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

Do you believe the deal will be approved?

  • Yes, will be approved without changes.

    Votes: 221 24.9%

  • Yes, will be approved but with structural changes to ABK.

    Votes: 102 11.5%

  • Yes, will be approved but only with behavioral concessions.

    Votes: 262 29.6%

  • No, will not be approved.

    Votes: 301 34.0%
  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
mckmas8808 said:
I'm saying MS "WILL" remove COD from PS once the next generation starts.
Click to expand...
I expect I'll get laughed at, but I sincerely do not see CoD going exclusive. Firstly, it makes zero financial sense. Secondly, the basis of this acquisition being approved in the EU and UK (non-cloud) was that it is vertical and, as such, a supplier would never intentionally damage its own sales.

I know people are irritated with the direction this is heading, but the regulatory scrutiny has likely worked in that we have sworn testimony from MS assuring regulators of their intention to keep the game multi-platform.

Also, regulation isn't static. If MS start fucking around in the next few years, there's nothing to stop investigations being reopened.
 
Last edited:
//DEVIL// said:
assuming COD doesn't die under MS hands in the first place lol.

kidding kidding....I think lol.
Click to expand...

"Activision doesn't miss!"

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Reaction GIF
 
If somehow Bobby ended up at MS do you think he could reign in some of the mismanagement that goes on there? Or is he too toxic to touch?
 
Ogbert said:
I expect I'll get laughed at, but I sincerely do not see CoD going exclusive. Firstly, it makes zero financial sense. Secondly, the basis of this acquisition being approved in the EU and UK (non-cloud) was that it is vertical and, as such, a supplier would never intentionally damage its own sales.

I know people are irritated with the direction this is heading, but the regulatory scrutiny has likely worked in that we gave sworn testimony from MS assuring regulators of their intention to keep the game multi-platform.

Also, regulation isn't static. If MS start fucking around in the next few years, there's nothing to stop investigations being reopened.
Click to expand...

The bolded is a loaded word though man. Plus there's zero percent chance that the testimony to keep COD on Playstation will stand up in court if they were to remove it. Phil will just "retire" and a new CEO will be in his place and not have to adhere to that sworn "testimony".
 
Heisenberg007 said:
I have one question:

Isn't the substantial lessening of competition for blocking the merger?

For the Preliminary Injunction, isn't the criteria that FTC needs to establish that there may be some harm and that it has raised enough questions to investigate the acquisition further?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the attitude of the MS lawyers and this judge have been that getting the PI effectively kills the acquisition. MS said that to the judge. So it is as if this PI is the trial to block the merger.
 
Ogbert said:
I expect I'll get laughed at, but I sincerely do not see CoD going exclusive. Firstly, it makes zero financial sense. Secondly, the basis of this acquisition being approved in the EU and UK (non-cloud) was that it is vertical and, as such, a supplier would never intentionally damage its own sales.

I know people are irritated with the direction this is heading, but the regulatory scrutiny has likely worked in that we gave sworn testimony from MS assuring regulators of their intention to keep the game multi-platform.

Also, regulation isn't static. If MS start fucking around in the next few years, there's nothing to stop investigations being reopened.
Click to expand...
I thought there was evidence that MS already calculated they only need a million or two new subs to offset losses from going exclusive. That removes all doubt for me (and leads me to believe it is inevitable).
 
mayham2199 said:
I tend to agree but one thing that I think is possible (even Jim Ryan alluded to this) is people simply leaving MS. Sure MS can buy all these IPs and studios but IP's and studios don't make games, people do. If MS starts losing the top talent in all these studios they are buying they could end up with a real mess on their hands with tons of IPs/studios and not enough talent to run\manage it all or at least do it properly.

I remember when Sony bought Bungie they paid an extra billion so the employees would stay as well. At the time I remember people were saying they overpaid and it was dumb. Looking back maybe it wasn't so dumb. Sony has been managing and running their studios amazingly well. Maybe they realized a long time ago that it doesn't matter what IPs/studios you have. If you don't have talented people running things it will all come crashing down.

I guess we will find out what happens in the years to come but MS has already shown some real issues when it comes to managing their studios. How are they possible going to continue to buy studio after studio and manage all of this properly? You could end up with all the talent leaving, starting new studios, and then MS is just left with IPs. This recently happened with The Initiative and a large amount of developers just leaving. So they have the Perfect Dark IP which everyone loves but are having trouble getting the game out because they don't have any devs.
Click to expand...
I would agree with u until the day gamepass is dominant. Studios and pubs out will be fucked. Xbox consumers don't buy games and when this expand will be a problem for anyone outside their ecosystem.
 
Corndog said:
He's not attacking Sony. Just saying as market leader they haven't had much pressure on them.
By having more competition, they are more likely to be consumer friendly.

You can certainly disagree though.
Click to expand...

Here we go again with this "Sony is anti-consumer" nonsense! How much is MS paying you?
 
GHG said:
The "entrenched market leader" that helps pay her bills, funny that.
Click to expand...
If this deal doesn't close by the 18th and AB walks, I think we will all laugh our butts straight off the first time she has to post something about their newest partnership with Sony. And if JR thanks her in a reply then put on your raincoat. Cause the salt water will be sloshing everywhere.
 
StreetsofBeige said:
Depends what side of the fence someone is.

Xbox gamers = winner

PC gamer = winner

Nintendo gamer = winner assuming that 10 year COD deal comes true

Cloud streamer = winner

PS gamer = right at this point, no effect. Sony still has another 2 years of COD deals signed. In future if MS cuts the cord they'll be a loser in the deal.

Sounds like net winners to me in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...

The gaming industry NEVER being the same again after 10 years and COD not being good anymore by 2032 = EVERYONE is a loser
 
Topher said:
Yeah, but the attitude of the MS lawyers and this judge have been that getting the PI effectively kills the acquisition. MS said that to the judge. So it is as if this PI is the trial to block the merger.
Click to expand...
But that's like based on perception, not according to the law, right?

Whatever MS lawyers or the judge may believe, ultimately the decision must be as per the written law. And if it is not, then it's an issue.
 
FTC has filed for stay.


Topher said:
Yeah, but the attitude of the MS lawyers and this judge have been that getting the PI effectively kills the acquisition. MS said that to the judge. So it is as if this PI is the trial to block the merger.
Click to expand...
You gotta keep in mind that a timeline that's agreed between deal participants isn't the court's problem. They can always extend if they really think this deal is amazing. Blame ActiBlizz and MS for agreeing that UK/US approvals are a requirement.
 
Jigsaah said:
I think If Microsoft goes for EA, they are gonna have more lawsuits on their hands. I can't see them winning those.

Sony, on the other hand can use this precedent to now freely go after Square, maybe even Take Two.
Click to expand...

It's been shown that since "sony" is the market leader some how......it allows MS to buy any and every publisher they can afford.
 
jm89 said:
Click to expand...

Ogbert Ogbert
ChiefDada ChiefDada

"In its Order, the Court at first recited the proper Warner Communications standard. Op. at 22-23. But when the Court turned to whether the FTC had made a sufficient showing as to anticompetitive effects, the Court inexplicably deviated from Warner Communications. Instead, the Court applied the standard applicable to trials on the antitrust merits, relying on government cases seeking permanent injunctions."
 
The judge also said "consoles are dying, and there won't be any consoles in the future, and all games will move to Cloud" but then also surmised that this acquisition does not harm the future cloud gaming market 😄

The FTC can bring that up in their appeal.
 
Astray said:
FTC has filed for stay.



You gotta keep in mind that a timeline that's agreed between deal participants isn't the court's problem. They can always extend if they really think this deal is amazing. Blame ActiBlizz and MS for agreeing that UK/US approvals are a requirement.
Click to expand...


I don't believe MS was making that statement in regards to the timeline, but rather than the decision on the PI is usually the deciding factor. If the PI is granted then the deal is usually abandoned. Something along those lines.
 
From motion:

"Defendants will not be substantially injured by the brief delay from Plaintiff's appeal of this Court's Order. There is no evidence that the parties are required to abandon the Proposed Acquisition should the Court grant a stay that extends past July 18, 2023. Microsoft has publicly stated that it is seeking to stay its appeal of the United Kingdom's ruling against the merger. . . . Microsoft's willingness to delay an appeal elsewhere supports finding that delay here will not substantially injure Defendants. Accordingly, any alleged harm to Defendants from a stay while the appellate process in this country plays out is far outweighed by the substantial public interest in maintaining competition."

I thought they might try to use CMA hold to say no imminent harm.
 
Last edited:
adamsapple said:
Snippets from the judge's ruling file. She did not find FTC's reliance on Ryan's testimony compelling.


F0yiixrWwAA4WvC
Click to expand...

I'm sorry guys, but I have to say it. This judge is dumb as a bitch! What the heck is wrong with this lady???

1. It's NOT a merger!
2. There's a reason as to why the game wasn't on the Switch.
3. Most people DO NOT like playing cloud-only games on the Switch.
4. Is it even financially feasible to rely on making the all versions of COD to be playable on the Switch via cloud gaming?
5. Why is she bringing up the "Marketing" deal Sony had with COD? As if it matters at all to Xbox gamers. It doesn't matter!!! It's not anti-competitive. Plus it puts money in the pockets of the Publisher and Developer
6. MS had bidding rights for this "Marketing" deal and they backed off and allowed Sony to get the deal. MS had it at first during the X360 generation.
 
