Support NeoGAF

[Bernardougf]

I hope this shit ends so we can all move on no matter what ... it has been fun discussing this for a few months but it overstayed its welcome already ...

The good thing is that if this merger is approved next time we can just say fuck it and let this regulators do their theater the fuck alone because the end result is the same.

 

[Makoto-Yuki]

The deal doesn't fall apart if not done today. It just means ABK can walk away since MS had not fulfilled their side of the agreement. Gaining government approval is Microsoft's responsibility. But both sides have said they wish to continue on with the deal. An extension will probably be agreed on and filed with the SEC, I'm guessing.

Oh alright. I didn't know that. Thanks!

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I think the argument is that flawed rulings will make it so that nobody takes the UK seriously and that the CMA has backed itself into a corner. Similarly, the FTC is currently under a lot of scrutiny in the U.S. because of their recent strategy to challenge everything, but then prepare bad cases which don't stand a chance of winning.

There's a line of thinking that both the CMA and FTC should do more negotiation with these companies to get what they want, rather than slamming the door shut and leaving themselves in an unenviable spot, thus making themselves look silly and possibly detracting foreign business.

If the situation is that these organizations are short handed, underfunded and have no chance of beating giants then they are wasting their time on them instead of gunning for action on smaller deals that should blocked and can be reasonably won.

Got to put resources into things that add value. What's the point of spending all this time and money in this deal if they have nothing to really show for in 18 months. It wasn't even a close 50/50 kind of thing. MS easily won. And a lot of people closer to the situation said the governing bodies had no real chance from the get go. Didn't the judges even call out what a waste of resources it ehas been?

 

[Chiggs]

If the situation is that these organizations are short handed, underfunded and have no chance of beating giants then they are wasting their time on them instead of gunning for action on smaller deals that should blocked and can be reasonably won.

Got to put resources into things that add value. What's the point of spending all this time and money in this deal if they have nothing to really show for in 18 months. It wasn't even a close 50/50 kind of thing. MS easily won. And a lot of people closer to the situation said the governing bodies had no real chance from the get go. Didn't the judges even call out what a waste of resources it ehas been?

Right. It just seems like these organizations are more interested in being right than being effective, and that collecting moral victories is better than taking pragmatic action to help safeguard consumers.

Like you said, if the situation is that dire, and these orgs are outgunned from the get-go, why are they still waging conventional warfare?

 

[saintjules]

Mystic is good with his research and delivery on topics. Worth a watch.

 

[Clear]

So basically be MS bitch. Give them what they want, doesn't matter what the practical implementation of it is...bend the knee and accept your overlords.

Haha classic UK bullshit, no one should take us seriously when it comes to legislation, approval bodies etc. Nonsense.

Classic Guardianista bullshit more like, misrepresenring the realities of the situation in order to score political points.

The article admits that the CMA's objections were purely about the merger of a giant platform provider with a giant content provider, then implies that Sony accepting an agreement with MS for CoD access undermines their position, despite the CMA explicitly stating it to be a separate issue.

There is no pyre. What are MS going to do about it exactly?

 

[Three]

If the situation is that these organizations are short handed, underfunded and have no chance of beating giants then they are wasting their time on them instead of gunning for action on smaller deals that should blocked and can be reasonably won.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Let the big ones go but bully the smaller companies with smaller deals? Are you seriously suggesting this? How would the smaller deals be reasonably won if the big ones can't be?

 

[Chiggs]

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Let the big ones go but bully the smaller companies with smaller deals? Are you seriously suggesting this?

You open your statement by saying you're not sure what he's saying, then you immediately launch into a strawman argument?

What he said was choose your battles wisely, which is literally what nearly every single analyst has been saying since Lina Khan started her losing streak with the FTC.

Edit: I think the Axios article I linked to is pay-walled, but the title alone makes the point.

 

[Three]

You open your statement by saying you're not sure what he's saying, then you immediately launch into a strawman argument?

I started my argument by saying I'm not sure what he's suggesting then went on to say what it reads like.

What he said was choose your battles wisely, which is literally what nearly every single analyst has been saying since Lina Khan started her losing streak with the FTC.

And what does "choose your battles wisely" entail? Because to me it looks like he's saying let the gaints go and concentrate on the little companies being bought.

"have no chance of beating giants then they are wasting their time on them instead of gunning for action on smaller deals that should blocked and can be reasonably won."

If you think this is "wise" then you've lost the plot. How would the smaller deals be blocked if the gaint ones aren't an SLC? Not to mention you're just bullying smaller companies and not letting them get off the ground.

 

[schaft0620]

You open your statement by saying you're not sure what he's saying, then you immediately launch into a strawman argument?

What he said was choose your battles wisely, which is literally what nearly every single analyst has been saying since Lina Khan started her losing streak with the FTC.

Edit: I think the Axios article I linked to is pay-walled, but the title alone makes the point.

With the FTC it's not about winning and losing the US GVMT is based around checks and balances. The Biden Administration is saying to push these big tech mergers as hard has you can so our economy isn't 3 companies.

 

[Kilau]

So now CMA aren't the final boss, CAT are? Despite months of the same people saying CAT were powerless?

Or is Bobby now the final boss?

I can't keep up. Like one of those games where you think it's over and an old boss you thought you killed earlier comes back and it turns out they were BEHIND IT ALL ALONG All you can say is FFS and play on after coming this far.

That hearing yesterday was just as embarrassing for the UK's processes as the FTC hearings were for the US. Any pretence of the UK being better went right out the window. And I'm British lol.

Final boss has been defeated. We are in the 45 mins of Kojima credits waiting for the final twists

 

[Thirty7ven]

CMA's position of accepting a carve out is not beneficial to the UK.

 

[GHG]

If the situation is that these organizations are short handed, underfunded and have no chance of beating giants then they are wasting their time on them instead of gunning for action on smaller deals that should blocked and can be reasonably won.

Got to put resources into things that add value. What's the point of spending all this time and money in this deal if they have nothing to really show for in 18 months. It wasn't even a close 50/50 kind of thing. MS easily won. And a lot of people closer to the situation said the governing bodies had no real chance from the get go. Didn't the judges even call out what a waste of resources it ehas been?

Just so I'm understanding you want them to go after smaller businesses while leaving the bigger businesses to run riot and do as they please? Do you not understand how that only serves to exasperate the issue at hand in that it only allows the larger companies to further spiral out of control?

Good lord, talk about bowing down to your trillion dollar monopolistic overlords.

 

[tryDEATH]

Actually, you said that the reason for the objection was B.S. This was the post I originally responded to:



You said that the objection itself was B.S. I explained that multiple regulatory bodies had the same objections. This was your response:



This is shifting the goal post, which is what you have been doing ever since my original response to you. First the objection itself was B.S. Then it wasn't the objection, but that the CMA would dare to require a remedy to address the objection. Then you moved the goal post again by saying that all regulatory bodies have to have the exact same objections and/or outcome, otherwise it is B.S. Here's that post for you:



You need to stop shilling for Microsoft. I'm all for difference of opinion, but when your arguments shift with every rebuttal, that shows your argument has no merit. You're arguing just to argue at this point. You're not in the right here, and since your stance is ever-shifting, you'll never be in the right.



And also the people that are so pro-acquisition that they act like a fool. Currently, that is you and the hate-boner you have for the CMA (or, apparently, any regulatory body that is anti-acquisition). I disagree with the CMA's decision to seemingly backtrack and allow this acquisition through, but I'm not going to act like a child and pretend that the CMA and the EC are idiots just because I disagree with their decision. And if I were to do that, I would hope that I wouldn't double down on my childishness whenever someone points that out to me.

You're being willfully ignorant and the one acting a fool while white knighting the CMA who is now taking a knee and being accused of corruption, when in reality their reason for blocking the merger was weak and why they came back to the table.

The CMA's objection to the merger is only CLOUD gaming, which is a B.S. reason to block that merger and I have been consistent in stating that in everyone of my replies. The fact that other regulatory bodies had concern about it and you then arguing that as if its at the same level is false equivalence.

The FACT is no other regulatory body blocked the merger specificly due to CLOUD gaming like the CMA, which is why CMA's reasoning is pure B.S.

You can be upset that this going through, but you don't have to be delusional about why its going through.

 

[Bernoulli]

Can we see on the Activision stock if they will extend today or not?

I know nothing about trading my money is rotting in the bank account

 

[GHG]

Can we see on the Activision stock if they will extend today or not?

I know nothing about trading my money is rotting in the bank account

If it closes it jumps to 95 and stays there.

If there is no change then it stays around the 90-93 mark.

If something goes wrong it drops to 80-85.

 

[damiank]

Scrap what?

Xbox

 

[Duchess]

I know nothing about trading my money is rotting in the bank account

I've got some DOGE coin I'm looking to sell, if you're interested?

 

[Clear]

CMA's position of accepting a carve out is not beneficial to the UK.

It kinda is because it opens the door for bidding to be MS' proxy in the UK market, thereby cutting them in for operation, taxation, and legislation.

Again, how exactly are MS going to retaliate without hurting their own bottom line in one if their most valuable markets? The UK government has far more means to inconvenience MS than vice versa if they decide to escalate the dispute. Also the potential reputational damage to MS internationally if they decide to try and attack a country over opposition to one of their deals would be absolutely catastrophic.

The UK isn't a banana republic, its a G7 country.

 

[kvltus lvlzvs]

I thought if there was no deal they had to pay $3billion. Doesn't the deal need to be done today? It doesn't look like it'll happen today. So wouldn't they need to scrap it or extend it?

I think if there is no deal by today, actiblizz CAN walk away and take 3b, but it doesn't mean they have to

 

[Negotiator101]

Nadella today be like

 

[Bernoulli]

I've got some DOGE coin I'm looking to sell, if you're interested?

Never touching crypto

The only time i tried to invest was with the GME hype
I bought at 290 didn't sell at 350

Spoiler: After

then sold everything at 50

Literally me

 

[PaintTinJr]

If the situation is that these organizations are short handed, underfunded and have no chance of beating giants then they are wasting their time on them instead of gunning for action on smaller deals that should blocked and can be reasonably won.

Got to put resources into things that add value. What's the point of spending all this time and money in this deal if they have nothing to really show for in 18 months. It wasn't even a close 50/50 kind of thing. MS easily won. And a lot of people closer to the situation said the governing bodies had no real chance from the get go. Didn't the judges even call out what a waste of resources it ehas been?

The judge was completely wrong and the text of the law would have won out in the same circumstances in the UK, or any credible court.

If the FTC regulation isn't going to improve wealth distribution by increasing competition and consumer choice, then it isn't worth doing. They are completely correct to go after the big money tech sector that have become trillion dollar companies based on abstract products with minimal tax contribution. Abstract products are terrible for wealth distribution and general mental wellness for the majority of the world when wealth is only really tangible for the top 1% with $200m Yachts and like.

It isn't ideological to want to do things that will actually improve the world for the majority of tax payers and consumers, and businesses they advocate for. It is purely following the data like science.

Tackling smaller infringements in preference to these nasty deals, is like cutting off one head of a hydra, versus bringing the whole thing down.

 

[Negotiator101]

The judge was completely wrong and the text of the law would have won out in the same circumstances in the UK, or any credible court.

If the FTC regulation isn't going to improve wealth distribution by increasing competition and consumer choice, then it isn't worth doing. They are completely correct to go after the big money tech sector that have become trillion dollar companies based on abstract products with minimal tax contribution. Abstract products are terrible for wealth distribution and general mental wellness for the majority of the world when wealth is only really tangible for the top 1% with $200m Yachts and like.

It isn't ideological to want to do things that will actually improve the world for the majority of tax payers and consumers, and businesses they advocate for. It is purely following the data like science.

Tackling smaller infringements in preference to these nasty deals, is like cutting off one head of a hydra, versus bringing the whole thing down.

Jesus!

 

[IFireflyl]

You're being willfully ignorant and the one acting a fool while white knighting the CMA who is now taking a knee and being accused of corruption, when in reality their reason for blocking the merger was weak and why they came back to the table.

At what point did I white knight for the CMA? Saying that four regulatory bodies had the same line of thought isn't white knighting. Quit being hyperbolic. You're the fool here.

The CMA's objection to the merger is only CLOUD gaming, which is a B.S. reason to block that merger and I have been consistent in stating that in everyone of my replies. The fact that other regulatory bodies had concern about it and you then arguing that as if its at the same level is false equivalence.

As I said, the only difference is that the EC accepted behavioral remedies. Your issue isn't the objection. It's that someone took action against the acquisition that you have a hard-on for.

The FACT is no other regulatory body blocked the merger specificly due to CLOUD gaming like the CMA, which is why CMA's reasoning is pure B.S.

As I previously stated, you're under an erroneous assumption that all regulatory bodies have to reach the same conclusion of outcome with the same facts. This is wilful ignorance on your part. Four regulatory bodies took issue with cloud gaming. The four regulatory bodies have all handled it in different ways. Australia, thus far, hasn't made a decision. The EC accepted behavioral remedies. The FTC is suing to block with this as one of the reasons (primary or secondary doesn't matter - it's just you shifting the goal post because you're a pro-Microsoft whore). The CMA blocked due to Microsoft not agreeing to structural remedies.

The only difference between the EC and the CMA is the remedy requested and agreed upon to alleviate the concerns. That isn't B.S.

You can be upset that this going through, but you don't have to be delusional about why its going through.

I am disappointed that this is likely going through, but I'm not upset. The only one of us who is delusional is you. You're going to start chaffing if you keep riding Microsoft's dick this hard.

 

[Kilau]

Jesus!

 

[wolffy66]

At the end of the day just about zero bodies found the cloud issue worthwhile to pursue as a grounds to block.

Otherwise the would have used it as a grounds to block. Again, they didn't. Simple as that. They didn't.

 

[adamsapple]

Jesus!

 

[tryDEATH]

At what point did I white knight for the CMA? Saying that four regulatory bodies had the same line of thought isn't white knighting. Quit being hyperbolic. You're the fool here.



As I said, the only difference is that the EC accepted behavioral remedies. Your issue isn't the objection. It's that someone took action against the acquisition that you have a hard-on for.



As I previously stated, you're under an erroneous assumption that all regulatory bodies have to reach the same conclusion of outcome with the same facts. This is wilful ignorance on your part. Four regulatory bodies took issue with cloud gaming. The four regulatory bodies have all handled it in different ways. Australia, thus far, hasn't made a decision. The EC accepted behavioral remedies. The FTC is suing to block with this as one of the reasons (primary or secondary doesn't matter - it's just you shifting the goal post because you're a pro-Microsoft whore). The CMA blocked due to Microsoft not agreeing to structural remedies.

The only difference between the EC and the CMA is the remedy requested and agreed upon to alleviate the concerns. That isn't B.S.



I am disappointed that this is likely going through, but I'm not upset. The only one of us who is delusional is you. You're going to start chaffing if you keep riding Microsoft's dick this hard.

At this point you're just mad and are calling me derogation names so the time for civil discourse is done, you're clearly much more emotionally invested in this than I am so I am gonna let you be.

Enjoy your day and we'll see MS how hard their concession will be soon.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

At this point you're just mad and are calling me derogation names so the time for civil discourse is done, you're clearly much more emotionally invested in this than I am so I am gonna let you be.

Enjoy your day and we'll see MS how hard their concession will be soon.

Don't give it if you can't take it

 

[DeepEnigma]

I will never understand Judge Corley's ruling.

 

[tryDEATH]

Don't give it if you can't take it

Sorry, I am not getting that invested nor will I lower myself to be calling people whores because I disagree with their opinion. If you're I guess this is the right spot to be at.

 

[Clear]

I always find it hilarious that there's this international cabal known as the WEF run by a mysterious figure called Klaus who meet every year for a big summit in the not-at-all-ominously-named Davos, and we're supposed to think its all totally above board and benevolent!

I mean if you were writing a fucking James Bond movie you could convincingly replace Spectre and Blofield with them and it would come across as just as cartoonishly sinister.

That's how little they care about what everyone thinks about them!

Sorry mods, not trying to be political. Like I said, I just think its funny.

 

[DryvBy]

People have no idea how hard these billionaires pushed to make us not want to own property. Video games is minor in the long run but it's another thing that was successful using bots and manipulation of foolish people.

It's nu-slavery but we're all volunteers in it. Service based entertainment is another trigger for our brains to accept bigger services, like renting a home instead of buying one.

 

[DeepEnigma]

People have no idea how hard these billionaires pushed to make us not want to own property. Video games is minor in the long run but it's another thing that was successful using bots and manipulation of foolish people.

It's nu-slavery but we're all volunteers in it. Service based entertainment is another trigger for our brains to accept bigger services, like renting a home instead of buying one.

We are on a perpetual rent/sub cycle. Stop paying "property taxes" on a paid off home and see how long you "own your property."

 

[IFireflyl]

At this point you're just mad and are calling me derogation names so the time for civil discourse is done, you're clearly much more emotionally invested in this than I am so I am gonna let you be.

Enjoy your day and we'll see MS how hard their concession will be soon.

Sorry, I am not getting that invested nor will I lower myself to be calling people whores because I disagree with their opinion. If you're I guess this is the right spot to be at.

You called me a fool. I called you a pro-Microsoft whore. Context is important. Just so you know what the definition is (in context):

Whore: to pursue a faithless, unworthy, or idolatrous desire.

The faithless/unworthy/idolatrous desire is this Microsoft acquisition. That isn't name-calling, you were just ignorant as to what the word meant. I did not call you an actual whore, meaning someone who is trading money for sex. Ass of Can Whooping is right: don't start something and then get your feelings hurt when someone responds. I didn't call you a butt-pirate, or a retarded, or outright name-call. I used a descriptor that was fitting. You can't be as argumentative as you have been with me, and also be this sensitive.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Sorry, I am not getting that invested nor will I lower myself to be calling people whores because I disagree with their opinion. If you're I guess this is the right spot to be at.

Whores, nutjobs, fool. It's all the same. Get off your pedestal.

 

[Makoto-Yuki]

Will Jesus

Smith Almighty

Jesus tap dancing Smith

 

[kvltus lvlzvs]

People have no idea how hard these billionaires pushed to make us not want to own property. Video games is minor in the long run but it's another thing that was successful using bots and manipulation of foolish people.

It's nu-slavery but we're all volunteers in it. Service based entertainment is another trigger for our brains to accept bigger services, like renting a home instead of buying one.

agreed.

friendly reminder that Blackrock owns around 7% of Microsoft, Apple, and Nvidia. Among other things.

They also own lots and lots and lots of houses that they bought with 0% interest rate loans straight from the fed.

 

[HoofHearted]

 

[thebigmanjosh]

The judge was completely wrong and the text of the law would have won out in the same circumstances in the UK, or any credible court.

If the FTC regulation isn't going to improve wealth distribution by increasing competition and consumer choice, then it isn't worth doing. They are completely correct to go after the big money tech sector that have become trillion dollar companies based on abstract products with minimal tax contribution. Abstract products are terrible for wealth distribution and general mental wellness for the majority of the world when wealth is only really tangible for the top 1% with $200m Yachts and like.

It isn't ideological to want to do things that will actually improve the world for the majority of tax payers and consumers, and businesses they advocate for. It is purely following the data like science.

Tackling smaller infringements in preference to these nasty deals, is like cutting off one head of a hydra, versus bringing the whole thing down.

"abstract products"

Someone really needs to break up these big tech companies and the internet everyone's always talking about. Who even knows what a cloud is anyway

 

[Makoto-Yuki]

so when the hell is this shit show going to end?

august??

 

[graywolf323]

naturally extends? I don't recall anyone ever mentioning that before?

 

[havoc00]

so when the hell is this shit show going to end?

august??

Never

 

[DeepEnigma]

naturally extends? I don't recall anyone ever mentioning that before?

That's a, "I don't know WTF I am talking about," comment. "So I will just say something if it happens with zero information provided."

 

[Zheph]

naturally extends? I don't recall anyone ever mentioning that before?

Tom "I am a f*cking idiot" Warren

 

[NickFire]

If Activision hasn't agreed to a binding and formal extension then I won't be shocked if MS actually closes today. No need to risk 3 Billion when your final opponent already waived the white flag.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Naturally extends?

 

[dotnotbot]

Naturally extends?

 

[M1987]

If Activision hasn't agreed to a binding and formal extension then I won't be shocked if MS actually closes today. No need to risk 3 Billion when your final opponent already waived the white flag.

They said yesterday they wasn't going to close over the CMA,so I imagine the fines would be brutal if they did