Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Microsoft will likely incur a 2x or even 3x bigger loss if/when they divest Activision.
-
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
No, but that's the rumor
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Not sure about the tomorrow part but I'm leaning towards reject, whenever it gets announced.
Sleepwalker
Member
i dont think the injuction is going to be granted. how that affects the acquisition as a whole, i dont know.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Seriously, though, (1) I don't think she will announce the decision on Monday, and (2) When she does, the FTC will likely get a PI.
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
That's why I'm against it as well. Same goes for Sony and Nintendo. I think platform owners, in particular, have the potential to do the most harm to the industry with these acquisitions, but even as a general rule I too think corporations are getting far too large.
Why tomorrow? Rumors are based on what?
The fact that the judge should help Microsoft to be able to close before the 18th by letting the extra five days of the TRO expire in time?
Isn't that a bit far fetched?
First of all the FTC could appeal and ask for an extension of the TRO if the PI is denied and then there's the whole CMA thing to settle.
I'm not excluding anything at this point but it seems a narration based on a best case scenario some people want, not actual rumors.
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
Ok.....forget it being tomorrow then. That's not the question.
I expect 65% chance is denied, 35% granted.
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
I honestly still don't see how MS gets past the CMA.
I don't think they are going to compromise, they will expect some sort of divestiture and MS won't go for it as that would be insanely expensive and ugly.
I don't think they are going to compromise, they will expect some sort of divestiture and MS won't go for it as that would be insanely expensive and ugly.
reinking
Gold Member
IMO, whether her son is or was not working for MS, I believe the Judge was already leaning toward rejecting it. I believe the FTC would have had to bring their A+ game to get the injunction and IMO they brought their C game. Her "pat on the back" to the FTC pretty much sealed it for me. "Hey, you guys did great but..." kind of vibe.
NoobSmog
Member
What he saw after looking at Topher's profile
splattered
Member
Very true, I'm just hoping to see the same energy on Gaf if Sony attempts to purchase a large publisher like this. I wanna see 2k+ pages of negative banter against the deal by all the Sony faithful and huge screenshot dissertations about all the lies Sony gets caught in when their own dirty laundry gets aired.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
If Sony makes a $69 billion purchase, I'm sure we'll see the same stuff. No worries.
On a sidenote, it's still Microsoft 1 - Sony 0 because of Zenimax Bethesda. Sony still has 1 publisher to purchase before the scores are settled.
Danwan224
Member
No no you Don't understand Sony too
ulantan
Member
Spiderman is a publisher.
ToadMan
Member
Personally I have insufficient knowledge of the detailed legal requirements to make a prediction based on any of that.
So I can only go with the historical outcomes and the FTC has a fairly average record when it comes to getting PIs approved. About 60-70% go their way if I recall but in recent times they seem to have been underperforming that win rate.
So I’m leaning PI rejected.
But the devil is in the detail - what ride along terms will that rejection come with? How long for the FTC to appeal, and how long is MS locked out from consummating the merger? That could be pivotal to what happens following a rejection verdict.
Last edited:
ToadMan
Member
No.
In fact a decision any time next week would be speedy in the extreme based on how long other similar cases have taken.
Zok310
Banned
MS swore under oath that they will “continue to bring cod to PS”First post in this epic thread. Been watching it with interest for a few months now. Some great posts and info provided by you all.
Whats interesting me is about cod and whether it will or will not be pulled from playstation. I think MS will pull it from playstation, but only when a new gen starts. I put this down to how much money they'll make from ps5 sales for the rest of this gen, but then for the new gen it will be exclusive to tempt people to buy xbox rather than a ps6.
I know MS have mentioned 10 year contracts, but I can imagine they will be worded in such a manner they will either be able to get out of it for the next gen, or they will renegotiate and have terms in the contract which Sony will not agree to, and therefore MS cannot say we offered it to Sony but they refused.
For clarity I am against this merger (and would be against it if Sony were trying to buy ABK). Not because I will potentially lose access to future games for my PS5 (which will be annoying but not the end of the world), but due to big corporations getting bigger and bigger until they are the only option left and then we are fucked, as we will either have to go without something or bend over and take it and be told to be happy.
For clarity, before accusations of being an alt due to low post count, this is not an alt (although isnt that what all alts say), I just dont post much, plus I was banned for a year or two before the exodus of the crazies to the other site, after which I was let back in.
Topher
Gold Member
Fine by me. I'll be there arguing with the same energy as I have had here. But what you are saying works both ways. We going to see the same pro-acquisition fervor when its Sony's turn?
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
ToadMan
Member
For maximum spectacle I want the PI rejected, but time to run out and then ATVI to pull out even though they “won”.
