feynoob
Gold Member
In short answer
CMA is MS hope, as that can change the FTC outcome.
If they say yes, then FTC challenge would be easy breeze.
If they say NO, then MS would abandon the deal.
-
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)
- Status
CMA is MS hope, as that can change the FTC outcome.
If they say yes, then FTC challenge would be easy breeze.
If they say NO, then MS would abandon the deal.
feynoob
Gold Member
Next 2 weeks might give us new info.
Right now, we are in the dark.
Pelta88
Member
When you only get your info from other people lol
In the actual market...
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/VUJCGHLJJ5LGDBURP2K4RIEE4Q.jpg)
First pre-trial hearing in Microsoft-Activision case set for Jan. 3
A judge has set Jan. 3 for the first pre-trial hearing in the Biden administration's case against Microsoft over its $69 billion bid to take over "Call of Duty" maker Activision Blizzard .
www.reuters.com
Last edited:
Aguero9320
Member
Scalebound looked like absolute shit, and didn’t the developer even basically apologise for the abortion that it turned into? Cancelling that gestating turd was the smartest move Microsoft made in a long time.
I cannot believe people still bring it up like they shot a puppy or something
Honestly believe it’s more sadness that it didn’t release so the same people could point and laugh at it tbh.
feynoob
Gold Member
We are talking about other regulators, especially CMA here.
But thank you for briging this info to us.
BTW this dropped 28min ago on the web for me.
feynoob
Gold Member
https://www.reuters.com/legal/first...crosoft-activision-case-set-jan-3-2022-12-30/
WASHINGTON, Dec 30 (Reuters) - A judge has set Jan. 3 for the first pre-trial hearing in the Biden administration's case against Microsoft (MSFT.O) over its $69 billion bid to take over "Call of Duty" maker Activision Blizzard (ATVI.O).
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which enforces antitrust law, asked a judge to block the transaction earlier this month, arguing that the merger would allow Microsoft's Xbox to get exclusive access to Activision games, leaving Nintendo consoles and Sony's PlayStation out in the cold.
Microsoft has countered that the deal would benefit gamers and gaming companies alike, offering to sign a legally binding consent decree with the FTC to provide "Call of Duty" games to rivals including Sony (6758.T) for a decade.
Microsoft made the argument in a filing aimed at convincing a judge at the FTC to allow the deal to proceed.
The case is a sign of the administration of U.S. President Joe Biden taking a muscular approach to anti-trust enforcement. But antitrust experts say the FTC faces an uphill battle to convince a judge to block the deal, because of the voluntary concessions offered by Microsoft to allay fears it could dominate the gaming market.
Thnx
Pelta88
Last edited:
SenjutsuSage
Banned
https://www.reuters.com/legal/first...crosoft-activision-case-set-jan-3-2022-12-30/
WASHINGTON, Dec 30 (Reuters) - A judge has set Jan. 3 for the first pre-trial hearing in the Biden administration's case against Microsoft (MSFT.O) over its $69 billion bid to take over "Call of Duty" maker Activision Blizzard (ATVI.O).
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which enforces antitrust law, asked a judge to block the transaction earlier this month, arguing that the merger would allow Microsoft's Xbox to get exclusive access to Activision games, leaving Nintendo consoles and Sony's PlayStation out in the cold.
Microsoft has countered that the deal would benefit gamers and gaming companies alike, offering to sign a legally binding consent decree with the FTC to provide "Call of Duty" games to rivals including Sony (6758.T) for a decade.
Microsoft made the argument in a filing aimed at convincing a judge at the FTC to allow the deal to proceed.
The case is a sign of the administration of U.S. President Joe Biden taking a muscular approach to anti-trust enforcement. But antitrust experts say the FTC faces an uphill battle to convince a judge to block the deal, because of the voluntary concessions offered by Microsoft to allay fears it could dominate the gaming market.
