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

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

All I’m saying is everyone’s concern seems to be MS cornering the FPS market with COD. I don’t think spinning blizzard off will alleviate those concerns. 
 

every objection has been about 1 game and the potential impact on the industry if MS makes it exclusive. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

19 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

All I’m saying is everyone’s concern seems to be MS cornering the FPS market with COD. I don’t think spinning blizzard off will alleviate those concerns. 
 

every objection has been about 1 game and the potential impact on the industry if MS makes it exclusive. 

 

You could very well be correct that it won't entirely alleviate those concerns, but if the regulators say that those concerns can be remedied through divestiture of operating units, then Blizzard is the "least painful" cut to make.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

They are the easier cut to make, I just don’t think regulators are going to take it. I think there’s legitimate console war fanboyism that has injected itself into this process. Far worse acquisitions and mergers have been approved with less scrutiny. lol 

 

we’d have far less consolidation in every industry if this level of objections was raised each time. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

Call of Duty is the biggest piece of video-game-original IP.  ActiLizzard is the largest publisher.  What could be bigger than this?

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

5 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Call of Duty is the biggest piece of video-game-original IP.  ActiLizzard is the largest publisher.  What could be bigger than this?

Exxon and Mobile

AT&T and Bellsouth

American Online and Time Warner

Disney and 21st Century Fox

 

just a few I can think of. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

2 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Exxon and Mobile

AT&T and Bellsouth

American Online and Time Warner

Disney and 21st Century Fox

 

just a few I can think of. 

I thought you were referring to video game mergers.  My mistake.

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

You could very well be correct that it won't entirely alleviate those concerns, but if the regulators say that those concerns can be remedied through divestiture of operating units, then Blizzard is the "least painful" cut to make.

They've expressed interest in not leveraging CoD for Xbox / Game Pass' competitive advantage, for a time.  Pretty sure they'd take that over cutting Blizzard.

 

I could also see an argument made for selling off some of their CoD studios to keep the IP.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

12 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

They've expressed interest in not leveraging CoD for Xbox / Game Pass' competitive advantage, for a time.  Pretty sure they'd take that over cutting Blizzard.

 

I could also see an argument made for selling off some of their CoD studios to keep the IP.

 

Sure - divestiture of individual studios is also another potential regulatory remedy.

[SuperSpreader]

3 hours ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

You could very well be correct that it won't entirely alleviate those concerns, but if the regulators say that those concerns can be remedied through divestiture of operating units, then Blizzard is the "least painful" cut to make.

 

Maybe they mean sell off the COD studios and only give some to MSFT. Like MSFT gets COD and Infinity Ward but they can't also take the other studios (Treyarch, Sledgehammer, High Moon, Raven).

 

 

Edit - lol the last 2 posts are the ones I didn't read 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

The CMA has issued its provisional report and while it is generally opposed to the deal, it did offer a path forward with these example "structural remedies":

 

Quote

 

1) Requiring a partial divestiture of Activision Blizzard, Inc. This may be:

 

a) Divestiture of the business associated with Call of Duty;

b) Divestiture of the Activision segment of Activision Blizzard, which would include the business associated with Call of Duty;

c) Divestiture of the Activision segment and the Blizzard segment (the Blizzard segment) of Activision Blizzard, Inc., which would include the business associated with Call of Duty and World of Warcraft, among other titles.

 

 

You're right @Spawn_of_Apathy - it's ALL about CoD!

 

These suggested "divestiture of CoD" structural remedies strike me as an absolute non-starter so MS/ABK had better hope that the CMA is open to negotiations based on the proposed remedies MS floated to the EC such as the 10 year contract for CoD non-exclusivity, otherwise this deal is dead.

[Keyser_Soze]

The answer is to abandon COD and make it public domain.

[crispy4000]

 

I called the CoD divestment yesterday.

 

Sounds like they want to see some combination of studios (and other resources) dropped from the deal.  I'd love to see Neversoft, Beenox, Vicarious Visions *Cough* Blizzard Albany and/or Toys for Bob negotiated out.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

Yep. Totally not surprised at all. 
 

“C” is hilarious though. Reads like “we’ll approve the deal of buying the companies if you agree to not keeping any IPs those companies own and make” lol 

 

I remember them making the same suggestion to Disney when they bought Lucas Film, and then again 21st century Fox. Disney could buy the studio and production companies, but had to divest all the IP those companies owned. lol 

 

Having lived through the days of “Sega does what Nintendont” I never thought I’d see console wars play out on such a massive scale to involve government regulators.  

[AbsolutSurgen]

1 hour ago, crispy4000 said:

 

I called the CoD divestment yesterday.

 

Sounds like they want to see some combination of studios (and other resources) dropped from the deal.  I'd love to see Neversoft, Beenox, Vicarious Visions *Cough* Blizzard Albany and/or Toys for Bob negotiated out.

The reason MS wants ActiLizzard is CoD.  The only antitrust concern is CoD.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

The good news for MS/ABK is that the CMA didn't outright say "OLOLOLOLOLOLOHellNoOLOLOLOLOLOLO" to the proposed deal and by actually articulating possible remedies, they've left the door open for negotiation.

The bed news for MS/ABK is that the the negotiating "wiggle room" based on those proposed remedies is extremely narrow and could very well be impossible to reconcile.

 

I'd say this deal 60/40 (maybe 70/30) in favor of not coming to fruition.

[crispy4000]

13 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

The reason MS wants ActiLizzard is CoD.  The only antitrust concern is CoD.

 

See @Commissar SFLUFAN's post earlier.  The CMA is giving Microsoft an option to consider other assets in addition to CoD resources.  It stands to reason that if Microsoft offers to drop other parts of the company from the deal, the less they'll be forced to to take from CoD production.

 

This is going to be fascinating to watch, to see where Microsoft's priorities lie.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

The funny thing is if they divest COD and Sony does try to buy that company the deal will go through with no government objection. If MS objects the governments will site all the other IPs they’ve let MS keep. So no antitrust concerns. 
 

this farce is hilarious. 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

9 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

  The CMA is giving Microsoft an option to consider other assets in addition to CoD resources.  It stands to reason that if Microsoft offers to drop other parts of the company from the deal, the less they'll be forced to to take away from CoD production

I don’t think they are. The last option is COD and other games, not or other games. Nowhere are they saying “COD or” other than “MS has to at least give up COD or they can’t buy ABK”

[AbsolutSurgen]

4 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

See @Commissar SFLUFAN's post earlier.  The CMA is giving Microsoft an option to consider other assets in addition to CoD to dismiss.  It stands to reason that if Microsoft offers to drop other assets from the deal, the less they'll be forced to to take away from CoD production.

 

This is going to be fascinating to watch, to see where Microsoft's priorities lie.

All of their remedies included the full divestiture of CoD.  The CMA's provisional findings make it clear their largest concern is CoD.

[crispy4000]

12 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

I don’t think they are. The last option is COD and other games, not or other games. Now where are they saying “COD or” other than “MS has to at least give up COD or they can’t buy ABK”

 

11 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

All of their remedies included the full divestiture of CoD.  The CMA's provisional findings make it clear their largest concern is CoD.

 

Fair enough.  It's where I'd be fighting for wiggle room if I was in Microsoft's shoes.

[crispy4000]

18 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

The funny thing is if they divest COD and Sony does try to buy that company the deal will go through with no government objection. If MS objects the governments will site all the other IPs they’ve let MS keep. So no antitrust concerns. 
 

this farce is hilarious. 

 

Would it?  It'd still be an outright purchase of the largest franchise in gaming, and Microsoft would surely put their lawyers on it to argue that they got ripped off.

 

There's also the question if Sony would have the capital for it.

[AbsolutSurgen]

 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

5 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

Would it?  It'd still an outright purchase of be the largest franchise in gaming, and Microsoft would surely put their lawyers on it.

 

There's also the question if Sony would have the capital for it.

I mean there’d be the same antitrust concerns, but these Sony fanboys in regulators offices stomping their feet over not being able to play COD on a PlayStation wouldn’t have the same objection. They’d be rushing to validate it. 
 

they’re not doing this for some high principal. They’re only saying that. But they have no precedent of actually doing it. 
 

they’re not concerned a console maker is buying COD. Or a larger publisher could be even larger by buying COD. They’re only concerned that MS is buying COD. 

[crispy4000]

[crispy4000]

11 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

I mean there’d be the same antitrust concerns, but these Sony fanboys in regulators offices stomping their feet over not being able to play COD on a PlayStation wouldn’t have the same objection. They’d be rushing to validate it. 
 

they’re not doing this for some high principal. They’re only saying that. But they have no precedent of actually doing it. 
 

they’re not concerned a console maker is buying COD. Or a larger publisher could be even larger by buying COD. They’re only concerned that MS is buying COD. 

The regulators are ... fanboys?  Might want to check your language here. 

Literally the same arguments being made against Microsoft buying CoD would apply thereafter to a Sony attempt.  This:

 

12 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

 

 

Is not a biased arguement.  It implies they don't want a console manufactuer purchasing CoD.

 

[AbsolutSurgen]

Just now, crispy4000 said:

The regulators are ... fanboys?  Might want to check your language here. 

Literally the same arguments being made against Microsoft buying CoD would apply thereafter to a Sony attempt.  This:

 

 

Is not a biased agruement.

 

The argument would prevent any platform owner from buying CoD -- not just console (it's clear that cloud platforms are another area of concern).

[Brian]

Microsoft abandons the UK market and moves forward.  UK is a dying market. 

[SuperSpreader]

2 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

 

I called the CoD divestment yesterday.

 

Sounds like they want to see some combination of studios (and other resources) dropped from the deal.  I'd love to see Neversoft, Beenox, Vicarious Visions *Cough* Blizzard Albany and/or Toys for Bob negotiated out.

Neversoft died like 12 years ago 

[SuperSpreader]

1 hour ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

The good news for MS/ABK is that the CMA didn't outright say "OLOLOLOLOLOLO  Hell no! OLOLOLOLOLOLO" to the proposed deal and by actually articulating possible remedies, they've left the door open for negotiation.

The bed news for MS/ABK is that the the negotiating "wiggle room" based on those proposed remedies is extremely narrow and could very well be impossible to reconcile.

 

I'd say this deal 60/40 (maybe 70/30) in favor of not coming to fruition.

 

They're gonna end up with COD and nothing else 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

1 hour ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

 

they basically just made the case for opposition to EVERY exclusivity deal. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

3 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

they basically just made the case for opposition to EVERY exclusivity deal. 

There are a handful of games that they would likely show a similar concern.  If there were an acquisition that could make FIFA, Madden or NBA 2k exclusive to a platform, they may make a similar case.  

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

Based on that quote they should be just as deeply concerned with every exclusivity contract, every merger where something can be made exclusive for commercial gain. 
 

go on UK. Pass legislation that forces FIFA to tear up their exclusivity contract with EA. Make Disney out their Star Wars and Marvel shows on every other streaming platform. Do it! 

[crispy4000]

27 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

they basically just made the case for opposition to EVERY exclusivity deal. 

Could every exclusivity deal be argued to “substantially” tilt the competition?  That’s the key word.

 

I think only stuff like GTA or Fortnite would be as clear cut of a case.

[AbsolutSurgen]

34 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Based on that quote they should be just as deeply concerned with every exclusivity contract, every merger where something can be made exclusive for commercial gain. 
 

go on UK. Pass legislation that forces FIFA to tear up their exclusivity contract with EA. Make Disney out their Star Wars and Marvel shows on every other streaming platform. Do it! 

You're interpreting what they are saying very differently than I.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

There is no way that solely behavioral remedies -- no matter how well-structured -- will be acceptable to the CMA.

 

However, there is every reasonable possibility that those well-structured behavioral remedies in conjunction with some form of non-prohibitive (and by that I mean ones that don't involve the complete divestiture of the CoD IP) structural remedies would be enough to satisfy the CMA.