That would be the maximum drama/entertainment scenario going forward I think.
Boring outcomes are
1. PI granted and the deal just terminated by MS-ATVI (although a bit of haggling over $3bn might be fun for a while) or
2. PI rejected, MS close the acquisition in the US and then a long boring campaign in the UK to try and overturn the CMA decision. Yet more retreading over the same ground. This is a fairly tedious outcome I think.
3. Most boring is PI rejected, the CMA in some way stepping aside and the deal just closes without any fireworks. Then the drama is over and we’re just speculating about which acquisition happens next and getting it wrong every time.
Last edited:
laynelane
Member
This is my worry too. I don't even play CoD or any ABK games at all. It's not about that. It's about consolidation and what it does and will do to consumer choice. Healthy competition also ties into that.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
You forgot Bungie. However Zenimax Bethesda is two publishers - so it's 2-1.
If this deal closes it would 4-1 (King doesn't count).
ToadMan
Member
NGL, would be extremely funny if MS/ABK starts fighting over that $3 billion, considering people who were saying that Sony has ruined its relationship with ABK
I actually don’t think MS can argue even if they have a good case not to pay (which they don’t) - ATVI would hold all the cards.
I keep thinking back to the hearing where MS said ATVI threatened to withhold CoD from xbox consoles if MS didn’t agree to the revenue split.
Imagine if MS tries to get cute avoiding paying the $3bn? ATVI respond with - ok say goodbye to COD and future diablo content and anything else we put out.
I mean its what Sony said in reverse - this would kill xbox as a whole stone dead.
MS have to pay, and be gracious and speedy about it - they are after all 3rd place in consoles, and there are only 2 competitors according to the regulators
They cannot afford to annoy the largest 3P publisher.
FrankWza
Member
Why? How is that the same? This purchase is big enough where there's now a before and after. This is the line in the sand.
Edit. Looking at it again, zeni was the line in the sand. This is the excess.
Last edited:
Aguero9320
Member
Thought I remembered the judge mentioning the 12th or did I dream that (I wasn’t able to follow every day as closely as some).
I’m more certain that the timing of the hearings was to meet the deal deadline though if it goes their way, so I’m certainly expecting tomorrow.
Not aimed at you op, but I’m surprised how many people are rooting for ‘run out the clock’ as an acceptable strategy here - no one should want regulators to be able to engage in nonsense like that, regardless of their feelings on this deal. Neither the FTC or CMA should be able to affect businesses by dragging their feet when they set the timelines for proceedings (for the most part) - any deal they disagreed with they could just wait until it is about to expire and then rule against, leaving no time for due process in terms of appeals…
Sounds a terrible idea to me, and I’d expect Microsoft to be looking for their $3 billion back in the courts if that was the strategy. They already asked for it to be bonded in the ridiculous ‘gamer’s lawsuit’ I think.
reinking
Gold Member
I will be the same for that one as I am this one, against it. How about you? You going to be consistent?
Unknown Soldier
Member
The CMA straight up blocked it. There is no "running out the clock" there.
The FTC actually did the opposite of "running out the clock" by filing for the emergency injunction in the first place. By filing for it, they actually forced a court hearing earlier than it otherwise would have occurred. The original trial would not have happened until August or September, which would have been after the acquisition had closed, except for the part that the CMA had blocked it. The only reason FTC filed for the injunction was because MS was bluffing they could close the acquisition by invading the UK with their private aircraft carriers and private army and force the deal to close without CMA's approval and FTC called their bluff.
ulantan
Member
You know the answers no
Thirty7ven
Banned
Hard to kick much of a fuss if MS gets ABK. It essentially becomes the new norm doesn’t it?
If MS fails to get ABK then sure, same energy.
That's the opposite of calling their bluff. They thought there was a strong possibility that MS was going to close despite the CMA, so they sought the injunction to prevent it from happening.
Topher
Gold Member
It is my understanding that Microsoft and ABK can change the termination date whenever they want. So I don't see how it is even an issue.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Imagine thinking Sony can afford to just blow $70 billion on an acquisition like it's pocket change
Only like 5 companies on Earth can do an acquisition like this and Sony is like #176 on that list
Pelta88
Member
No.
Phil Spencer swore under oath. And since you think such scripted theatre has any bearing on Microsoft's intentions with Activision, tell me what happens to said oath when Phil Spencer is replaced by another suit?
Historia
Banned
Sony merge with Nintendo confirmed, togathaaaa they gonna make 200B Japenis video games empireeeeee
bitbydeath
Gold Member
Zok310
Banned
Yup, i really dont see the judge rushing thru this, ffs its a $69 billion purchase. MS and abk is gonna have to extend.I expect tomorrow will go something like this:
Then the 18th will come.
