-
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
Topher
Gold Member
Ok? Not sure what any of that has to do with the conversation or what point I'm "conveniently avoiding". Generally I don't necessarily disagree with any of that.
Steam Deck and Vita don't have the detachable controls. You made this point already: "none of those "Game Gears" were docking like the Switch or a separate controller (if you want attached or not)". Vita had more in common with Game Gear than it does with Switch. Steam Deck doesn't pop off controls like Switch does. No idea why you think these are viable examples of how Switch isn't innovative.
And I'm not ruling the Switch out of the console market at all so you saying I "don't get to" is just bizarre.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
And one more thing... this gets repeated quite often. Xbox Game Pass doesn't really represent "free" games. I understand why many could view it that way. It's a direct acknowledgment of how great a deal it is to the point that it feels practically free, but people are still paying real money to access games on Game Pass. They either pay $9.99 per month or $14.99 per month. If you newly subscribe you can get your first month for $1. You can't keep doing that $1 first-month deal unless you take out a brand new credit or debit card for each new month and continue to make a brand new game pass account each time.
And if you want to do the Xbox Live Gold 3 years conversion to Game Pass Trick, fine, but be prepared to cough up more than $180 (the cost of a year of game pass ultimate) to Microsoft upfront just to do it by purchasing three 12-month codes for Xbox Live Gold. Or potentially $300 upfront to Microsoft by purchasing twelve 3-month codes for Xbox Live Gold.
Either way you look at it, all a person is doing is choosing whether or not to pay Microsoft gradually for Game Pass on a monthly basis, or pay Microsoft a lot more upfront for the privilege of saving money over a 3-year period. Microsoft gets paid either way, they get what they want either way: more money, and more game pass subscribers.
Does everybody really think that all these people out there have the time to waste doing this crap? https://www.pcworld.com/article/397667/get-3-years-xbox-game-pass-ultimate-tip.html just to avoid spending $9.99 or $14.99 each month. If we all have money to buy an unlimited number of games at full price, we surely don't have an issue spending $9.99 or $14.99 each month for a year.
Game Pass represents the only service or subscription in history that I can recall where so many people are upset to see that a lot of people are taking advantage of a great deal.
And if you want to do the Xbox Live Gold 3 years conversion to Game Pass Trick, fine, but be prepared to cough up more than $180 (the cost of a year of game pass ultimate) to Microsoft upfront just to do it by purchasing three 12-month codes for Xbox Live Gold. Or potentially $300 upfront to Microsoft by purchasing twelve 3-month codes for Xbox Live Gold.
Either way you look at it, all a person is doing is choosing whether or not to pay Microsoft gradually for Game Pass on a monthly basis, or pay Microsoft a lot more upfront for the privilege of saving money over a 3-year period. Microsoft gets paid either way, they get what they want either way: more money, and more game pass subscribers.
Does everybody really think that all these people out there have the time to waste doing this crap? https://www.pcworld.com/article/397667/get-3-years-xbox-game-pass-ultimate-tip.html just to avoid spending $9.99 or $14.99 each month. If we all have money to buy an unlimited number of games at full price, we surely don't have an issue spending $9.99 or $14.99 each month for a year.
Game Pass represents the only service or subscription in history that I can recall where so many people are upset to see that a lot of people are taking advantage of a great deal.
Topher
Gold Member
Why would anyone do that?
Fuck that. People should take the best deal they can get. If you want to donate money to a multi-trillion dollar corporation (or any corporation frankly) then have at it. That has got to be the most shill (most shill? shill-iest?) thing I've ever read on these forums.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Here's a "fact" for you. The PSP Go could officially connect to a TV and had Dualshock 3 support through bluetooth. The PS Vita had a version that wasn't even portable but permanently docked to a TV only. Now did anybody think that PSP or Vita competed with xbox 360 or xbox one for sales?
Last edited:
akimbo009
Gold Member
No, cause it failed against even the DS let alone consoles.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
So what, your phone -
Is as powerful as a console perfomance wise, more than a switch.
Can wireless/wired connect to a TV, or really any display type.
Has touch controls on the go.
Can connect controllers and various docks or peripherals.
Can connect to other phones, world and community build.
Has a huge library from duopoly of gaming stores, Apple and Google.
Can play latest exclusive or third party
Can go online anywhere.
By definition Switch and phones are the same thing. It's the exclusive games that innovative. So why doesn't the FTC go after exclusive games holistically e.g. sue and block or break up Sony, Apple, Google and Nintendo the more?
Is as powerful as a console perfomance wise, more than a switch.
Can wireless/wired connect to a TV, or really any display type.
Has touch controls on the go.
Can connect controllers and various docks or peripherals.
Can connect to other phones, world and community build.
Has a huge library from duopoly of gaming stores, Apple and Google.
Can play latest exclusive or third party
Can go online anywhere.
By definition Switch and phones are the same thing. It's the exclusive games that innovative. So why doesn't the FTC go after exclusive games holistically e.g. sue and block or break up Sony, Apple, Google and Nintendo the more?
This theory is nice but why did Wii U fail then do you think?
Try to come up with a logical reason why you think that is first then read why I think that is:
Because the audience who buy either a PS4 or xbox one aren't the people who buy a low performance device to play COD. The people who buy a low performance device knowing it's a handheld would. People who don't care about performance at all but still want to play Nintendo exclusive games docked wouldn't buy GTAV, CoD, Assassin's Creed, etc on it. The FTC/CMA know the market well despite the obvious people in this thread protesting that they don't because they want to see this deal go through.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
More importantly the Switch plays the same games as Xbox and PlayStation. Minecraft Dungeons allows for cross play. Fortnite allows for cross play. Rocket League allows for cross play. Were there any PS Vita titles that played the same as on console and allowed cross play?
The Switch is a traditional console that happens to be playable portable. The PS Vita was a portable console that happened to able to be connected to a television. Like it or not Nintendo Switch is a console and should be included in the console industry.
What didn't fail against the DS except PS2? That's the most bizarre reasoning I've ever heard to suggest people didn't consider he PSP competing with the xbox360/PS3.
PSP and 360 sales were actually very, very close anyway so I'm pretty sure that's not why people considered it different.
Not only were there games that played across both on Vita but a lot of games were cross-buy, silly.
akimbo009
Gold Member
Wait, the PS2 and DS were competing?
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Even if the Nintendo Switch didn't share games with Xbox and Playstation, it's still a platform that directly competes for millions of gamer's time and money, therefore it is direct competition to Xbox and Playstation. Countless people on this very forum want to play the next Zelda, and will. Countless people on this very forum regularly look forward to the most anticipated Switch titles. The most popular game on Playstation is fortnite. Does that somehow mean that Playstation is by definition somehow for kids like the FTC tried to claim Nintendo was?
There are so many ways to pick apart the FTC's arguments or the arguments of those who are hoping the deal fails. But as I keep saying, I just don't see that happening. Companies already in the exact same process with the FTC as Microsoft is now currently in have closed their acquisitions despite the FTC action.
That's my point. Most people would logically say they weren't. Neither did they consider the PSP and Vita competing with the xbox 360/One or PS3/4 even though they had versions which hooked up to a TV with a controller.
Your reasoning that it's because PSP sales were low compared to the DS though is pretty daft. The DS sold 2x the xbox 360 and PSP vs xbox 360 sales were pretty much neck and neck. Darkmages idea that they didn't because of crossplay is also dumb because they had a massive library of crossplay games. Not only that but a massive library of crossbuy games too.
Last edited:
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Name the titles that were cross play and had the same version console and Vita. An example would be like Skyrim on Switch, PlayStation, and Xbox. Or Doom.
akimbo009
Gold Member
You're really reaching now. Put down the eggnog.
Try following the link in my other reply.
If you were around at the time you might have heard of:
Resogun,
Wipeout,
Spelunky,
MLB the show,
Dead or Alive,
Flower,
Guacamelee
Dragons Crown
...
Great arguments.
Last edited:
NonPhixion
Member
I laughed pretty hard when I read that some dumb rayray called the Switch a traditional console.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
And these games allowed for cross play? I can play Minecraft Dungeons with people on Switch online with people on Xbox and PlayStation. Same for Fortnite and Rocket League. You saying that's true for Flower and Dead or Alive?
Look, try as you might your "yeah but that was different " doesn't work. Yes the majority I listed allow cross play. Read the top of this page. You were the one bringing up Skyrim on switch anyway which as far as I know doesn't even have a multiplayer component.
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Yeah, and? I mean it's not like Sacred Symbols is the defacto voice for the PS community; no single podcast or group are. They're just one flavor of many, same with Xbox or Nintendo communities.
It can be both. The former because he just so happens to be getting a lot of money from well-off Xbox fans who want to turn to a voice of authority on a topic they themselves don't have a lot of insight on, because the person they are placing as an authority figure is saying things that seemingly favor the brand they themselves prefer (perhaps obsessively so).
The latter because Hoeg's profession is as a M&A lawyer, albeit on the smaller end, and the expertise & commentary they offer on what's turning out to be the biggest gaming M&A ever makes him look good to attracting potential other clientele in his line of work. It can basically act as additional proof of credentials & knowledge in a virtual resume.
Maybe not King itself but since MS have said King is for their play into the mobile market, and their play into the mobile market relies on GamePass xCloud, which is powered through Azure cloud, and the cloud market HAS been a point of focus among regulators in investigations...
...then in a roundabout way, King is still a focal point in the ongoing investigations pertaining to the acquisition. It's just not as blatant a thing as COD.
No; some of the teams that were closed were closed AFTER Don Mattrick left. After Phil Spencer assumed more control over Xbox (though I know there was a period where Myerson was heading things, maybe reluctantly).
I wasn't referring to management with that specific statement, though I agree that was also a big part of the problem at the time.
You're talking about a hypothetical that may or may not happen in the event COD were to for whatever reason leave Sony's platforms (which, if it were and yet came to Nintendo platforms anyway, would just reaffirm a hypocrisy in MS's own public statements during this whole saga, where they've outright said that COD would NOT leave PS because it made no financial sense to do so).
And let's just get this out of the way when it comes to Sony & Sega, because it's getting really old seeing people pull revisionist history on that one. Sony didn't kill Sega in consoles: Sega killed themselves. Sega were the ones with the grand idea to rush out the 32X against the Atari Jaguar of all things, at the same time Sega of Japan were releasing the company's actual then-next gen console in Japan (the Saturn). Sega of Japan were the ones who decided to cut the Genesis/MegaDrive's legs off in the West in 1995 to focus on the Saturn instead. Speaking of, Sega were the ones who decided to rush the Saturn to North America with a surprise launch that pissed off retailers so much that many of the biggest ones just refused to carry Saturn on principal and themselves ordered more PlayStations to fill up the shelves Sega would have had if they didn't leave retailers out cold with the surprise launch.
Sega were the ones who decided to rush a beefed-up Saturn with dual SH-2s and dual VDPs without a mature SDK in time for devs to use. Were the ones who rushed out a buggy Daytona & Virtua Fighter (the latter when they HAD the much better VF Remix practically done and playable in secret at E3 1995!). Were the ones who refused to translate tons of JRPGs from Japan. Were the ones who cancelled sequels to Eternal Champions and Streets of Rage. Were the ones who decided to skip an ENTIRE year at retail after cancelling the Saturn in the West before bringing over the Dreamcast. Were the ones who didn't get rid of the MIL-CD code from Dreamcast's BIOS that hackers found to easily exploit that console. Were the ones who rushed Dreamcast in Japan at the detriment of Saturn over there. Were the ones who refused to take up EA's offer for sports game exclusivity on Dreamcast despite being the ones in that dynamic who were in the position of needing to make concessions (should have put Visual Concepts on other types of games).
I'm a huge fan of the Saturn, MegaDrive, Dreamcast and Sega's arcade output of that era but it's worst than lame trying to see people act like Sega getting squeezed out of the market as a platform holder was all Sony's fault. Sony even went to Sega to partner up for the PlayStation, it was Sega of Japan who rejected that (just like how they rejected Silicon Graphics' tech which wound up in the N64). And I see the EXACT same pattern here when it comes to people wanting to blame Sony for Microsoft's shortcomings; just like a lot of people seem to be doing with Sega during that era, they're doing with Microsoft today. Refusing to acknowledge ALL of the self-inflicted wounds Microsoft did unto themselves with no help from any outside parties whatsoever.
Funny because people were saying before December 8th that the case wouldn't even be challenged for a block by regulators and that day will go down in infamy for causing a collective spaz among the internet in the most hilarious of ways.
What publishers have Sony purchased in the past five years aside from Bungie? Because this isn't about independent studios; there wasn't really much an issue raised when MS purchased Ninja Theory, Double Fine etc. It's been about 3P publishers, and in MS's case, the fact they're going after their 2nd publisher (and the largest 3P publisher in the industry) less than a year after finalizing their acquisition of Zenimax.
You'd think a company with a division that's struggled to manage a significantly lower amount of internal studios in the past, would slow down and situate themselves and the purchases already made before going for yet another purchase and their largest one yet. It's like a chef buying ingredients to make a five-star French dish when they can't even grill a medium-rare steak right yet.
I think you misunderstand how Sony gained the market share they enjoy. It wasn't through moneyhatting tons and tons of 3P games the way some of you want to think, certainly not during the PS1 & PS2 days (where Sony's products just offered more appealing full packages to devs & pubs than competitors, so they naturally chose to focus on those PS consoles).
They earned that market share by consistently offering the best combination of solutions for 3P devs/pubs, strong distribution & marketing to appeal to end customers who ended up buying their consoles, and having a business model liberating customers so they could buy more software than they may have for consoles in the past, creating an environment enticing for 3P devs/pubs to prioritize. The revenue the PlayStation division (technically a subsidiary) gained over the years was earned by consistently proving its ability to provide value to the customer market and developer community, enabling growth in 1P & 3P sales. They didn't need to buy large publishers and assimilate their revenue to the gaming division's to boost gaming revenue, which is actually more indicative of "bullish market dominance" than what Sony have actually done.
Just having the money to buy up resources won't mean much if you can't build something substantial out of it, retain the quality, and be consistent in doing so over multiple periods of time. Just keep that in mind.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
The Wii U not selling, and by extension games, isn't anything to do with Sony or Xbox. It was simply sales saturation for the same product. The Wii's success and catalogue left little room for the Wii U. Nintendo even delayed some games to help correct this distinction, franchise fatigue and launch the Switch.
You don't get to conflate your argument with Sony/Xbox either. Apparently they don't compete but now they do? There's some mental gymnastics going on around Nintendo alright.
You don't get to conflate your argument with Sony/Xbox either. Apparently they don't compete but now they do? There's some mental gymnastics going on around Nintendo alright.
Last edited:
gothmog
Gold Member
Unfortunately I'm not sure that's completely true. Money sure has allowed giants to build something substantial in other markets. Everything after that has been questionable, especially when they start moving out of growth at all costs model and have to start actually making money.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
I brought up Rocket League and Fortnite too. Skyrim was used to show how the Switch got the same type of 3rd party titles like the other consoles. Like it or not the Vita was not marketed as a hybrid console, it was always intended to be a hand held console. The Switch was not. No one but you has argued that the Vita, Xbox and PlayStation competed for the same audience.
"As an eighth-generation console, the Nintendo Switch competes with Microsoft's Xbox One and Sony's PlayStation 4, and also competes with ninth generation consoles such as Microsoft's Xbox Series X and Series S and Sony's PlayStation 5."
Just because the FTC erroneously tries to exclude the Switch as a competitor doesn't change the reality of the situation. The Switch is a console that happens to have a hand held mode but that doesn't mean it is just a hand held like the Vita. Just like the PlayStation 5 isn't just a VR system.
That’s a lot to get through but a couple points stood out to me:
Why do only the last 5 years matter? Did something happen 5 years ago that made publishers bought before that date not count any more?
It’s through both. Is the reason you ignore publishers bought more than 5 years ago so you can pretend Sony weren’t money hatting from day 1?
They’re still doing those things now when they’re the undisputed market leader and arguably don’t need to any more, why wouldn’t they have when they had to compete with the two incumbent consoles of the time?
Why do only the last 5 years matter? Did something happen 5 years ago that made publishers bought before that date not count any more?
It’s through both. Is the reason you ignore publishers bought more than 5 years ago so you can pretend Sony weren’t money hatting from day 1?
They’re still doing those things now when they’re the undisputed market leader and arguably don’t need to any more, why wouldn’t they have when they had to compete with the two incumbent consoles of the time?
What? Can you please explain what you're saying here? Of course xbox and Sony had nothing to do with what the Wii U was, or are you now flip-flopping and suggesting that it wasn't a competitor to playstation and xbox and its sales had nothing to do with other products?
The hell does that mean? The xbox one and xbox series are the most identical products I've ever seen, controller, library, OS, everything. Except for one thing, one thing you lot say doesn't differentiate anything (yes, performance). There is more difference between a Wii and Wii U than there is between an xbox one and xbox series console. Where's that "sales saturation" gone for it?
You aren't very coherent. What are you pointing out here? The point was that instead of Nintendo competing in the submarket the FTC outline they created a handheld hybrid. That despite what you said here:
Nintendo would have a difficult time delivering a console only. The way they need to do that is to release a high performance console that's competitive with the other consoles and to create an audience/playerbase to get industry partnerships for games like GTAV, COD, Assassin's Creed, etc on it.
Last edited:
You brought up Skyrim as an example when asking me to list games. I listed mostly crossplay games anyway.
Marketing means nothing to this conversation. The "only docked" Vita TV was marketed solely as a console, the Switch Lite can't even dock and isn't a hybrid. Handheld only.
Where is this from and why should I care? Some wikipedia page anybody can make? It tells you very little about market behaviour.
But I'm trying to tell you that the Vita and PSP weren't "just a handheld" either and your only argument was does it have the same games with crossplay. I show you that it does and your only rebuttal is "but was it advertised".
Last edited:
DarkMage619
$MSFT
I brought up Skyrim as a 3rd party title that was the same on the Switch and the other consoles. It was not a specialized mobile version.
The handheld only Switch was an additional cost cutting product that has no bearing on the market it is part of. Just like the XSS doesn't remove the Xbox from the imaginary 'high performance market'. They are all competing with each other.
Why should you care about facts and reality? Wikipedia sources it's claims but I wouldn't be surprised if you tried to claim that Wiki is wrong and the Switch was never seen a the hybrid console it was always marketed as. It is both a hand held AND a traditional television connected console. That does not mean it is not a competitor in the console space.
Behavior doesn't change a products' market the actual characteristics of the product do. PC isn't its own market because of the way people use it. It has a clear market definition that is distinct from mobile and console. It's why Switch is a console not considered a mobile device.
The PSP and Vita were absolutely hand helds just like the Gameboy. That was the device they competed against. The Switch is a traditional console with a mobility feature. It shares games that are identical to other traditional consoles and has multiple third party games that have cross play between multiple different competing consoles. It's claim to fame is that it plays traditional console games not stripped down mobile versions. It competes with the Xbox and PlayStation.
Please don't be stupid. Ignoring the fact that Skyrim is a PS3/360 game your exact words were:
I listed said example games, the majority crossplay. Don't try and take this to a new tangent of "specialised mobile versions". The games I listed weren't "specialised mobile versions" of anything, at least not any more than the Switch is. They were mostly just less demanding games. You're just throwing shit at the wall at this point.
And yet "the actual characteristics of the product" doesn't seem to apply for PSP and Vita? Funny that, I guess not being advertised changes "the actual characteristics of a product".
Market behaviour is everything to do with what it competes with.
This is your contradictory belief that I'm highlighting.
As we already established so did PSP and Vita. I listed games. Most games that were even identical between the handheld and console.
You bring up Skyrim a PS3/360 game running on switch today yet fail to realise that Vita played god of war collection, ratchet and clank collection, Persona 4 etc. Console games, and less demanding games from that gen. Not "specialised mobile versions" of games.
Hell the PSP got a version of GTA 3: liberty city stories in the same gen as the PS2 it released in. Street fighter X Tekken on vita, cross play, same game too, virtua tennis 4, Playstation Allstars Battle Royal, etc.
So did the PSP/PS Vita. What are you failing to realise here? They weren't specialised mobile versions any more than the Switch is today.
Look at Fifa for parallels too. Switch gets "Fifa 23: legacy edition". What do you think the Vita got back then? That's right, Fifa 14: Legacy edition too
Last edited:
phil_t98
#SonyToo
Sony has been meeting with the regulators and Sony Fans , well you only look at this thread to see who's most vocal lol
Microsoft Gambles on ‘Nice Guy’ Strategy to Close Activision Megadeal https://nyti.ms/3WlVSvo
Nothing too interesting but good to share
Also rather disappointed, we are still on page 308...
Nothing too interesting but good to share
Also rather disappointed, we are still on page 308...
Last edited:
feynoob
Gold Member
NYT article
"There is no sensible, legitimate reason for our transaction to be prevented from closing," the chief executive of Activision, Bobby Kotick, in a statement on Wednesday. "We believe we will prevail on the merits of the case."
The F.T.C. declined to comment on Microsoft's strategy or Mr. Smith's conversation with Ms. Khan. Holly Vedova, the director of the F.T.C.'s Bureau of Competition, said the agency is always willing to consider proposals from companies looking to settle antitrust concerns.
Microsoft is trying to strike a balance between, on the one hand, seeming open to a settlement and, on the other, preparing to destroy the F.T.C.'s case in court. It has hired Beth Wilkinson, who prosecuted the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing case before becoming one of America's premier corporate litigators, to argue on its behalf before the F.T.C. in-house court.
Mr. Smith said he was optimistic that the case could avoid a messy trial, in part because of Microsoft's previous experiences with antitrust enforcement.
Mr. Smith said that "things moved quickly" in the final weeks before Microsoft was sued. When F.T.C. staff met with Microsoft's team, it became clear that the agency had serious concerns, he said.
"Our team asked, 'Could we discuss a settlement proposal? 'And the staff said, 'Not with us,'" he said. Later discussions with the leadership of the agency's antitrust bureau failed to bear fruit, he added.
On Dec. 6, Microsoft drafted a formal settlement proposal for the agency. Mr. Smith declined to say exactly what it contained but said it addressed "all the issues relating to Call of Duty," referring to fears that Microsoft could pull the title from rival consoles. Mr. Smith spoke to each of the agency's four commissioners, virtually, for an hour the next day.
A day after that, the F.T.C. commissioners voted 3 to 1 to sue.
But Mr. Smith said he refused to think of the situation as an us-versus-them situation.
"I will always start by asking myself, could I have done more?" he said. "What I do know is that January brings a new year.
The F.T.C. sued Microsoft in administrative court, which does not have the power to stop the deal from closing while the case is pending. If other regulators approved the deal, the F.T.C. would need to decide whether to file an injunction against the acquisition in federal court to stop it. The injunction process could move quickly, potentially handing Microsoft a swift legal victory.
"There is no sensible, legitimate reason for our transaction to be prevented from closing," the chief executive of Activision, Bobby Kotick, in a statement on Wednesday. "We believe we will prevail on the merits of the case."
The F.T.C. declined to comment on Microsoft's strategy or Mr. Smith's conversation with Ms. Khan. Holly Vedova, the director of the F.T.C.'s Bureau of Competition, said the agency is always willing to consider proposals from companies looking to settle antitrust concerns.
Microsoft is trying to strike a balance between, on the one hand, seeming open to a settlement and, on the other, preparing to destroy the F.T.C.'s case in court. It has hired Beth Wilkinson, who prosecuted the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing case before becoming one of America's premier corporate litigators, to argue on its behalf before the F.T.C. in-house court.
Mr. Smith said he was optimistic that the case could avoid a messy trial, in part because of Microsoft's previous experiences with antitrust enforcement.
Mr. Smith said that "things moved quickly" in the final weeks before Microsoft was sued. When F.T.C. staff met with Microsoft's team, it became clear that the agency had serious concerns, he said.
"Our team asked, 'Could we discuss a settlement proposal? 'And the staff said, 'Not with us,'" he said. Later discussions with the leadership of the agency's antitrust bureau failed to bear fruit, he added.
On Dec. 6, Microsoft drafted a formal settlement proposal for the agency. Mr. Smith declined to say exactly what it contained but said it addressed "all the issues relating to Call of Duty," referring to fears that Microsoft could pull the title from rival consoles. Mr. Smith spoke to each of the agency's four commissioners, virtually, for an hour the next day.
A day after that, the F.T.C. commissioners voted 3 to 1 to sue.
But Mr. Smith said he refused to think of the situation as an us-versus-them situation.
"I will always start by asking myself, could I have done more?" he said. "What I do know is that January brings a new year.
Pelta88
Member
This is the most important factor of this acquisition, but for some strange reason, also the most dismissed factor. It also speaks volumes as to Microsoft's decision making. They were not expecting any push back from any sector. If they did, they would pushed the completion date back a year or two.
Some forum members will contest that Microsoft went into the acquisition knowing the potential road blocks. But if you go back a few pages, those same members were also saying this was a done deal as soon as it was announced.
KingT731
Member
I swear you folks intentionally misunderstand things just to feel like you're disproving something. I pointed out a specific segment of people saying just that. My original point is asking why do they feel MS needs this purchase to "compete?" And btw you say "until thier fav plastic box buys a bunch of studios" as it it would be some like for like while MS is trying to buy the biggest publisher after purchasing, as you'd call it, a bunch of studios already.
Last edited:
They predicted a mid 2023 close date but AFAIK they don't need to pay the fee unless they decide not to pursue the acquisition. The fee amount increases depending on what date they may decide to no longer pursue it.
Last edited:
feynoob
Gold Member
They would pay that, if the deal fails or if MS and Activision cancel the deal.
feynoob
Gold Member
Your problem was asking fanboys.
Everyone knows Activision was off the limit, and wasn't up for sale.
MS didn't really buy them to compete. But saw a golden chance to get Activision.
Last edited:
Pelta88
Member
It's part of the contract the deal has to be completed by a specific date and that if it isn't, Microsoft have to pay 3 Billion to help insulate ATVI's stock price.
Last edited:
KingT731
Member
Oh I'm 100% aware of the actual reasoning. I'm only questioning the logic.
What does the contract say? I thought it was just a break up fee that increases in price if they don't pursue it. i.e. if they decide to pull out of the deal in January they would have to pay $2B but if they decide to pull out of the deal in November 2023 and it still hasn't closed they would pay $3B. They wouldn't need to automatically pay $3B in July if it hasn't closed though, unless I misread the deal.
Last edited:
feynoob
Gold Member
It's better if you read the entire thing.
What happens if the deal doesn't get approved?
The merger agreement says that MS and ABK expect the deal to close in 12 months (January 18th 2023) or less. But the agreement also includes two possible extensions of 3 months each one (until April 18th 2023 and the other one until July 18th 2023). That's why MS says that they expect the deal to close in fiscal year 2023.
Those extensions apply automatically if by January 18th 2023 or April 18th 2023 the transaction is still pending regulatory approval.
The transaction can be terminated by MS or ABK if:
- Both parties agree.
- The Activision Blizzard stockholders reject it (it was already approved, so it's doesn't apply anymore).
- A court or a regulator rejects the deal and there is no way to appeal it.
- There is a new law that prohibits this kind of deal.
- By January 18th 2023 or April 18th 2023 the deal is still pending but NOT for regulatory reasons.
- There is an infringement of the agreement by MS and during the period to resolve that, MS doesn't do anything.
- Before the approval by Activision Blizzard stockholders, ABK receives a better offer and pays MS a $2,270,100,000 termination fee.
- There is an infringement of the agreement by ABK and during the period to resolve that, ABK doesn't do anything.
- The Activision Blizzard Board of Directors doesn't recommend the deal anymore.
Activision Blizzard has to pay Microsoft a termination fee of $2,270,100,000 if:
- MS is still waiting for the ABK stockholders meeting to happen by the termination dates.
- Regulatory conditions were not satisfied and the reason is a breach by ABK.
- ABK infringes the agreement.
- The ABK stockholders reject the deal.
- The Activision Blizzard Board of Directors doesn't recommend the deal anymore.
- ABK receives a better offer.
- $2,000,000,000, if the termination notice is provided prior to January 18th, 2023.
- $2,500,000,000, if the termination notice is provided after January 18th, 2023 and prior to April 18th, 2023.
- $3,000,000,000, if the termination notice is provided after April 18th, 2023.
- A court or a regulator rejects the deal and there is no way to appeal it.
- There is a new law that prohibits this kind of deal.
- MS infringes the agreement.
- Regulatory conditions were not satisfied and the reason is a breach by MS.
feynoob
Gold Member
The contract is for termination or if Activision receives a better contract.
MS and Activision can renew it again, if the deadline passes.
Pelta88
Member
Do you even understand what you just posted? I'm guessing you're waiting for Hoe Law or a reset era member poster to break it down for you lol Despite what you've posted ATVI have already met their legal requirements.
I posted that MS would have to pay ATVI if the deal doesn't go through... You don't seem to understand the concept so posts idas' summary of termination.
Go sit your ass down somewhere
The last part is jest
Last edited:
feynoob
Gold Member
You made it seem like MS is in hurry, as they are going to pay these fees.Do you even understand what you just posted? I'm guessing you're waiting for Hoe Law or a reset era member poster to break it down for you lol Despite what you've posted ATVI have already met their legal requirements.
I posted that MS would have to pay ATVI if the deal doesn't go through... You don't seem to understand the concept so posts idas' summary of termination.
Go sit your ass down somewhere
The last part is jest
MS will only pay, if the deal fails or if they terminate it themselves.
They have the option to renew it, until the deal is done.
Also Activision is at risk too. They can't opt out of this deal, or else they would pay the fees themselves.
Basically the deal has to complete by that July 18th date but Microsoft and ABK are obviously free to extend it if they want to so then you need to calculus on each sides desires to do so
- ABK board, the company will get 3bn as the termination fee but the board and shareholder's stock values may decrease than the current amount than its worth (maybe more so than the 3bn upfront income)
- MS board, the company will have to continue to pay lawyers for this deal, bunch of opportunities costs and end up still paying 3bn.
The impact on the MS or ABK stock price imo won't change massively if they terminate in July or December 23 (if they have to extend for any reason)
- ABK board, the company will get 3bn as the termination fee but the board and shareholder's stock values may decrease than the current amount than its worth (maybe more so than the 3bn upfront income)
- MS board, the company will have to continue to pay lawyers for this deal, bunch of opportunities costs and end up still paying 3bn.
The impact on the MS or ABK stock price imo won't change massively if they terminate in July or December 23 (if they have to extend for any reason)
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
It isn't any different from another user a few pages back who chimed that if the deal doesn't go through, it means MS loses $69bn
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Where has Sony been meeting with "Sony Fans?"
Gamers can't even get them to have a damned showcase, FFS.
Last edited:
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
It isn't any different from another user a few pages back who chimed that if the deal doesn't go through, it means MS loses $69bn
Microsoft: "Where's our money?"
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked