• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?


  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

feynoob

Banned
1. Not hiding lol. Also, these practices aren't exclusive to Sony. The "worst" that can come out is timed-exclusivity agreements. Guess what, Microsoft also has similar timed-exclusivity agreements for Ark 2, Stalker 2, High on Life, etc. There is nothing special there.

2. Hypothetically? They already have public evidence of Microsoft doing it. There are numerous examples now that have also been cited by these regulatory bodies, including The Outer Worlds 2, Hellblade 2, Starfield, Redfall, Hi-Fi Rush, etc.
They can find shit stuff.
Remember apple vs epic?
Also the games that you listed can't be compared to the ones Sony had. AA=/=AAA.
 
Social media doesn't affect anything, if it did then Hogwarts Legacy wouldn't be the #1 preorder in all platforms.

All these posts are performative nonsense and don't add any meaningful pressure that couldn't be exerted through court motions anyway. Meanwhile, the opposition is entrenching its advantage in MS's key regions and reducing their options for how they can utilize their acquisitions.

They’re not ‘in court’ with the CMA or the EU. I’m not interested in any of your fanboy shit anyway
 
Wat Man aka Frank Shaw aka The gift that keeps on giving... Strikes Again.




This response suits frank more.

6j1F4BP.png
 

feynoob

Banned
Idas (he has a sub from equity report, so this info is from them)
Provisional findings (PF) from he CMA coming next week.

- The sources (two lawyers linked to the parties or third parties) say that MS is waiting the PF before offering remedies.

- The CMA is very hard to read at the moment and MS will probably learn about what's happening at the same time as everybody else.

- The outcome of the PF could depend on wether they include the ecosystem theory of harm or not.

- If the CMA blocks the deal, they'll need to back up its claims with substantive evidence from third parties to defend its position in a possible appeal.

- A third source, another lawyer linked to the case, believes that the deal shouldn't be opposed but that aligning remedies between the CMA and the EC will be a challenge because the CMA has a more formal approach and the EU process is more interactive.

- The same lawyer believes that the regulators' position about the case is a combination of the vocal opposition from a competitor (Sony) and some overreaction over the last ten years where vertical mergers han been constantly approved. "It's odd that it even got this far", he/she says.

- Sony may have been rejecting the offers from MS hoping to secure better licensing terms through a formal remedy agreement.
 

xHunter

Member
- Sony may have been rejecting the offers from MS hoping to secure better licensing terms through a formal remedy agreement.
If i was sony, i would do the same. MS went from 3 years to 10 in like what 10 months? There is really nothing that they gain when they sign the deal now. MS/Activision is still going to publish CoD on Playstation, atleast for the rest of this generation.
 

8BiTw0LF

Banned

Microsoft ‘confident’ it can address EU concerns after receiving antitrust warning over Activision deal​

THE COMPANY SAYS IT’S COMMITTED TO “FINDING A PATH FORWARD” FOR THE $69 BILLION ACQUISITION

Microsoft has said it’s “confident” it can address EU concerns after being issued with an antirust warning over its proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard.

As expected, this week the EU issued Microsoft with a charge sheet setting out its concerns about the $69 billion deal, Politico reports.

In response to the EU’s statement of objections, Microsoft told the publication it is committed to “finding a path forward” for the deal.

“We are listening carefully to the European Commission’s concerns and are confident we can address them,” a spokesperson said.

What would be the games industry’s biggest ever deal by far has been met with fierce opposition from Sony and concerns from European, US and UK regulators.

While the EU’s charge sheet hasn’t been publicly released, regulators have expressed concerns that the acquisition could significantly reduce PlayStation’s ability to compete given that it would see Microsoft gain ownership of the Call of Duty series, which Sony has called “irreplaceable”.

In a bid to address these concerns, Microsoft recently said it had offered Sony a 10-year, legally enforceable contract to make each new Call of Duty game available on PlayStation the same day it comes to Xbox.

Sony Interactive Entertainment CEO Jim Ryan reportedly met EU antitrust boss Margrethe Vestager last week to discuss the company’s concerns about Microsoft’s plans.

Shortly after, Microsoft accused Sony of misleading the EU regulator over its commitment to keeping Call of Duty on PlayStation, should the acquisition be approved.

The European Commission is scheduled to rule on the deal by April 11.

 
Last edited:
Does anyone have a time travel tool?
At this point I want the results.
This. It's been fun to read speculation and watch this thread turn into a circus, but I want to know the results so I can start denying I ever supported the deal or to rub that it passed in peoples faces. We need this.
 
