Blizzard games – and especially Call of Duty– become exclusive to the Microsoft ecosystem, SG/Cade does not believe that such a possibility represents, in itself, a risk to competition in the console market as a whole.

So they weren't even worried that CoD might become exclusive, and even the CMA dropped that stance. It's difficult to argue Sony exclusivity good and Microsoft exclusivity bad. It really is. Especially when the market leader has controlled the vast majority of exclusivity for a long time. You can't prove that the acquisition is a permanent or partial foreclosure of content, and again, even if it was, it seems not be the biggest concern of regulators (Except the FTC, and it didn't much workout for them).

I get what you're saying though. Want to address your post more, but I'm mobile, so it will have to wait. I do like your points though and they make sense, I just think they're hard to prove and falling into the "might" and not "for sure will" category.