Unknown Soldier said:
The good news is that allowing MS to acquire ABK throws the door open for other mega deals in the gaming industry. Apple, Google, or Amazon can just acquire Sony and then it will be a fair fight when another trillion dollar tech company has the resources to race MS on speed running buying the remaining 3rd party publishers and studios.
Click to expand...
I for one can't wait to see how this timeline proceeds.
 
mckmas8808 said:
I'm sorry guys, but I have to say it. This judge is dumb as a bitch! What the heck is wrong with this lady???

1. It's NOT a merger!
2. There's a reason as to why the game wasn't on the Switch.
3. Most people DO NOT like playing cloud-only games on the Switch.
4. Is it even financially feasible to rely on making the all versions of COD to be playable on the Switch via cloud gaming?
5. Why is she bringing up the "Marketing" deal Sony had with COD? As if it matters at all to Xbox gamers. It doesn't matter!!! It's not anti-competitive. Plus it puts money in the pockets of the Publisher and Developer
6. MS had bidding rights for this "Marketing" deal and they backed off and allowed Sony to get the deal. MS had it at first during the X360 generation.
Click to expand...

Multiple of your points can be answered by the info that the Switch (or Nintendo) version will not be cloud, they have committed native versions relative to the hardware.
 
mckmas8808 said:
I'm sorry guys, but I have to say it. This judge is dumb as a bitch! What the heck is wrong with this lady???

1. It's NOT a merger!
2. There's a reason as to why the game wasn't on the Switch.
3. Most people DO NOT like playing cloud-only games on the Switch.
4. Is it even financially feasible to rely on making the all versions of COD to be playable on the Switch via cloud gaming?
5. Why is she bringing up the "Marketing" deal Sony had with COD? As if it matters at all to Xbox gamers. It doesn't matter!!! It's not anti-competitive. Plus it puts money in the pockets of the Publisher and Developer
6. MS had bidding rights for this "Marketing" deal and they backed off and allowed Sony to get the deal. MS had it at first during the X360 generation.
Click to expand...
7. I love my son democracy, I love the republic.
Revenge Of The Sith Evil Laugh GIF by Star Wars
 
NickFire said:
From motion:

"Defendants will not be substantially injured by the brief delay from Plaintiff's appeal of this Court's Order. There is no evidence that the parties are required to abandon the Proposed Acquisition should the Court grant a stay that extends past July 18, 2023. Microsoft has publicly stated that it is seeking to stay its appeal of the United Kingdom's ruling against the merger. . . . Microsoft's willingness to delay an appeal elsewhere supports finding that delay here will not substantially injure Defendants. Accordingly, any alleged harm to Defendants from a stay while the appellate process in this country plays out is far outweighed by the substantial public interest in maintaining competition."

I thought they might try to use CMA hold to say no imminent harm.
Click to expand...
This really is such a good point.

Only if the old farts sitting in courts can understand it now.
 
adamsapple said:
Multiple of your points can be answered by the info that the Switch (or Nintendo) version will not be cloud, they have committed native versions relative to the hardware.
Click to expand...

But we know that will NOT happen in reality. Like come on adamsapple adamsapple

Have you seen CyberPunk 2077 running on the PS4 and Xbox One?............COD will be worse on the Switch.
 
Last edited:
mckmas8808 said:
It's been shown that since "sony" is the market leader some how......it allows MS to buy any and every publisher they can afford.
Click to expand...
I mean, Sony hasn't even tried to buy a publisher yet so how can we really say that. In my opinion, what's good for one is good for the other.

Sony could use their acquisition of Bungie, still having them create new IP that are multiplat. Yes this was a condition of the acquistion to begin with, set forth by Bungie, but still I think it's a valid defense.
 
Heisenberg007 said:
This really is such a good point.

Only if the old farts sitting in courts can understand it now.
Click to expand...
NickFire said:
I interpret that as a dare, which the FTC just accepted. :messenger_squinting_tongue:

Now let's see if the FTC argues to the Court of Appeal's that a stay would pose no harm to MS because they are re-opening negotiations anyway. :messenger_tears_of_joy:

And I've got to stop drinking coffee and watching this thread today. 😲
Click to expand...
Tooting my own horn that I posted this may end up in the argument yesterday. And to think someone called me a MS fanboy today. :messenger_beaming:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
‘Microsoft’ said they were streamlining 9000 people across XGS/ABK/ZM
Rumor 
19
457
Topher replied
Microsoft wins FTC appeal challenging $69 billion Activision Blizzard deal
News Business  2 3
125
3K
Unknown? replied
MS/ABK is advertising games that don't exist for data collection
46
3K
POKEYCLYDE replied
My apologies to Ubisoft, Sony, Activision, EA, MS etc. for making a big deal out of $70 games
2 3 4
156
8K
MDSLKTR replied
Battlefield 6 Beta |OT| Open Beta/Closed Weapons.
|OT|  60 61 62 63 64
3K
5K
Branded replied
Top Bottom