He didn’t say they are the market leader, he said it’s a market they mainly control.
Being market leader gives a platform the ability to tell developers where certain titles can and can't go. Nintendo was notorious with those sorts of demands when they were industry leader. You get better deals for 3rd party exclusivity. You think Sony could demand no cross play for their games if they weren't market leader? There absolutely is control when you are the market leader. I'd say they have outsized influence on regulators too. This acquisition demonstrates that.
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
Being market leader gives a platform the ability to tell developers where certain titles can and can't go. Nintendo was notorious with those sorts of demands when they were industry leader. You get better deals for 3rd party exclusivity. You think Sony could demand no cross play for their games if they weren't market leader? There absolutely is control when you are the market leader. I'd say they have outsized influence on regulators too. This acquisition demonstrates that.
Being the market leader =/= controlling the market.

To be really clear, Sony don’t control the video game market.

Please stop for once.
 
Being the market leader =/= controlling the market.

To be really clear, Sony don’t control the video game market.

Please stop for once.
Bingo GIF by The Last Man On Earth


Yep it's not like Sony can tell Capcom to stop releasing games on Xbox or else they won't be allowed to release games on PlayStation.

That's nowhere the current situation in the market.

Edit: It's probably illegal for Sony to do that if I'm not wrong.
 
Last edited:

reksveks

Member
Anyone care to explain what EU issuing a antitrust warning means exactly and wether this is something new or expected?
Rather expected but not preferred.

The actual document is called a 'Statement of Objection'.

EC preferred to give that to companies to formally begin negotiations around concessions.

Microsoft would preferred to have negotiations before the SO and to avoid it but it wasn't to be.
 
They can through deals. Just make their games exclusive just like MS during x360

But deals isn't them controlling the market. Its not like they can force Capcom to make deals with them. They don't sit down with them and tell them to make their games exclusive otherwise they can't release them on PlayStation.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member

Microsoft ‘confident’ it can address EU concerns after receiving antitrust warning over Activision deal​

THE COMPANY SAYS IT’S COMMITTED TO “FINDING A PATH FORWARD” FOR THE $69 BILLION ACQUISITION

Microsoft has said it’s “confident” it can address EU concerns after being issued with an antirust warning over its proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard.

As expected, this week the EU issued Microsoft with a charge sheet setting out its concerns about the $69 billion deal, Politico reports.

In response to the EU’s statement of objections, Microsoft told the publication it is committed to “finding a path forward” for the deal.

“We are listening carefully to the European Commission’s concerns and are confident we can address them,” a spokesperson said.

What would be the games industry’s biggest ever deal by far has been met with fierce opposition from Sony and concerns from European, US and UK regulators.

While the EU’s charge sheet hasn’t been publicly released, regulators have expressed concerns that the acquisition could significantly reduce PlayStation’s ability to compete given that it would see Microsoft gain ownership of the Call of Duty series, which Sony has called “irreplaceable”.

In a bid to address these concerns, Microsoft recently said it had offered Sony a 10-year, legally enforceable contract to make each new Call of Duty game available on PlayStation the same day it comes to Xbox.

Sony Interactive Entertainment CEO Jim Ryan reportedly met EU antitrust boss Margrethe Vestager last week to discuss the company’s concerns about Microsoft’s plans.

Shortly after, Microsoft accused Sony of misleading the EU regulator over its commitment to keeping Call of Duty on PlayStation, should the acquisition be approved.

The European Commission is scheduled to rule on the deal by April 11.

They were also confident that this would go smoothly. Prior to all the entertainment.

It's the "please don't dump the stock" PR piece. Par for the course with every corporation.
 
Last edited:

X-Wing

Member
Being market leader gives a platform the ability to tell developers where certain titles can and can't go. Nintendo was notorious with those sorts of demands when they were industry leader. You get better deals for 3rd party exclusivity. You think Sony could demand no cross play for their games if they weren't market leader? There absolutely is control when you are the market leader. I'd say they have outsized influence on regulators too. This acquisition demonstrates that.

Nintendo actively forbade developers from making games for other platforms. Literally if you wanted to put a game on the NES you weren't allowed to write any game to any other platform. None of this happens now, and Sony doesn't control any market. Sony is also much, much smaller than Microsoft. If Microsoft can't release quality products to compete in the gaming industry that is only proof of Microsoft's incompetence.
 
Last edited:

analog_future

Resident Crybaby
If this deal goes through, do you think Microsoft will try to acquire more publishers? EA, Ubi, Take 2 ??

I doubt they'd be able to move forward with acquiring any more large publishers, but they could definitely acquire more small dev studios like Asobo, Moon Studios, Studio MDHR, Playtonic, Supergiant, Supermassive, etc..
 
