• 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.
Or we can sit back and cheer when regulators from a bunch of countries put up the stop sign. That is much more fun than pretending this transaction was par for the course.
I'm going sit back and cheer a company providing me with more value by adding content to their services. This transaction is not anti-competitive or monopolistic so regulators should be focused on that and not supporting market leaders.
 

HeisenbergFX4

Gold Member
Yeah, we'll see. I was surprised by how strongly she was willing to strike down Microsoft's philosophy on innovation they promoted just days ago via WSJ article when asked about the agency's potential adverse impacts on innovation. There was no diplomacy or beating around the bush in her answer and I wasn't expecting that in a public setting.
I honestly haven't kept super close tabs on this just talking to a few of my closer gamer friends on the subject.

But I have had dinner with Senator Mike Braun on occasion and how he speaks publicly about things then turns around and basically says the exact opposite behind closed doors when money starts getting involved happens all the time.

So no matter what anything is said publicly on things like this I put zero stock in
 

zzill3

Banned
Explain, please. How does consolidation support innovation here? There are certainly situations where it can, but remember we are staying within context of this proposed merger.

Being owned by MS should free the ABK devs from working on COD all the time. Being able to make other games will increase innovation compared to releasing COD sequels on a yearly schedule
 

ChiefDada

Gold Member
And whats the outcome? CGI effects on Movies and Shows are declining because Disney is pressuring the whole CGI Industry while also holding cinemas hostage.
That sounds great!

I think you and I made the same mistake misinterpreting his comment lol.

I'm going sit back and cheer a company providing me with more value by adding content to their services. This transaction is not anti-competitive or monopolistic so regulators should be focused on that and not supporting market leaders.

Lol, you're being very selfish here, as would I and anyone else if they belonged to the Microsoft/Xbox ecosystem. Unfortunately, FTC has a different perspective from yours that's mandated by federal laws.
 

feynoob

Gold Member
Article
Microsoft President Brad Smith is planning to meet with the Federal Trade Commission's three Democratic members on Wednesday in a last-ditch bid to keep the tech giant's blockbuster video-game deal from getting scrapped over antitrust concerns, The Post has learned.

Smith and a small group of his attorneys are slated to meet individually with FTC Chair Lina Khan — who is said to be skeptical of the tie-up and who this summer pledged to scrutinize the deal over its impact on workers — as well as Democratic commissioners Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, according to sources close to the situation.

On Sunday, The Post exclusively reported that at least one Democrat on the four-member panel has recently taken a sympathetic view of the merger — with insiders speculating it might be Slaughter — potentially paving the way for it to get approved. Republican FTC Commissioner Christine Wilson has already voiced support of the deal.

Sources said Microsoft's Smith is scrambling to win over the powerful panel in a hurry — partly because Khan is pregnant and expected to go on maternity leave next month.

"Chair Khan is expecting a baby in January and will take a short parental leave before quickly returning to her duties," FTC spokesperson Douglas Farrar said. "The idea that any possible law enforcement actions by the Commission could be affected by her pregnancy is sexist and absurd speculation with absolutely no basis in reality."

The FTC's commissioners are slated for a closed-door meeting on Thursday to discuss the merger and there's an outside chance they could vote on it, sources said.

The panel also could meet to vote on the deal later this month. Microsoft had believed the FTC would make its final ruling in the first quarter of 2023 but the FTC review has lately moved at a faster pace than it expected, the source said.

An Activision spokesman declined to comment. Microsoft also declined to comment.

Sources said Smith — who on Monday wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal arguing for the deal — will stress that Microsoft is now offering rival Sony a 10-year licensing deal for Activision games including "Call of Duty" on its PlayStation consoles, and that the games would be released to them at the same time it becomes available on Microsoft's Xbox.

Sony's concern is Microsoft by owning a leading console maker and a maker of popular video games could have too much market power.

Separately this week, the Communications Workers of America said it supported the deal as news broke that 300 workers at Microsoft gaming studio ZeniMax are voting this month on forming Microsoft's first union.

CWA said the merger would give Microsoft and Activision Blizzard workers a clear path to collective bargaining and unionization in what it considers a major Microsoft concession. The politically influential union is saying the deal is good for workers and they will be hurt if the FTC sues to block the merger.

As reported by The Post, a fellow Democrat supporting the Microsoft deal could create a difficult path to block the deal for FTC Chair Khan — who according to insiders has eyed Microsoft's deal as a major target as she looked to burnish her credentials as a trustbuster of Big Tech.

That's because a 2-2 vote would not only fail to block the deal, but also would result in it getting cleared without any major conditions imposed by a settlement, including the concessions it has recently pledged to Sony.

FTC's staff was reportedly close to recommending a suit to block the deal, but that was reportedly before the Microsoft floated its settlement offer.

Microsoft has agreed to pay $95 a share for Activision. Its shares were trading Tuesday at $76.11
 
Last edited:
They do and have been for a long time for specific games. Those games designed for it have often become even cheaper after some time. i.e. f2p, due to the mtx business model in them. The fact that MS still charge for some of their first party "day and date" games, like SoT (the first ever day and date first party) for example, is scandalous with all its mtxs and Plunder Pass which fits a f2p model to a tee.
This seems like a take designed to elicit and emotional response versus one that is rational and well thought out. There are a litany of games that both cost upfront to play, offer a season pass for bonus content, and mtx for cosmetics. This is not some one off thing MS is doing, this is, from the looks modern day gaming, closer to being the rule than the exception, at least in the MP realm. Nothing about SoT is locked behind a paywall, you are not missing out on any experiences if you are unwilling to pay extra.
 
Last edited:

zzill3

Banned
You think Microsoft are buying CoD in order to enable CoD’s developers to work on something else?

I think they would just buy other developers if the wanted other non-CoD games.

I think they’ll keep going on COD but the required support work will be spread out over the 20 something developers already under xbox game studios, many of which have quite extensive FPS development experience.

Companies within ABK that want to move on to non COD projects would then be free to do so.
 
Lol, you're being very selfish here, as would I and anyone else if they belonged to the Microsoft/Xbox ecosystem. Unfortunately, FTC has a different perspective from yours that's mandated by federal laws.
As if other people honestly cared about the feelings of people who don't even use their preferred platform. This transaction gives employees access to unions and better work conditions than they currently get at Activision. Is it still selfish I get access to more games and they are rid of Kotick? Has any other company presented ideas to improve conditions for Activision employees?

The bottom line is that all companies should be fighting for the business of their customers and there is no proof yet that the FTC believes this is an illegal transaction. Any action the FTC takes has to be backed up by the courts which is preferable to relying solely on regulators political leanings. I'd love to see the list of federal statutes broken by this acquisition.

You think Microsoft are buying CoD in order to enable CoD’s developers to work on something else?

I think they would just buy other developers if the wanted other non-CoD games.
Why would they do that when Activision has a ready made list of IP and teams that have experience making non-CoD titles? It's like we forget Blizzard alone has a cadre of untapped IP ready to be brought back.
 

Clintizzle

Lord of Edge.
Don't know why you guys always do this to yourself.

From the very beginning the only people who have been proven to be delusional ones are the people who believed this deal would get approved without any bumps in the road.

We are now at phase 2 both in the EU and with the CMA and you're still brave enough to be calling other people "delusional"?

Are You Sure Stephen Colbert GIF by The Late Show With Stephen Colbert
Not sure who you mean when you loop me in with these "You guys".


All I meant by that comment was that it's delusional to think MS comparing this to Netflix/Blockbuster in a casual article will cause any disruption in the deal.
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
I think they’ll keep going on COD but the required support work will be spread out over the 20 something developers already under xbox game studios, many of which have quite extensive FPS development experience.

Companies within ABK that want to move on to non COD projects would then be free to do so.
You could very well be right, but that sounds really unappealing and unlikely to me.

Why would they do that when Activision has a ready made list of IP and teams that have experience making non-CoD titles? It's like we forget Blizzard alone has a cadre of untapped IP ready to be brought back.
Microsoft own many beloved IP that they have shown no interest in correctly utilising.

Banjo-Kazooie
Blue Dragon
Conker
Project Gotham Racing
Viva Piñata
Killer Instinct

Not to mention the IP they acquired with Zenimax.

After seeing how they’ve handled previously acquired IP catalogues, I don’t think Microsoft are spending $69b to facilitate a new The Lost Vikings game.
 

akimbo009

Gold Member
When a streaming company other than Netflix is able to be consistently profitable, or even profitable at all really, I will stop considering a """potential""" dark future. (Netflix themselves state they think the rest of the industry is losing a combined $10 billion a year)

Even Netflix has its issues because while profitable on an accounting basis it is still cash flow negative, meaning 1) they are spending a ridiculous amount of money on content costs and 2) if they stop growing revenue they are screwed.

But so what? Either it's going to go up in price to maintain revenue and profit goals, remain a steal for customers, or go out of business. I don't know how that factors into anything except getting worried on behalf of MS shareholders...
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
Developers being free to work on games they want to make, instead of being forced to make COD year after year, is unappealing to you?
No actually - the thought of Xbox’s other 20 game studios having to pick up the slack, as you suggested, is what’s hugely unappealing to me.

The only 2 Activision studios worth anything IMO are Toys For Bob and Vicarious Visions. Hopefully if this goes through MS frees those 2 up.
 

