Microsoft Microsoft/Activision Blizzard Acquisition - Information Thread, update: The Deal Has Closed

[Keyser_Soze]

9 minutes ago, silentbob said:

Microsoft would be shooting itself in the foot if they stop support for the PlayStation systems. The games sell like fucking hot cakes every year and PS leads the way by a good margin I believe still. Now I believe I read something about Sony had a deal beforehand that would keep the series off subscription services like GamePass. Don’t know if if that could be voided with the buyout, but who knows anymore. Part of the reason why I’m holding off buying this current game cause I don’t need it now to play.

 

Heck, I had a cable guy over a couple weeks ago and he asks if I play video games. And then the only game he brought up was, "Do you play call of duty?"

 

I was like, "It's not out yet" and then he was like, "Oh I mean the older ones" so no matter what COD you're talking about it doesn't matter if it's the new one or old one, it's the only thing on people's minds.

[silentbob]

8 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Heck, I had a cable guy over a couple weeks ago and he asks if I play video games. And then the only game he brought up was, "Do you play call of duty?"

 

I was like, "It's not out yet" and then he was like, "Oh I mean the older ones" so no matter what COD you're talking about it doesn't matter if it's the new one or old one, it's the only thing on people's minds.

I remember my brother coming back after working as a merchandiser in the local Walmart and some guy came in and bought 25 or 50 copies of the game for both Xbox & PS4. Guy did it every year apparently and would donate the games to nearby local hospitals for the kids too play with. 

[GeneticBlueprint]

Is the newest CoD slop different in any meaningful way from previous slops of CoD?

[Mr.Vic20]

14 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

Is the newest CoD slop different in any meaningful way from previous slops of CoD?

Amsterdam looking quite fetching! 

[Keyser_Soze]

Microsoft’s Xbox chief settles the Call of Duty PlayStation debate - The Verge

WWW.THEVERGE.COM

---

Phil Spencer, Microsoft Gaming CEO, makes it clear Call of Duty will remain on PlayStation. Spencer says it’s not about pulling the rug ‘underneath PlayStation 7’s legs.’

 

[TwinIon]

It's all good that he keeps saying all that, but it's also the minimum that he needs to say to appease European regulators, who probably want an actual contract.

[Guest]

My 16 year old console warrior inner child can’t wait for the deal to go through and for Phil to front stab Sony by making COD timed exclusive on MS platforms 😂

[crispy4000]

16 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

My 16 year old console warrior inner child can’t wait for the deal to go through and for Phil to front stab Sony by making COD timed exclusive on MS platforms 😂

Timed exclusivity?  That’s weak.  Take it off PlayStation completely.  Like when Square left Nintendo.

 

[Xbob42]

3 hours ago, TwinIon said:

It's all good that he keeps saying all that, but it's also the minimum that he needs to say to appease European regulators, who probably want an actual contract.

So the EU gets their grubby mitts on this but no word about a single billionaire lunatic straight up buying Twitter? I mean, Twitter operates in other nations does it not? How the fuck is this a thing but that isn't?! I don't fucking UNDERSTAND.

[legend]

46 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

So the EU gets their grubby mitts on this but no word about a single billionaire lunatic straight up buying Twitter? I mean, Twitter operates in other nations does it not? How the fuck is this a thing but that isn't?! I don't fucking UNDERSTAND.

 

Elon buying Twitter isn't a merger that presents anti-competition concerns. He's just a turd who will run it into the ground and let other competitors gain ground  

[cusideabelincoln]

18 minutes ago, legend said:

 

Elon buying Twitter isn't a merger that presents anti-competition concerns. He's just a turd who will run it into the ground and let other competitors gain ground  

 

You say that until Twitter bots are driving Teslas into your house next year.

[Xbob42]

22 minutes ago, legend said:

 

Elon buying Twitter isn't a merger that presents anti-competition concerns. He's just a turd who will run it into the ground and let other competitors gain ground  

While I understand that to be true just based on his seemingly limitless incompetence, would there really be zero anti-competition concerns about the CEO of Tesla just casually slurping up a massive public forum that serves up lots of ads? I feel like the EU gets really weirdly petty about Microsoft in particular and sometimes Apple, and I never hear about them going after anyone else.

Also what the hell kind of anti-competition concerns are there about a company with a massively smaller marketshare in EU buying up a single company? There's a billion game companies, it's not like they're buying Sony outright or something. Even if they made CoD exclusive... so what? I seriously cannot fathom the one-sided logic besides "company buy other company bad" without any nuance beyond that, at least from the outside.

[JPDunks4]

34 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

While I understand that to be true just based on his seemingly limitless incompetence, would there really be zero anti-competition concerns about the CEO of Tesla just casually slurping up a massive public forum that serves up lots of ads? I feel like the EU gets really weirdly petty about Microsoft in particular and sometimes Apple, and I never hear about them going after anyone else.

Also what the hell kind of anti-competition concerns are there about a company with a massively smaller marketshare in EU buying up a single company? There's a billion game companies, it's not like they're buying Sony outright or something. Even if they made CoD exclusive... so what? I seriously cannot fathom the one-sided logic besides "company buy other company bad" without any nuance beyond that, at least from the outside.

 

Especially when Nintendo exists in the same space, has no Call of Duty or really much other support from Activision, and is still basically rocking and rolling.  Yet Sony losing support from Activision would be the nail in the coffin?

 

It seems rather disingenious.

[TwinIon]

39 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

While I understand that to be true just based on his seemingly limitless incompetence, would there really be zero anti-competition concerns about the CEO of Tesla just casually slurping up a massive public forum that serves up lots of ads? I feel like the EU gets really weirdly petty about Microsoft in particular and sometimes Apple, and I never hear about them going after anyone else.

Also what the hell kind of anti-competition concerns are there about a company with a massively smaller marketshare in EU buying up a single company? There's a billion game companies, it's not like they're buying Sony outright or something. Even if they made CoD exclusive... so what? I seriously cannot fathom the one-sided logic besides "company buy other company bad" without any nuance beyond that, at least from the outside.

There is zero reason that any anti-trust regulator should care about Elon buying Twitter. Owning multiple big companies in completely different spaces just doesn't matter, even if he does a bad job at one or more of them.  I'd be happy if leveraged buyouts weren't a thing, but that's different topic altogether.

 

I largely agree that the EU is overdoing it a bit when it comes to MS and Activision, mostly because gaming is a pretty competitive space with a number of large players at nearly every level. Sure, Call of Duty is a big franchise, but even if MS was planning on making it exclusive, I feel like the market is still healthy enough that the acquisition should go through. 

 

That being said, I'd much rather have an active anti-trust regulator than one that just rubber stamps every acquisition.

[Xbob42]

7 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

That being said, I'd much rather have an active anti-trust regulator than one that just rubber stamps every acquisition.

I feel like I'd agree with this more if I ever heard them doing anything about any other companies. It's like MS one year, Apple the next, sometimes both.

[Dodger]

I’ve never seen a company get so much scrutiny for being in third place. Especially in Europe where Sony has a massive market share lead over Xbox.

[legend]

1 hour ago, Xbob42 said:

While I understand that to be true just based on his seemingly limitless incompetence, would there really be zero anti-competition concerns about the CEO of Tesla just casually slurping up a massive public forum that serves up lots of ads? I feel like the EU gets really weirdly petty about Microsoft in particular and sometimes Apple, and I never hear about them going after anyone else.

Also what the hell kind of anti-competition concerns are there about a company with a massively smaller marketshare in EU buying up a single company? There's a billion game companies, it's not like they're buying Sony outright or something. Even if they made CoD exclusive... so what? I seriously cannot fathom the one-sided logic besides "company buy other company bad" without any nuance beyond that, at least from the outside.

 

In practice, it's problematic. But I don't think there are legal precedents for regulating that because the businesses are distinct and not in competition with each other. Now if Zuck bought Twitter, even as an "independent" individual from Facebook, that might have more problems.

 

I could be wrong, I'm no international lawyer, but I don't think the laws cover it even though it's shitty.

[crispy4000]

48 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

 

Especially when Nintendo exists in the same space, has no Call of Duty or really much other support from Activision, and is still basically rocking and rolling.  Yet Sony losing support from Activision would be the nail in the coffin?

 

It seems rather disingenious.

 

Nintendo's not really a great example.  3rd parties abandon them altogether if their consoles (are poised to) underperform.

If they weren't so stubborn / didn't have a hybrid machine in the cards, the Wii U could have been their Dreamcast.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Dodger said:

I’ve never seen a company get so much scrutiny for being in third place. Especially in Europe where Sony has a massive market share lead over Xbox.

A wealthier company trying to potentially buy market share by shrinking consumer choice is just about the most serious anti-trust concern you can find. The current market share of the company is largely irrelevant to the question.

[JPDunks4]

6 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

Nintendo's not really a great example.  3rd parties abandon them altogether if their consoles (are poised to) underperform.

If they weren't so stubborn / didn't have a hybrid machine in the cards, the Wii U could have been their Dreamcast.

 

The argument the EU is making is Sony would struggle to compete without CoD.

 

Nintendo is a perfect example of another player in the space that competes just fine without CoD.

[crispy4000]

3 hours ago, JPDunks4 said:

 

The argument the EU is making is Sony would struggle to compete without CoD.

 

Nintendo is a perfect example of another player in the space that competes just fine without CoD.

 

It’s not the only path Sony could take to compete.  They could attempt to make their own competitor, just as Sega did during the Dreamcast era when EA gave them the boot.  That’s always an option, if not always a good one.  (Especially if Microsoft stays good on their promises)

I’d still say not having CoD hurt the Wii U on some level.  Nintendo can be subject to lower lows when 3rd parties don’t have their backs.  CoD would have inspired some confidence.

We don’t really have an example of 3rd Parties leaving Sony in the same way in the console space.  Just Sega, Nintendo, and some other lesser known flops.  Of those, only Nintendo managed to hold.

 

Even having Bethesda games torn away is something unprecedented for Sony, I think.  But it’s not as rough as Sega had it back in the day, or Nintendo in a bad cycle.  Having CoD stripped away would make them look a bit more like historical Sega, IMO.  But if Microsoft leverages it only with Games Pass, or timed exclusive DLC … it’s harder to say.

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

The argument the EU is making is Sony would struggle to compete without CoD.

They have barely began their investigation, so I’m not sure this is an accurate claim

[JPDunks4]

6 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

They have barely began their investigation, so I’m not sure this is an accurate claim

 

Well the concessions the UK were asking for were Microsoft to guarantee CoD will be on PS beyond the 3 years they initially offered I believe.  I thought the EU expressed the sasme concerns in their initial responses.  I maybe wrong though, haven't really followed it just see comments on Twitter here and there.

[Dodger]

40 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

A wealthier company trying to potentially buy market share by shrinking consumer choice is just about the most serious anti-trust concern you can find. The current market share of the company is largely irrelevant to the question.

 

Sony uses their position as market leader to shrink consumer choice all the time. Microsoft will still be third in market share after the acquisition, and already has a history with Minecraft of leaving it multi platform to grow the series.

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, Dodger said:

Sony uses their position as market leader to shrink consumer choice all the time. Microsoft will still be third in market share after the acquisition, and already has a history with Minecraft of leaving it multi platform to grow the series.

 

I don’t think it’s foolhardy to think that Microsoft could pull ahead of Sony because of these acquisitions and Games Pass together.  They’re only playing catch up until they’re winning.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Dodger said:

Sony uses their position as market leader to shrink consumer choice all the time. Microsoft will still be third in market share after the acquisition, and already has a history with Minecraft of leaving it multi platform to grow the series.

Comparing small deals on individual titles to the acquisition of one of the largest players in the market that currently makes their products available to multiple platforms is pretty silly.

 

The potential consumer harm by MS purchasing and making all IP they are acquiring exclusive to their platforms is massive, and certainly completely worthy of regulators looking at. If MS isn’t planning to do that, who cares if the EU says they need to be legally obligated to keep those titles available to PlayStation platforms?

[silentbob]

China said to reject simplified filing request for Microsoft's planned Activision deal

SEEKINGALPHA.COM

---

China's antitrust regulator is said to have rejected Microsoft's (MSFT) request to have its planned $69 billion purchase of Activision (ATVI) reviewed under a "simplified"...

 

[Xbob42]

lol, Chinese antitrust, what a fucking joke of a concept.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

5 hours ago, silentbob said:

China said to reject simplified filing request for Microsoft's planned Activision deal

SEEKINGALPHA.COM

---

China's antitrust regulator is said to have rejected Microsoft's (MSFT) request to have its planned $69 billion purchase of Activision (ATVI) reviewed under a "simplified"...

 

All that means is the check MS offered wasn’t high enough for their “processing fee”. 

[Brick]

5 hours ago, Xbob42 said:

lol, Chinese antitrust, what a fucking joke of a concept.

 

I was like, "they have an antitrust regulator?". 

[Keyser_Soze]

Sony coming up with a lot of baloney

 

Sony claims Microsoft’s ‘true strategy’ is to ‘make PlayStation like Nintendo’ | VGC

WWW.VIDEOGAMESCHRONICLE.COM

---

The company argues that Xbox will become the home of FPS games if its Activision deal is approved…

 

[BloodyHell]

Yeah, Sony is really looking pathetic.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Recent NYT article on the acquisition:

 

Can Big Tech Get Bigger? Microsoft Presses Governments to Say Yes. - The New York Times

WWW.NYTIMES.COM

---

Microsoft’s $69 billion deal for Activision Blizzard, which is undergoing reviews in 16 countries, has become a test for whether tech giants can buy companies amid a backlash.

 

 

The overall tone of the article appears to indicate that the FTC will oppose the deal.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

UK Government publishes Sony and Microsoft's full arguments in Activision Blizzard acquisition case

WWW.VG247.COM

---

We now have a clearer idea of what Sony told the UK Government to undermine Microsoft's proposed acquisition of Activision.

 

Quote

The UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), which has been investigting Microsoft's propsed $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard, has published a major update to the case. The government body has been hearing from both Microsoft and Sony on whether or not this would diminish the competition in the games industry.

 

Essentially, each side submitted their arguments to support their position. That includes statements, data/evidence, as well as counters to points made by the other side.

 

The arguments, posted earlier today on the Gov.UK website, are quite long. Sony's is 22 pages [PDF], while Microsoft's is a massive 111 pages [PDF].

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Feds likely to challenge Microsoft’s $69 billion Activision takeover - POLITICO

WWW.POLITICO.COM

---

A lawsuit would be the FTC’s biggest merger challenge to date under Chair Lina Khan.

 

Quote

 

The Federal Trade Commission is likely to file an antitrust lawsuit to block Microsoft’s $69 billion takeover of video game giant Activision Blizzard, maker of the hit games Call of Duty and Candy Crush, according to three people with knowledge of the matter.

 

A lawsuit would be the FTC’s biggest move yet under Chair Lina Khan to rein in the power of the world’s largest technology companies. It would also be a major black mark for Microsoft, which has positioned itself as a white knight of sorts on antitrust issues in the tech sector after going through its own grueling regulatory antitrust battles around the world more than two decades ago.

 

A lawsuit challenging the deal is not guaranteed, and the FTC’s four commissioners have yet to vote out a complaint or meet with lawyers for the companies, two of the people said. However, the FTC staff reviewing the deal are skeptical of the companies’ arguments, those people said.