Last edited:

feynoob

Banned
But deals isn't them controlling the market. Its not like they can force Capcom to make deals with them. They don't sit down with them and tell them to make their games exclusive otherwise they can't release them on PlayStation.
You kinda denying a game from another platform. That is a control.
Also companies do have shady stuff with these contract.
Remember that cross platform document from apple vs epic?
I wouldn't be surprised if either MS and Sony has similar approach towards smaller studios.
 

Baki

Member
If this deal goes through, do you think Microsoft will try to acquire more publishers? EA, Ubi, Take 2 ??
No. This will be the last big purchase. MS is tightening its purse strings as seen by the layoffs. Nadella will want to see what the division can do after spending 80B of the company’s money on 2 acquisitions.
 

Topher

Gold Member
You kinda denying a game from another platform. That is a control.
Also companies do have shady stuff with these contract.
Remember that cross platform document from apple vs epic?
I wouldn't be surprised if either MS and Sony has similar approach towards smaller studios.

That isn't control. No one has to agree to anything.

And there was nothing shady about Sony's cross platform policy. It was blatantly clear.
 
You kinda denying a game from another platform. That is a control.
Also companies do have shady stuff with these contract.
Remember that cross platform document from apple vs epic?
I wouldn't be surprised if either MS and Sony has similar approach towards smaller studios.

It really isn't control. Both Sony and Microsoft can make exclusivity deals. However the people thet they make them with have to agree to those conditions. Which is why deals flip flop all the time. However Sony buying Insomniac is a form of control. They dictate what games they make and what platforms they release them on. They can't do that with third parties.
 
So you will lose money if/when the deal goes south?

Auch..

Nope. Activision Blizzard is as safe a stock as it gets with its content pipeline, Diablo IV coming and the popularity of Call of Duty. If the deal were blocked, I wouldn't move a single dime of my money because I know the stock would go right back up.

In fact, as of this morning I've invested another $7,000+.
 
Being the market leader =/= controlling the market.

To be really clear, Sony don’t control the video game market.

Please stop for once.
When your platform is the lead for development and when you get to tax developers for MXT on OTHER platforms that is a form of control.


PlayStation is the biggest brand in video games by far and the industry moves based on things they decide. Just like Nintendo in the early 90s. It's OK to acknowledge that this acquisition isn't going to hurt Sony's market position and they will continue to dominate as they are currently. They are not a passive presence in this industry.
 

NickFire

Member
Nope. Activision Blizzard is as safe a stock as it gets with its content pipeline, Diablo IV coming and the popularity of Call of Duty. If the deal were blocked, I wouldn't move a single dime of my money because I know the stock would go right back up.

In fact, as of this morning I've invested another $7,000+.
Full disclaimer - no one should take investment advice from me.

That said, I think Activision will be just fine in the long run if the deal does get blocked. While all this has been going on, Duty re-established itself. Technically I think it was #1 even with Vanguard's lower sales, but regardless MW2 has been a beast. And on top of that the company would get a really nice check that could be flipped to a dividend.
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
When your platform is the lead for development and when you get to tax developers for MXT on OTHER platforms that is a form of control.

[/URL]

PlayStation is the biggest brand in video games by far and the industry moves based on things they decide. Just like Nintendo in the early 90s. It's OK to acknowledge that this acquisition isn't going to hurt Sony's market position and they will continue to dominate as they are currently. They are not a passive presence in this industry.
tenor.gif
 

twilo99

Member
This is a massive deal. You should want it scrutinized even if you’re for it.

But what potentially happens if this deal closes?

One set of gamers (xbox + PC, maybe even Nintendo) gain by getting more games for less $ , and another set of gamers (Sony) loose games, and we have no idea how that looks like, but even if we take worst case scenario for Sony and Activision pulls all of their games from the platform and never releases another game on PS, you still have all of those games on the market, just on a different platform.

So, we are moving IP around, but it's never lost or unavailable to gamers.

Now, philosophically, and politically, you can wiggle this whole thing around 100 different ways, which is what's happening here, but in reality, not much changes.

Are we talking 20 years down the road changes? Those are even more abstract.
 
Last edited:
Microsoft not releasing the complaint in it's entirety, especially after preaching transparency since this deal's inception is telling.

I think COD in perpetuity is a real possibility here.
Lmao 🤣 what? Why would they release a document that has only been sent to them publicly? If the EU wanted it public they would have made it public. Do you think it’s smart to talk publicly about concerns they’re privately addressing when in court with the FTC currently. Thank God you don’t get to make decisions like that what a stupid thing to say yeah let make public our negotiations so everyone can see what and what I’m not willing to give so they all can have leverage.
 
But what potentially happens if this deal closes?

One set of gamers (xbox + PC, maybe even Nintendo) gain by getting more games for less $ , and another set of gamers (Sony) loose games, and we have no idea how that looks like, but even if we take worst case scenario for Sony and Activision pulls all of their games from the platform and never releases another game on PS, you still have all of those games on the market, just on a different platform.

So, we are moving IP around, but it's never lost or unavailable to gamers.

Now, philosophically, and politically, you can wiggle this whole thing around 100 different ways, which is what's happening here, but in reality, not much changes.

Are we talking 20 years down the road changes? Those are even more abstract.
There are so many ways this things could shake out. I think best case if the deal closes is that CoD remains on all the platforms its currently on, with parity, but it becomes part of Game Pass on PC and Xbox. Sony gamers can still access the game in the same manner they currently do. Anything more restrictive than that and you run the risk of fracturing the fanbase. I also view games like Overwatch and more or less any other MP game they have in the same light. Those are the games that everyone should retain access to, one because its a good thing to do, but also it will make this deal more profitable for MS moving forward.

SP games, etc --- Xbox and PC exclusive, day 1 Game Pass. Ultimately its not too costly dollar wise to own both systems and enjoy the fruits that each one offers, and if this is the path for MS to be a bigger player in the market and makes Sony and MS compete more with one another, as long as the end result is a net win for the consumer then this is a good deal even if there are negatives associated.
 

Pelta88

Member
Thank God you don’t get to make decisions like that what a stupid thing to say yeah let make public our negotiations so everyone can see what and what I’m not willing to give so they all can have leverage.

Why am I elevated in your thought process to the point you're thanking god that I don't get to make decisions? We're armchair analysts. Each of us can put our own thoughts forward since that's kinda the nature of the forum.

Try not to be so dramatic.
 

NickFire

Member
Lmao 🤣 what? Why would they release a document that has only been sent to them publicly? If the EU wanted it public they would have made it public. Do you think it’s smart to talk publicly about concerns they’re privately addressing when in court with the FTC currently. Thank God you don’t get to make decisions like that what a stupid thing to say yeah let make public our negotiations so everyone can see what and what I’m not willing to give so they all can have leverage.
Everyone reading or not reading into the silence is biased by preferred outcomes, yourself and myself included. You have a fair point because it would be stupid to risk pissing off more regulators right now by saying too much in public. 100% agreement with you. But anyone taking note of the sudden silence also has a fair point. The last time they got big pushback MS went balls to the wall in response, even suggesting an unconstitutional regulatory scheme I think, and a long parade of clowns on twitter "randomly" started regurgitating the exact same talking points. Maybe coordinated, maybe not. Seemed that way to me, but regardless, the public trial odometer has dropped from 100 to about 5 right now. It very well could be exactly what the guy you responded to guesses.
 
It's Microsoft, what do you think? Their entire history is made of buying success instead of building it.

So I can say Sony bought success with Naughty Dog and Insomniac, and many other studios, instead of building it since Sony bought those studios? And before acquiring them, they bought rights to the things they created?

Let me know if that's how it works or not. Microsoft built windows as a consumer and enterprise business. They built their whole partner (educational and other) licensing business for windows and windows servers. They built office into the juggernaut it is today on both the consumer and enterprise side. They built their cloud/windows server business to where it is currently. I take it that for a business to be constructed legitimately in your eyes, there can be no instance where any asset is acquired or purchased? What exactly is the market value threshold or cutoff for an acquired asset, and do you fully comprehend that the market value for each asset changes based on the market, the timing, and other factors?

You might want to have a good look at Sony's acquisition history going off on what's fairly built vs. bought. There are many purchases at the heart of Sony's current empire, primarily gaming, music, film, televisions, and electronics in general


Full disclaimer - no one should take investment advice from me.

That said, I think Activision will be just fine in the long run if the deal does get blocked. While all this has been going on, Duty re-established itself. Technically I think it was #1 even with Vanguard's lower sales, but regardless MW2 has been a beast. And on top of that the company would get a really nice check that could be flipped to a dividend.

You nailed it. Activision Blizzard comes out of the deal with the equivalent of a payout, combined with their release schedule, which would result in their most successful year financially in its entire existence.

So there is zero downsides to anybody putting money into Activision Blizzard if they have the money to invest. The only thing to fear is the initial "shock" of a possible blocking of the deal. If you don't have the cash to withstand that, don't invest. If you do, stand firm, and you will be rewarded come end of year and early 2024.
 

Thirty7ven

Banned
When your platform is the lead for development and when you get to tax developers for MXT on OTHER platforms that is a form of control.

I get where you are coming from but all Sony is dictating are the terms of access to their ecosystem. They are not dictating terms of access to others.

Crossplay between PlayStation and Xbox benefits Xbox. It also benefits the publishers, but it makes sense for Sony to get their fair share of the cut given that they are the ones who cultivated their ecosystem throughout multiple generations. Also you are forgetting the ifs on Sony policy, there are variables.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom