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.
Heisenberg007 said:
"Passion projects"

VXM1YUE.jpg
Click to expand...
You mean titles like Pentiment?
If so, bring them on, the more the merrier.
 
Last edited:
GHG said:
The problem is, if the FTC had been successful in getting the PI and the July 18th deadline approaches then it's no longer their decision alone to make.

I don't think Microsoft themselves would have wanted to give up, but rather it would have been activision potentially throwing in the towel.
Click to expand...
Activision simply want to sell, it would have taken a total block to put them off, perhaps Bobby needs more money than we initially thought.
 
Bernardougf said:
Are you serious ?? After their meltdown soon as CMA blocked the deal ? ... no.. they didnt expect having to go this far out .... some oposition is always expected.. but a full block from the CMA i can pretty much guarantee was not expected
Click to expand...
I will guarantee you they would have expected all of this, the deal is worth a fortune, and puts Microsoft in control of one of the biggest gaming studios on the planet. Both legal teams from Microsoft and Activision, would have been well aware of the potential hurdles to this deal going through.

My own personal opinion though, and I totally respect any member on here who does not feel the same way.
 
Mozza said:
Activision simply want to sell, it would have taken a total block to put them off, perhaps Bobby needs more money than we initially thought.
Click to expand...

The reasons Bobby was looking to sell at the time of doing the deal no longer exist. The general market conditions that existed at the time of sale also no longer exist. There's also the fact that had it been prolonged into 2024 it would have meant Activision's usual business activities could have been in jeopardy (for example, they needed to get a new COD marketing deal in place, hence Bobby wanted to try and get that from Jim Ryan even while all of this was going on).

Lots of moving parts, but overall its much bigger than "does Bobby need money".
 
GHG said:
Microsoft themselves said that they would no longer persue the deal if the FTC got the PI. They may have been bluffing to create a sense of urgency due to the deal deadline fast approaching but if we assume that's true then had the FTC been successful they would no longer have needed to talk to the CMA, and whatever concessions they agreed to with the EU also become irrelevant.

If I were to take a guess then it would be that Microsoft will have gone to the CMA with a divestment proposal for them to consider on the condition that the FTC's PI was unsuccessful. Hence the CMA have now put the wheels in motion to start doing the necessary work to make a decision on the divestment proposal which will now run through to (up to) August.
Click to expand...
How can MS proposed divestment as a remedy when CMA says best remedy is prohibition?
CMA got the complex and detailed submission from MS before Jun 19th. That is why CMA is considering changing their stance to whatever degree. Right?
 
GHG said:
It helps that the CMA will have softened Microsoft prior to them needing to meet with the EU regulators. In order for negotiations to take place regarding concessions and divestment it requires both parties to be willing to sit at the table. With the CMA Microsoft said no to both discussing concessions and divestment when they were proposed. After the CMA threw the hammer down Microsoft were more than willing to discuss concessions with the EU and they are now back with the CMA discussing divestment.



Seriously, if you haven't yet go back and listen to the FTC trial. The level of incompetence was beyond belief. If you want to see what the discourse was like here at the time then start here:




It was bad. If you are ever in trouble, get forced to take a public attorney and you're assigned any of the FTC lawyers that dealt with this trial then do yourself a favour, skip going to court and just put yourself in jail.



Microsoft themselves said that they would no longer persue the deal if the FTC got the PI. They may have been bluffing to create a sense of urgency due to the deal deadline fast approaching but if we assume that's true then had the FTC been successful they would no longer have needed to talk to the CMA, and whatever concessions they agreed to with the EU also become irrelevant.

If I were to take a guess then it would be that Microsoft will have gone to the CMA with a divestment proposal for them to consider on the condition that the FTC's PI was unsuccessful. Hence the CMA have now put the wheels in motion to start doing the necessary work to make a decision on the divestment proposal which will now run through to (up to) August.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing the CMA haven't done well to get concessions, I'm arguing the validity of their case and their methods of getting the concessions. I.e. I think they know their case isn't strong but they have advantages in the power / independence they have.

The FTC don't have that power hence (despite knowing full well the CMA and EU has abandoned console and focused on Cloud for concessions) they went all in on the 'anticompetitive' nature of the deal I. The here and now and how it would negatively affect their main competitor, Sony. In the cold hard lifgt of day the cloud doesn't hold up. The CMA used it as a backup, the EU leveraged that to get concessions knowing MS wanted one less obstacle but the FTC knew that it wasn't near enough to build a case on.

Again, if the CMA are independent, they wouldn't just 'put the wheels on' 5 days out from the deadline. MS would be breathing down their necks for months trying to get a resolution with them as it would help their FTC case too. The CMA we're holding out as they were colluding with the FTC with a weak case so they were both running out the clock
 
GHG said:
The reasons Bobby was looking to sell at the time of doing the deal no longer exist. The general market conditions that existed at the time of sale also no longer exist. There's also the fact that had it been prolonged into 2024 it would have meant Activision's usual business activities could have been in jeopardy (for example, they needed to get a new COD marketing deal in place, hence Bobby wanted to try and get that from Jim Ryan even while all of this was going on).

Lots of moving parts, but overall its much bigger than "does Bobby need money".
Click to expand...
He would not sell if he did not want too, his interviews post reports of the CMA's decision, show he was upset they were trying to block this deal, we don't know the reasons, or what goes on behind closed doors, but the will to close all this from Bobby seemed very strong.
 
NEbeast said:
Before today you were last here over 2 weeks ago. What a ducking hypocrite.
Dougie Payne Doctor GIF by Travis
Click to expand...
Not much point to be honest, no news and just the same old back and fourths, came back when we had finally got somewhere, but your insult is very good, quite inventive to be honest. Glad you felt the need to look into my post history, as I have absolutely zero interest in yours. ;)
 
Last edited:
Hero of Spielberg said:
I'm not arguing the CMA haven't done well to get concessions, I'm arguing the validity of their case and their methods of getting the concessions. I.e. I think they know their case isn't strong but they have advantages in the power / independence they have.

The FTC don't have that power hence (despite knowing full well the CMA and EU has abandoned console and focused on Cloud for concessions) they went all in on the 'anticompetitive' nature of the deal I. The here and now and how it would negatively affect their main competitor, Sony. In the cold hard lifgt of day the cloud doesn't hold up. The CMA used it as a backup, the EU leveraged that to get concessions knowing MS wanted one less obstacle but the FTC knew that it wasn't near enough to build a case on.

Again, if the CMA are independent, they wouldn't just 'put the wheels on' 5 days out from the deadline. MS would be breathing down their necks for months trying to get a resolution with them as it would help their FTC case too. The CMA we're holding out as they were colluding with the FTC with a weak case so they were both running out the clock
Click to expand...

I'll just say this - if the CMA's case (regarding cloud specifically since that was the reason for the block) wasnt strong then Microsoft would simply let the appeals process play out in it's entirety rather than put in a proposal that involves divestment. If the cloud argument doesn't hold up then Microsoft don't agree to specific cloud concessions with the EU.

Everything about it holds up due to the size of the market, the potential addressable market and Microsoft's current strength in that area (along with their ability to leverage said strength). Microsoft themselves now know it's a valid reason (they didn't at the time of the CMA block but they do now and will have been advised on this since), hence they've been willing to play ball in that area. If they weren't willing to then they would have been staring down the barrel of a block in both the UK and EU and then all the stuff with the FTC would never have even happened.

Mozza said:
He would not sell if he did not want too, his interviews post reports of the CMA's decision, show he was upset they were trying to block this deal, we don't know the reasons, or what goes on behind closed doors, but the will to close all this from Bobby seemed very strong.
Click to expand...

Up until the deadline he has no choice. He's signed a contract that says he and Activision as a whole need to be fully supportive of the deal up until the deadline, if not Activision owe Microsoft the 3 billion dollars.

Alex Scott said:
How can MS proposed divestment as a remedy when CMA says best remedy is prohibition?
CMA got the complex and detailed submission from MS before Jun 19th. That is why CMA is considering changing their stance to whatever degree. Right?
Click to expand...

The CMA previously asked for remedies, Microsoft said no. Most recently the CMA also asked for divestment (prior to the block), Microsoft said no.

Now Microsoft are no longer saying no and are proposing divestment. Your guess is as good as mine as to why they didn't just negotiate divestment with the CMA before they moved to block the deal instead of waiting until now to discuss it with them.
 
Last edited:
GHG said:
I'll just say this - if the CMA's case (regarding cloud specifically since that was the reason for the block) wasnt strong then Microsoft would simply let the appeals process play out in it's entirety rather than put in a proposal that involves divestment. If the cloud argument doesn't hold up then Microsoft don't agree to specific cloud concessions with the EU.

Everything about it holds up due to the size of the market, the potential addressable market and Microsoft's current strength in that area (along with their ability to leverage said strength). Microsoft themselves now know it's a valid reason (they didn't at the time of the CMA block but they do now and will have been advised on this since), hence they've been willing to play ball in that area. If they weren't willing to then they would have been staring down the barrel of a block in both the UK and EU and then all the stuff with the FTC would never have even happened.



Up until the deadline he has no choice. He's signed a contract that says he and Activision as a whole need to be fully supportive of the deal up until the deadline, if not Activision owe Microsoft the 3 billion dollars.
Click to expand...
I think Bobby is safe, and does not need to raid his piggybank just yet. ;)
 
GHG said:
I'll just say this - if the CMA's case (regarding cloud specifically since that was the reason for the block) wasnt strong then Microsoft would simply let the appeals process play out in it's entirety rather than put in a proposal that involves divestment. If the cloud argument doesn't hold up then Microsoft don't agree to specific cloud concessions with the EU.

Everything about it holds up due to the size of the market, the potential addressable market and Microsoft's current strength in that area (along with their ability to leverage said strength). Microsoft themselves now know it's a valid reason (they didn't at the time of the CMA block but they do now and will have been advised on this since), hence they've been willing to play ball in that area. If they weren't willing to then they would have been staring down the barrel of a block in both the UK and EU and then all the stuff with the FTC would never have even happened.



Up until the deadline he has no choice. He's signed a contract that says he and Activision as a whole need to be fully supportive of the deal up until the deadline, if not Activision owe Microsoft the 3 billion dollars.



The CMA previously asked for remedies, Microsoft said no. Most recently the CMA also asked for divestment (prior to the block), Microsoft said no.

Now Microsoft are no longer saying no and are proposing divestment. Your guess is as good as mine as to why they didn't just negotiate divestment with the CMA before they moved to block the deal instead of waiting until now to discuss it with them.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. The way I see it is MS we're looking for the path of least resistance to closing (within reason) so they took the EU cloud concessions to smooth it as something they'd cop to get the deal done rather than thinking it was a genuine concern that could be genuinely contested to end the deal.
 
Mozza said:
The FCA's whole case seemed to focus on the impact for Sony, if they had suggested it was bad for the wider gaming market, and pursued that line, perhaps the outcome would have been different. At least the CMA tried to suggest a different reason, for a little variety. ;)
Click to expand...
The FTC's concern was on the wider gaming market but their focus would have been correct because even MS' internal emails stresses the fact that Sony would be the only one able to compete with them and how they should invest billions now to put sony out of business and secure content for the future (even mentioned 10yrs from now). So when the FTC focus on foreclosure of a competitor in a market where there is only 1 or arguably 2 they are doing their job, that's what they should be doing. Their lawyers just don't have good public speaking skills and aren't ruthless enough.
 
93xfan said:
MS cant work with Tencent because…?

What step of denial is this, btw? Anyone know?
Click to expand...
What denial.
Just saying, if you are for this acquisition, that sony acquisition thread that is certainly gonna happen in in the near future will be very interesting to read. Because what do you expect sony to do now, roll over and take it?
 
Three said:
The FTC's concern was on the wider gaming market but their focus would have been correct because even MS' internal emails stresses the fact that Sony would be the only one able to compete with them and how they should invest billions now to put sony out of business and secure content for the future (even mentioned 10yrs from now). So when the FTC focus on foreclosure of a competitor in a market where there is only 1 or arguably 2 they are doing their job, that's what they should be doing. Their lawyers just don't have good public speaking skills and aren't ruthless enough.
Click to expand...
So that what it is, not that this was never bad for gaming in the first place. ;)
 
balls of snow said:
What denial.
Just saying, if you are for this acquisition, that sony acquisition thread that is certainly gonna happen in in the near future will be very interesting to read. Because what do you expect sony to do now, roll over and take it?
Click to expand...
I just want consistency. If you were for this deal you should be okay with a Sony acquisition. Likewise, if you are against this acquisition, you should carry that same energy to the next acquisition thread.

I'm against this, and I would be against any future Sony acquisition of for example Square, Konami or Capcom. The only way I'd be okay is if it remains independent and multiplatform like Bungie is. Otherwise that acquisition can fuck off.

Also imagine buying SE and keeping their board in charge. It would be fucking 343'd before the decade is out.
 
Last edited:
Mozza said:
So that what it is, not that this was never bad for gaming in the first place. ;)
Click to expand...
They are one and the same. If there is no or lowered competition in a segment then that usually means there is no incentive to lower prices or increase quality and innovation. That's the only reason regulators investigate and prevent unfair methods of competition in commerce in the first place.
 
Dick Jones said:
I could see a provisional agreement between the CMA and MS not to integrate the companies until the CMA/CAT process is complete so the CMA would likely look for divestment at the end should MS fail and MS get to close the deal. MS could get fucked properly if they lose that way.
Click to expand...
I'm skimming through the amount of copium and still can't believe some takes here. Per CMA own words: the ban still stands, the appeal is not withdrawn until late Monday and every remedy will be examined in a context of new deal, not the current one. It's as straightforward as it gets.

CMA is a public body that reports everything beforehead for public to evaluate. That's the UK law.

Everything else is pure copium, sorry.
 
Last edited:
Dick Jones said:
I just want consistency. If you were for this deal you should be okay with a Sony acquisition. Likewise, if you are against this acquisition, you should carry that same energy to the next acquisition thread.

I'm against this, and I would be against any future Sony acquisition of for example Square, Konami or Capcom. The only way I'd be okay is if it remains independent and multiplatform like Bungie is. Otherwise that acquisition can fuck off.

Also imagine buying SE and keeping their board in charge. It would be fucking 343'd before the decade is out.
Click to expand...

I'm consistent. I support acquisitions by the king and reject acquisitions by the devil
 
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
Stephen Curry replied
Top Bottom