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.
The Tourmaline Gorilla said:
No one saw that the CMA's issue would be cloud specific. Maybe 1 or 2 of you here did, but that wasn't the consensus. That conversation only became a reality after the fact. So, let's be honest here. And that's the only thing I mentioned that no one saw coming.

Give me a break. Perhaps keep your ego at the door, before you decide to hit "reply".
Click to expand...
I put a ofcom SLC Sky news report in the thread the day before IIRC and was laughed at for saying the CMA would block the deal.
 
The Tourmaline Gorilla said:
No one saw that the CMA's issue would be cloud specific. Maybe 1 or 2 of you here did, but that wasn't the consensus. That conversation only became a reality after the fact. So, let's be honest here. And that's the only thing I mentioned that no one saw coming.

Give me a break. Perhaps keep your ego at the door, before you decide to hit "reply".
Click to expand...

You first considering your previous post which contained a long winded essay outlining things that didn't happen in this thread.

This thread has contained a lot of thorough discussion on various topics throughout, with a variety of viewpoints. Summarising 1500+ pages worth of discussion as if it were all produced by a single person with a single viewpoint is asinine.
 
Last edited:
mayham2199 said:
lol CMA talking about court in October.
Click to expand...
Just imagining egg watching these proceedings in his lair and hearing that




giphy.gif
 
GHG said:
You first considering your previous post which contained a long winded essay outlining things that didn't happen in this thread.

This thread has contained a lot of thorough discussion on various topics throughout, with a variety of viewpoints. Summarising 1500+ pages worth of discussion as if it were all produced by a single person with a single viewpoint is asinine.
Click to expand...
Excuse me; but there are many posts in this thread, front the beginning where people made it very clear who they wanted to win. Who they were supporting, etc. That's not made up. That's not a lie. And I'm not saying anything is wrong with that.

There are many pages where you can clearly see people having favourites, whether it was during the live trials or pre/post-trial. That's a fact. All I'm saying is, that many people (clearly not all - and it doesn't apply to you or others, then clearly it's not directed towards you/others) who spoke with authority (myself included) had no real understanding to be any authoritative figure on this matter, much less mock, belittle and bully others. That's all I'm saying.
 
The Tourmaline Gorilla said:
Did I say all of you? Clearly some of you had favourites (whatever your reasons, aren't important). Clearly some people thought certain players would emerge victorious, at various points throughout this entire thing. My main post that I was referring to, was when I said (paraphrasing) you guys shouldn't be so quick to speak conclusively on something it's evident many of us here don't fully understand.

And while it's all well and good to protect consumers; there is a political agenda also at play here, which is almost unavoidable when you're dealing with corporations this big, throwing around this much money. It becomes more than just "let's protect consumers". There are other vehicles at play, vehicles we may not even be aware of. That's all I was trying to say, in my initial post. It was just an observation, albeit a correct one (in hindsight).

Instead of people have an intelligent decision around that post or observation, I was heckled, mocked and made fun of (similarly to what is happening now, huh?). I guess some people don't learn.

Why no one wants to keep their bias secondary, and keep objectivism primary is beyond me.

Edit to add: I even said "including me" in the post you were referring to. Even I didn't understand everything, and was sometimes making decisions based on my biases. I admit to that. I even admitted to it, at the time. I'm not immune from that either. But what I was saying, despite those biases, I knew this purchase was going to become political. It clearly has. I wasn't wrong about that.
Click to expand...

You have a cute-cat as a PFP…
Please, don't start a pointless fight about who thought what and who didn't. Wield the power that this PFP gives you with responsibility!
 
Topher said:
Massive generalization on your part. Now stop derailing the thread with your self-congratulatory nonsense, please.
Click to expand...
I'm not detailing the thread. It's a cautionary tale. I'm saying, let's not make the same mistakes, or let our biases cloud our ability to be objective, as it's shown that many were wrong and can be wrong.

I brought it up to say, we shouldn't make this a pattern. We need to keep the higher-than-though, belittling opinions out of the equation, or try to.
 
HeisenbergFX4 said:
Why did they fire off that Tweet within an hour of the FTC losing?

Judge didn't seem to like that appearance
Click to expand...

I alluded to it before but it's become apparent that they hashed something out in the background that would only come into effect if the FTC failed in their bid for the PI. The speed of response, the timing and then everything that's been said today in this CAT hearing all point towards that being the case.
 
Topher said:
I'm wondering if the judge is going to dive into that further. He did not like the appearance that one had anything to do with the other.
Click to expand...
And earlier he said he was worried about the Sony deal, and floated that it only came about because of the backdoor agreement by the CMA with Microsoft, suggesting it was of their own will
 
CuNi said:
You have a cute-cat as a PFP…
Please, don't start a pointless fight about who thought what and who didn't. Wield the power that this PFP gives you with responsibility!
Click to expand...

CuNi said:
You have a cute-cat as a PFP…
Please, don't start a pointless fight about who thought what and who didn't. Wield the power that this PFP gives you with responsibility!
Click to expand...
How many different ways can I say this?

Let me repeat. I didn't and never state who was wrong, specifically. I said, many people who considered themselves the end-all authority (as far as opinions go) turned out to be wrong. But, at the time, instead of having reasonable debate, it resorted to heckling, etc.

I'm saying, it's proven that we all don't fully understand the things at play here, or the politics of the matter, and as such, we shouldn't be so quick to be dismissive or rude or bully others who have a different opinion. That's all I'm saying, and tried to highlight certain things that happened in this thread, as an example of that. Geez
 
GHG said:
I alluded to it before but it's become apparent that they hashed something out in the background that would only come into effect if the FTC failed in their bid for the PI. The speed of response, the timing and then everything that's been said today in this CAT hearing all point towards that being the case.
Click to expand...
And that is shady AF!

If MS offered truly a good remedy that satisfies their concern, the FTC's case shouldn't matter. They should quash their original blocker.

If MS did not offer a good remedy that satisfies their concern, the FTC's case shouldn't matter. The CMA should stick with their original decision.
 
GHG said:
I alluded to it before but it's become apparent that they hashed something out in the background that would only come into effect if the FTC failed in their bid for the PI. The speed of response, the timing and then everything that's been said today in this CAT hearing all point towards that being the case.
Click to expand...

Do they just not want to be the sole outlier blocking the deal?

Why would they care if that's their conclusion?

It's not like other markets didn't have concerns.
 
The Tourmaline Gorilla said:
How many different ways can I say this?

Let me repeat. I didn't and never state who was wrong, specifically. I said, many people who considered themselves the end-all authority (as far as opinions go) turned out to be wrong. But, at the time, instead of having reasonable debate, it resorted to heckling, etc.

I'm saying, it's proven that we all don't fully understand the things at play here, or the politics of the matter, and as such, we shouldn't be so quick to be dismissive or rude or bully others who have a different opinion. That's all I'm saying, and tried to highlight certain things that happened in this thread, as an example of that. Geez
Click to expand...
R.34f9da289f1ae4736c64a631cb06eaf2
 
Bernoulli said:
Wich is dumb
Why did the CMA care about FTC that much
Click to expand...
Not really what I was implying that their case was based on the FTC case.

It just feels like there was backdoor dealings between MS and CMA that IF the FTC lost there was things in place to move forward with the CMA

And again it seems this Judge was not happy with that appearance
 
The Tourmaline Gorilla said:
Somewhere in this deep, long thread, I made a post stating that a deal of this magnitude will always become political. Politics will always come into play, with deals like this, and there'll always be more at play, than what meets the eyes, or what the public is privy to seeing.

And this hearing, along with the FTC's case against MS, is absolute proof of this. I also stated that many of these arm-chair experts on Gaf (and in the general/enthusiast gaming community) don't have a proper or thorough understanding of this, and can only make their decisions and predictions based on their bias/favourites, and cherry-picking information to support those biases (myself included). So many were certain that the EU would rule against MS; they got that wtong. They were then certain the CMA would disapprove of the deal, and while they got that right, they got it right for the wrong reasons (It was the cloud considerations that stopped CMA from okay-ing the deal - which no one saw coming). They were certain the MS lawyer fell right into the CMA's lawyer's play-dumb tactic (it wasn't a tactic, he really was a half-wit), and they'd win that pre-trial; got that wrong too. They were certain the FTC would win, because big-bad-monopoly MS-bad-for-consumers; ...got that wrong too. They were certain the FTC's appeal would go through, and MS would lose another hearing case; the appeal was considered ludicrous, their arguments weak, and it got denied, with absolution. And now, this...

At the time when I made some of those statements, I was heckled and mocked.

Now, here we are...
Click to expand...
To this day we still have no report from the EC. Some were suggesting it was coming later but I knew it wasn't. Clearly some political nonsense happened there. All the political crap about attacking the UK and CMA. There is no reason why a report shouldn't have been made public by the EC. The stuff that happens in the background is unfortunately what shapes the future, and the stuff that's made public only shows how messy things actually are.
 
The Tourmaline Gorilla said:
Excuse me; but there are many posts in this thread, front the beginning where people made it very clear who they wanted to win. Who they were supporting, etc. That's not made up. That's not a lie. And I'm not saying anything is wrong with that.

There are many pages where you can clearly see people having favourites, whether it was during the live trials or pre/post-trial. That's a fact. All I'm saying is, that many people (clearly not all - and it doesn't apply to you or others, then clearly it's not directed towards you/others) who spoke with authority (myself included) had no real understanding to be any authoritative figure on this matter, much less mock, belittle and bully others. That's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...

Give it a rest man. Most people that have participated in this thread have been here to discuss and speculate on matters that have taken place. Some people have even been able to provide us with greater insight due to their professions/interests.

However a lot of people wont have had an in-depth understanding of many matters that have been discussed in this thread and there is no one individual who will have had the capacity to be an expert in all topics that span the regulatory process of this acquisition (the legal side, the finance side, the cross-boarder nature of this M&A deal, etc, etc) because that would be impossible. Most people have been here to discuss things and learn where possible (because why not, particularly if it involves an area of interest). So overall I don't know what your point is and I don't know what your problem is.
 
Last edited:
Bernoulli said:
Wich is dumb
Why did the CMA care about FTC that much
Click to expand...

Im not convinced they do. Everyone is convinced the CMA is bending over and taking it but I'm waiting to see what the deal is before I go that far. If MS is forced to divest Blizzard that would be a win for the CMA and MS would still get COD and mobile COD which is what they want.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
‘Microsoft’ said they were streamlining 9000 people across XGS/ABK/ZM
Rumor 
19
455
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
A.Romero replied
Top Bottom