Thnx
This whole process will go very badly for the FTC. I can't wait to see it. There is zero sense in trying to limit a market to just a "high-performance" console market that ignores the Switch that sold nearly as much as, or more than the PS4. But the only case the FTC had to bring was a bad one, so they shot their shot. The outcome is obvious though.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Scalebound looked like absolute shit, and didn’t the developer even basically apologise for the abortion that it turned into? Cancelling that gestating turd was the smartest move Microsoft made in a long time.
I cannot believe people still bring it up like they shot a puppy or something
Yep, the developer said all the blame was on them and not Microsoft. So nobody should ever bring that up as a stain on Microsoft.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
Wow I haven't checked on this thread in a few days and this happens?
Sony?
Xbox people think early Feb
When you only get your info from other people lol
In the actual market...
First pre-trial hearing in Microsoft-Activision case set for Jan. 3
A judge has set Jan. 3 for the first pre-trial hearing in the Biden administration's case against Microsoft over its $69 billion bid to take over "Call of Duty" maker Activision Blizzard .
Not much to this trial hearing; you ain't going to hear much news, it just procedural and administrative stuff and it's only scheduled to be 30minutes
Prehearing Scheduling Conference: Microsoft Corp. et al.
Hearing In the Matter of Microsoft Corp. et al., Docket No. 9412. All proceedings are VIRTUAL and Open to the Public.
HoofHearted
Member
Wow I haven't checked on this thread in a few days and this happens?
Sony?
Xbox people think early Feb
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
SoloKingRobert
Banned
I can't wait when this deal goes through.. The outrage 
HoofHearted
Member
Either way this goes… I expect there will be some epic meltdowns….I can't wait when this deal goes through.. The outrage
lefty1117
Gold Member
That's what I'm suggesting will happen ... they almost have to because MS has escalated the fight, though technically speaking Sony has been doing the same thing for years, albeit at a smaller scale. MS are thinking on the scale of an Apple or a Comcast/NBC where they control the full experience from the platform down to the content. That Apple's closed model exists all but ensures this is going to happen in adjacent industries to media entertainment, such as gaming. This is why Phil says stuff like he's really competing against the likes of Amazon
ChorizoPicozo
Gold Member
What were you suggesting again?
drganon
Gold Member
Who knows. His posts are nothing more than moronic fanboy wet dreams.
Topher
Gold Member
Wasn't even in this thread. Who the hell knew High on Life would be such a controversial game?
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
FTC argues semantics, creates new console market that doesn't include Nintendo
The Federal Trade Commission has created a new 'high-performance console' market definition that does not include the $62 billion Nintendo Switch platform.
www.tweaktown.com
FTC is on fire
Microsoft said that they don't want to lessen competition because they are also putting Call of Duty on Nintendo. FTC hits back by saying MS didn't even consider Nintendo as a competitor as per Microsoft's own internal documents, so this move of putting COD on Nintendo doesn't help minimizing the anti-competitiveness.
FTC argues semantics, creates new console market that doesn't include Nintendo
The Federal Trade Commission has created a new 'high-performance console' market definition that does not include the $62 billion Nintendo Switch platform.
FTC is on fire
Microsoft said that they don't want to lessen competition because they are also putting Call of Duty on Nintendo. FTC hits back by saying MS didn't even consider Nintendo as a competitor as per Microsoft's own internal documents, so this move of putting COD on Nintendo doesn't help minimizing the anti-competitiveness.
If we’re going by what Microsoft did and didn’t say then them saying COD will still be on PlayStation surely minimises the anti-competitiveness, doesn’t it?
No reason to block the deal there.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Yeah, regulators are gonna go by "trust me bro."
If they go by that for whether Nintendo is a competitor then why wouldn’t they for the availability of COD on Playstation?
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
The opposite.
They are not going by Microsoft's words. They are going by their internal documents that have been excluding Nintendo from their strategies and do not consider Nintendo as a Microsoft competitor.
Microsoft is now saying Nintendo is a competitor, and we're putting COD on a competitor platform (Nintendo). And FTC is not going by Microsoft's words that Nintendo is a competitor. They're going by their internal docs that Nintendo is not a competitor.
Internal documents are still Microsoft’s words, just on paper.
If it needs to be on paper then get them to sign something saying COD will be on playstation. MS have already offered that to Sony but Sony refused to sign it, it wouldn’t take much for a lawyer to draft up a contract between MS and the regulators if that’s what they want.
If the spoken word is right, COD will be on playstation because it’s been mentioned multiple times that it will be.
Either way, it’s couple days work at most and the anti-competitiveness claim for COD is resolved.
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
I can't believe I have to explain this ...
Microsoft words = Marketing talk and potentially misleading statements (like in the case of Bethesda)
Internal documents = Not marketing talk.
Microsoft says they won't take COD off of PlayStation ever but submits in writing an offer that only lasts 10 years. So words do not match documents.
Also, they haven't submitted anything about other ABK IPs, e.g., Diablo, WoW, etc.
Does this make it clear?
feynoob
Gold Member
No company is willing to do long term contract..I can't believe I have to explain this ...
Microsoft words = Marketing talk and potentially misleading statements (like in the case of Bethesda)
Internal documents = Not marketing talk.
Microsoft says they won't take COD off of PlayStation ever but submits in writing an offer that only lasts 10 years. So words do not match documents.
Also, they haven't submitted anything about other ABK IPs, e.g., Diablo, WoW, etc.
Does this make it clear?
MS is right here.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
But Microsoft have publicly offered Sony a decade of Call of Duty and signed the same deal with Nintendo. Asking Microsoft to be tied into a longer deal than that is simply unreasonable, 10 years ago you'd be buying Call of Duty for the 360 / PS3 - a decade is a hell of a long time in Video games.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
That's for regulators to decide.
But if they aren't willing to do a long-term contract, in line with their verbal claims, then there is already a huge disconnect between what they are saying and what they are willing to be liable for.
That's a lot of potential for misrepresentation and misleading that regulators are right to look into and raise objections.
feynoob
Gold Member
Again, no company is willing to do perpetual contract, which Sony wants. Even sony themselves won't do that type of contract.
Sony main concern was never about the contract, but gamepass.
Having top 1 selling game on gamepass is enough to change a lot of publishers outlook on gamepass. That is what Sony is worried about this deal. It's why they don't want this deal to go through.
Their revenue is in danger because of that.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
So MS's statements should be that we'll put COD on PS for 10 years and then, after that, we'll make the game exclusive.
The point isn't that they won't do perpetual contract; they are allowed to do whatever they want to do. The point is that their words (won't ever make COD exclusive) do not match with what they submit in writing (COD on PS for 10 years).
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
My guess is a big fight. I know
CatLady
is pretty aggressive and hates playstation fans. I've also seen
Captain Toad
be aggressive in the past as well. As for Mr Testacles well he probably teamed up with
CatLady
. That's just my guess. Mods said it was because the three adopted persecution complexes and were given a perm warning due to that.
Oh don't worry, Riky is back to take their place, or maybe one of them went back to an alt.
They went on a tirade of stupidity again about this place being bias because some didn't like HOL.My guess is a big fight. I know
Mods said it was because the three adopted persecution complexes and were given a perm warning due to that.
Last edited:
feynoob
Gold Member
MS making the game exclusive is the same as them re negotiating the 10 year deal again.
We have no idea what will happen in the future. Its why 10 year is perfect for everyone.
It matches, because we have no clue what will happen after that 10 year. Everything is assumption until we reach the deadline of that deal.
We are making assumptions here, nothing else. None of us can predict the future.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
I didn't see what happened but that makes sense.
Still all this over High on Life seems really dumb to me.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Not at all. Microsoft says that they won't foreclose the games, even after 10 years.
Anyway, even if what you say is true and there is a 50/50 chance that MS will make the game exclusive (or not), then it proves the regulators right, i.e., after the acquisition, MS can foreclose ABK games from releasing on competitor platforms.
And that is exactly what the regulators are investigating the possibility of: the following is from the UK gov website:
SoloKingRobert
Banned
Hopefully, Guitar Hero, True Crime and Skylanders make a return under Microsoft.
MS tried to play both sides. They offered no formal concessions, only in a one to one discussion a 3 yr deal which they claimed was beyond standard. Regulators aren't going to buy that. This was the same "trust us bro, we have no incentive to remove games" they did with Bethesda.
They offered nothing to the regulators in terms of remedies or concessions with Activision. Only when it became clear the regulators were moving to block the deal did they begin to try and actually push concessions and remedies and pretend regulators were being unreasonable.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
Getting caught up on the market conditions in ten years time is silly. In a decade FPS could conceivably be out of vogue, or Battlefield could be number one, or Sony could have their own chart topping military shooter. With that in mind, Microsoft could find that COD is only being played on their platforms. They could find themselves being just about able to justify the development cost of the game, but hamstrung by a contract with Sony insisting they release a game that won't sell.
It just doesn't make good business sense to lock themselves into something for over a decade (and ten years itself is quite a commitment).
feynoob
Gold Member
Quality concern wont happen, as that would impact the game's quality. Pricing wont happen. Timed exclusive, same thing.Not at all. Microsoft says that they won't foreclose the games, even after 10 years.
Anyway, even if what you say is true and there is a 50/50 chance that MS will make the game exclusive (or not), then it proves the regulators right, i.e., after the acquisition, MS can foreclose ABK games from releasing on competitor platforms.
And that is exactly what the regulators are investigating the possibility of: the following is from the UK gov website:
As for the exclusives, certain games would be exclusive. Games which doesnt have big presence and doesnt have foreclose impact.
And as for COD, CMA and other regulators would need to work with MS in order to ensure other party get fair contract.
This contract situation focus shouldnt be on Sony only, but other markets such as cloud gaming and sub service markets.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
My guess is a big fight. I know
Mods said it was because the three adopted persecution complexes and were given a perm warning due to that.
Ah hopefully they all learn from it and try to not get as caught up in arguing for arguing sake.
I'm being a bit dumb, what is HOL?
feynoob
Gold Member
MS isnt required to offer remedies or concessions early. also FTC offer was before their decisions.
Also MS clearly stated their intent, in which they added 10 years for everyone.
https://www.videogameschronicle.com...says-we-want-to-bring-call-of-duty-to-switch/
bitbydeath
Gold Member
Can you explain in detail why an infinite deal can’t be made?
feynoob
Gold Member
Because of the uncertainties. MS must obey the contract, and cant get out easily because It has no fix dates.
Its only favorable to one party, which is bad for the other party.
I can't believe I have to explain this ...
Microsoft words = Marketing talk and potentially misleading statements (like in the case of Bethesda)
Internal documents = Not marketing talk.
Microsoft says they won't take COD off of PlayStation ever but submits in writing an offer that only lasts 10 years. So words do not match documents.
Also, they haven't submitted anything about other ABK IPs, e.g., Diablo, WoW, etc.
Does this make it clear?
So it’s marketing vs. not marketing speak? Then the same solution still applies - get a lawyer to make a contract to have COD on Playstation for however long regulators deem necessary, without any marketing speak in it. If MS’s 10 year offer isn’t enough, get the regulators to make one for a length of time they deem appropriate.
FTC making this more complicated than it needs to be by going to court instead of just handing MS a contract to sign - as far as I’m aware no one has said this has been offered as an option to MS and they refused? Only that Sony refused to sign a contract from MS.
Same applies to their other IPs, though no one appears bothered about those.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked