Support NeoGAF

[feynoob]

part 4

• Microsoft has consistently articulated the mobile gaming strategic motivation for the Merger
• The Merger gives Microsoft a meaningful presence in mobile gaming
• Microsoft’s financial valuation accounts for [] while the existing business provides [
• Theory of Harm 1 – no prospect of a substantial lessening of competition through input foreclosure of rival console gaming platforms (excluding multi-game subscription services) 3.1 Theory of Harm 1 concerns the potential for a substantial lessening of competition in gaming consoles (together with their digital storefronts) as a result of Microsoft engaging in full or partial input foreclosure strategies
• Input foreclosure findings in Phase 2 are exceptional
  • The CMA has found a substantial lessening of competition on the basis of input foreclosure in only three Phase 2 cases.29 Such cases are exceptional – accounting for less than 1% of the CMA’s merger decisions30 – and have in each case involved the protection of substantial market power. Input foreclose has never been found in a case where one merging party was the smallest player in the downstream market and the other merging party was one of more than a dozen suppliers competing in the upstream market
• Microsoft does not intend to remove Call of Duty from PlayStation or to degrade access to the franchise – a fact that is supported by a consistent body of evidence.38 However, even if Microsoft were to withdraw Call of Duty from PlayStation (quod non), the Panel would have to believe that Sony would as a result of the loss of one game franchise from the many thousands available on its console go from being the clear market leader for over two decades to being placed at “such a disadvantage that [its] ability to compete is substantially limited
• As such a conclusion is inherently unlikely, and has never been found in any previous cases, the evidence required to allow the Panel to reach such a conclusion on the balance of probabilities would need to be clear and compelling. As noted by Lord Hoffman in Rehman, “it would need more cogent evidence to satisfy one that the creature seen walking in Regent’s Park was more likely than not to have been a lioness than to be satisfied to the same standard of probability that it was an Alsatian”.40 As set out below, such a cogent body of evidence does not exist in this case

 

[feynoob]

I am going to stop there. This is too much now. 15 pages, and I am already lost. No energy to continue. sorry guys.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I am going to stop there. This is too much now. 15 pages, and I am already lost. No energy to continue. sorry guys.

Is not necessary, just put the link to the PDF

 

[feynoob]

Just before i go and play games: the original source is here:
https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/microsoft-slash-activision-blizzard-merger-inquiry

https://assets.publishing.service.g...rosoft_s_response_to_the_Issues_Statement.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.g...6b8043d8cd/Sony_Interactive_Entertainment.pdf

Come on CMA, give me another companies thoughts

here is it, if anyone needs it.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

MS buys Studios that want to be bought and Activision wanted to be bought. Very simple

And this is matters why? M&A regulation doesn't care about whether you want to be bought or not.

 

[freefornow]

Fingers crossed, only 218 more days of this.

 

[Darsxx82]

You're clearly not understanding what you're looking at. The document I linked was provided to the SEC from Activision Blizzard to then be passed on to shareholders of ATVI.

It's a 14a which means it is addressed to shareholders in order to provide them with information for them to vote for or against something. In this case its for the sale of ATVI to Microsoft.

If anything in that document is inaccurate or if key information is ommited then that would be securities fraud.

So, if you have some credible information that goes against what is documented with the filing to the SEC then write to the SEC, I'm sure they will be more than interested to hear it.

It is you who is not understanding, and you do not understand the origin of what is said either. MS didn't go to Activision and make a proposition. Activision had opened the door to a sale, explored several options and decided on MS.

Are you saying that reality is different? No Is not

 

[feynoob]

It is you who is not understanding, and you do not understand the origin of what is said either. MS didn't go to Activision and make a proposition. Activision had opened the door to a sale, explored several options and decided on MS.

Are you saying that reality is different? No Is not

MS made the first offer, and went to Activision with $80 share.

 

[feynoob]

Hoeg video about Sony and timestamp.
00:00 Introduction/Executive Summary
1:00:00 Theory of Harm Number 1 (Console Market)
2:10:59 Theory of Harm Number 2 (Subscriptions)
2:32:37 Theory of Harm Number 3 (Cloud Gaming)
2:41:12 Conclusion (Q+A)

 

[Bonsaibäumchen]

Exactly what I wrote in here yesterday.

 

[GHG]

And this is matters why? M&A regulation doesn't care whether you want to be bought or not.

Don't you get it? Microsoft is captain save a hoe and you can't save hoes that don't want to be saved.

Just think what would happen to these poor publishers if Microsoft didn't step in and buy them.

It is you who is not understanding, and you do not understand the origin of what is said either. MS didn't go to Activision and make a proposition. Activision had opened the door to a sale, explored several options and decided on MS.

Are you saying that reality is different? No Is not

You're insisting on living in cloud cuckoo land because you've built up a narrative in your head that you desperately want to be true. If official documentation which has severe legal implications if falsified isn't enough for you then nothing will be. You are living on nothing but your feelings. Sad.

 

[intheinbetween]

MS made the first offer, and went to Activision with $80 share.

Yep

Bloomberg(opens in new tab) reports that "Kotick and the board weren't sold on Microsoft as the acquirer" and initially pursued deals with at least two other companies, one of them being Meta Platforms, according to sources privy to private conversations. As we now know, these talks didn't bear fruit, so Activision came back to the table with Microsoft, with the two companies apparently working over the 2021 holiday season to draft up the deal.

Activision pursued a Facebook buyout before selling to Microsoft, report claims

The publisher reportedly spoke to at least one other company as well

www.gamesradar.com

However ABK were open to be acquired by another company, otherwise they would've simply rejected the offer and didn't care about testing the waters with other parties.

Funny thing is they didn't reach Sony, did they?

 

[Gone]

Sony's response reads like a primary school student's argument.

They basically said that Microsoft may do what Sony have been doing for ages and say "that's bad" because we're now on the receiving end of things.

 

[GHG]

Yep

http://[URL]https://www.gamesradar....ut-before-selling-to-microsoft-report-claims/

[/URL]

However ABK were open to be acquired by another company, otherwise they would've simply rejected the offer and didn't care about testing the waters with other parties.

Funny thing is they didn't reach Sony, did they?

Thank you for this.

D Darsxx82 do you have anything credible to back up your claims? And no, Xbox twitter personalities don't count.

 

[Three]

That’s interesting, we know that ms presented deals to Sony already. Also none of the previous cod games were on any sub service.

Yes they were.

 

[feynoob]

That’s interesting, we know that ms presented deals to Sony already. Also none of the previous cod games were on any sub service.

Old COD games were on ps+.

All the Call of Duty Games That Have Been Free on PS Plus

Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 is joining the lineup of free PS Plus games for July 2021, but it's not the only Call of Duty game to hit the service.

gamerant.com

• Call of Duty: Black Ops 3​

• Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered​

• Call of Duty: WW2​

• Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Campaign Remastered​

• Call of Duty: Black Ops 4​

 

[adamsapple]

Sony worried that Microsoft could start behaving like Sony.

"We're worried that if MS gets Activision, they will increase hardware and game prices"
"Like you ?"
"Oh that was different.gif"

Sony reps should just stay quiet and let CMA do their job. They're not doing themselves any favors by releasing these contradictory statements.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Yep

http://[URL]https://www.gamesradar....ut-before-selling-to-microsoft-report-claims/

[/URL]

However ABK were open to be acquired by another company, otherwise they would've simply rejected the offer and didn't care about testing the waters with other parties.

Funny thing is they didn't reach Sony, did they?

If they didn't even bother with Sony I can imagine its because they wanted a lot for it. Makes me think they probably went to other really large companies to discuss this.

I'm not really sure which company would have been capable of paying 80 billion for them though.

 

[Three]

Thought they still did marketing deals. Like with The Medium for example.

No idea where this idea that Microsoft doesn't engage in them comes from.

From its fanboys and fangirls changing their mind, that Google and Amazon is no longer the boogeyman but Sony is. All so that their trillion dollar conglomerate seems like a david fighting a goliath rather than the other way round.

 

[Kagey K]

If they didn't even bother with Sony I can imagine its because they wanted a lot for it. Makes me think they probably went to other really large companies to discuss this.

I'm not really sure which company would have been capable of paying 80 billion for them though.

Google.

 

[MasterCornholio]

"We're worried that if MS gets Activision, they will increase hardware and game prices"
"Like you ?"
"Oh that was different.gif"

Sony reps should just stay quiet and let CMA do their job. They're not doing themselves any favors by releasing these contradictory statements.

It's not exactly a contradiction though. I mean I understand the argument and I know it isn't the same as what Sony did with the PS5s price.

Not saying I agree with it but it just isn't the same.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Google.

I thought Google and gaming went down the toilet.

So I'm guessing apple?

 

[Kagey K]

I thought Google and gaming went down the toilet.

So I'm guessing apple?

The acquisition talks would have been while Google were still trying to get a foothold with Stadia, but it could have been Apple as well.

 

[MasterCornholio]

The acquisition talks would have been while Google were still trying to get a foothold with Stadia, but it could have been Apple as well.

Embracer and Tencent?

 

[Three]

"We're worried that if MS gets Activision, they will increase hardware and game prices"
"Like you ?"
"Oh that was different.gif"

Sony reps should just stay quiet and let CMA do their job. They're not doing themselves any favors by releasing these contradictory statements.

Activision already raised their game prices. This is talking about when there is no competition. Not inflation or currency markets.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Activision already raised their game prices. This is talking about when there is no competition. Not inflation or currency markets.

Oh right the first complaints of the 70$ price tag came from CoD.

 

[xHunter]

"We're worried that if MS gets Activision, they will increase hardware and game prices"
"Like you ?"
"Oh that was different.gif"

Sony reps should just stay quiet and let CMA do their job. They're not doing themselves any favors by releasing these contradictory statements.

They managed to get a 10 year deal for now instead of the 3 years earlier this year, so it seems to be working for them.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

I read through Sony's entire argument, and I'm literally in tears as to how weak the arguments are. Many of the claims aren't supported by any real data at all. And where data is provided, much of it is weak and suspect when weighed against more fundamentally objective numbers that demonstrate that not even all of Activision Blizzard's games published worldwide and in the UK combined amount to a percentage of the games industry large enough to do the type of damage Sony claims to Playstation, Independent developers and to multi-game subscriptions or cloud.

All of Activision Blizzard's share of the game publishing market (including once you factor in Xbox's own content) has a market share of less than 20-30% worldwide and in the UK combined. I don't care what Sony says after this, the numbers simply don't lie. As to Activision Blizzard's games on multi-game subscription services, internal documents by Activision themselves make clear it was NEVER going to happen and it's against the way they would want to do business. The only way brand new Activision Blizzard titles appear on a game pass or ps plus like multi-game subscription service (especially day one) is if the current acquisition by Microsoft is allowed to proceed.

How can COD possess the power Sony claims if not even 100% of Activision Blizzard's own games collectively rise to the threat level Sony wants regulators to believe Call of Duty alone does? In short, Sony is relying largely on blatant falsehoods (telling lies) to bring about their wildest desire of killing the deal. Sony's statements about independent developers being harmed fly in the face of what actual independent developers/publishers have said about the deal, which is that they see it as a good thing. Sony is trying to dishonestly use its own self-interest centered on its profits to make the claim that its reasons to be against the deal somehow have more to do with being concerned about the larger industry rather than itself.

Sony can't stop the deal, and when it becomes obvious upon its approval that Sony's efforts have failed, I hope to see enough signs that Microsoft moving forward is treating Sony accordingly in light of their mostly dishonest attacks on the deal.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

They managed to get a 10 year deal for now instead of the 3 years earlier this year, so it seems to be working for them.

Jimmie is just trying to get the best deal possible IF he can't outright stop it

Its his job honestly.

 

[Darsxx82]

Thank you for this.

D Darsxx82 do you have anything credible to back up your claims? And no, Xbox twitter personalities don't count.

LOL. What is supposed to be understood there??? Confirmation that Activision wanted to be bought? Are you telling me that MS made its proposal without knowing that Activision wanted to be bought? It is clear that you still did not understand what was being talked about and you continue creating a story that only you know

It's simple:

Activision wanted to be bought? YES MS made a proposal? YES

Did Activision explore other options before MS? YES

Did Activision end up accepting MS's proposal? YES

MS buys what it wants and when it wants? NO, MS buys what is offered and what is interesting to it.

I don't know why it's so difficult for you to understand. I don't know how relevant it is that MS was the first to make an official proposal. What is relevant is that Activision wanted to be bought, not that MS wanted to buy it.

From here on, I am not going to waste time repeating what I have said countless times just because you do not want to understand.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

and I'm literally in tears

You're one pussy ass gangsta

 

[GHG]

Are you telling me that MS made its proposal without knowing that Activision wanted to be bought?

Did you read anything I've linked and quoted throughout our exchange? Be honest.

 

[bender]

Did you read anything I've linked and quoted throughout our exchange? Be honest.

 

[feynoob]

I read through Sony's entire argument, and I'm literally in tears as to how weak the arguments are. Many of the claims aren't supported by any real data at all. And where data is provided, much of it is weak and suspect when weighed against more fundamentally objective numbers that demonstrate that not even all of Activision Blizzard's games published worldwide and in the UK combined amount to a percentage of the games industry large enough to do the type of damage Sony claims to Playstation, Independent developers and to multi-game subscriptions or cloud.

All of Activision Blizzard's share of the game publishing market (including once you factor in Xbox's own content) has a market share of less than 20-30% worldwide and in the UK combined. I don't care what Sony says after this, the numbers simply don't lie. As to Activision Blizzard's games on multi-game subscription services, internal documents by Activision themselves make clear it was NEVER going to happen and it's against the way they would want to do business. The only way brand new Activision Blizzard titles appear on a game pass or ps plus like multi-game subscription service (especially day one) is if the current acquisition by Microsoft is allowed to proceed.

How can COD possess the power Sony claims if not even 100% of Activision Blizzard's own games collectively rise to the threat level Sony wants regulators to believe Call of Duty alone does? In short, Sony is relying largely on blatant falsehoods (telling lies) to bring about their wildest desire of killing the deal. Sony's statements about independent developers being harmed fly in the face of what actual independent developers/publishers have said about the deal, which is that they see it as a good thing. Sony is trying to dishonestly use its own self-interest centered on its profits to make the claim that its reasons to be against the deal somehow have more to do with being concerned about the larger industry rather than itself.

Sony can't stop the deal, and when it becomes obvious upon its approval that Sony's efforts have failed, I hope to see enough signs that Microsoft moving forward is treating Sony accordingly in light of their mostly dishonest attacks on the deal.

Theirs is legally right. It might not be for you, but its for regulators.
These are lawyer point of view, which you as consumer cant see. Its what gives you a point with regulators.

 

[feynoob]

MS was the first to make an official proposal.

that is all that matters.

 

[Darsxx82]

that is all that matters.

No, What matters is that Activision wanted to be bought....

 

[GHG]

Their is legally right. It might not be for you, but its for regulators.
These are lawyer point of view, which you as consumer cant see. Its what gives you a point with regulators.

Correction: He's not a customer. He's a gambler.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

No, What matters is that Activision wanted to be bought....

No, it doesn't matter lmao

 

[ZehDon]

Activision already raised their game prices. This is talking about when there is no competition. Not inflation or currency markets.

Microsoft already highlighted in its comments that Sony was able to use its market leader position to increase the cost of its games, hardware (post launch), and services without fear of losing sales.
Sony claiming that Microsoft would harm consumers if it did what Sony already did is pretty funny, you’d have to agree?

 

[feynoob]

No, What matters is that Activision wanted to be bought....

nope. MS made the first move against those buyers.

 

[Darsxx82]

No, it doesn't matter lmao

Yes, It does matter and it is the most relevant. The other thing is to try to make believe that MS made a hostile takeover.

 

[Banjo64]

I read through Sony's entire argument, and I'm literally in tears as to how weak the arguments are. Many of the claims aren't supported by any real data at all. And where data is provided, much of it is weak and suspect when weighed against more fundamentally objective numbers that demonstrate that not even all of Activision Blizzard's games published worldwide and in the UK combined amount to a percentage of the games industry large enough to do the type of damage Sony claims to Playstation, Independent developers and to multi-game subscriptions or cloud.

All of Activision Blizzard's share of the game publishing market (including once you factor in Xbox's own content) has a market share of less than 20-30% worldwide and in the UK combined. I don't care what Sony says after this, the numbers simply don't lie. As to Activision Blizzard's games on multi-game subscription services, internal documents by Activision themselves make clear it was NEVER going to happen and it's against the way they would want to do business. The only way brand new Activision Blizzard titles appear on a game pass or ps plus like multi-game subscription service (especially day one) is if the current acquisition by Microsoft is allowed to proceed.

How can COD possess the power Sony claims if not even 100% of Activision Blizzard's own games collectively rise to the threat level Sony wants regulators to believe Call of Duty alone does? In short, Sony is relying largely on blatant falsehoods (telling lies) to bring about their wildest desire of killing the deal. Sony's statements about independent developers being harmed fly in the face of what actual independent developers/publishers have said about the deal, which is that they see it as a good thing. Sony is trying to dishonestly use its own self-interest centered on its profits to make the claim that its reasons to be against the deal somehow have more to do with being concerned about the larger industry rather than itself.

Sony can't stop the deal, and when it becomes obvious upon its approval that Sony's efforts have failed, I hope to see enough signs that Microsoft moving forward is treating Sony accordingly in light of their mostly dishonest attacks on the deal.

Hey brother. Based on your advice I’ve sold one of my kidneys on the black market and lumped on ABK stock. These normie plebs might mock us, but we’ll be laughing in the end. She who laughs last laughs fairly loudly, as my dad used to say.

 

[Darsxx82]

nope. MS made the first move against those buyers.

LOL. MS made that proposal because he knew that Activision wanted to be bought. Or are you insinuating that it was a hostile takeover?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Yes, It does matter and it is the most relevant. The other thing is to try to make believe that MS made a hostile takeover.

Again, it doesn't matter if it's friendly or hostile. It's completely irrelevant.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Sony's entire position seems to be from the position that if AB is acquired then Call of Duty will no longer be on PlayStation. Basically, they don't believe a word Microsoft is saying about the game not being exclusive.

Sony telling slick MS to stop trying to shine them, they ain’t got the time nor the skills.

Honestly you gotta be a moron to not see this for what it is.

 

[Darsxx82]

Again, it doesn't matter if it's friendly or hostile. It's completely irrelevant.

Again, The relevant thing is that Activision wanted to be bought. If it hadn't wanted to, there would have been no MS proposal.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Again, The relevant thing is that Activision wanted to be bought. If it hadn't wanted to, there would have been no MS proposal.

No, it's not relevant. What Activision wants has no bearing on this case. At all.

 

[feynoob]

LOL. MS made that proposal because he knew that Activision wanted to be bought. Or are you insinuating that it was a hostile takeover?

The process of being the first one puts you in trouble.
MS made the approach. They approached activision, in the intent of buying them. Its very simple.
This is what regulators are looking at. The intent for MS to try and buy activision, when they just bought bethesda not that long ago.

 

[adamsapple]

They managed to get a 10 year deal for now instead of the 3 years earlier this year, so it seems to be working for them.

Of course, them getting the acquisition axed or tweaked in their favor is par for course, but the kind of statements they put out elicit "fuck outta here" responses at best.

 

[bender]