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.
Varteras said:
How about this? If you win, Banjo64 Banjo64 gives you a handjob. If he wins, he gives Pelta88 Pelta88 a handjob. I think that's fair.
Click to expand...
Pelta88 Pelta88

My prize, my goal, my obsession.

I Love U Ily GIF by i-love-you
 
Varteras said:
The administrative court date was set for August. They had, in fact, already sued. The FTC was already going through their normal motions. There was no reason for them to jump into a PI right off the bat. They had already established what you are accusing them of not. A hearing on the deal.

They likely considered a PI as a possibility in the event the CMA allowed the deal and if there was no indication that MS was going to extend the deadline for the hearing with the FTC. As the court date was set outside the deadline. But there was no reason to move on it just then. When the CMA said no, and considering the history of the CMA on denying acquisitions, the FTC, as I said, had a reasonable assumption that it was either the end of the deal or that MS would extend just to battle the CMA alone.

Something spooked the FTC into a PI. That, or, my tinfoil theory is that Khan was worried about losing a chance at a big case and either winning it or using the loss to fuel her political ideals for reforms.

The point is, the PI looked entirely unnecessary. Until, suddenly and for reasons we may not understand for a while yet, they deemed it was.
Click to expand...
Ok so in December 2022 they set the trial for August. Ok that makes more sense.

So if Microsoft had closed...let's say the CMA didn't block...would the trial in August still happen? Or would it be more likely that they drop the case?

Edit: My understanding is that post acquisition litigation puts the plaintiff at a disadvantage, I guess because the wheels are already in motion. True?
 
Last edited:
So basically FTC's only hope is this appeal.

Are they able to present new arguments as part of the appeal?

I don't think the judge having a son who works for Microsoft is gonna fly when the FTC agreed when that fact was disclosed. But what about the other stuff that came out in the trial?

Could they maybe pivot to focus more on the consumer, for example?

If you were on the legal team. What points would you put forth? Asking anybody at this point.
 
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4 said:
I dunno, maybe MS knows Acti has said no to an extension and be demanding their 3 Billion, can't really answer that honestly I just dont know

I just feel the CMA is not going to stop it if the FTC loses again

Possibly behind closed doors CMA/MS has something laid out

I just dont know but I would bet large sums of money MS closes if the Appeals Court says no to the FTC
Click to expand...
Maybe there's an extension addendum in light of the recent agreement with the CMA.
 
Jigsaah said:
So basically FTC's only hope is this appeal.

Are they able to present new arguments as part of the appeal?

I don't think the judge having a son who works for Microsoft is gonna fly when the FTC agreed when that fact was disclosed. But what about the other stuff that came out in the trial?

Could they maybe pivot to focus more on the consumer, for example?

If you were on the legal team. What points would you put forth? Asking anybody at this point.
Click to expand...
As pointed out earlier they are wasting tax payers money on a paper thin case that is about as water tight as the Titanic. If they win the appeal then I'm a monkey's uncle.
 
DeepEnigma said:
Maybe there's an extension addendum in light of the recent agreement with the CMA.
Click to expand...
Been trying to figure out how the UK posters could be correct about CMA standing strong on principal, despite MS spending a fortune (financially and by airing dirty laundry) fighting the FTC when the FTC decision would seem irrelevant. My mental roadblock has been that I just can't fathom why MS would go through all of this just for AB to walk on 7/18 because of the CMA. But there actually are two very simple reasons why MS would fight FTC regardless:

1) a limited extension being available; or
2) a willingness to fight until the very end hoping CMA caves.

The damn cynic in my head still won't shut up, but I'm starting to come around to the possibility CMA really might have no intent of backing down. A limited extension is perfectly plausible since the injunction (had it issued) would have lasted well past the CMA appeal date. And fighting until hope is lost is probably something you just do when you have that much money.
 
Jigsaah said:
Ok so in December 2022 they set the trial for August. Ok that makes more sense.

So if Microsoft had closed...let's say the CMA didn't block...would the trial in August still happen? Or would it be more likely that they drop the case?
Click to expand...

So in all likelihood, the FTC filing for a PI earlier on was dependent on the CMA. If the CMA allowed the deal, chances are the FTC would have moved to a PI. Why? Because the FTC is a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest and everyone knows it. They're very ineffective but they stand a much better chance at winning if the acquisition hasn't happened yet. It is very difficult to undo a deal like this that is already done in the US. But they probably would have gauged the situation before doing so anyway.

When the CMA said no, most believed that was the end of it. Because historically, it is. At that point, a PI seemed like a waste of time and would have been if they tried for it earlier. The deal would either die on the 18th or would be extended and the FTC would have their previously filed court date. Something, and what that is we won't know for some time, instigated them to sue for a PI where it otherwise didn't seem like it was needed.

In an ideal world, the FTC wouldn't have needed the PI at all, even if they stood alone, because MS would have had to wait for the administrative hearing before they could close, if they won, or appeal it to a higher court if they lost. Unfortunately, the system is set up where Microsoft can just close the deal ahead of the administrative court date and force it to a higher court. As I understand it, there are no actual repercussions to doing so unless a Federal judge ruled against Microsoft later. So the reality is that Microsoft could have just said "fuck the FTC" at any point and with no respect to their timeframes had the CMA not blocked it.

Someone is welcome to correct me on this, but that has been my understanding. That the FTC plays with a deck very stacked against it and has to play things a lot differently than the CMA.
 
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...

She is a boomer who looks down on video games. Thats the vibe I get from the closing statements. All this for ONE videogame.
 
SenkiDala said:
The UK isn't the whole world.
Click to expand...

Neither is the US.

Awkward John Krasinski GIF by Saturday Night Live


M16 said:
i said in the US they would be clear to close. now whether they close the merger on the 17th, nobody knows for certain.
and if the CMA block was an absolute roadblock to close, the FTC would have had no reason to file a PI request.
Click to expand...

Ok....you meant they wouldn't be blocked in the US. However, FTC is not going to assume the CMA will successfully block the acquisition so naturally they are going to file the PI.
 
Last edited:
M16 said:
Click to expand...


Full response link:


The FTC's filing fails to provide any basis to expect that it will prevail on a single issue on appeal, much less run the table on the multiple findings it would have to reverse to prevail. See Cascadia Wildlands v. Thrailkill, 806 F.3d 1234, 1240 (9th Cir. 2015) (appellate review of an order denying a motion for preliminary injunction "is limited and deferential"). Specifically, as we will explain to the Ninth Circuit, the FTC does not identify a single legal error in this Court's reasoning, nor any reason to think that any of the complaints they lodge would have changed the outcome.
Click to expand...

Further, the Court has already found that it would be inequitable to enter an injunction that could lead to "the potential skuttling of the merger," and that this inequitable result was "a separate, independent reason the FTC's motion must be denied." Op. 51–52. The FTC's new request to enjoin the merger for the months (or more) that it will take for the Ninth Circuit to hear and decide this appeal would have the same effect. The Court's opinion was cognizant of the potential for appellate review and the competing need for finality in advance of July 18. It therefore left the TRO in place long enough for the FTC to seek relief pending appeal, while at the same time shortening the TRO already in place by three days, in apparent recognition that any appellate relief would have to be sought expeditiously and without prejudice to the parties' ability to close the transaction. Compare Op. 53, with Dkt. 37. That the FTC wasted nearly 75% of the time the Court allowed is not a reason to reconsider.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
hlm666 said:
Geforce now and xcloud are here in Aus. I played around with both during the pandemic lockdowns on a 50/25mbps cable internet connection. I played completely through that ubisoft fenyx immortals game on xcloud last year, the biggest issue I had with that was it was basically a console level experience and I had to use a gamepad, latency wise it was all playable, I could parry and dodge and all easy enough. Geforce now was way better though, I played a few different things on that with a mouse and keyboard and cyberpunk via geforce now was really close to the local experience. I'm planning on playing the DLC at the end of the year via geforce now on the 4080 tier because my pc pulling 600+ watts in summer in qld will suck, will also help out the power bill if it's a long expansion like blood and wine.
Click to expand...
Yeah you are magical and probably one of the lucky few. Cloud gaming just sucks big time in Australia, and I tried it both with Gold Coast FttC and Starlink out in remote bush. Until infrastructure catches up to technology requirements, I have a feeling vast majority of Australian gamers will stick with physical playing.
 
GHG said:
I would have advised you to save writing all of that before reading this:

ZE13nGU.jpg
Click to expand...


After reading this 3 times within a 5 minute period, it's come to my conclusion that the "Notifying Party" and this Judge can't understand that Microsoft's goal with these acquisitions isn't to profit early, but to kill the competition. And then profit down the road. And they have the money to wait this "profit timeline" out.

Nobody seems to understand that this is Microsoft's goal, because 99% of all corporations on planet Earth wouldn't do this. But MS is part of the top 1%.
 
I know we cant mention him around here, but thought his "patents blog" would be championing the pi decision outcome and highlighting that he was right.
Nothing at all.
Cheques (checks) stopped? Contract ended? Or maybe he blocked himself?
 
Last edited:
ChiefDada said:
You are absolutely right, it's a poorly written regulation that can only lead to confusion. But it's what the FTC, Microsoft, and the District Court has to work with.



So now FTC's reasoning for appeal becomes more clear.

Under Judge's interpretation: Reasonable probability (>50%) that it will (100%) results in overall probability of >50%; greater than 50%

Reasonable probabiliity (>50%) that it might/may be/ likely (>50%) results in overall probability of >25%; as low as (>25%).
Click to expand...
 
zedinen said:
Blocking COD on PS5 would be beyond stupid.

(Nov 20 - Jun 22)
21
14

Last 12 Months
21
7


Microsoft can only be successful if Sony bleeds money.

kULYLp2.jpg




PlayStation will never lose money again for the simple reason that Microsoft's thought experiment is a nonsensical brain fart made on the wrong assumptions. Microsoft failed to anticipate:

-PlayStation revenue and Sony equity has doubled over the last five years.

FY17

1fOXSNa.jpeg



FY22

0zPB6iG.jpeg



-PS5 selling 7 million in the last 12 months in America, after claiming that Xbox Series was the market leader for 3 quarters in a row


-Sony generating enough cash flow to buy mid size publishers w/o breaking a sweat

6QDi8VJ.jpg



-PlayStation revenue growth in the post pandemic world (Three months ended March 31, 2023)

PlayStation $8.11 bn
Microsoft $3.60 bn
ABK $1.76 bn

sMyhRDm.jpg



l5rz8hs.jpg

EWLJcxm.jpg




Microsoft's internal targets from June 2022 imply that Xbox gaming will be the market leader and achieve over $32 billion revenues by 2030 ... PlayStation is on track to achieve $32 billion in 2023.

aKYjBGo.jpg





No one gives a shit about Microsoft antics. They are the PSG of gaming. And Spencer, a real-life Michael Scott.

esiMERe.jpg
Click to expand...

No way Sony thinks the Playstation gaming business will make $32 Billion in revenue next year. There's just no way.
 
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