DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
So the FTC aren't suing and aren't going to court? So what's happening?
-
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
gothmog
Gold Member
And there was nothing said that indicated anything before this block. The FTC did meet with Microsoft but it sounded like there was little to discuss. Now it seems like they have both a complaint and response to talk about while they figure out a settlement.
They would of had talks by now if that was the case. This is them trying to use the administrative court to drag this out until Microsoft gives up. They can't win in federal court hence trying to block this by dragging out the process. If they lose power because of the SC ruling its on them for trying to use the administrative court to drag things out instead of proving it in federal court.
Dragging it out until Microsoft gives up basically.
gothmog
Gold Member
FTC want to try and reach a settlement like most cases that go through the administrative process. The major complaint by companies around that is that the FTC tends to ask for pretty major concessions to reach a settlement. The whole Axon thing is around that. Axon offered to basically stop integration with the company they purchased as a remedy but the FTC wanted them to write a blank check to set up their own competitor. That's why they're going to the SCOTUS.
Last edited:
gothmog
Gold Member
I'm not sure a SC ruling going against the FTC is going to be a slam dunk. The SC took on the procedural side around being able to sue in federal court but declined to hear anything about the constitutionality of the FTC's administrative process. Someone would then have to sue the FTC in federal court to determine if the admin process is unconstitutional. Previously federal courts declined to argue the case because of lack of standing. Either way this is going to get dragged out.
Last edited:
DarkMage619
$MSFT
In reality I have not heard any substantive request from the FTC to settle the complaint they filed. MS stated they didn't even get an opportunity to discuss this acquisition with the FTC which explains why the FTC so poorly explained the gaming industry in their complaint.
The FTC also didn't go to federal court to officially shut down the acquisition with a judicial authority. It appears like they would prefer to drag this out as long as possible in an attempt to get MS to just walk away. Hence the August court date well after the termination date of this deal. This is hardly an exercise in protecting consumers.
Tax payer dollars and court time could have been saved if the FTC simply presented some reasonable concessions to MS. MS already presented several. Of course that assumes the FTC is acting in good faith and not pushing a political agenda against 'big tech' indiscriminately. Such a waste.
gothmog
Gold Member
FTC isn't interested in COD being the only concession would be my guess? I imagine they feel the vertical nature of the acquisition has not been addressed yet as well.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
So FTC today said they've now been authorized to engage in settlement discussions with Microsoft, but no such talks yet have taken place on a substantive level.
We also learn the reason no such substantive talks have taken place after this authorization is because Microsoft is currently not yet ready to do any such thing while the case is still being reviewed by the CMA and European Commission. Once those come to a close, depending on what the CMA and EU asks, only then will Microsoft engage in settlement talks.
Microsoft seems to think they can get a fairly fast decision from the European Commission and CMA for some reason, in time enough to meet their July 18th, 2023 closing date.
FTC, as I suspected, are still leaving open the possibility they take it to court to try to fight it, but they haven't exactly specified how. Could that be as a preliminary injunction to prevent Microsoft and Activision from closing until the Administrative proceeding continues, or will they just try to hurry it along and take the larger risk of trying to beat Microsoft in federal court? Either way they sound very non-committal on that front.
Microsoft, however, has made explicitly clear they want to frontload all evidence and discovery relating to this matter to get it all in, so that they can make sure everything is ready for an immediate potential fight in federal court if the FTC wants to take it there, or in the current administrative proceeding if the FTC is unwilling to go to federal court. Microsoft says they are willing to and pretty much open to any and all options to fight for its deal.
Didn't expect FTC to sound so open to allowing the deal with a settlement. We had heard they were supposedly not open to entertaining any of that. Maybe they're changing, maybe the reporting was incorrect, or maybe this is just something they're telling the judge to not appear unreasonable in the event of future federal court scrutiny in the event of a Supreme Court decision that throws things in Microsoft's favor.
All in all, I didn't expect anything of note here because the judge literally has no say in what will ultimately happen since the FTC can just overrule anything he says at the end of the process. That didn't sound to me today like an FTC that wants to fight this thing for very long. But maybe I'm reading too much into what I've read and what's been reported.
We also learn the reason no such substantive talks have taken place after this authorization is because Microsoft is currently not yet ready to do any such thing while the case is still being reviewed by the CMA and European Commission. Once those come to a close, depending on what the CMA and EU asks, only then will Microsoft engage in settlement talks.
Microsoft seems to think they can get a fairly fast decision from the European Commission and CMA for some reason, in time enough to meet their July 18th, 2023 closing date.
