tryDEATH
Member
Why was Sony buying more studios when it had twice as many as Xbox? The only hive mind of stupidity here is coming from those that are being willfully ignorant.
-
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
supernova8
Banned
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
feynoob
Gold Member
Gudji
Member
Yeah, it's only 10% of MS global revenue nothing they can't handle.
I'm personally hoping they do that.
Last edited:
Bernardougf
Gold Member
Fucking hell every time this comes up my eyes rollback one degree further back... NO they didnt ... try to find yourself a MS board executive/shareholder saying this words or something very close "I swear in MS name that from now on COD and all its content will be released on playstation system this gen and to the end of the next one at minimum"
What you have is phil spencer using words like "thats my goal" and saying "playstation 5" and literally staying silent when asked to bind his words to MS in a direct question by the FTC.. and satya nadella saying his "committed" to keeping cod on playstation.
- phil spencer dosent speak for MS and he made it clear staying silent when asked.
- he can be fired tomorrow and anything he said is mute
- no promises or oaths were taking directly using clear legally bind words linked to MS
- no time frame was ever established in both "said" oaths meaning one new cod been multiplat and they kept their "said" oaths
Try to find one (not involved and anbiased) lawyer to review both their testimonials and say that in any way shape or form they are now by LAW obligated to launch COD on playstation indefinitely... Ill wait and good luck because you wont
What you may say is what
Topher
say ... that now you have words , just offical vague words under oath telling something .. they are NOT legally binding, but at least you have something to hold them accountable in the public eye... but in the end is MS they couldn't give two fucks about what you think about their lies.. so good luck again thrusting them and their "words".
feynoob
Gold Member
Did that law went in to effect?Yeah, it's only 10% of MS global revenue nothing they can't handle.
I'm personally hoping they do that.
Because last time I saw it, it was just a policy and not an enforceable law.
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
You joined both forums to talk in the ABK thread.
- You're probably an alt that was recently banned
- You're from twitter
- You're from resetera
Trolls started to join this forum because the merger was expected to close next week and you wanted to be here to celebrate/troll.
kvltus lvlzvs
Banned
This isn't about Sony, lol
Bernardougf
Gold Member
This #sonytoo argument may work in the Jez and followers hive.. I have a brain.. try harder
Last edited:
Gudji
Member
No idea to be honest but think of the fun it would be.
feynoob
Gold Member
Sony bought what is called psygo something. Used their big wealth to dominate early game. Killed cartridge physicals and used discs to dominate the gaming landscape.
Now poor MS is suffering from their tyranny and cruel practices of exclusives which defined their history. They took FF and SF5 from Xbox. And now FF16 won't see the day light on Xbox.
Did I do right?
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
MS and ABK did need to extend their contract, yes, if they wanted to go through the appeal process. That's also a separate thing though.
We have no idea if MS and ABK have indeed extended their contract.
Bernardougf
Gold Member
Sometimes the boot just fits my friend.. nothing you or I can do
Ginzeen
Banned
not an alt. Never been apart of this forum. I only created an account for this merger because most websites don't really have a active, large userbase that go in depth on this topic. I honestly do not care about this website, except for this thread. It's interesting here. This is the hottest topic in gaming. Theirs nothing wrong with having a higher interest then other people in certain things. Believe what you want.
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
I think people are focusing too much on the CMA at this point. Their time may come again, but right now it's all Bobby Kottick and ABK.
The CMA has put the timeline well beyond July 18. ABK can just walk away if they want to and take $3 billion with them.
ABK has Microsoft by the balls here! At the very least, they gotta demand more money from Microsoft now to extend the contract. I reckon it'll get spicy. Let's see what Bobby wants to do.
The CMA has put the timeline well beyond July 18. ABK can just walk away if they want to and take $3 billion with them.
ABK has Microsoft by the balls here! At the very least, they gotta demand more money from Microsoft now to extend the contract. I reckon it'll get spicy. Let's see what Bobby wants to do.
Last edited:
Gudji
Member
Bernoulli
M2 slut
Bungie
Member
I know I'd not care about a website if I was banned while paying money to be a Gold member... I personally feel like if you were actually a random person you'd have no idea what anyone is talking about when being compared to this King guy & would just laugh it off or be confused but yet here you are defending yourself instead. Just my opinion though
Last edited:
ToTTenTranz
Banned
Microsoft CEO: Call of Duty will 100% stay on PlayStation
Satya Nadella said he would “100%” commit to keeping the Call of Duty shooter game on Sony’s gaming platforms.
They kinda did.
If they wanted to appease the governing body's concerns they would accept their decision to block. By doing something not good for consumers as suggested they aren't trying to appease their concerns, they're trying to skirt them to satisfy themselves. So yeah, they would be dicks for doing that.
The suggested divestment was the assumption that it's removal of cloud entirely, not ABK from cloud.
Last edited:
Well. If they did not manage to get an extension, it will be 3 billion going to ABKYeah, it's only 10% of MS global revenue nothing they can't handle.
I'm personally hoping they do that.
So Microsoft have a choice
A: Close in UK and risk fines while you will work on "solution" with CMA, while you will have ABK
B: Don't close, ABK will walk away with 3 billion in pocket and Microsoft without company
IF (big if) it is possible, I'm going for option A
Fucking hell every time this comes up my eyes rollback one degree further back... NO they didnt ... try to find yourself a MS board executive/shareholder saying this words or something very close "I swear in MS name that from now on COD and all its content will be released on playstation system this gen and to the end of the next one at minimum"
What you have is phil spencer using words like "thats my goal" and saying "playstation 5" and literally staying silent when asked to bind his words to MS in a direct question by the FTC.. and satya nadella saying his "committed" to keeping cod on playstation.
- phil spencer dosent speak for MS and he made it clear staying silent when asked.
- he can be fired tomorrow and anything he said is mute
- no promises or oaths were taking directly using clear legally bind words linked to MS
- no time frame was ever established in both "said" oaths meaning one new cod been multiplat and they kept their "said" oaths
Try to find one (not involved and anbiased) lawyer to review both their testimonials and say that in any way shape or form they are now by LAW obligated to launch COD on playstation indefinitely... Ill wait and good luck because you wont
What you may say is what
They were explicit, on stand and under oath - that they would keep COD on PlayStation, with further commentary to remove the ‘PlayStation 5’ ambiguity. Spencer confirmed he could speak for Microsoft in that regard as the head of gaming, and Satya made a similar commitment, commitment that puts both men at risk of perjury.
Spencer only remained silent and would not commit when the FTC lawyer tried to expand this pledge to ALL Activision games, and the judge rightly shot that down.
All this is still moot, since they’ve already committed - legally - to the EU to keep COD multiplatform to a binding period of 10 years. Nobody’s going to risk massive fines and a block on future acquisitions outside gaming just to sell a few million more consoles.
skit_data
Member
Wtf Farbror Melker
Varteras
Gold Member
Which is why I don't understand this notion that the CMA was "running scared" or "shitting itself". The appeal didn't start until a week after the 18th. MS and ABK had no choice but to extend or close the deal in violation of UK law. Any course of action that was not a violation of the law was going to need an extension.
The CMA could have easily just sat and waited to see what they would do. The desperation here was on MS. Not the CMA. This series of events was kicked off by MS approaching the CMA with a potential resolution before the appeal hearing actually began. Which would have been after the CMA's final order.
The CMA is indulging Microsoft, which also gives them more time, like they originally wanted. So if MS and ABK do extend, the CMA now has more time to get everything in order should they say no and MS appeals. MS is trying to avoid the appeal process with one last shot at getting the CMA to agree. That plays right into what the CMA wanted.
Now the three questions are:
- Can MS and ABK come to an agreement on an extension?
- Will the CMA actually find their proposed solution sufficient?
- Will MS just try to force the deal to close, assuming that ABK is still on board?
Sanepar
Member
Or maybe they have extension agreed and are waiting July 18th
GHG
Gold Member
Welcome back Robert.
But if Microsoft violates laws to invest in Activision which kind of positive solution they can hope to find with a CMA which will be busy in a legal battle to fine them?
It doesn't make a lot of sense.
Since the current deadline is August 29th the most obvious thing since Kotick stated they want so much to do this deal is a small extension at current conditions.
If that can't happen someone has just been bluffing.
Last edited:
Ar¢tos
Member
So you want them to ignore the CMA, tell them their block is meaningless, pay fines while "working with the CMA" at the same time to find a solution?
You think the CMA is going to ignore that MS just laughed at their block and play nicely?
That would likely end in forced divesture...
Varteras
Gold Member
At this point there is no reason for them to wait on an extension agreement until the 18th. This will not be resolved by then. Not even close. We're a month and a half away from the CMA coming to a decision on the proposal. With no guarantee that they will agree to it.
If they don't and MS appeals, they could be looking at another month before an appeal hearing. That doesn't even consider the actual decision date of the CAT, which could still be yet weeks or a month later. With no guarantee that they will send it back to the CMA. Who may still say no even if they do. An extension agreement would want to take all of that into consideration.
It's not happening by the current deadline and it could still extend into next year depending on how everything shakes out. ABK has a big decision to make and it makes no sense to drag their feet on it. Only if they want to squeeze MS's balls all the way to the last second to see what they can get out of them.
Last edited:
PharaoTutAnchAmun
Member
And Phil Spencer and Booty and Nadella beating theyr chest spouting theyr ussual PR....
It's huge risk of course.
But if Bobby will say no to merger extension, it's not like Microsoft have a choice.
If they won't do it, they will be without ABK
It they will do it, they have chance to have ABK
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Microsoft took a big gamble pausing the CAT appeal and sending this new structured deal, which doesn't look as good to me if the xCloud rumors are true.
Part of me thinks that Microsoft is doing all this because it knows Activision isn't going to stick with them. This gamble (preponing the deadline to only 6 weeks vs. delaying it for months going through the CAT appeal) is to make ABK stay.
No. You are doing it while knowing you will pay fines. CMA is not your wife who will get mad and throw you out of house. They will issue a fine as they are legally required to do and Microsoft would need to pay that fine.
Also. I think that if really Bobby won't agree with merger extension, Microsoft will tell CMA "we have no choice, we need to close, we will pay your fine, but let's work toward agreement that will keep you satisfied"
Again. IF Bobby won't agree with extension, Microsoft will have no other choice but to risk everything. Or do you think that there is some magical third way that nobody knows about? If he agrees than it's no problem for Microsoft to wait for august.
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
If both parties do not agree with an acquisition, then you just can't have it. That's pretty much it.
It's not the CMA's responsibility to assist Microsoft, circumventing the law and making special concessions, just because Activision wants to walk away.
Besides, if Activision walks away, Microsoft can't close the acquisition. If Microsoft closes the acquisition over the CMA, the CMA will order them to sell ABK just like they ordered Meta to sell Giphy.
Microsoft won't end up with ABK in either scenario.
DryvBy
Member
This kind of argument is the Eric Andre shooting Hannibal meme and asking why did this happen. Xbox used to be called M$ for a reason.
tryDEATH
Member
It's so cute that you guys got a hashtag to protect yourself from your own hypocritical bullshit that you regurgitate over and over in here.
So it's still better for Microsoft to at least try to close if there is no extension. Because yeah. You are risking fines and at worst you won't have ABK.
But. It can also end up that you will pay fines, CMA will work towards deal with Microsoft and you will have ABK. And I'm pretty sure that CMA will let Microsoft know what they are intended to do if Microsoft will try to close on Monday.
Like. You can't tell me that if you were Microsoft you would not at least try to complete it even with huge risk. There is no point for Microsoft to NOT try.
Last edited:
Sanepar
Member
Since the stocks are still ticking up I think they will close Monday.
Ar¢tos
Member
It's not just one fine. If a merger is blocked the fines will keep on coming harder and harder until the law is respected (divesture).
Varteras
Gold Member
Then get ready for fireworks. Because the CMA is not the FTC and a foreign company thumbing its nose at UK law is not a good look heading into a court.
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
Seems silly to break the law rather than simply amend the agreement and set a new date, imo.
POKEYCLYDE
Member
So either Microsoft closes illegally over the CMA, pay whatever fines and hope the CMA accepts whatever small divesture they've put forward a month from now...
OR
Hope Bobby doesn't take the $3B for Activision, nobody walks away until the CMA definitively blocks or accepts whatever Microsoft has suggested.
OR
Hope Bobby doesn't take the $3B for Activision, nobody walks away until the CMA definitively blocks or accepts whatever Microsoft has suggested.
You mean until august when they are expected to have final verdict ready?
I'm sure that those fines for...one and half months would be unbearable for Microsoft
Negotiator101
Member
The one Sony will sign if Microsoft get the deal passed (the one Sony refused to sign before).
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked