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.
feynoob said:
Man, you have no idea how much shit the government is.
You are putting too much faith on the CMA.

If anything, they are like other government bodies.
Click to expand...
Well please provide links to substantiate that outlandish besmirchment of their professionalism :), or are you just hooked on feeling - Guardians of the galaxy style?
 
feynoob said:
Nintendo is the only winner here.
They have won by virtually doing nothing.
Click to expand...

10DDB165E2F1A46114E415C49AD3409613082BD0
 
Elios83 said:
Are you suggesting that CMA has the power to rule and be concerned about happens throughout the world?
Shouldn't their only concern be about the UK market alone?
Click to expand...
They do, and recent blocks in recent years have done exactly that. The US airline booking system company acquisition was one notable recent block that did just that.
 
feynoob said:
Why?
MS is giving Sony 4.5b for years. That is a lot of AAA exclusive PS games.
Jim Ryan made a huge business investment for PS.
Not to mention, people won't buy Xbox to play COD and leave the platform.
That is a win for you guys.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you've ever attended the school of sparta but we're taught to give the enemy no quarter
 
PaintTinJr said:
Well please provide links to substantiate that outlandish besmirchment of their professionalism :), or are you just hooked on feeling - Guardians of the galaxy style?
Click to expand...
CMA had no reason to listen to MS. That court battle was a win case for them.
If MS were to win, It will just go back to them and reach the same verdict.

They throw away such a win and decided to review MS new proposal.

This is a classic of "change of plans, the check has been cleared. We will pretend to punish you to make it look real".

Why does CMA needs 6 weeks to review it?
They could have made it 4 months or longer.

Something is going behind the scenes.
 
Last edited:
feynoob said:
CMA had no reason to listen to MS. That court battle was a win case for them.
If MS were to win, It will just go back to them and reach the same verdict.

They throw away such a win and decided to review MS new proposal.

This is a classic of "change of plans, the check has been cleared. We will pretend to punish you to make it look real".

Why does CMA needs 6 weeks to review it?
They could have made it 4 months or longer.

Something is going behind the scenes.
Click to expand...
The behind the scenes is that everywhere else lost and the government doesn't want the UK to be seen as economic radicals when they're still trying to court tech companies post brexit. Microsoft would have had no recourse and not been able to close yes, but it's one of those win the battle lose the war. The moment the FTC lost England became an island (lol) and you don't want that if you're goal is to become the silicon Valley of Europe.
 
tpieman2029 said:
The behind the scenes is that everywhere else lost and the government doesn't want the UK to be seen as economic radicals when they're still trying to court tech companies post brexit. Microsoft would have had no recourse and not been able to close yes, but it's one of those win the battle lose the war. The moment the FTC lost England became an island (lol) and you don't want that if you're goal is to become the silicon Valley of Europe.
Click to expand...
There is that, but also that the CAT didn't seem to be trending favorably towards the CMAs decision so the writing might have been on the wall for the CMA.
I imagine it's easier to come to an agreement with MS rather than to have the CAT publicly going against the CMA.
 
James Sawyer Ford said:
Jim got 10 years of CoD, that's pretty good compared to 2024, then 2027....now it's 2033

Sounds like Jim's work paid off
Click to expand...

If you want to see Jim signing the same 10 year deal that was presented with him now minus all other future Activision titles to be had until 2027 as a hard days' work that paid of, by all means.
 
Last edited:
Do you think there's any chance they might make Destiny exclusive?

I know Bungie are very against that, but they own them now so could theoretically make it happen.

That said, it might have been part of the acquisition terms….
 
Last edited:
James Sawyer Ford said:
Jim got 10 years of CoD, that's pretty good compared to 2024, then 2027....now it's 2033

Sounds like Jim's work paid off
Click to expand...
That's the new narrative/ talking point for them

All deals were bad btw, Microsoft is scummy as always
I just want playstation to Phase out COD slowly , they are king of marketing and they should move that COD community on something else

Fortnite and Apex already took a big piece from COD
And being a COD player myself everyone hates how the game is for now
 
Ogbert said:
Do you think there's any chance they might make Destiny exclusive?

I know Bungie are very against that, but they own them now so could theoretically make it happen.

That said, it might have been part of the acquisition terms….
Click to expand...
MS own Mojang but couldn't make MC : Dungeons exclusive.
 
Last edited:
Timberwolf25 said:
I wonder how many of the people accusing Phil of lying under oath and that he would be taking COD away feel now that a binding agreement has been signed.
Click to expand...

We feel better knowing that Sony and MS signed an actual contract and not some crazy "trust me bro" statement in court.
 
Bernoulli said:
That's the new narrative/ talking point for them

All deals were bad btw, Microsoft is scummy as always
I just want playstation to Phase out COD slowly , they are king of marketing and they should move that COD community on something else

Fortnite and Apex already took a big piece from COD
And being a COD player myself everyone hates how the game is for now
Click to expand...

CoD keeps charting the monthly Top 10 NPD since its release. You must be speaking for yourself and not the CoD community as a whole.
 
TrueGrime said:
If you want to see Jim signing the same 10 year deal that was presented with him now minus all other future Activision titles to be had until 2027 as a hard days' work that paid of, by all means.
Click to expand...

Sony doesn't really care about other Activision games. They are a CoD factory, nothing more.

Yeah, if that's the consolation prize of possibly the deal getting blocked, and they ended up losing that bet, I'm sure Sony is fine with the results. As of a week ago, there was a good chance of the deal being dead.

Of course, just because the deal doesn't guarantee future activision titles, it doesn't mean they won't. I guess we'll see just how much Microsoft cares about "bringing gamers more options to play" like they claim
 
Last edited:
feynoob said:
CMA had no reason to listen to MS. That court battle was a win case for them.
If MS were to win, It will just go back to them and reach the same verdict.

They throw away such a win and decided to review MS new proposal.

This is a classic of "change of plans, the check has been cleared. We will pretend to punish you to make it look real".

Why does CMA needs 6 weeks to review it?
They could have made it 4 months or longer.

Something is going behind the scenes.
Click to expand...

Its like wrestling all theatrics a worked shoot brother
 
James Sawyer Ford said:
Sony doesn't really care about other Activision games. They are a CoD factory, nothing more.

Yeah, if that's the consolation prize of possibly the deal getting blocked, and they ended up losing that bet, I'm sure Sony is fine with the results. As of a week ago, there was a good chance of the deal being dead.
Click to expand...

That's true, I'll give you that.

However, it's a sad state of affairs when the Sony faithful keep speaking for Sony in terms Sony does care for X games or they don't need X game to remain market leader, successful, etc. Sony might not care about other Activision games, but gamers might.

Maybe not.

Doesn't really bother me anyway as nothing is changing for me post acquisition other than games vis Game pass.
 
feynoob said:
CMA had no reason to listen to MS. That court battle was a win case for them.
If MS were to win, It will just go back to them and reach the same verdict.

They throw away such a win and decided to review MS new proposal.

This is a classic of "change of plans, the check has been cleared. We will pretend to punish you to make it look real".

Why does CMA needs 6 weeks to review it?
They could have made it 4 months or longer.

Something is going behind the scenes.
Click to expand...
I thought they were obligated to review it and Microsoft agreed to pause the appeal?

Right now I have this deal passing at 90%, but if they need more time to review Microsoft's offer, then I'm dropping my prediction down to 50%. There's certainly something going on behind the scenes if this deal closes within the next few days.

But will people have the same confidence if the CMA needs until August to review this case?
 
10 years is a long time though, plenty of time for Sony to try and get acquired or plan out the sunset of the PlayStation division.

If Sony gets a 10 year lease on life and still fucks it up, that's their own lookout. MS gave them 10 years of life before destroying them, that's 10 years longer than the average MS competitor got.
 
adamsapple said:
But that effectively means his work didn't pay off..
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. My own personnel conspiracy theory was that this was more about delaying the deal (worst case scenario) than blocking the deal (best case scenario). In the end, the deal could've been approved sooner if not for a vigorous challenge from the CMA, so he might've gotten some of what he wanted. At least in my totally made up theory.
 
ChorizoPicozo said:
so people are equating a deal as an "L" for sony?
Click to expand...
Losing basically a billion dollars of free money that your competitor now owns I would imagine doesn't sound very appealing. It's a bold move from MS, let's see how it plays out for them. I imagine if they have any sense they will basically leave it as is. That hasn't worked out for them recently when they have let devs manage themselves, but activision is a different beast.
 
DForce said:
I thought they were obligated to review it and Microsoft agreed to pause the appeal?

Right now I have this deal passing at 90%, but if they need more time to review Microsoft's offer, then I'm dropping my prediction down to 50%. There's certainly something going on behind the scenes if this deal closes within the next few days.

But will people have the same confidence if the CMA needs until August to review this case?
Click to expand...
Confidence is high due to the 6 week review process. Mainly because the deal comeback from a block process and got a short review period.

Hopefully Monday clears up the process for that.
 
feynoob said:
CMA had no reason to listen to MS. That court battle was a win case for them.
If MS were to win, It will just go back to them and reach the same verdict.

They throw away such a win and decided to review MS new proposal.

This is a classic of "change of plans, the check has been cleared. We will pretend to punish you to make it look real".

Why does CMA needs 6 weeks to review it?
They could have made it 4 months or longer.

Something is going behind the scenes.
Click to expand...
Complete and utter nonsense.

The win has been postponed, they take their job deadly serious and that includes not blocking mergers unless absolutely necessary....because mergers do still have benefits in areas like GDP, etc that the country benefits from in the short term even when consumers or competition eventually loses. The postponement was from a position of power, when Microsoft requested it from a position of weakness, not the other way around.

They need 6 weeks to consult all those that might be affected, and even this extension won't be enough, but as these are by exception, they might need to apply again after receiving further feedback, but realistically they don't need 6 weeks to say no, which by the legislation is their foregone conclusion of the remedies offered by Microsoft, as they still are Microsoft with Windows , Xbox and Azure, and would still own Activision's library. It is that simple.
 
Last edited:
Can the people saying Jim screw up, not taking the 2027 deal, name all the games announced and in development from ABK that will release until 2027 not been COD ? Honest question since I dont follow ABK too closely
 
PaintTinJr said:
Complete and utter nonsense.

The win has been postponed, they take their job deadly serious and that includes not blocking mergers unless absolutely necessary....because mergers do still have benefits in areas like GDP, etc that the country benefits from in the short term even when consumers or competition eventually loses. The postponement was from a position of power, when Microsoft requested it from a position of weakness, not the other way around.

They need 6 weeks to consult all those that might be affected, and even this extension won't be enough, but as these are by except, they might need to apply again after receiving further feedback, but realistically they don't need 6 weeks to say no, which by the legislation is their foregone conclusion of the remedies offered by Microsoft, as they still are Microsoft with Windows , Xbox and Azure, and would still own Activision's library. It is that simple.
Click to expand...
Monday will give you answer to your question.
They have a conference tomorrow.
 
Timberwolf25 said:
Not necessarily. My own personnel conspiracy theory was that this was more about delaying the deal (worst case scenario) than blocking the deal (best case scenario). In the end, the deal could've been approved sooner if not for a vigorous challenge from the CMA, so he might've gotten some of what he wanted. At least in my totally made up theory..
Click to expand...

No, it's a valid theory theory, the end goal was always to block the deal on Ryan's behalf but it looks like that won't happen if things go in the current trajectory.
 
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