Three

Member
This seems like a take designed to elicit and emotional response versus one that is rational and well thought out. There are a litany of games that both cost upfront to play, offer a season pass for bonus content, and mtx for cosmetics. This is not some one off thing MS is doing, this is, from the looks modern day gaming, closer to being the rule than the exception, at least in the MP realm. Nothing about SoT is locked behind a paywall, you are not missing out on any experiences if you are unwilling to pay extra.
there's nothing irrational about what I'm saying though, not sure I care if it gets an emotional response from a snowflake somewhere who doesn't like what they're hearing but that's not what I'm aiming for. $40 for a 4yr old game with f2p mechanics is a complete rip off imo, plain and simple.

What you describe: "Nothing about SoT is locked behind a paywall, you are not missing out on any experiences if you are unwilling to pay extra." Is exactly how f2p games are designed too. With each season you grind for ancient coins to get cosmetics or pay to get coins to buy the cosmetics. You get special cosmetics as you go through the season if you buy the plunder pass. It's the f2p model to a tee. Some other games I'm sure do this too. A lot of them are f2p though and don't cost $40 after 4yrs.
 
Last edited:

GHG

Gold Member
All I meant by that comment was that it's delusional to think MS comparing this to Netflix/Blockbuster in a casual article will cause any disruption in the deal.

Of course it will. There are plenty of other things that Microsoft/xbox executives have said which have been referenced by regulatory bodies during their analysis of the deal. They are under the microscope here, it's just how it is.

Developers being free to work on games they want to make, instead of being forced to make COD year after year, is unappealing to you?

What the hell is this? If they don't want to work on COD they are free to leave the company and work elsewhere on something else if an internal move isn't an option.
 

zzill3

Banned
No actually - the thought of Xbox’s other 20 game studios having to pick up the slack, as you suggested, is what’s hugely unappealing to me.
Someone has to pick up the slack, if they’re going to keep releasing COD at the same cadence, which I’d expect they’re hoping to do so.
It’s a lot better for that slack to be picked up by 20 something studios than 3 or 4 - especially when you’d hope that would be a choice by those developers rather than something forced on them.
As you mention, Microsoft have shown no interest in forcing their developers to make sequels to Banjo, Blue Dragon, Conker, etc. Would they go against that sentiment to force their developers to make COD, when there are companies who could choose to do so?

What the hell is this? If they don't want to work on COD they are free to leave the company and work elsewhere on something else if an internal move isn't an option.

If they don’t want to work on COD they can just give up their income? Ok 🙄
 
there's nothing irrational about what I'm saying though, not sure I care if it gets an emotional response from a snowflake somewhere who doesn't like what they're hearing but that's not what I'm aiming for. $40 for a 4yr old game with f2p mechanics is a complete rip off imo, plain and simple.

What you describe: "Nothing about SoT is locked behind a paywall, you are not missing out on any experiences if you are unwilling to pay extra." Is exactly how f2p games are designed too. With each season you grind for ancient coins to get cosmetics or pay to get coins to buy the cosmetics. You get special cosmetics as you go through the season if you buy the plunder pass. It's the f2p model to a tee. Some other games I'm sure do this too. A lot of them are f2p though and don't cost $40 after 4yrs.
If this is your basis for what a f2p game is then I think we have about 3-4 dozen games we need to take a long and hard look at. In any event, I don't agree with you. I've put in like 300+ hours, played all the content available including all the new and free DLC over the years, am a Pirate Legend, etc. Never once felt f2p to me.
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
Someone has to pick up the slack, if they’re going to keep releasing COD at the same cadence, which I’d expect they’re hoping to do so.
It’s a lot better for that slack to be picked up by 20 something studios than 3 or 4 - especially when you’d hope that would be a choice by those developers rather than something forced on them.
Why is that better? It’s fine for a small percentage of 20 studios to be forced to do something but not a larger percentage of 3 or 4? I agree that devs should always be allowed to work on what they want, which would have resulted in MS still owning Bungie with Destiny as an exclusive and has resulted in good games like Grounded and Pentiment being made.

As you mention, Microsoft have shown no interest in forcing their developers to make sequels to Banjo, Blue Dragon, Conker, etc. Would they go against that sentiment to force their developers to make COD, when there are companies who could choose to do so?
They’re buying CoD because it makes money. If Treyarch and Infinty Ward turned around and said ‘we want to stop making CoD and make 3D platformers now’ Microsoft would absolutely force them to continue making CoD.
 

GHG

Gold Member
If they don’t want to work on COD they can just give up their income? Ok 🙄

Neither asking to move to a different project or finding a new job = "giving up their income".

These are highly skilled workers we are talking about, not dustbin men.
 
The best thing about this acquisition is that it may lead to more collective bargaining in the tech/gaming industry, which is very exciting.
 
Last edited:

feynoob

Gold Member
Neither asking to move to a different project or finding a new job = "giving up their income".

These are highly skilled workers we are talking about, not dustbin men.
Its an easy job to make an engineer do a mechanic job.;)
 

feynoob

Gold Member
More info
Smith and a small group of his attorneys are slated to meet individually with FTC Chair Lina Khan — who is said to be skeptical of the tie-up and who this summer pledged to scrutinize the deal over its impact on workers — as well as Democratic commissioners Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, according to sources close to the situation.

On Sunday, The Post exclusively reported that at least one Democrat on the four-member panel has recently taken a sympathetic view of the merger — with insiders speculating it might be Slaughter — potentially paving the way for it to get approved. Republican FTC Commissioner Christine Wilson has already voiced support of the deal.

Sources said Microsoft's Smith is scrambling to win over the powerful panel in a hurry — partly because Khan is pregnant and expected to go on maternity leave next month.

"Chair Khan is expecting a baby in January and will take a short parental leave before quickly returning to her duties," FTC spokesperson Douglas Farrar said. "The idea that any possible law enforcement actions by the Commission could be affected by her pregnancy is sexist and absurd speculation with absolutely no basis in reality."

The FTC's commissioners are slated for a closed-door meeting on Thursday to discuss the merger and there's an outside chance they could vote on it, sources said.

The panel also could meet to vote on the deal later this month. Microsoft had believed the FTC would make its final ruling in the first quarter of 2023 but the FTC review has lately moved at a faster pace than it expected, the source said.
 
Microsoft own many beloved IP that they have shown no interest in correctly utilising.

Banjo-Kazooie
Blue Dragon
Conker
Project Gotham Racing
Viva Piñata
Killer Instinct

Not to mention the IP they acquired with Zenimax.

After seeing how they’ve handled previously acquired IP catalogues, I don’t think Microsoft are spending $69b to facilitate a new The Lost Vikings game.
And one can argue that Starcraft, Warcraft, Diablo, and Tony Hawk are all bigger IPs. People would love a Starcraft Ghost resurgence or Hexen. Lost Vikings is equivalent to Blue Dragon and we know how that did. Scratch that actually Lost Vikings is bigger.

Outside of Rare who is handling Sea of Thieves ,a newer IP, most of the games you listed are old Rare IP. The previous releases didn't light the world on fire. MS has only owned Bethesda for less than 2 years how many games should they have pushed out realistically in that time? How would Forza Motorsport, Forza Horizon, AND Project Gotham make any sense? More IP is always better than less and with a service to feed MS will do better having more options to put out on their platform.
 

feynoob

Gold Member
And one can argue that Starcraft, Warcraft, Diablo, and Tony Hawk are all bigger IPs. People would love a Starcraft Ghost resurgence or Hexen. Lost Vikings is equivalent to Blue Dragon and we know how that did. Scratch that actually Lost Vikings is bigger.

Outside of Rare who is handling Sea of Thieves ,a newer IP, most of the games you listed are old Rare IP. The previous releases didn't light the world on fire. MS has only owned Bethesda for less than 2 years how many games should they have pushed out realistically in that time? How would Forza Motorsport, Forza Horizon, AND Project Gotham make any sense? More IP is always better than less and with a service to feed MS will do better having more options to put out on their platform.
MS is having issues with new IP. Old IPs is just a promise.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?



Smith and a small group of his attorneys are slated to meet individually with FTC Chair Lina Khan — who is said to be skeptical of the tie-up and who this summer pledged to scrutinize the deal over its impact on workers — as well as Democratic commissioners Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, according to sources close to the situation.

On Sunday, The Post exclusively reported that at least one Democrat on the four-member panel has recently taken a sympathetic view of the merger — with insiders speculating it might be Slaughter — potentially paving the way for it to get approved. Republican FTC Commissioner Christine Wilson has already voiced support of the deal.

The FTC’s commissioners are slated for a closed-door meeting on Thursday to discuss the merger and there’s an outside chance they could vote on it, sources said.


Democratic Party Yes GIF by Joe Biden
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
Sounds like the deal continues to circle the drain. Unless Brad is showing up with a plan to spin out Activision I'm not sure there's much to talk about.
Wasn't there a planned 4 person FTC meeting (voted to be behind closed doors) on the 8th? Has it been shifted to the 7th or is he trying to set the tone before the 8th meeting.
 

gothmog

Gold Member

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Yeah because making yearly CODs is more sustainable and requires no crunch at all. It's much better for MS to do that model instead 😒

I have some good news for you.

Sounds like the deal continues to circle the drain. Unless Brad is showing up with a plan to spin out Activision I'm not sure there's much to talk about.

This is .. some conclusion to reach ..



m-icrosoft-phil-spencer.gif
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom