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:
The question is, is Activision guaranteed to stay at this price tag?

Current stock trading is 92.62 right now. It might as low 82.
Is it guaranteed that they will stay in 80s and not drop down? Because that premium tag will evaporate, if they can't maintain that price range.
Click to expand...

Based on options market pricing and comparative valuations to other companies, the answer is yes
 
FrankWza said:
What if they're the same person?
animation domination mask GIF by AOK
Click to expand...

Those are some damn good alts, I have to say.

Episode 1 Applause GIF by Friends
 
Vox Machina said:
Huh, where did you get that from?
Click to expand...
When made it a requirement that Microsoft explain how they changed their mind, and he mentioned being worried about what he read in the media over the weekend.
Vox Machina said:
A new Phase 1 analysis is already going to be started for the new RMS
Click to expand...
I meant a full phase 1 do-over
Vox Machina said:
"Major dissenting voices" don't get representation in the room during a CAT appeal. Only the CMA and the merging parties.
Click to expand...
It is a CAT appeal. An argument, the dissent should be on both sides filling the room.

Are you seriously telling me you don't think the judge couldn't see the massive pink elephant in the room the second he got angry with everyone?

The CMA are supposed to be protecting the public interest, not getting giddy around $2.7b company barristers then caving in to carve outs that don't protect the UK business startups wanting to innovate and be the next amazon worldwide sized success story. No premia facia is needed by the 140m PlayStation owners in the world, the deal will be bad long term regardless, and the CMA head of legal providing evidence otherwise is failing the public and should resign if he does that IMO, it is an embarrassing conclusion.
 
feynoob said:
The question is, is Activision guaranteed to stay at this price tag?

Current stock trading is 92.62 right now. It might go as low as 82 if it fails.
Is it guaranteed that they will stay in 80s and not drop down? Because that premium tag will evaporate, if they can't maintain that price range.
Click to expand...

Did you not just see their earnings report?

Barring an economic disaster or another scandal, this thing isn't going back below 80 any time soon.

It wasn't at the time they made the deal of course, but as it stands today Microsoft have a deal at a discounted price. Average acquisition premiums are typically ~30%, it might even be more for tech specifically.
 
Last edited:
James Sawyer Ford said:
They could not exercise that right because they receive no termination fee if there's pending regulator approval
Click to expand...

If the deal was that bad they wouldn't sign an extension period and would wait out the regulatory approval and once it came out, walk away.

They did not sign an extension under duress.

I don't think anything anyone says will change your mind at this point, however.



Topher said:
Those are some damn good alts, I have to say.

Episode 1 Applause GIF by Friends
Click to expand...


HonestFocusedFulmar-size_restricted.gif
 
James Sawyer Ford said:
They could not exercise that right because they receive no termination fee if there's pending regulator approval
Click to expand...
Not sure what you're trying to say with this particular line of negativity? The extension is done, whether that's because they wanted it or because Microsoft was smart with their contract language and they had no choice doesn't really matter does it?
 
MarkMe2525 said:
Did you make a bet with someone regarding how many times you could repeat this in a 24 hour time period? You need to step it up because you're falling behind yesterday's pace.
Click to expand...

Certainly less than the amount of times someone makes the moronic take that companies just want cash all the time and it doesn't matter what the offer is as long as it's more than the current share price
 
Aguero9320 said:
Not sure what you're trying to say with this particular line of negativity? The extension is done, whether that's because they wanted it or because Microsoft was smart with their contract language and they had no choice doesn't really matter does it?
Click to expand...

I'm only claiming that

1. The deal today is not good for Activision
2. They would walk away if they could still retain the termination fee

It's a great deal for Microsoft and the stipulations of the agreement
 
X-Wing said:
Republicans:
www.gamesindustry.biz

Republican members of Congress urge FTC to drop case against Microsoft-Activision

Sign up for the GI Daily here to get the biggest news straight to your inbox
www.gamesindustry.biz www.gamesindustry.biz

Democrats:
arstechnica.com

FTC rewrites rules on Big Tech mergers with aim to ease monopoly-busting

Merger rules currently stacked in favor of monopolists, critics say.
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com

Now guess with whom Era is aligning with?
Click to expand...

They would gladly vote for "bad orange man" if it meant getting this deal over the line.
 
star trek sudden realization GIF

So this is the equivalent of one more match please.
I am supposed to stop posting, yet I keep getting engaged with this thread.
Geez, need to put the phone down.
 
James Sawyer Ford said:
What was I wrong about?
Click to expand...
If they could have been bought for 120 a share or walked away and been better off then they would have done that, you don't know more than them dude. Now you are changing the argument to "they aren't allowed by contract….that's….that's why they didn't leave!!!" In an attempt to still somehow take a W and not deal with the fact that maybe you just weren't correct in your assessment of the situation.
 
Last edited:
gametimedecision said:
If they could have been bought for 120 a share or walked away and been better off them they would have done that, you don't know more than them dude. Now you are changing the argument to "they aren't allowed by contract….that's….that's why they didn't leave!!!" In an attempt to still somehow take a W and not deal with the fact that maybe you just weren't correct in your assessment of the situation.
Click to expand...

The terms of the contract became known, Activision couldn't walk away with the term fee.

I was speculating various scenarios based on unknown information at the time, I even stated that extension was the most likely outcome
 
James Sawyer Ford said:
I'm only claiming that

1. The deal today is not good for Activision
2. They would walk away if they could still retain the termination fee

It's a great deal for Microsoft and the stipulations of the agreement
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it's a bad deal for Activision as a bsuiness (their C-Suite all want it to go through), and in Bobby's specific case it's a great deal considering everything that's gone on.

It's just not so great a deal for their shareholders anymore.
 
GHG said:
I wouldn't say it's a bad deal for Activision as a bsuiness (their C-Suite all want it to go through), and in Bobby's specific case it's a great deal considering everything that's gone on.
Click to expand...

I just find it hard to believe Bobby wanted to sell out now, 18 months later

Maybe he does, but he doesn't seem like that kind of guy
 
James Sawyer Ford said:
I just find it hard to believe Bobby wanted to sell out now, 18 months later

Maybe he does, but he doesn't seem like that kind of guy
Click to expand...

Nah I truly believe he just wants to wash his hands of this now.

If he didn't then the extension negotiations would still be ongoing and he would be making it very difficult for them to come to an agreement, then he would simply walk at some point this or next week.
 
Last edited:
PaintTinJr said:
Are you seriously telling me you don't think the judge couldn't see the massive pink elephant in the room the second he got angry with everyone?

The CMA are supposed to be protecting the public interest, not getting giddy around $2.7b company barristers then caving in to carve outs that don't protect the UK business startups wanting to innovate and be the next amazon worldwide sized success story. No premia facia is needed by the 140m PlayStation owners in the world, the deal will be bad long term regardless, and the CMA head of legal providing evidence otherwise is failing the public and should resign if he does that IMO, it is an embarrassing conclusion.
Click to expand...

The CMA didn't "cave in". They're being realistic. Their case now has no chance on the basis of both proportionality and comity. If, instead, MSFT can offer structural remedies that satisfy the SLC then they are, by law, required to entertain that. The Judge was just a little frustrated that they just now (in actuality it was a month ago) came to this conclusion, and that he had to walk them through what making the changes necessary to the current processes would look like.

The CMA's deadline for entering evidence is tomorrow. After that point they can write and file the Final Order that allows MSFT/ABK to close, so we could see a closing as early as this week.
 
Last edited:
Deal
Topher said:
Any of you guys ever have it happen where you are about to put an emoji on a post and then someone else posts and shifts everything up and you put the emoji on the wrong post?

For instance, above I was about to put the "Praise the Sun" emoji on @Iced Arcade's post and that that jackass GHG GHG posts and shifts everything up and makes me put the emoji on adamsapple adamsapple 's post.

tT9zeBp.png


So then I go back and take off the "Praise the Sun" from adamsapple adamsapple but then realize that makes me look like a dick so I leave it on.

All of this because GHG GHG is a jackass.

Justin Timberlake Eye Roll GIF by Agent M Loves Gifs


love ya bro :messenger_beaming:
Click to expand...

This fucking post! Lol!
 
I'm starting to wonder if Bobby is actually in line to join Xbox studios now? I mean he seems to be perfectly fine selling Activision... Maybe he's just been promised he can stay there? Would that be good enough for him? Or is he viewing a more interesting challenge of turning around Xbox studios?
 
splattered said:
I'm starting to wonder if Bobby is actually in line to join Xbox studios now? I mean he seems to be perfectly fine selling Activision... Maybe he's just been promised he can stay there? Would that be good enough for him? Or is he viewing a more interesting challenge of turning around Xbox studios?
Click to expand...
He would be an asset to ms tbh
 
havoc00 said:
Lol @ the shots at Bobby
Click to expand...

Seriously unhinged. If they've been invested for a while then he will have made them plenty of money but yet they are lashing out.

There's one greedy fucker moaning about how this delay means he has to put back the extension on his house because the extra $2 will make all the difference to him. It's like... Stop being lazy, take your profits and move on to something else. He could have made that extra 2% in an index fund over the last week ffs.

When there's money involved there's always extreme amounts of toxicity.
 
Last edited:
Topher said:
Any of you guys ever have it happen where you are about to put an emoji on a post and then someone else posts and shifts everything up and you put the emoji on the wrong post?

For instance, above I was about to put the "Praise the Sun" emoji on @Iced Arcade's post and that that jackass GHG GHG posts and shifts everything up and makes me put the emoji on adamsapple adamsapple 's post.

tT9zeBp.png


So then I go back and take off the "Praise the Sun" from adamsapple adamsapple but then realize that makes me look like a dick so I leave it on.

All of this because GHG GHG is a jackass.

Justin Timberlake Eye Roll GIF by Agent M Loves Gifs


love ya bro :messenger_beaming:
Click to expand...

You get what you pay for. Get on my level. My shit is free, GHG GHG can't fuck up my rep (anymore than I have), and I see ads with big titty girls. Which has absolutely nothing to do with my browser history.
 
GHG said:
I wouldn't say it's a bad deal for Activision as a bsuiness (their C-Suite all want it to go through), and in Bobby's specific case it's a great deal considering everything that's gone on.

It's just not so great a deal for their shareholders anymore.
Click to expand...
Especially now that they have three months of a ceiling in their stocks... in case this thing isn't resolved until October
 
havoc00 said:
Redfall what a tragedy. It went from most hated to being forgotten about
Click to expand...
I uninstalled it last night. I think I played for like 30 minutes on launch day. I had started to see some of the review scores and talk about the game, but I really tried to give it a fair shot. It didn't take long for me to realize I was wasting my time.
 
Vox Machina said:
The CMA didn't "cave in". They're being realistic. Their case now has no chance on the basis of both proportionality and comity. If, instead, MSFT can offer structural remedies that satisfy the SLC then they are, by law, required to entertain that. The Judge was just a little frustrated that they just now (in actuality it was a month ago) came to this conclusion, and that he had to walk them through what making the changes necessary to the current processes would look like.

The CMA's deadline for entering evidence is tomorrow. After that point they can write and file the Final Order that allows MSFT/ABK to close, so we could see a closing as early as this week.
Click to expand...
And yet they seem like issues that would get argued by experts, and the judge has already stated in the first CMC that the CMA wins on expert opinion, every time.

Nascent markets lack evidence for proportionality, so how do you argue about a regulator defending an undeveloped market with all the data they can get, when the person trying to monopolise is the 2nd largest corporation in the world, with a leading cloud service that is already on ofcom's radar for a market competition issues - with all the other- and has the dominant paid licensed computer operating system in the world - a monopoly they've had for 3 decades - with a proprietary graphics API that was born out of foreclosing the competition in the PC GPU api market and is the OS for 95% of all the world's PC gaming, giving the OS and API pre gaming cloud market monopoly from operability.

The abandoned console SLC was also proved valid and evidenced by the FTC PI case evidence and everyone has missed the esports SLC because CoD has 110m active players a month.

The idea that the market protection argument would be defeated on technicalities when only those unfamiliar with gaming can't see the obvious SLCs is a joke. The judge knows what he's looking at and wouldn't be convinced by theoretical benefits versus measurable consumer and market harm.
 
PaintTinJr said:
And yet they seem like issues that would get argued by experts, and the judge has already stated in the first CMC that the CMA wins on expert opinion, every time.

Nascent markets lack evidence for proportionality, so how do you argue about a regulator defending an undeveloped market with all the data they can get, when the person trying to monopolise is the 2nd largest corporation in the world, with a leading cloud service that is already on ofcom's radar for a market competition issues - with all the other- and has the dominant paid licensed computer operating system in the world - a monopoly they've had for 3 decades - with a proprietary graphics API that was born out of foreclosing the competition in the PC GPU api market and is the OS for 95% of all the world's PC gaming, giving the OS and API pre gaming cloud market monopoly from operability.

The abandoned console SLC was also proved valid and evidenced by the FTC PI case evidence and everyone has missed the esports SLC because CoD has 110m active players a month.

The idea that the market protection argument would be defeated on technicalities when only those unfamiliar with gaming can't see the obvious SLCs is a joke. The judge knows what he's looking at and wouldn't be convinced by theoretical benefits versus measurable consumer and market harm.
Click to expand...
You sure focus a lot on what MS does as a corporation.

At the end of the day, it's Call of Duty being bounced around as the lynchpin of gaming. You can relax.
 
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
Sanepar replied
Top Bottom