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.
Such a good question by the judge.

The original decision was that the CMA is against MS owning COD. The judge is pointing to that that is this new decision going to change the fact that MS will end up owning COD.
 
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4 said:
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
Click to expand...
He wasn't happy as it is illegal because it circumvents transparency and necessary market oversight.
 
mayham2199 said:
Didn't the CMA allow divesting Blizzard as a possible option?
Click to expand...
No, it was essentially COD and any other entity or part of the business responsible for the normal production of COD.

So they said if Activision is responsible for making COD, then divest Activision. If Blizzard is responsible for making COD, then also divest Blizzard. But Blizzard doesn't make COD, so essentially it was just Activision + COD.
 
The CMA have definitely been leaned on here. By who I don't know. It's one thing to set out that they are willing to engage in a new process due to fairness and transparency. The way they are begging it's like they are an interested party now.
 
Heisenberg007 said:
Such a good question by the judge.

The original decision was that the CMA is against COD owning Activision. The judge is pointing to that that is this new decision going to change the fact that MS will end up owning COD.
Click to expand...

Yep

They concluded anything outside of divestiture would be unlikely to alleviate their concerns as regulation/monitoring other arrangements proves difficult

Why are they going against their own recommendations all of a sudden?
 
Heisenberg007 said:
No, it was essentially COD and any other entity or part of the business responsible for the normal production of COD.

So they said if Activision is responsible for making COD, then divest Activision. If Blizzard is responsible for making COD, then also divest Blizzard. But Blizzard doesn't make COD, so essentially it was just Activision + COD.
Click to expand...

Damn didn't know the CMA went that hard. I thought Blizzard would be enough.
 
James Sawyer Ford said:
Yep

They concluded anything outside of divestiture would be unlikely to alleviate their concerns as regulation/monitoring other arrangements proves difficult

Why are they going against their own recommendations all of a sudden?
Click to expand...
Pay Day Money GIF
 
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...

I think most of those people that ridiculed and attacked any and every different opinion are, by now, long gone from this thread, and most of GAF won't miss them.
But I also want to say that while the results came out unexpectedly for most of us, there are people on here that have way higher knowledge of those processes, even when they got their predictions wrong.
Yes, the tone was quite a bit harsh and rude at times, but I would also say that's just the way GAF is.

James Sawyer Ford said:
Not working on mobile
Click to expand...

Ah, shucks. Sorry about that, then.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone really believe CMA doesn't know what Microsoft is proposing with this restructured proposal? Just doesn't seem feasible that they could argue so vehemently in total ignorance.
 
GHG said:
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. However 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.
Click to expand...
Give what a rest? Asking or reminding, or suggesting that people not hold on to their opinions as absolute truths, and not use it to belittle, bully, or mock others when clearly, there are factors at play that we (myself included) all don't understand? What's what I should give a rest?

As though this is some sort of unreasonable demand, or suggestion. It's just a reminder that "Hey guys, we're all not pros here. Let's try to keep things civil and respectful and not be too dismissive or rude against people with differing opinions or different understandings of things."

That's all I'm saying. This is the 4th or 5th time of me wording this differently, in hopes that it's understood. Because clearly, some people got this instead: "Hey guys, *insert your name here* was wrong. I was right." That's not what I said. Not what I alluded to. And not what I'm saying.
 
The Tourmaline Gorilla said:
Give what a rest? Asking or reminding, or suggesting that people not hold on to their opinions as absolute truths, and not use it to belittle, bully, or mock others when clearly, there are factors at play that we (myself included) all don't understand? What's what I should give a rest?

As though this is some sort of unreasonable demand, or suggestion. It's just a reminder that "Hey guys, we're all not pros here. Let's try to keep things civil and respectful and not be too dismissive or rude against people with differing opinions or different understandings of things."

That's all I'm saying. This is the 4th or 5th time of me wording this differently, in hopes that it's understood. Because clearly, some people got this instead: "Hey guys, *insert your name here* was wrong. I was right." That's not what I said. Not what I alluded to. And not what I'm saying.
Click to expand...
I don't understand your point.
 
Topher said:
Does anyone really believe CMA doesn't know what Microsoft is proposing with this restructured proposal? Just doesn't seem feasible that they could argue so vehemently in total ignorance.
Click to expand...

It could if they don't care and they want their court date pushed back which they tried to get done before.
 
Topher said:
Does anyone really believe CMA doesn't know what Microsoft is proposing with this restructured proposal? Just doesn't seem feasible that they could argue so vehemently in total ignorance.
Click to expand...
Just my opinion not only does the CMA know the proposal but have somewhat agreed with it and the Judge knows this and isn't happy
 
Topher said:
Does anyone really believe CMA doesn't know what Microsoft is proposing with this restructured proposal? Just doesn't seem feasible that they could argue so vehemently in total ignorance.
Click to expand...
I think at the start they were basically saying they have an idea but they can't pre-empt the written restructured deal (obviously because they don't know what MS will actually submit).

The question is, how have Microsoft not had a written proposal ready.
 
HeisenbergFX4 said:
Just my opinion not only does the CMA know the proposal but have somewhat agreed with it and the Judge knows this and isn't happy
Click to expand...

Yeah, they've supposedly been sitting on it since some time late June. It doesn't make sense that they wouldn't KNOW what it is over a month later.
 
Banjo64 said:
I think at the start they were basically saying they have an idea but they can't pre-empt the written restructured deal (obviously because they don't know what MS will actually submit).

The question is, how have Microsoft not had a written proposal ready.
Click to expand...
Microsoft probably expected a rubber stamp from the judge on the extension request like they're used to having elsewhere. This will all have been an unpleasant surprise.
 
adamsapple said:
Yeah, they've supposedly been sitting on it since some time late June. It doesn't make sense that they wouldn't KNOW what it is over a month later.
Click to expand...
And this is the politics I was referring to earlier. These are the political components, and this is just what we can see. Deals of this magnitude always become political, and not just strictly "what's best for consumers". There are other variables that come into play, eventually. We, on the outside looking in, may not see or be aware of all these variables.
 
The CMA was just doing the FTCs bidding. They then backpeddled when the FTC was losing. The CMA itself doesnt even believe in their reasoning and just latched onto any reason that sounded semi plausible.

Now they're forced to find a remedy for a "reason" they didn't even believe in.

It's just making no sense.
 
Mr Moose said:
Click to expand...
Yeah I was going to say the same.

Most likely Brad Smith met Jeremy Hunt and said something along the lines of:

"Sort this shit out or we're going to find a way to give the government bad press at a time when support for the Tories is not exactly at an all-time high"

If the world's regulators can essentially be strong-armed then what is the point of even having regulators?
 
Topher said:
Does anyone really believe CMA doesn't know what Microsoft is proposing with this restructured proposal? Just doesn't seem feasible that they could argue so vehemently in total ignorance.
Click to expand...

Especially when their own conclusion suggests skepticism of any proposed change/remedy outside of complete divestiture

Whatever the CMA has been doing the last few weeks behind the scenes has made a mockery of their independent regulatory authority
 
Topher said:
Does anyone really believe CMA doesn't know what Microsoft is proposing with this restructured proposal? Just doesn't seem feasible that they could argue so vehemently in total ignorance.
Click to expand...
What if they were made aware of the fact that Microsoft's next target for acquisition is none other than the CMA itself? :messenger_blowing_kiss:
 
James Sawyer Ford said:
Especially when their own conclusion suggests skepticism of any proposed change/remedy outside of complete divestiture

Whatever the CMA has been doing the last few weeks behind the scenes has made a mockery of their independent regulatory authority
Click to expand...
Rumor says Microsoft offered a divesture.
 
I'm struggling... rigor mortis is starting to take hold. CMA could even talk my ex-wife into submission!!
mr bean GIF
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
‘Microsoft’ said they were streamlining 9000 people across XGS/ABK/ZM
Rumor 
19
454
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