-
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
Dick Jones
Gold Member
Florian Mueller is a MS shill but he claims he last had dealings with MS a long time ago [aka last year, unsure if he meant calendar or fiscal] while Tom Warren is a known pro-Xbox journalist for the Verge who actually has no interest in 10 year old conspiracy theories where the incorrect claims are made (blaming a CMA official for being involved in a case with bias, in a case he is not involved with).
That's right, sorry I should have made that clearer. The platforms there I'm referring to are the relevant store or subscription platform vs the cloud provider platform which have been separated but interlinked by this license.
I don't think MS are tied to the market dynamics of B2P with their subscription and of course they can still choose whether to license to other subscription providers and at what cost. They will have no problem setting ridiculous prices that make their subscription more appealing, their foray into $70 is Redfall after all. Even less so for games that rely on mtx and battle passes that can offset it with the increased users from subs.
They have argued that B2P and subscriptions are one and the same but I don't think it's affected by the same market dynamics and would be less affected by price elsewhere. Some favour B2P, others favour f2P, some a hybrid of both like CoD. In a business model transition you can use it to attract people to your sub and improve add on sales while charging more for the decreased users on competing platforms. Look at any sales charts to find MS games. Even though they're on steam not many are buying there and MS doesn't care that their B2P games don't chart.
Gamepass and Gamepass ultimate wouldn't need to be the same price. You can have benefits that make alternative original licences less enticing. Like cloud saves.
Do you know if they have a date for that at all? Are there more remedies other than the free cloud license?
Last edited:
Imo on paper it's tough to call it ridiculous when the rest of the market is 70.
Those would be cheaper for consumers, no? It's also true for everyone.
Yeah, that's true but MGS isn't a separate market. It's good to be specific that we would be referring to MGS subscription services and not cloud streaming services in this case.
Just the two licensing deals as far as we can tell. No dates sadly, but it does take a couple of whiles.
I wouldn't worry too much about cloud saves, each of the streaming platforms would have their own saves solution but there could be questions about other things like cross save progression. I suspect the EU would think it's not a meaningful issue but it could be.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Nah, they think they're wrestlers,Did they just steal that shit from bleach?
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
The CMAs decision really made some people fall apart pretty badly. Haven't seen so many crazy theories in a very long time.
They just need to accept that Microsoft is following proper procedure to try and get this through.
That does make sense. Microsoft accepting the appeal does eliminate a lot of those theories. The sensible ones know that getting this through is going to be very difficult. There's no magical bullet here.
Last edited:
Pelta88
Member
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
What I mean is that before accepting the appeal some had multiple theories that just can't happen now. Like closing the deal before July that can't happen if they go through with the appeal.
Not sure if that makes any sense.
My thinking is they don't want to look really bad especially that now they know their options are limited since they chose to go through the appeal process.
Edit: Take into account that Tom Warren might care about his image a little more than the others since he's a journalist. I wouldn't be surprised if Corden starts changing his mind as well.
Last edited:
splattered
Member
I wonder if Sony's lack of 1st party showing really is a strategy to appear weaker until the Acti block is eventually finalized... If that's the case and I were MS I would be in non stop acquisition mode through the rest of the generation so Sony just lays down and plays dead to appear weak to regulators lmao
MasterCornholio
Member
That probably won't happen. As you know Sony isn't a reason why this got blocked.
Best thing they can do is let Microsoft buy another ABK sized company so Microsoft can be stuck not making mergers for a while. Which is what is happening here.
Pelta88
Member
When these theories met actual UK law they evaporated. The problem is that our American brothers and sisters believed that a corporation could exert influence, as that often happens in the US. Our UK system of influence is quiet. I'm talking church mouse running across a tiled floor, quiet.
Lulu and Kotic pushed this into the public sphere with comments that basically boil down to "The UK is incompetent." The insult is one thing, but making their insults public means the current government can't touch the topic. It'd be a scandal here if they tried to exert any influence.
Also, there are clips of Jez talking about the deal being dead based on how our UK system works.
Side note: Someone ask a mod if we can use political examples here given that geo politics is a factor.
EviLore
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
When these theories met actual UK law they evaporated. The problem is that our American brothers and sisters believed that a corporation could exert influence, as that often happens in the US. Our UK system of influence is quiet. I'm talking church mouse running across a tiled floor, quiet.
Lulu and Kotic pushed this into the public sphere with comments that basically boil down to "The UK is incompetent." The insult is one thing, but making their insults public means the current government can't touch the topic. It'd be a scandal here if they tried to exert any influence.
Also, there are clips of Jez talking about the deal being dead based on how our UK system works.
Side note: Someone ask a mod if we can use political examples here given that geo politics is a factor.
I'm fine with that. Understanding how the government works can bring light to how these mergers work in each country. I know for a fact the FTC and the CMA function very differently due to how the political system works in those countries.
That's true but I think $70 for Redfall and the fact that it hasn't dropped in price is ridiculous and shows that they don't really care much for sales of the game on stores. What's important to them is engagement on their sub.
Even Forespoken had a discount after 3 weeks because it was trying to boost sales. Sales were key to its success. Less so for MS, they're all to happy for games not to chart or sell as long as it drives engagement on their sub. The $70 means little to them, they can even use it as how much "value" you get from the sub
That's right, especially if they increase the price of the game vs their sub, but we're talking about control of where people get their original game license which could be made to favour MS platforms like gamepass in the business model transition so that's kind of the point.
A separate market to B2P or to cloud? Both the EC and CMA have separated cloud and MGS I believe. The EU seem to have no concerns for MGS services though, only cloud. They provided a free cloud license to those who have a game license but they put no remedies or restrictions on the original game licence which they are all tied to. MS are free to do with the original game licence price as they wish without restriction. Whether that is B2P or MGS, how would the free cloud licence help the cloud provider if they rely on competing MGS services or B2P stores? That licence can be set at any price to partially foreclose any competing MGS or store making those cloud providers just MS customers in a separate market.
Hopefully we get them. I don't think the EC are obligated to share them but I might be wrong there.
That's the thing, they're not tied to the streaming platform but the original MGS service or B2P store platform. To the original game license and not the free cloud one. Steam cloud saves, windows store cloud saves and gamepass are what provides the cloud saves. Not boosteriod, not GFN. The streaming platform has been separated. Now if you were enticed into gamepass due to competition in MGS where are you most likely to go for cloud now? I'd bet it's an upgrade to gamepass ultimate, not elsewhere. You won't buy a separate licence at $70-80 to play on some other cloud provider that isn’t a MS customer and lose your progress to boot.
Last edited:
Thirty7ven
Banned
Because it’s probably time to quiet down. Why? Probably because it would do no good anymore, they know they won’t get approval by deadline. And their ad campaign in the UK to pressure the CMA didn’t work so. What are they supposed to do, another ad campaign but this time saying “cloud is small, dream is big” or some shit?
MasterCornholio
Member
I guess you don't celebrate failure. Up until the CMA the messaging was upbeat and positive. But since they failed to convince the CMA there's no reason to celebrate a block. I'm sure if anything positive happens with the appeal process they will talk about it.
I think this type of reaction to a block is the wrong thing to do given how hard the appeal will be.
Last edited:
drganon
Member
You were dropped on your head a lot as a child, weren't you.
Bernoulli
M2 slut
from dopeyfish
Ground 1: The Respondent made fundamental errors in its assessment of the Applicant's current position in cloud gaming services by failing to take account of constraints from native gaming (whereby gamers access games installed on their devices through a digital download or physical disc), undermining its SLC finding:
Ground 2: The Respondent erred in failing to take proper account of three long-term commercial agreements which the Applicant had entered into with cloud gaming providers for the licensing of rights to stream its games, including Activision's gaming content, post-Merger (the "Agreements") in its assessment.
Ground 3: The Respondent's finding that Activision would have been likely to make its gaming content available on cloud gaming services absent the Merger was irrational and arrived at in a procedurally unfair manner.
Ground 4: The Respondent's findings that the Applicant would have the ability and incentive to foreclose rival cloud gaming services by withholding access to Activision's gaming content post-Merger was unlawful. In particular, the Respondent's analysis was affected by four errors, each of which in isolation, separately, and/or cumulatively, renders the findings on ability and incentive unlawful, irrational and/or disproportionate.
Ground 5: In assessing remedial action for the SLC, the Respondent:
The Applicant seeks the following relief from the Tribunal:
1. An order pursuant to section 120(5)(a) of the Act quashing the Decision in its entirety;
2. An order that the Respondent pays the Applicant's costs of this Application;
3. Such further or other relief as the Tribunal deems fit
Ground 1: The Respondent made fundamental errors in its assessment of the Applicant's current position in cloud gaming services by failing to take account of constraints from native gaming (whereby gamers access games installed on their devices through a digital download or physical disc), undermining its SLC finding:
- In its market definition analysis, the Respondent failed to consider potential switching to native gaming, resulting in a flawed conclusion that cloud gaming services fall in a separate product market.
- Even on the Respondent's erroneous, narrow, market definition, the Respondent failed to take into account relevant out-of-market constraints from native gaming in its competitive assessment of vertical foreclosure effects.
- The Respondent made fundamental errors in its calculation and assessment of market share data for cloud gaming services and as a result failed to take into account relevant considerations in its competitive assessment.
Ground 2: The Respondent erred in failing to take proper account of three long-term commercial agreements which the Applicant had entered into with cloud gaming providers for the licensing of rights to stream its games, including Activision's gaming content, post-Merger (the "Agreements") in its assessment.
Ground 3: The Respondent's finding that Activision would have been likely to make its gaming content available on cloud gaming services absent the Merger was irrational and arrived at in a procedurally unfair manner.
Ground 4: The Respondent's findings that the Applicant would have the ability and incentive to foreclose rival cloud gaming services by withholding access to Activision's gaming content post-Merger was unlawful. In particular, the Respondent's analysis was affected by four errors, each of which in isolation, separately, and/or cumulatively, renders the findings on ability and incentive unlawful, irrational and/or disproportionate.
- The Respondent wrongly relied on evidence that so-called 'AAA' games would be important for cloud gaming services to find that Activision games in particular would hold such importance.
- The Respondent failed to take account of relevant evidence regarding immediate losses from hypothetical foreclosure, which showed that the Applicant would not have an incentive to withhold access to Activision games from cloud gaming rivals.
- As set out in Ground 1 and Ground 2, the Respondent wrongly failed to take account of (i) relevant out-of-market constraints and (ii) the Agreements.
Ground 5: In assessing remedial action for the SLC, the Respondent:
- Erred in law by proceeding on the basis that it had a duty to impose what it described as a comprehensive remedy, thus failing to consider a range of remedies and assess their benefits and detriments in the round;
- Unlawfully failed to take account of the interests of comity;
- Erred in rejecting the Microsoft Cloud Remedy, which rejection was in all the circumstances disproportionate; and
- Acted in breach of the Respondent's common law duty of fairness and the CMA's own remedies guidance.
The Applicant seeks the following relief from the Tribunal:
1. An order pursuant to section 120(5)(a) of the Act quashing the Decision in its entirety;
2. An order that the Respondent pays the Applicant's costs of this Application;
3. Such further or other relief as the Tribunal deems fit
mansoor1980
Gold Member
so it is over?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
The tinfoil in me thinks it's a tactic by them to make $70 games (in general) look bad and their sub service look sweeter. Psychological warfare.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Topher
Gold Member
All comes down to the Tribunal now. I posted this last week some time, but not sure if anyone caught it. The CAT can overturn the CMA's decision entirely without returning it to the CMA. As unlikely as that is, it is still a distinct possibility.
Section 120 (5)(a)
www.legislation.gov.uk
Section 120 (5)(a)
Enterprise Act 2002
An Act to establish and provide for the functions of the Office of Fair Trading, the Competition Appeal Tribunal and the Competition Service; to make provision about mergers and market structures and conduct; to amend the constitution and functions of the Competition Commission; to create an...
Last edited:
zapper
Member
activision games are still on cloud? I remember that they were already on nvidia geforce but currently...?
weak point of course
Bernoulli
M2 slut
when is the decision coming?All comes down to the Tribunal now. I posted this last week some time, but not sure if anyone caught it. The CAT can overturn the CMA's decision entirely without returning it to the CMA. As unlikely as that is, it is still a distinct possibility.
Section 120 (5)(a)
Enterprise Act 2002
An Act to establish and provide for the functions of the Office of Fair Trading, the Competition Appeal Tribunal and the Competition Service; to make provision about mergers and market structures and conduct; to amend the constitution and functions of the Competition Commission; to create an...
Topher
Gold Member
No timeline has been set, I don't think.
Bernoulli
M2 slut
zapper
Member
so the cat can decide by skipping the cma? it seems to me that in any case it is the cma that must review the mergerAll comes down to the Tribunal now. I posted this last week some time, but not sure if anyone caught it. The CAT can overturn the CMA's decision entirely without returning it to the CMA. As unlikely as that is, it is still a distinct possibility.
Section 120 (5)(a)
Enterprise Act 2002
An Act to establish and provide for the functions of the Office of Fair Trading, the Competition Appeal Tribunal and the Competition Service; to make provision about mergers and market structures and conduct; to amend the constitution and functions of the Competition Commission; to create an...
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Topher
Gold Member
Last edited:
X-Wing
Member
The quote you posted says that if they quash the whole decision or part of it that they will refer the matter back to the original decision maker.All comes down to the Tribunal now. I posted this last week some time, but not sure if anyone caught it. The CAT can overturn the CMA's decision entirely without returning it to the CMA. As unlikely as that is, it is still a distinct possibility.
Section 120 (5)(a)
Enterprise Act 2002
An Act to establish and provide for the functions of the Office of Fair Trading, the Competition Appeal Tribunal and the Competition Service; to make provision about mergers and market structures and conduct; to amend the constitution and functions of the Competition Commission; to create an...
All comes down to the Tribunal now. I posted this last week some time, but not sure if anyone caught it. The CAT can overturn the CMA's decision entirely without returning it to the CMA. As unlikely as that is, it is still a distinct possibility.
Section 120 (5)(a)
Enterprise Act 2002
An Act to establish and provide for the functions of the Office of Fair Trading, the Competition Appeal Tribunal and the Competition Service; to make provision about mergers and market structures and conduct; to amend the constitution and functions of the Competition Commission; to create an...
Point b says that if they quash the whole decision they refer the matter back to the original decision maker?
zapper
Member
I'm not a native English speaker but I seem to read that the case is still being referred to the CMA. yes, the cma should take into consideration the ruling of the cat but the cma will always decide
Topher
Gold Member
splattered
Member
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Dude got a big ass cabeso!Shit.....just realized I'm doing this all wrong.
Topher
Gold Member
Bernoulli
M2 slut
would that be activision?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked