• 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)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?

  • Yes, will be approved without changes.

    Votes: 221 24.9%

  • Yes, will be approved but with structural changes to ABK.

    Votes: 102 11.5%

  • Yes, will be approved but only with behavioral concessions.

    Votes: 262 29.6%

  • No, will not be approved.

    Votes: 301 34.0%
  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
feynoob

feynoob

Gold Member
kungfuian said:
Any GAF members actually believe these e-mails are legit or in any way representative of public opinion please PM me, I've got some great time shares in Arizona you might be interested in.
Click to expand...
200.gif
 
kungfuian

kungfuian

Member
akimbo009 said:
Do you take salt with your coffee?
Click to expand...
Actually a little salt can cut the bitterness of coffee. Butter coffee is great if you've never tried!

Also not really emotional or feeling 'salty' or having feelings about the whole thing. I personally wouldn't be surprised to see the purchase happen with little to no concessions based on how weak the FTC arguments are.

That said, I just don't trust Microsoft for shit and neither should anyone else. Their track record speaks for itself.

Not to say Nintendo or Sony are angels, but by comparison I'd take their vision of gaming over Microsoft's any day. Just my opinion.
 
SenjutsuSage

SenjutsuSage

Banned
akimbo009 said:
Who and why is this any more important of an analysis?
Click to expand...

Gotta keep up. Since the very start of this process, he has been one of the most experienced and qualified people to speak on the process, because it's what he does for a living. He was the person who had been interpreting everything for everybody since the start of the public part of the process with Brazil's regulatory authority, CADE.

He's a lawyer with specific experience on mergers and acquisitions I believe, but don't quote me on that, but I'm pretty sure that's what I've read about him. He knows the regulatory part of the process from all major regulatory bodies better than anybody in this thread. That said, he also has zero insight into what is going on, but he does have his professional experience to lean on.
 
DarkMage619

DarkMage619

$MSFT
Three said:
Brilliant. All Nintendo needed to do to convince potential xbox and PS2 owners to buy a DS instead was include a hdmi out and ability to use an external controller then took out an ad in the newspaper. Think of all the PS2 and xbox users who would have migrated to it instead. That's all that mattered, performance for game development and audience is completely irrelevant after all. Just that one feature and the little library crossover that existed would have made them a viable competitor. Should have told them not to bother with the gamecube.
Click to expand...
You speak like Nintendo and Sony weren't pushing traditional consoles along with their hand held efforts. Nintendo would have preferred you buy a GameCube or Wii of you wanted to play on a television. They never argued you should buy DS over a GameCube. Just like Sony didn't argue for you buy a Vita over a PlayStation. The Switch is a hybrid and is absolutely competitive with the Xbox and PlayStation today in the ways the hand helds were not.

None of this has anything to do with the argument about high performance consoles market which was always complete nonsense. Not even sure what you are arguing anymore but the fundamentals have not changed no matter how you try to obfuscate the point. The Switch is in direct competition with the Xbox and PlayStation and high performance console stuff is a complete fabrication made by the FTC just like saying the Switch isn't for serious gamers.
Three said:
I like the fact that you broadly say xbox and playstation too instead of Xbox Series and PS5 because little to no games that are next gen exclusives have that library crossover with switch (like PS5 and Xbox Series do) due to that growing power difference.
Click to expand...
Who cares? It doesn't change the reality that the Switch is in direct competition with the Xbox and PlayStation. There is still plenty of cross over right now with that new Final Fantasy game hitting Switch along with the new Minecraft Legends game.

Nintendo will release a new device and it most likely will also be in competition with traditional consoles just like the Switch is now. The fact that the Switch has an additional feature is no different than VR and multiple consoles at different performance levels. It doesn't change its place in the market.
 
feynoob

feynoob

Gold Member
https://www.wsj.com/articles/esg-wo...an-social-economic-promises-court-11671637135

Companies can get creative when they want to fend off a government challenge to an illegal merger. As chair of the Federal Trade Commission, I’ve heard would-be merging parties make all sorts of commitments to be better corporate citizens if only we would back off from a lawsuit. If only we hold off on suing to block the merger, they promise they will reduce their carbon footprints, give back to the community and so on. These commitments sometimes fall under the heading of ESG, for environmental, social and corporate governance factors. Some in corporate America seem to think that the FTC won’t challenge an otherwise illegal deal if we approve of its ESG impact.
Click to expand...

They are mistaken. The antitrust laws don’t permit us to turn a blind eye to an illegal deal just because the parties commit to some unrelated social benefit. The laws we enforce are explicit: They prohibit mergers that “may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly.” They don’t ask us to pick between good and bad monopolies. Our statutory mandate is to halt a lessening of competition “in any line of commerce.” So we can’t act as deal makers, allowing reduced competition in one market in exchange for some unrelated commitment or benefit in another.
Click to expand...
 
kungfuian

kungfuian

Member
feynoob said:
Why do you sound like the guy who is handing out free candies?🤨
Click to expand...
Because, like your intuition tells you, somethings are too good to be true. Truth is these time shares are fuckin riddled with birds, birds as far as the eye can see, and similarly Microsoft isn't your friend or some altruistic underdog. It's total bullshit. Anyways moving on.
 
feynoob

feynoob

Gold Member
kungfuian said:
Because, like your intuition tells you, somethings are too good to be true. Truth is these time shares are fuckin riddled with birds, birds as far as the eye can see, and similarly Microsoft isn't your friend or some altruistic underdog. It's total bullshit. Anyways moving on.
Click to expand...
MS were never my friend. They never send me money at all. Who does that to their friend.
Bunch of liars.
Angry Season 2 GIF by The Boys
 
SenjutsuSage

SenjutsuSage

Banned
kungfuian said:
Actually a little salt can cut the bitterness of coffee. Butter coffee is great if you've never tried!

Also not really emotional or feeling 'salty' or having feelings about the whole thing. I personally wouldn't be surprised to see the purchase happen with little to no concessions based on how weak the FTC arguments are.

That said, I just don't trust Microsoft for shit and neither should anyone else. Their track record speaks for itself.

Not to say Nintendo or Sony are angels, but by comparison I'd take their vision of gaming over Microsoft's any day. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what track record it is you're speaking of. Sony's vision of gaming over Microsoft's? What's that exactly? Microsoft is choosing to compete by offering more value and accessibility through Game Pass day one releases, cloud gaming across multiple devices for all first party games, by betting big on game pass and offering even third party day ones, offering a cheaper entry-level console like Series S, they've done a lot more free updates/upgrades to existing games than their counter-part, they offer dual entitlement across platforms for first-party games bought on Microsoft storefronts, so you don't have to pay twice for the same game on xbox consoles and PC if you don't wish to..

I don't see how Sony is any more trustworthy than Microsoft. You seem to be letting your dislike for Xbox get in the way of any factual argument. Whatever Xbox you're speaking of, it clearly isn't the current Xbox of today. Microsoft has also resisted raising its prices longer than just about anybody else. Microsoft is literally bending over backward to please Xbox gamers, and they have more first-party exclusives in development and announced than at any other time in Xbox history.
 
T

Three

Member
FTC Head 21st December 2022:
Companies can get creative when they want to fend off a government challenge to an illegal merger. As chair of the Federal Trade Commission, I’ve heard would-be merging parties make all sorts of commitments to be better corporate citizens if only we would back off from a lawsuit. If only we hold off on suing to block the merger, they promise they will reduce their carbon footprints, give back to the community and so on. These commitments sometimes fall under the heading of ESG, for environmental, social and corporate governance factors. Some in corporate America seem to think that the FTC won’t challenge an otherwise illegal deal if we approve of its ESG impact.

They are mistaken. The antitrust laws don’t permit us to turn a blind eye to an illegal deal just because the parties commit to some unrelated social benefit. The laws we enforce are explicit: They prohibit mergers that “may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly.” They don’t ask us to pick between good and bad monopolies. Our statutory mandate is to halt a lessening of competition “in any line of commerce.” So we can’t act as deal makers, allowing reduced competition in one market in exchange for some unrelated commitment or benefit in another.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I wonder where I've stumbled on that absolutely bonkers creativity before? Was it the Darsxx, Darkmage and catlady circlejerk trying to tell me regulators should care about social and corporate governance? Put down your corporate paintbrushes you creative lot:

Darsxx82 said:
I also invite you to tell me where they mention or "concern" about the interests of the workers.... A very important part after scandals of humiliating treatment and job security.

Nothing, they only show concern that Sony will affect their income and their leadership position. That this omission to other third parties more important than the benefits that Sony may lose is not relevant to you, of course, it is not surprising 😉
Click to expand...

Three said:
Again the fact that you believe the CMA should be looking at ABK workers conditions (as if that can't be resolved without a buyout and is in any way related to the Competition and Mergers Authority) shows me that it's you who has a "beloved", or is it arch-enemy, and enjoys deflection of the issue.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
T

Three

Member
DarkMage619 said:
You speak like Nintendo and Sony weren't pushing traditional consoles along with their hand held efforts. Nintendo would have preferred you buy a GameCube or Wii of you wanted to play on a television. They never argued you should buy DS over a GameCube. Just like Sony didn't argue for you buy a Vita over a PlayStation. The Switch is a hybrid and is absolutely competitive with the Xbox and PlayStation today in the ways the hand helds were not.
Click to expand...
They released a traditional console to compete with other high performance consoles. If sony had gone with your theory that performance is irrelevant to competing in the submarket, released PSP Go and advertised it as having the tv out and bluetooth controller support it would have completely given up competing for pretty much most third party game sales on the machine.

This is what put Nintendo in a position to differentiate from that market and ultimately create a hybrid in the first place. They just streamilined their own first party output to one machine. A machine that wasn't competing in power or even for much third party multiplatform sales.
 
Last edited:
phil_t98

phil_t98

#SonyToo
adamsapple said:
He's the only one of his type that we have updating something like this, so it's a matter of beggars can't be choosers.

Only one aside Hoeg, that is.
Click to expand...

ah ok so he is an expert in that field? just because he is a lawyer doesn't mean he knows all laws. hopefully he will be knowledgable in that field. am a bit sceptical when he says it will go through with no concessions
 
D

Darsxx82

Member
Three said:
FTC Head 21st December 2022:


Hmmm, I wonder where I've stumbled on that absolutely bonkers creativity before? Was it the Darsxx, Darkmage and catlady circlejerk trying to tell me regulators should care about social and corporate governance? Put down your corporate paintbrushes you creative lot:
Click to expand...
Your way of misrepresenting is funny...

I want to remember how you were the one who said that ESGs were aspects that were not relevant and should not be taken into account by regulators in acquisition processes of this type.
But what it shows there is that it is a relevant part when deciding but, indeed, it does not have to be the only reason.

Obviously the focus and scrutiny must be on the substance and the effects of the acquisition on the market and whether it can actually have a negative effect on competitiveness. But it is ALWAYS a matter of relevance and to be taken into account when making a decision. That both MS and the CWA saw it as important to speak out should tell you a lot.
In the end, that quote rather supports those of us who criticized the CMA for not valuing, or even mentioning, the ESGs aspects while exaggeratedly focusing on their concerns about SONY's post-acquisition situation.
 
DarkMage619

DarkMage619

$MSFT
Three said:
They released a traditional console to compete with other high performance consoled. If sony had gone with your theory that performance is irrelevant to competing in the submarket, released PSP Go and advertised it as having the tv out and bluetooth controller support it would have completely given up competing for pretty much most third party game sales on the machine.

This is what put Nintendo in a position to differentiate from that market and ultimately create a hybrid in the first place. They just streamilined their own first party output to one machine. A machine that wasn't competing in power or even for much third party multiplatform sales.
Click to expand...
Nintendo has always marched to the beat of their own drum. They stuck with cartridges even when other platforms abandoned them. They have always made moves to differentiate themselves on the market, every manufacturer does. The changes they made are a testament to the diversity in the industry. Just because they are doing something different doesn't mean they aren't competing. Again Sony does VR that mean it's not a game console anymore? Of course not.

The performance stuff is not a real factor when it comes to a customer's choice in consoles. That comes down to price and game library. Nintendo proves that even when it's not as powerful it still outsells systems that have much better specs. Power is an arbitrary metric that was never used to separate markets in consoles before and wouldn't have now if the FTC wasn't trying to much a political message against 'Big Tech'.
 
feynoob

feynoob

Gold Member
About idas

Why should I trust you?

You shouldn't, I'm a lawyer :p xD

To be more specific, I'm a European lawyer and I've been working for almost 15 years on IT and competition law (antitrust). So, some of the things that I'm going to explain here I know them from my own experience and others and are just part of my day to day "legal readings".

Topher Topher DeepEnigma DeepEnigma Pelta88 Pelta88
 
Last edited:
Banjo64

Banjo64

cumsessed
DarkMage619 said:
You speak like Nintendo and Sony weren't pushing traditional consoles along with their hand held efforts. Nintendo would have preferred you buy a GameCube or Wii of you wanted to play on a television. They never argued you should buy DS over a GameCube. Just like Sony didn't argue for you buy a Vita over a PlayStation. The Switch is a hybrid and is absolutely competitive with the Xbox and PlayStation today in the ways the hand helds were not.

None of this has anything to do with the argument about high performance consoles market which was always complete nonsense. Not even sure what you are arguing anymore but the fundamentals have not changed no matter how you try to obfuscate the point. The Switch is in direct competition with the Xbox and PlayStation and high performance console stuff is a complete fabrication made by the FTC just like saying the Switch isn't for serious gamers.

Who cares? It doesn't change the reality that the Switch is in direct competition with the Xbox and PlayStation. There is still plenty of cross over right now with that new Final Fantasy game hitting Switch along with the new Minecraft Legends game.

Nintendo will release a new device and it most likely will also be in competition with traditional consoles just like the Switch is now. The fact that the Switch has an additional feature is no different than VR and multiple consoles at different performance levels. It doesn't change its place in the market.
Click to expand...
Ah but the DS/3DS and home consoles all had video games on them therefore they were all competing for your money and the same mindshare.
 
DarkMage619

DarkMage619

$MSFT
Banjo64 said:
Ah but the DS/3DS and home consoles all had video games on them therefore they were all competing for your money and the same mindshare.
Click to expand...
All competing for the same money and time. Also where was all talk of 'high performance console' market nonsense then? I thought that was always how it was described. And which system was for serious gamers?
 
Last edited:
feynoob

feynoob

Gold Member
DarkMage619 said:
All competing for the same money and time. Also where was all talk of 'high performance console' market nonsense then? I thought that was always how it was described. And which system was for serious gamers?
Click to expand...
Consoles = home devices
Hand-held devices = portable devices
PC = Hybrid system
Mobile = Hybrid system
These are the definition of the market. They serve different audience.

Switch is classified as portable device. It's not a home system. And the only to connect to the TV, is a docking station. That is not a home console.

Consoles and PC are high performance systems, because they have the ability to meet the requirements of high demanding games, which are hungry for power. Switch can't do that.

Hope that gives you some learning.
 
Topher

Topher

Gold Member
akimbo009 said:
Thanks for the reply. Definitely happening, but these are AA and indies. Some gems in there but nothing like FF7R or Ghostwire, etc.

I don't think MS has grabbed a AAA exclusive for while. I don't think it's not for trying, but their position in the market doesn't make them too appealing for leading publishers to get in on a deal like that.
Click to expand...

Microsoft could outbid Sony for all the exclusives Sony bought. But ultimately Microsoft is guilty of moneyhatting just as Sony is. AAA's? No, not for quite some time I don't think. Have they? Of course. Does either have the moral high ground here? Of course not.
 
feynoob

feynoob

Gold Member
Topher said:
Microsoft could outbid Sony for all the exclusives Sony bought. But ultimately Microsoft is guilty of moneyhatting just as Sony is. AAA's? No, not for quite some time I don't think. Have they? Of course. Does either have the moral high ground here? Of course not.
Click to expand...
Money hatting for those games started before MS even got in to the business.
MS just took them to the next business.
Also for outbidding part, it's impossible.

You have to consider these formulas.
Platforms base plus lost sales from the other platform. MS has to pay a lot here, as they need to cover PS lost sales.

Then you get in to Japanese games, which costs a lot. Since MS has little presence in Japan, devs in that region would request more than regular western devs, as the game would flop hard in that region due to low sales.

Currently, Sony has huge advantage over MS in term of timed exclusives for AAA games.
 
Topher

Topher

Gold Member
feynoob said:
Money hatting for those games started before MS even got in to the business.
MS just took them to the next business.
Also for outbidding part, it's impossible.

You have to consider these formulas.
Platforms base plus lost sales from the other platform. MS has to pay a lot here, as they need to cover PS lost sales.

Then you get in to Japanese games, which costs a lot. Since MS has little presence in Japan, devs in that region would request more than regular western devs, as the game would flop hard in that region due to low sales.

Currently, Sony has huge advantage over MS in term of timed exclusives for AAA games.
Click to expand...

There is nothing "impossible" about any of it. Microsoft has done it before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Microsoft has Closed the Activision Blizzard King Deal
22 23 24 25 26
1K
77K
MasterCornholio replied
Microsoft now says the CMA was ‘tough and fair’ over Activision Blizzard deal
Opinion Business Game Dev
17
2K
DaGwaphics replied
FTC appeals to block already-completed Microsoft-Activision deal
2
63
5K
Mythoclast replied
  • Locked
UK minister defends CMA's decision to block MS/ABK
News
0
789
Daniel_Mallorca1985 replied
  • Locked
Microsoft to sell off Activision cloud gaming rights to Ubisoft in bid for UK approval
News Business 2 3 4
154
14K
Spyxos replied
Top Bottom