FTC, as I suspected, are still leaving open the possibility they take it to court to try to fight it, but they haven't exactly specified how. Could that be as a preliminary injunction to prevent Microsoft and Activision from closing until the Administrative proceeding continues, or will they just try to hurry it along and take the larger risk of trying to beat Microsoft in federal court? Either way they sound very non-committal on that front.
Microsoft, however, has made explicitly clear they want to frontload all evidence and discovery relating to this matter to get it all in, so that they can make sure everything is ready for an immediate potential fight in federal court if the FTC wants to take it there, or in the current administrative proceeding if the FTC is unwilling to go to federal court. Microsoft says they are willing to and pretty much open to any and all options to fight for its deal.
Didn't expect FTC to sound so open to allowing the deal with a settlement. We had heard they were supposedly not open to entertaining any of that. Maybe they're changing, maybe the reporting was incorrect, or maybe this is just something they're telling the judge to not appear unreasonable in the event of future federal court scrutiny in the event of a Supreme Court decision that throws things in Microsoft's favor.
All in all, I didn't expect anything of note here because the judge literally has no say in what will ultimately happen since the FTC can just overrule anything he says at the end of the process. That didn't sound to me today like an FTC that wants to fight this thing for very long. But maybe I'm reading too much into what I've read and what's been reported.
Thirty7ven
Banned
Basically FTC will do this on their terms, not MS’s.
Iced Arcade
Member
Decent recap video of what was said today.
Last edited:
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
SenjutsuSage
I speculated on this stalling/leveraging strategy by the FTC weeks ago. The FTC appears more focused on what concessions they can maximise.
Last edited:
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Vertical acquisitions usually are not ones regulators sue over. It's horizontal one because vertical mergers are really hard to sue over to show harm. MS offered more than just CoD as a concession but if CoD isn't a concern for the FTC what are they even doing at this point? If they have the concern present concrete ways to address it.
Pelta88
Member
His bias predicates everything he says which makes Destin's sycophancy really difficult to sit through/watch.
Do you have you got a link to an impartial roundup?
Iced Arcade
Member
I didn't see or hear any bias one way or another on that video... Just a round up of information.
Maybe he does in other videos? I'm not familiar with Duke honestly.
Last edited:
gothmog
Gold Member
That's not true. Verticals merger guidance is being revamped after being withdrawn: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/new...thdraws-vertical-merger-guidelines-commentary
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
As I've been telling people for months, what this is all about is a bi-partisan rethink of what constitutes anti-competitive behaviour in an increasingly digital economy. Specifically so-called "network effects" where a single operator has control over so many leading brands on their curated storefront, that competition is stifled.
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
Last edited:
gothmog
Gold Member
Wow. Hell yeah. That's great progress indeed.
Pelta88
Member
I saw him on twitter threads where they ridiculed his bias. He's one of those "You gotta wait and give Phil time" types. The type to take offence, personally, to any criticism of his idol Spencer.
Last edited:
akimbo009
Gold Member
But I don't network effects have been cited at all - but concern around content supply and that MS is an untrustworthy guarantor of access. Don't think MS has claimed nor FTC that MS would own the store front or force curation of limit exposure.
feynoob
Member
You are on a cruise today.
Agent Icebeezy
Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
FTC lost their opportunity to talk. After the CMA and EU approve, Microsoft has way more leverage than before.Didn't Brad Smith say that FTC staff previously stated that they didn't have permission to talk about concessions?
So either their position has changed or it was them just playing hard-ball.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Meaning that it is against precedent. They can make up whatever new guidelines they want. The current laws do not support the argument that the FTC is making against this acquisition. Without support of laws the FTC can only delay. They would be far more effective if they would have worked with MS over filing specious lawsuits.
There are far too many IP and developers for one competitor to have a monopoly. Nintendo and Sony own incredibly valuable IP that this acquisition will not change. Those two companies are more than capable of effectively competing in this market no matter what MS does, short of buying those companies out and shutting them down. We all know that is not possible.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Its not necessary to have a monopoly to be anti-competitive.
The Tourmaline Gorilla
Banned
MS buying ABK, and allowing it on other platforms isn't anti-competitive. And what exactly does that mean, in this context? If I'm not mistaken, isn't the goal of the FTC and the other regulating bodies involved to protect consumer interests? If it promotes competition (and it will), then guess what? It benefits consumers, period. And I really don't see how this deal hurts consumers, at all? Nor does it hurt the competition. It doesn't really affect Nintendo, as they generally have a healthy lane of their own, and it also puts CoD on their platform, so now people who game exclusively on Nintendo are able to experience CoD.
Will it eat into Sony's sales? Perhaps. But, not for 10 years. And, if Sony really is that worried about it, they have 10 years to try to build a competitor...and to bolster their offerings, which only improves the market and improves competition and competitor offerings, either in value/cost/content. And even if Sony saw CoD as competition, PS still has their own IP and loyalists. And their titles are strong, whether CoD exists or not; they have the majority of the share in the console space, and they have the majority of mind share and perceivable goodwill amongst consumers.
Seriously, what exactly are people arguing here. There's no way to cut this, where MS is the bad guy, evil, screwing consumers or their competitors. And last I checked; this is a capitalist nation, in a capitalist market, driven by user dollars - screwing competition has been the name of the game, from inception; from Atari to Nintendo, and Nintendo/Sega. All parties have done their dirt, including both Microsoft and Sony, for years. They honestly don't owe each other anything. And they actually don't owe consumers anything either. They make an offering, and if consumers like it, they'll spend their money on it - it's that simple. It's always been an exchange of product/service for the consumer's money. This isn't a charity. Sony doesn't run a charity, and neither does Microsoft.
If people are worried that Microsoft will, 10 years from now, make CoD exclusive or bolster its offerings with one-sided Game Pass perks; that's their right and prerogative. That's business. That's the entire point of owning developers, studios, content, product, software, IP, patents, etc. The point is to improve their service/product offerings, even while starving or undercutting competition in an attempt to sway customers in their direction; that's the point of a free market. That's the goal of competition. That's what makes competition thrive. It's what makes companies offer more...and more...for consumers to see value in it, and in turn, spend more money their way. What's the fucking problem here?
All I see is a bunch of whining, and complaining and virtue signaling, and weird "villain vs hero" roles being sold by fans, famboys, ignorant consumers and lofty, politically driven regulators that only applies to some sort of fantasy world, that we don't live in. Absolute asininity.
And here we are... 300+ pages strong, of this deluded echo-chamber. Smfh
Last edited:
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Your own bias is what makes you think this, and I'm amazed you still claim to have no preference on the outcome of this deal. Everything he said in the video was neutral and fair. Much of what he read was verbatim from what transpired. What's the issue? Everybody who has paid attention to your every post in this thread and is honest knows what your preference is. You are firmly in the side that wants the deal to fail. I'm firmly in the side that wants it to be approved.
There's really no point after the extensive record of your views in this thread in pretending you don't also have your own bias.
Just to highlight the potential anticompetitive effects that the FTC are arguing are
- As the Owner of Activision’s Gaming Content, Microsoft Would Have the Ability to Disadvantage Rivals by Withholding or Degrading Activision Content in the Relevant Markets
- The Proposed Acquisition Would Increase Microsoft’s Incentive to Disadvantage Rivals
by Withholding or Degrading Activision Content in the Relevant Markets.
- Microsoft’s Statements and Past Actions Indicate that It Will Likely Act on Its
Incentives to Disadvantage Rivals by Withholding or Degrading Activision Content
- Withholding Activision Content From, or Degrading Activision Content On, Microsoft’s Rival Products Will Harm Competition and Consumers in the Relevant Markets
There is a general concern about app stores and other platform holders or Gatekeepers as the EU calls them but currently they don't include console makers. They may do in the future.
I do think as a regulator you could make the argument that MS would gain unrestrained power over publishers via the deal but not sure that you can successfully defend it. I would suspect that's going to be even more the case if publishers feedback similar to how they did to CADE.
- As the Owner of Activision’s Gaming Content, Microsoft Would Have the Ability to Disadvantage Rivals by Withholding or Degrading Activision Content in the Relevant Markets
- The Proposed Acquisition Would Increase Microsoft’s Incentive to Disadvantage Rivals
by Withholding or Degrading Activision Content in the Relevant Markets.
- Microsoft’s Statements and Past Actions Indicate that It Will Likely Act on Its
Incentives to Disadvantage Rivals by Withholding or Degrading Activision Content
- Withholding Activision Content From, or Degrading Activision Content On, Microsoft’s Rival Products Will Harm Competition and Consumers in the Relevant Markets
There is a general concern about app stores and other platform holders or Gatekeepers as the EU calls them but currently they don't include console makers. They may do in the future.
I do think as a regulator you could make the argument that MS would gain unrestrained power over publishers via the deal but not sure that you can successfully defend it. I would suspect that's going to be even more the case if publishers feedback similar to how they did to CADE.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
There is nothing anti-competitive about this acquisition. MS is adding platforms for CoD that traditionally haven't had it. When was the last time a platform holder bought studios and made games for their competitors?