Aguero9320
Member
I was talking about the FTC running out the clock, although to be fair, by blocking it then not facilitating the (legitimate) appeals process before the deadline, CMA effectively did also. If a decision is challengable (which they all are and must be) then the buying and selling entities timelines must also be respected if not unusually/suspicously shortened to cause the regulatory bodies strain.
FTC were absolutely trying to run out the clock until something they got wind of spooked them. It seems whatever that was convinced them that they couldn’t just wait until their inconveniently scheduled August hearing.
But my point was broader than this acquisition process - no one should want regulators to have the power to play games within their own rule set - that’s never going to end well (and wouldn’t pass legal muster more than a time or two anyway before someone forced it to be changed).
Last edited:
Venom Snake
Member
I'm not sure about tomorrow, but i think reject and let MS challenge the CMA in court some time later.
But I will be glad if it turns out otherwise.
LordCBH
Member
My vote is they will likely get rejected. I hope otherwise, but I feel like the FTC could have delivered a perfect few days of the hearing and MS could have done nothing but evil mustache twirling and it would STILL get rejected knowing how dumb the court system can be.
Clintizzle
Lord of Edge.
Hello NeoGaf lawyers and UK regulation experts. Would the scenario below be illegal assuming PI is denied?
MS and ABK close deal and:
- Xbox and PC customers outside of UK have access to ABK catalog on GamePass and Xcloud
- Xbox and PC customers in the UK - ABK catalog can only be bought and not available on xCloud.
What I've gathered is that CMA has blocked the merger because of harm to the UK only. So trying to understand the harm with scenario above.
You can probably tell I have no idea wtf is involved here....
MS and ABK close deal and:
- Xbox and PC customers outside of UK have access to ABK catalog on GamePass and Xcloud
- Xbox and PC customers in the UK - ABK catalog can only be bought and not available on xCloud.
What I've gathered is that CMA has blocked the merger because of harm to the UK only. So trying to understand the harm with scenario above.
You can probably tell I have no idea wtf is involved here....
PaintTinJr
Member
Against regular companies worth less than a billion then I would agree about the bolded part, however against hundred billion dollar companies regulators have a hard enough task with the mismatch in resources and legal side stepping, so by the time you get to the trillion dollar companies, by any means is my stance.
Microsoft have and will use any angle from national adverts as lobbying, PR lying campaigns about false benefits, government threats, US senators in their pocket, and shilling operations that would seemingly put some of the b-list countries' regulators - that backed the deal - to shame by work ethic.
For me, the clock running down is on par with Capone going to jail for tax evasion. If the clock is the issue for Microsoft, then to use the quote of the intended take away moral of the Jurassic park book: "Nature finds a way". Or at least, where Microsoft and this deal are concerned, I'm hopeful it finds a way to stop the unstoppable .
Historia
Banned
Of course it is illegal. That is just behavioral concession. UK regulators prohibited the deal altogether
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
The entirety of Microsoft has to leave the UK in order to "legally" go against the deal being blocked in the UK.
Nothing like that is going to happen*, the merger isn't going through if the CMA blocks.
* it's a crazy world these days, and ANYTHING can happen, but come on now.. IT AINT HAPPENING lol
Varteras
Gold Member
Not to mention, it is not on the regulators to ensure enough time has passed for the appropriate legal process to go through its pace while being within a deal deadline. There is ample precedent for companies to know the timeline they are conceivably looking at. They would have been well aware of the difficulty in combating the CMA and how long it normally takes. It is also not on the shoulders of regulators that the purchasing company was given remedial options to allow the deal to go through, plus ample time to allay concerns through sufficient evidence, to which Microsoft denied the former and failed the latter. To complain about how the regulators are handling the results is to absolve Microsoft of its failure and refusal.
Last edited:
Clintizzle
Lord of Edge.
So how does that work in terms of Jurisdiction? CMA is there to regulate competition in the UK. How does their regulation affect deals made outside of the UK or deals that are of a nature that have no impact on competition in the UK?
I'm assuming its the clause where MS and ABK can only close the deal if FTC, EU AND CMA approve it.
Last edited:
Venom Snake
Member
I have no idea either but from what i read MS cannot legally close the deal without the approval of CMA, period.
At most, they can negotiate some form of carve-out, but they have little chance of doing so. They can extend their merger agreements and fight the CMA in court, trying maybe to reduce the scope of CMA's order.
Any attempt to close the deal before consensus is reached will open the way for the CMA to sue MS and (very likely) force them to undone the merger, with greatly negative results for both MS and ABK.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked