The problem the current FTC has is that they are fighting ideological battles that the law doesn't support. Lina Khan thinks she has a congressional mandate to change things. Her main hurdle is a congress doesn't have her back. They are making no effort to change the law to support her ideology. I don't want to get too far into politics, but that's one of the reasons they lose so often.
To an extent, yes it would appear your impression was correct. MS offered Sony an additional 3 years beyond their current contract, which Jim Ryan promptly rejected.
Well I don’t think they’ve technically released their list of demands (other than ask for it to be categorically blocked). Though they’ve implied it with the sudden name dropping of PS Plus disadvantage to the CMA. Whereas Sony had not mentioned it previously.
If Phil just gave up he'd be out on his ass tomorrow.
Man not this again. PSNow and PS+ existed for a long time.
That's not true, the concessions would be based on the regulators concerns. It would not matter if Sony are happy or not. The regulators are not really a mediator. The regulators would either decide that the concessions are required or they are not. Any concessions they decide on would not be at risk if Sony are not on board.
Depends on the wording and details.
I said this on Wednesday but I believe if the regulators decide that the deal lowers competition any behavioural remedy they are willing to accept would not be specific to a particular company, it would be comprehensive:
Again, AFAIK, concessions are used to ease the merge at regulators eyes. Sometimes are promises, like nvidia tried with the arm merge, but no one believed them, sometimes are signed contract to third party involved, like this case.
The $3 billion is Microsoft's incentive to fight for the deal and likely why ABK insisted on it. The cost of legal battles will be in the tens of million of dollars but it will cost less than breaking up and walking away.
I find it more fascinating that FTC lost the case against Illumina/Grail (that was blocked in EU in the end). And Illumina/Grail was the case of a company with 70-80% market share worldwide buying a piece of technology used by other (remaining I guess) competitors
I find it more fascinating that FTC lost the case against Illumina/Grail (that was blocked in EU in the end). And Illumina/Grail was the case of a company with 70-80% market share worldwide buying a piece of technology used by other (remaining I guess) competitors
They can sue. But continuing the case is too much for them.
These are the places MS cant exert their power too much. So they have to play nice with them.
mlexmarketinsight.com
Rest is log in.
It means the ones that had remedies or were blocked did not end up having behavioral remedies. As I have been saying most of these regulators know that enforcement is an issue and behavioral changes usually don't work. Divestiture does.
MS have been trying push the whole mobile being the biggest reason of this acquisition, would be interesting if the regulators ask for divestiture, put your money where you mouth is MS.
Aerojet/Lockheed - Wasn't it blocked already as it would create a monopoly on missile production?
If Playstation wanted COD in PS+ they could have paid ABK or acquired ABK themselves lolfeynoob said:
Will be an interesting negotiation as COD has not only multiple games but its release cycle is gonna change anyway.feynoob said:
CMA argument sub-service.
That is why Sony isnt signing the 10 year deal so far. They want same thing as Xbox.
was just looking at the https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings pending cases.
Sure, but I don't think it's that simple. If they ask for divestiture, a new price would have to be agreed upon, as well as who would be able to acquire whatever portion was divested.
Only on activision, not MS.
Good luck shorting a 2 trillion dollar company into oblivion.
ATVI prices would definitely take a hit for sure. MSFT wouldn't though outside of a temporary blip. Your wet dream of MSFT being short sold into oblivion would remain nothing more than a wet spot on your bed sheets though.
CMA failed to build the argument regarding the multi-game subscription service. Even in their own document and it was not a solid point at all but a bunch of theoreticals. UK was mainly concerned about cloud, but even that is not a strong argument either because there is no legal argument that can be used against cloud streaming as it is a nascent market and nobody can predict what's gonna happen with it within the next 5 years for example.
Sony is not going to sign anything because they want to block the deal. But regulators won't ask Sony anyway whether Sony is ok with the concessions or not if regulators find the concession ok.
PS+ day1 is in the play right now. That means, MS would have to support it.
If Sony are going to sign this deal, then they want that.
From this. Day1 is in the air, but that could be potential be what Sony would ask (Price would be issue though)
No, as it is easy case for Microsoft to argue against. As Sony does not put their own games in PS+ Day 1 thus Sony does not believe that it is necessary to compete with Game Pass, where Microsoft does put the games Day 1. On what basis can Sony request Day 1 releases then? Regulators do not consider subscription services as something serious either (europe for example) - just as an alternative distribution channel.
Microsoft offered Sony a deal so that Sony would retract its opposition to the deal. As it did not work out, Microsoft went to the regulator and regulator will decide what concession is ok, regardless of what Sony wants. The deal will be with a regulator, not with Sony. It is basically like at school where you ask a fellow student to sign a document sent by the teacher. Nobody is asking the student if he is ok with that or not.
What’s the source for that text?
Idas.
This is my impression of it as well.
Sony can get that on their contract, whether day1 or not is viable for them is for the future.
MS changed the yearly offer to Sony. Sony wants the same version as Xbox. I dont see the problem here. Regulators wants a fair market.
Its better than nothing.
CMA Game Pass argument was very weak and they could not even come up with a strong proof that multi-game subscription service represents an independent market but only a bunch of theoreticals (merged with cloud gaming) where "in the future it might become too strong" or whatever. Game Pass does not even amount to the huge % of gaming distribution to be something that suddenly will become hugely superior to other services. And no one can predict a future.
They offered a feature parity from the very beginning and that's something that Xbox hasn't had for years. Considering that PS occuppies 70%+ market share in some european markets I don't think regulators care that much about a fair market at all.