IFireflyl
Gold Member
This is my post from a few days back:
Beyond that point, your post is absolutely idiotic. You started with, "How is this anti-competitive?" You ended with, "Nobody has a right to stifle capitalism. Big tech can screw us all over because we aren't worthy to breathe the same air that they breathe. Microsoft can do whatever they want, and everyone else can get fucked."
DarkMage619
$MSFT
A monopoly isn't determined by the size of a company. MS putting CoD on platforms that never had it is not hurting anyone.
Ronin_7
Member
Like they add Platform to Starfield, Redfall or Elder Scrolls 6 am I right
No, like they did with Minecraft and all of its spin offs, or honoring Sonys deal(s) with the publisher your complaining about lol.Like they add Platform to Starfield, Redfall or Elder Scrolls 6 am I right
Idrc what side of the console war you fall on, but so far MS is the only console manufacturer to actually consistently publish, update, or honor multi platform games that could’ve been exclusive. Can’t say the same for Sony (an no MLB doesn’t count because MLB themselves would’ve cut ties with Sony if they didn’t) or Nintendo, not saying you should trust them like it’s your brother but facts are facts. Saying there not going to do something they’ve literally been doing for a decade + makes zero fucking sense lml.
There’s a reason why Valve said the stuff they did about trusting MS about launching games on steam, plus as a big ass company like MS why would you want to go out your way to make bad press for minimal gains, or in CODs case potentially killing the franchise by locking it to two - three platforms instead of adding it to everything + cloud + gamepass. They’ve had this exact same situation, 1 to 1, not a damn thing different, with Minecraft. It’s weird to me that them doing the stuff they’ve always done is up for debate when their track record says the opposite.
Ronin_7
Member
Console side? Do they pay my bills at the end of the month? I don't give a shit about both corporation but consolidation is a no in my Book so I want This deal Blocked & any other Big deal yet to happen.
If Sony moves to a big acquisition after this I'll be here in the new thread saying for Feds to block it.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Amazing news on Hoeg. Hoping for a swift recovery, a great doctor and amazing bed for him.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
MS is not amongst the best publishers supporting SteamDeck (Sony arguably does a better job than that) for their titles and Launcher wise Steam is in a world of its own compared to the competition on PC (GoG and EGS are its main competition and they are not quite there yet). MS supporting Steam because they cannot afford not to as their own stores fail to pickup steam despite then trying for what seems like forever…
You did bring a nice point that links to the issue at hand. As if their strategy to compete in the PC market (for game stores/launchers) now became “let’s buy Valve” to get Steam.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Yeah, CoD and DOOM need the poor bullied MS to help them reach more platforms
…I honestly don’t know how you thought bringing up the steam deck show any signs or patterns of who’s supporting who better lol. Genuinely do not know how that is a valid point, didn’t they openly say something about getting gamepass working in the steam deck between the two companies? Idk, either or that’s kinda weird to base multi plat support especially since Sony JUST started doing this AFTER MS did. So not sure if that was supposed to discredit what I was saying but, respectfully, I don’t see what you mean.
MS could support steam because Phil Spencer has a crush on Gabe lol idgaf, literally would change nothing. They’re doing it, it’s not an opinion I am stating this is results of years of steam ports. Makes zero sense to give Sony credit for something MS started lol. Either way idc, I’m glad MS and Sony are supporting steam/pc for so long. When gears 5 came out I played it co-op with my PC centric co worker, the reason for them letting me do that I could care less about. I’m just here for the results.
Edit: also I think it’s safe to say at this point that the new Xbox store on windows is doing leagues better than GoG ever did, or whatever the hell the Xbox store was called on older windows idk. It’s been used since play anywhere was a thing, it’s installed on your PC when you buy it. It’s not going to make people switch from Steam but let’s say my pops is a PC gamer right, I got him a good desktop so he can play like age of empires an shit. He doesn’t know what steam even is he just saw an Xbox logo on his desktop, signed in, an started playing lol. I feel like your underestimating the amount of people that are like my dad that exist.
Last edited:
No, a drop off in supply did. They decided to discontinue because there was a chip shortage and they concentrated on selling next gen consoles and for cloud in their main regions. Both of which conveniently don't add to this last gen tally.
The oversimplification is blaming some timed exclusivity on a particular title for xbox's failure in Japan and hoping CoD exclusivity and a market shift in an unrelated region would fix this.
Doesn't even need to be exclusivity arrangements to get those games, weren't you strongly against those anyway? They can do marketing deals. You don't need to cause reputational harm. CoD was completely exclusive to xbox at the beginning. Didn't stop PS from building an audience for it on their system. FF has been available on xbox at numerous stages. 360 had pretty much all of the mainline final fantasy.
Woe is me. because it barely ever catered to it. It was too busy cancelling the very few games that maybe would have during the xbox one. Exclusivity on established franchises isn't the only way to achieve sales. Attract that demographic with games they would be interested in so they buy your console. That could be new IP too. Get marketing agreements for established franchises without exclusivity. Maybe try and push it by offering a timed exclusive skin or two. If they believe that nothing will change their minds then forcing others in an unrelated region to your system through CoD wont have any effect either.
I'm talking about their efforts in Japan in general, not specifically trying to get FF exclusivity. I'm talking establishing new IP and creating games catered for that audience. Selling your console as a must have for those titles in the region. Courting studios/publishers with marketing agreements for Japanese games. MS decides not to do that. It concentrates on particular markets.
Last edited:
Agent Icebeezy
Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
From MLex via Idas
Good, Microsoft can acquire ABK and move on to the next thing they have planned.
Good, Microsoft can acquire ABK and move on to the next thing they have planned.
He's saying MS 'support' valve and release on steam because Windows store failed. The games MS decided to make exclusive to their windows store didn't sell very well and they went back to steam. Activision currently already supports steam too for that same reason. CoD is already on Steam so MS' commitment is an empty gesture that's already happening. Where MS don't support valve very well is their platforms like Steamdeck or Steambox/machines because they make their games for Windows only with no official support for them.
Last edited:
feynoob
Member
Idas.
The report from MLex about the pre-hearing has a few interesting bits of info that are new:
- Any potential remedy entered into with the EC and CMA will also be offered to the FTC: "The deal is undergoing review over in Europe and the UK and we are hoping that they will be resolved and if there are remedies that are appropriate we can come back to ... the FTC to talk about a resolution," said Beth Wilkinson (MS' lead counsel).
- James Weingarten, deputy chief trial counsel at the FTC, said that staff (he clarified that when he used the word "staff" he meant himself) is always open to a remedy or settlement proposal during or before litigation, although "There are no substantive conversations happening at this time."
- MS/ABK and the FTC agreed to an expedited discovery schedule (so they can start requesting and inspecting documents in a shortened time period).
- Beth Wilkinson told Chappell (the administrative judge) that if a resolution isn't reached with the FTC, the deal will go forward and close after a remedy is reached in all pending jurisdictions. But that the companies assume the FTC would go to federal court in that case.
- She also said that's why they wanted to front-load the discovery, just in case the FTC went to federal court because MS/ABK have a termination date of July 18, 2023. "We are preparing for all options", said Wilkinson.
The report from MLex about the pre-hearing has a few interesting bits of info that are new:
- Any potential remedy entered into with the EC and CMA will also be offered to the FTC: "The deal is undergoing review over in Europe and the UK and we are hoping that they will be resolved and if there are remedies that are appropriate we can come back to ... the FTC to talk about a resolution," said Beth Wilkinson (MS' lead counsel).
- James Weingarten, deputy chief trial counsel at the FTC, said that staff (he clarified that when he used the word "staff" he meant himself) is always open to a remedy or settlement proposal during or before litigation, although "There are no substantive conversations happening at this time."
- MS/ABK and the FTC agreed to an expedited discovery schedule (so they can start requesting and inspecting documents in a shortened time period).
- Beth Wilkinson told Chappell (the administrative judge) that if a resolution isn't reached with the FTC, the deal will go forward and close after a remedy is reached in all pending jurisdictions. But that the companies assume the FTC would go to federal court in that case.
- She also said that's why they wanted to front-load the discovery, just in case the FTC went to federal court because MS/ABK have a termination date of July 18, 2023. "We are preparing for all options", said Wilkinson.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
Essentially if SC strikes down FTC in their ruling or in any way - I think companies will start making merger deals with the clauses like "If FTC goes to the internal courts, ignore FTC" or something. After all as FTC does not approve deals but rather allows them, it does not matter much unless it violates some laws. When a regulator operates in a bad faith then it is easier to ignore it - after all like with Axon they can always come back 2 years later to revert the deal so no point in waiting for their decisions for 2 years.
In Cold Blood
Banned
Microsoft has decided to call the FTCs bluff. Once they get the EU and UK closed off then they will give the FTC a take it or leave it based on the same thing nailed out with the EU and UK.
The FTC is ran by clowns who have no idea about the gaming industry and we're doing Sony's bidding. They have a piss weak position legally to block it and they know their arses would be handed to them in court.
MS want to close the deal by June to avoid any penalties to ABK.
In top of that alot of other buisness decisions have been held back by MS to not give any ammo to the regulators such as buying other studios like IO, Certain Affinity etc.
Hell, they haven't even been willing to show off any games at this point.
You can see the FTC starting to backpedal already.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked