Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?


  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
why would they need to do that? not trying to be funny but genuinely curious.

which part ?

need to send dev kits early? so developers can start developing games in the new consoles launch windows
not send dev kits early to a potentially rival first party? because they wouldn't want to reveal their consoles final specs and development environment to the competition year(s) before its retail release.

Both points can be equally valid.
 
Last edited:
I think Sony is fucked whether COD remains on Playstation or not.

If COD remains on Playstation, every sale of COD will make MS stronger (30% of proceeds to Sony, and 70% to MS). MS will then have even more money and power to price Sony out of the industry.

If COD is taken away from Playstation, Sony will be severely damaged as they don't have the proceeds from MTX from Call of Duty to fund their 1st party exclusives. Also, I foresee a decline in sales and popularity in EA FC 24. Losing the Fifa license is a big deal and this will lead to a decline in sales and hence lower MTX profits from EA FC 24.

Sony is fucked either way. And honestly, I don't know which is worse.

I'm of the belief that there's no use in ever prolonging the inevitable, especially if doing so results in benefits for an entity that is seeking to cause you harm. Why allow Microsoft to have their cake and eat it too?

So if I'm Jim Ryan I'd just select the nuclear option, no fucking call of duty deal and no more COD on Playstation for future entries. Remove any sense of unpredictability from the equation, see what you're really working with and go from there into the future on your own terms.
 
Sony can go for the Fifa license, EA doesn't hold it anymore and it's the world's most played video game and it's literally a console seller, balances it out with the potential of loosing COD. FIFA is looking for a new license holder last I read.
 
I'm of the belief that there's no use in ever prolonging the inevitable, especially if doing so results in benefits for an entity that is seeking to cause you harm. Why allow Microsoft to have their cake and eat it too?

So if I'm Jim Ryan I'd just select the nuclear option, no fucking call of duty deal and no more COD on Playstation for future entries. Remove any sense of unpredictability from the equation, see what you're really working with and go from there into the future on your own terms.
That would piss....a lot of people off. Jim would basically be betting the farm on who fans love more, Sony or COD. Add to the fact that he'd be taking away the choice as well for consumers, it could blow up in his face. I guess it's fine if you're looking to rebuild, but probably a bad call if you're looking to maintain or grow. Pretty sure Jim's in the maintaining and growing business.
 
I'm of the belief that there's no use in ever prolonging the inevitable, especially if doing so results in benefits for an entity that is seeking to cause you harm. Why allow Microsoft to have their cake and eat it too?

So if I'm Jim Ryan I'd just select the nuclear option, no fucking call of duty deal and no more COD on Playstation for future entries. Remove any sense of unpredictability from the equation, see what you're really working with and go from there into the future on your own terms.


relax satan
 
Being willfully ignorant is completely your decision and its something you have choose to do on multiple occasions when you engaged with me simply because your bait failed. Have a nice day.

Pun Reaction GIF
 
Sony can go for the Fifa license, EA doesn't hold it anymore and it's the world's most played video game and it's literally a console seller, balances it out with the potential of loosing COD. FIFA is looking for a new license holder last I read.
FIFA license is basically worthless without Fifpro and the various league licenses.

FIFA were retarded to break from EA as that used to make them so much money.
 
I'm of the belief that there's no use in ever prolonging the inevitable, especially if doing so results in benefits for an entity that is seeking to cause you harm. Why allow Microsoft to have their cake and eat it too?

So if I'm Jim Ryan I'd just select the nuclear option, no fucking call of duty deal and no more COD on Playstation for future entries. Remove any sense of unpredictability from the equation, see what you're really working with and go from there into the future on your own terms.

Is this the revenge porn fanfics we were promised?
 
If this new CMA probe would take actual time then I think we might actually see a new merger extension happening.

Would a revised agreement require shareholder approval?

Would Activision shareholders have same incentive with rising stock price?
 
Sony can go for the Fifa license, EA doesn't hold it anymore and it's the world's most played video game and it's literally a console seller, balances it out with the potential of loosing COD. FIFA is looking for a new license holder last I read.
Buy the PES team from Konami and get the FIFA license and return to the glory PS days of PES 3/4/5 which were the best football games ever made, those are PS classics.

I would run to get a PS to play a proper PES game again.
 
If this new CMA probe would take actual time then I think we might actually see a new merger extension happening.

I don't think so, I think the current situation is to hit the July 18th date going by this article which seems to report just the facts without a narrative of where we are at with the CMA and merger

 
If this new CMA probe would take actual time then I think we might actually see a new merger extension happening.


I'm confused. I thought the CMA already approved this.
 
It's fact. Khan is done and dusted. Time for her to pack it in. She shot and she missed. She clearly needs more practice.
Khan needs to lose the political bullshit. Point blank period. It's what's fueled her and it's never payed off. I remember folks saying this is a play for her to go back to the government to cry for more power.

But she has no good arguments, and the way she proceeds was clearly called out by the judge in her statement about the timing of this case. Khan's methods are bad and are tainted by her political views.

I think she needs to go.
 
relax satan

Is this the revenge porn fanfics we were promised?

Just a thought experiment to see how long it would take for Microsoft to have to writedown some of the $70 billion it took to acquire Activision.

Marvel Studios Smile GIF by Disney+


That would piss....a lot of people off. Jim would basically be betting the farm on who fans love more, Sony or COD. Add to the fact that he'd be taking away the choice as well for consumers, it could blow up in his face. I guess it's fine if you're looking to rebuild, but probably a bad call if you're looking to maintain or grow. Pretty sure Jim's in the maintaining and growing business.

And Microsoft whipping call of duty away and/or compromising it when the time is right wouldn't piss people off? When Microsoft inevitably do it that won't be taking choice away from consumers?

Whether it's now or in the future, it's not going to result in immediate growth. Might as well get it over and done with.
 
Last edited:
Yea I don't see honestly how this doesn't happen.
I think SQEX couldn't care less about MS. But they do care about Nintendo and the Switch at least to some degree, and that would be the only barrier I could even think of. Being owned by Sony is close to ceding most of their presence in Japan. Japan sales are a small fraction of what they rely on now, but SQEX still designs a lot of AA games primarily for that audience. Maybe they feel mobile would be enough at this point.
 
I'm confused. I thought the CMA already approved this.
I'm really confused by that article. If I read it correctly they are saying a new deal needs to be reached for the merger itself. Can that happen without approval from shareholders? Can that happen without the new deal being reviewed by all countries again?

Did we misread the CMA's position yesterday?
 
I'm of the belief that there's no use in ever prolonging the inevitable, especially if doing so results in benefits for an entity that is seeking to cause you harm. Why allow Microsoft to have their cake and eat it too?

So if I'm Jim Ryan I'd just select the nuclear option, no fucking call of duty deal and no more COD on Playstation for future entries. Remove any sense of unpredictability from the equation, see what you're really working with and go from there into the future on your own terms.

Well, I think it is in the interests of Sony and MS to keep it on the platform for now. At the very least Sony owes it to the people who bought the PS5 and play COD on it right now to try. Yet, the fact is, if MS takes COD off PlayStation in N years (thus proving the detractors and naysayers correct, and proving this is a company not to be taken at face value, yet is adept at hoodwinking the government), then Sony will have foreseen it. It's rare a company can see the exact shape of a major threat to their business model and prepare responses to it, yet that is exactly what Sony has. So, yea, they need to start preparing for it.

Plus, let's be real, we are talking about MS here. The company that turned one of the biggest franchises in entertainment to a totally irrelevant gamepass fodder nobody cares about in a decade, after a $500M investment. Are we really so sure that COD will be in the same place it is now with MS in charge of it?
 
Last edited:
I think SQEX couldn't care less about MS. But they do care about Nintendo and the Switch at least to some degree, and that would be the only barrier I could even think of. Being owned by Sony is close to ceding most of their presence in Japan. Japan sales are a small fraction of what they rely on now, but SQEX still designs a lot of AA games primarily for that audience. Maybe they feel mobile would be enough at this point.
So you're saying that Square wouldn't want Sony to buy them because they would have to consider losing Nintendo and their install base. I mean that would just make their price higher, no? Sony buying Square doesn't necessarily mean they don't release games on Nintendo anymore, given Jim says Nintendo is not viewed as a competitor. Maybe they could have it both ways.
 
Either the CMA will accept the EU remedies and move along or they will end up losing the appeal even harder than it was until yesterday.
 
Nah MS won't be able to get another publisher for a long time. Only studios for now. Publishers are off the table for them. for now
Why? Nothing has changed. The market is the same today and will be tomorrow. If ABK is okay then everything is ok for MS. They should get every available dev/pub right now. Waiting only allows for the market to swing in their favor and make future acquisitions harder.

Feel free to respond on your next alt if needed, this one won't last.
 
I'm really confused by that article. If I read it correctly they are saying a new deal needs to be reached for the merger itself. Can that happen without approval from shareholders? Can that happen without the new deal being reviewed by all countries again?

Did we misread the CMA's position yesterday?

If I'm understanding the article correctly. The CMA blocked the current deal and there's not much they can do about it. However if ABK and Microsoft make a new one then the CMA can do their investigation on the new deal. If they are satisfied with it then they will approve it or ask Microsoft for more concessions to get it through.

I'm not sure how long this would take though or how much it will differ from the current deal.
 
So you're saying that Square wouldn't want Sony to buy them because they would have to consider losing Nintendo and their install base. I mean that would just make their price higher, no? Sony buying Square doesn't necessarily mean they don't release games on Nintendo anymore, given Jim says Nintendo is not viewed as a competitor. Maybe they could have it both ways.
I'm saying SQEX doesn't care about being PS exclusive anywhere in the world but Japan. The only barrier I could think of is them coming up with an acceptable strategy for that country. Could be a Vita 2, or a cloud handheld for PS or just mobile only, or allowing them to put a few games on Switch. Lots of options.
 
Plus, let's be real, we are talking about MS here. The company that turned one of the biggest franchises in entertainment to a totally irrelevant gamepass fodder nobody cares about in a decade, after a $500M investment. Are we really so sure that COD will be in the same place it is now with MS in charge of it?

This has always been, and still remains the biggest question for me. And nothing that they've done since they've started to acquire studios/publishers has done anything to change my opinion on their management of first party studios.

If they are sensible they retain all of Activison's management structure (including Kotick) and start taking notes ASAP so that they can emulate the processes across the rest of their portfolio.
 
Even though the FTC situation is being reported as finished by many
Khan needs to lose the political bullshit. Point blank period. It's what's fueled her and it's never payed off. I remember folks saying this is a play for her to go back to the government to cry for more power.

But she has no good arguments, and the way she proceeds was clearly called out by the judge in her statement about the timing of this case. Khan's methods are bad and are tainted by her political views.

I think she needs to go.
As a 4D chess thought experiment, imagine if Biden appointed Corely actually is helping the FTC in this case. She puts on a good show, rushes the case at Microsoft's behest giving her an out by saying the order may contain errors in finding for Microsoft on the first attempt.

If the decision has major errors, like it does, it opens the door to an appeal, which you would expect to be found in the FTC's favour, and because the clock is ticking so fast, the 3rd leg, and final appeal to the supreme court is way off in the distance killing the deal.
Just flipping around the order of decisions would finish with the deal being cleared by the July deadline, whereas the result of an appeal win in favour of the FTC kills the deal. Which I think is an interesting thought scenario.
 
Last edited:
If they are sensible they retain all of Activison's management structure (including Kotick) and start taking notes ASAP so that they can emulate the processes across the rest of their portfolio.
Mismanagement is the real danger. Kotick is leaving Acti anyway and if MS has learned anything from the past they will leave Acti as is, like Activision did for Blizzard.

Honestly I still can't believe this happened/
 
Just a thought experiment to see how long it would take for Microsoft to have to writedown some of the $70 billion it took to acquire Activision.

Marvel Studios Smile GIF by Disney+




And Microsoft whipping call of duty away and/or compromising it when the time is right wouldn't piss people off? When Microsoft inevitably do it that won't be taking choice away from consumers?

Whether it's now or in the future, it's not going to result in immediate growth. Might as well get it over and done with.
Sure it would, which is why I don't think it's gonna happen. Microsoft could really do without further harm to their reputation. It also doesn't make financial sense. They also testified in court that they would keep releasing on Playstation. Under Oath. If Sony decides not to give Microsoft devkits so they can make COD for Playstation, that's a choice Sony has to make. It's a difficult one, sure, but ultimately if they choose not to, then they are essentially manifesting their own lack of COD. That's not Microsoft whipping it away in that case.

I had said in an earlier post that if Bobby had the same deal for Sony as it did for Microsoft (to which some people have claimed here) then a 70/30 split moving forward for COD would actually be a 10% increase in revenue split for Sony. Microsoft had to pay 80/20. That would fund more AAA games and Jim Ryan is on record saying he's not worried about it.
 
Lol "May" require a new look into the deal? Lol CMA kinda weird. Why pause the CAT if the new deal will take weeks or months to look into? That's all theatre. Theirs already a solution. Deal closes.
 
Lol "May" require a new look into the deal? Lol CMA kinda weird. Why pause the CAT if the new deal will take weeks or months to look into? That's all theatre. Theirs already a solution. Deal closes.
Maybe they want to have another "shot" at wasting "taxpayer" money.
 
Good morning folks! Damn this place is a little more salty than I expected it to be today...
Surprised Fire GIF
No, not really, but the narrative that a deal has been passed with Microsoft getting its way feels like it didn't survive the night; along with the definitive FTC won't appeal, unless the FTC, CMA and Microsoft are ready to issue statements to end this saga.
 
That's my m.o when dealing with blatant intellectual dishonesty, yes.
Entering an argument in bad faith while baiting, which you do a lot is what is dishonest. You not getting your desired outcome in the engagement turns you into a condescending fake intellectual, which breaks that charade you play in being above the fanboying.
 
I'm of the belief that there's no use in ever prolonging the inevitable, especially if doing so results in benefits for an entity that is seeking to cause you harm. Why allow Microsoft to have their cake and eat it too?

So if I'm Jim Ryan I'd just select the nuclear option, no fucking call of duty deal and no more COD on Playstation for future entries. Remove any sense of unpredictability from the equation, see what you're really working with and go from there into the future on your own terms.
If you think MS has more to lose than Sony doing this, the latter will be the sole responsible and accountable for the players who got pissed at such petty decision, they will give away millions of people to Xbox.
 
Last edited:
Probably just their way of saying "we aren't weak and caving... We might even consider a new probe to come to a new conclusion! " ... Yeah kinda feels like posturing.
 
Lol "May" require a new look into the deal? Lol CMA kinda weird. Why pause the CAT if the new deal will take weeks or months to look into? That's all theatre. Theirs already a solution. Deal closes.

MS asked for this as well.

Entering an argument in bad faith while baiting, which you do a lot is what is dishonest. You not getting your desired outcome in the engagement turns you into a condescending fake intellectual, which breaks that charade you play in being above the fanboying.

talking blah blah blah GIF
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom