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

[crispy4000]

The full CMA document.

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63e3e9aee90e0762692b970a/M_A_Provisional_Findings_Report.pdf

 

 

There's so much here, including some rebuttals of both Microsoft and Sony's statements.  I thought this was interesting:

 

Quote

In addition, while we accept that it is likely that Call of Duty and other Activision content would be added to Game Pass, particularly in light of Microsoft’s past practice of doing so with other first party content, there is less evidence to be confident that Game Pass would continue to be provided at pre-Merger prices. Prices for subscriptions can easily be revised, and Microsoft may have an incentive to do so once it adds content that is as popular as Activision’s, including CoD. Further, to the extent that competition is lessened as a result of the Merger, the Merged Entity will be also less constrained in its pricing.

 

Microsoft's telegraphed it already.

[crispy4000]

Quote

5.61 Microsoft also submitted that its internal analysis shows a []% decline in
base game sales twelve months following their addition on Game Pass.

 

Games Pass does not increase game sales on average.  Puts that to rest.

 

There's gotta be some outliers though.

[AbsolutSurgen]

3 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

Games Pass does not increase game sales on average.  Puts that to rest.

 

There's gotta be some outliers though.

Probably not.

[crispy4000]

Just now, AbsolutSurgen said:

Probably not.

 

Sea of Thieves has sold over 5 million copies on Steam

WWW.ONMSFT.COM

---

Sea of Thieves has now sold over 5 million copies on Steam right after celebrating 25 million players in October.

 

Doubt it would have gotten to this point without Games Pass being a thing.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

I'm pretty convinced that MS's proposed 10-year non-exclusivity agreement for CoD with Sony, Valve, et al. will not be enough of a behavioral remedy to satisfy the CMA.

 

That agreement will have to be in perpetuity.

[crispy4000]

Fun bit about Nintendo:

 

Quote

Whilst Nintendo offers content for a mature audience, the evidence we have seen suggests that its most popular titles are targeted at a family audience. However, we also note the Parties’ submission above that the actual distribution of gamers by age on the Switch is not very different to Xbox or PlayStation.

 

I'd love to imagine someone's pride being hurt by this.

[crispy4000]

12 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

I'm pretty convinced that MS's proposed 10-year non-exclusivity agreement for CoD with Sony, Valve, et al. will not be enough of a behavioral remedy to satisfy the CMA.

 

That agreement will have to be in perpetuity.

 

As it should be.  Otherwise, it'd just be a ticking time bomb for when Microsoft gets to pull the rug out.

 

We'll have to see from the fallout if Nintendo even gets CoD games again.

[XxEvil AshxX]

4 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Fun bit about Nintendo:

 

 

I'd love to imagine someone's pride being hurt by this.

 

 

There ain't gonna be many kids at that Mario movie, I'll tell ya that. And the ones that are there will have their parents telling them "Look, LOOK. It's the tanooki mario tail from Mario 3 on the wall back there. See it? SEE IT????"

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

13 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

I'm pretty convinced that MS's proposed 10-year non-exclusivity agreement for CoD with Sony, Valve, et al. will not be enough of a behavioral remedy to satisfy the CMA.

 

That agreement will have to be in perpetuity.

Sony would still protest, because they want to keep COD off Game Pass. They don’t want to compete with Game Pass and this would put pressure on them to add more games sooner to their own service that they only did as a response to Game Pass. 
 

which to me just flys in the face of the whole “bad for competition” thing. Sony wants to stay way out in front so they don’t need to offer any kind of value service, raise the prices in their games and consoles, turn off cross play, and keep buying exclusive content. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

18 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Sony would still protest, because they want to keep COD off Game Pass. They don’t want to compete with Game Pass and this would put pressure on them to add more games sooner to their own service that they only did as a response to Game Pass. 
 

which to me just flys in the face of the whole “bad for competition” thing. Sony wants to stay way out in front so they don’t need to offer any kind of value service, raise the prices in their games and consoles, turn off cross play, and keep buying exclusive content. 

You have some serious hate for Sony.

[Guest]

I think the odds are heavily in favor of the deal happening and in a way close to what MS would like to see if only because history is on the side of the entity in MS' position getting most of what they want.

 

And LOL at the notion that the regulators are at all interested in console war non-sense. Get off the internet for a bit, you're in too deep.

[crispy4000]

2 hours ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Sony would still protest, because they want to keep COD off Game Pass. They don’t want to compete with Game Pass and this would put pressure on them to add more games sooner to their own service that they only did as a response to Game Pass. 
 

which to me just flys in the face of the whole “bad for competition” thing. Sony wants to stay way out in front so they don’t need to offer any kind of value service, raise the prices in their games and consoles, turn off cross play, and keep buying exclusive content. 

 

They couldn’t compete with CoD on Games Pass just by making their 1st party games available on PS Extra day and date.  That’s peanuts by comparison.

 

Nope, it would take a ridiculous deal with Rockstar, if not an outright merger with 2K, to throw back a similar punch.  No one should want that.  And nothing would bring out those type of deals faster, from both sides, than CoD being exclusive to one subscription service.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

I think the odds are heavily in favor of the deal happening and in a way close to what MS would like to see if only because history is on the side of the entity in MS' position getting most of what they want.

 

It all comes down to how hard a line the CMA (and in reality, it's the CMA that will make or break this transaction because there is no judicial review in the UK of CMA decisions) takes regarding remedies short of the divestiture of the CoD IP.

 

If the CMA rejects the proposed remedies in its final report, the only avenue of appeal available to MS involves going to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT).  As per a British legal site:

 

Quote

 

When appealing the CMA’s substantive decision in a merger case, a judicial review standard applies, meaning the applicant must show that the CMA acted irrationally, illegally or with procedural impropriety. The CAT will not engage with the merits of the CMA’s decision or conduct a wholesale review of the parties’ evidence. In practice this means that applicants face a high threshold when seeking to overturn a merger decision, which is reflected in the statistics: the CMA has won 67% of all merger appeals since 2010.

 

Even if an applicant successfully appeals the CMA’s substantive assessment in a merger, the CAT will not make a fresh decision, but will instead remit the case back to the CMA for further review –typically by the same decision makers and case team as previously. This may not be an attractive prospect, particularly if the deal economics or environment have changed since the transaction was first signed (months or years previously).

 

 

Of all the major antitrust regulatory bodies, the CMA is the one that genuinely appears to have the most teeth and isn't afraid to use them.  The CMA was the one largely responsible for killing Nvidia's $40 billion acquisition of Arm.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

13 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

They couldn’t compete with CoD on Games Pass just by making their 1st party games available on PS Extra day and date.  That’s peanuts by comparison.

 

Nope, it would take a ridiculous deal with Rockstar, if not an outright merger with 2K, to throw back a similar punch.  No one should want that.  And nothing would bring out those type of deals faster, from both sides, than CoD being exclusive to one subscription service.

I’m not even talking about exclusivity in Game Pass. Just included, while still available everywhere it already is. MS offered Sony the ability to put it on their service, but then they would get as much revenue from licensing fees. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

It all comes down to how hard a line the CMA (and in reality, it's the CMA that will make or break this transaction because there is no judicial review in the UK of CMA decisions) takes regarding remedies short of the divestiture of the CoD IP.

It is not true that there are no reviews of CMA decisions, they just aren’t ones that typically deal with whether the CMA was right or wrong in their assessment, moreso whether or not they followed the law/procedure in reaching their decisions. One recent basis for a winning appeal was that the CMA applied a different standard to the appellant than a similar merger case.

 

They can also just tell the UK to kick rocks  

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

They should deny MS by telling them that if they’re having to lay off thousands of employees then they can’t afford to buy publishers. 
 

Then MS can be honest and say they need to buy other developers that know how to make games, because they’ve sure as fuck forgot how. … and then still get denied. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

33 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

It is not true that there are no reviews of CMA decisions, they just aren’t ones that typically deal with whether the CMA was right or wrong in their assessment, moreso whether or not they followed the law/procedure in reaching their decisions. One recent basis for a winning appeal was that the CMA applied a different standard to the appellant than a similar merger case.

 

They can also just tell the UK to kick rocks  

 

I said that there are no judicial reviews of CMA decisions, meaning that the the review doesn't occur within the UK court system, but rather occurs through the CAT which can kick it back to the CMA if it finds that the CMA erred procedurally.

[crispy4000]

3 hours ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

I’m not even talking about exclusivity in Game Pass. Just included, while still available everywhere it already is. MS offered Sony the ability to put it on their service, but then they would get as much revenue from licensing fees. 

Charging Sony for putting it on their service day and date isn’t nothing, especially not over years.  It wouldn't come cheap.  Microsoft could also play hardball on cosmetics, betas, etc.

I don’t see fighting over subscription rights to be a positive development for the industry in general.  Especially between Microsoft and Sony themselves.  It’s begging for more sleazy deals and clap backs in ways that have little to do with game development.  It harms both services.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

I said that there are no judicial reviews of CMA decisions, meaning that the the review doesn't occur within the UK court system, but rather occurs through the CAT which can kick it back to the CMA if it finds that the CMA erred procedurally.

 

The CAT is a judicial review, my good man. It's kinda like the special purpose court systems we have in the US, like FISA courts. There is also a third level that does indeed go to the traditional courts if you disagree with the CMA and CAT. A legal system so byzantine, it must be British!

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

There is also a third level that does indeed go to the traditional courts if you disagree with the CMA and CAT.

 

That one I was unaware of!

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

32 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

That one I was unaware of!

 

Alright - from what I've read, the "loser" of the CAT's decision can then appeal to the UK Court of Appeals within the "real" judicial system.

 

So, this is potentially how this will play out:

 

1. Assuming that the CMA rejects whatever structural/behavioral remedies MS/ABK comes up with, the next step would be for MS/ABK to appeal the CMA decision to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT).
2. The CAT will not rule on the actual merits of the CMA's decision, but rather will apply a "judicial review" standard to determine whether the CMA acted "irrationally, illegally, or with procedural impropriety" in making its decision.
3. If MS/ABK wins the appeal, the CAT does not make a fresh decision, but will instead remit the case back to the CMA for further review.
4. The party that "loses" the CAT decision (the CMA or MS/ABK) can appeal that decision to the UK Court of Appeals and the case will then enter the "normal" UK judicial system.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 hour ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

Alright - from what I've read, the "loser" of the CAT's decision can then appeal to the UK Court of Appeals within the "real" judicial system.

 

So, this is potentially how this will play out:

 

1. Assuming that the CMA rejects whatever structural/behavioral remedies MS/ABK comes up with, the next step would be for MS/ABK to appeal the CMA decision to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT).
2. The CAT will not rule on the actual merits of the CMA's decision, but rather will apply a "judicial review" standard to determine whether the CMA acted "irrationally, illegally, or with procedural impropriety" in making its decision.
3. If MS/ABK wins the appeal, the CAT does not make a fresh decision, but will instead remit the case back to the CMA for further review.
4. The party that "loses" the CAT decision (the CMA or MS/ABK) can appeal that decision to the UK Court of Appeals and the case will then enter the "normal" UK judicial system.

 

I just had another thought.

 

Let's assume that MS/ABK "wins" Step 2 and the CAT vacates the original CMA decision, I wonder if MS/ABK can then take the case directly to the UK Court of Appeals and have it decided in the "real" legal system and therefore avoid having it remitted to the CMA for another round?

 

I think I'll see if I can find this out!

[Remarkableriots]

Activision Blizzard plans a more outspoken approach

WWW.AXIOS.COM

---

Company's head of comms talks scandals, unions and those Last of Us tweets

 

[SuperSpreader]

9 minutes ago, Remarkableriots said:

Activision Blizzard plans a more outspoken approach

WWW.AXIOS.COM

---

Company's head of comms talks scandals, unions and those Last of Us tweets

 

 

Childish 

 

All the game industry "leaders" are embarrassing 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

On 2/8/2023 at 9:58 PM, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

I just had another thought.

 

Let's assume that MS/ABK "wins" Step 2 and the CAT vacates the original CMA decision, I wonder if MS/ABK can then take the case directly to the UK Court of Appeals and have it decided in the "real" legal system and therefore avoid having it remitted to the CMA for another round?

 

I think I'll see if I can find this out!

you’re really having fun with this, aren’t you?  

[legend]

12 hours ago, Remarkableriots said:

Activision Blizzard plans a more outspoken approach

WWW.AXIOS.COM

---

Company's head of comms talks scandals, unions and those Last of Us tweets

 

 

Twitter trolling, what a great look!

[SuperSpreader]

Microsoft Kills Its Industrial Metaverse Team After 4 Months

WWW.THEINFORMATION.COM

---

In a surprising reversal, Microsoft has killed a team it formed four months ago to help customers use the metaverse in industrial settings, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter. The group’s...

 

 

Not a great look here either. 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

In general I’d say a big tech giant that feels the need to lay off 10K employees, including some from the last company they just bought, while trying to convince the world to let them buy another big company is not a good look. 
 

it’s like a guy that can’t afford to feed his kids trying to buy a new expensive sports car. 

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

In general I’d say a big tech giant that feels the need to lay off 10K employees, including some from the last company they just bought, while trying to convince the world to let them buy another big company is not a good look. 
 

it’s like a guy that can’t afford to feed his kids trying to buy a new expensive sports car. 

This presupposes that they are cutting jobs because they can’t afford them. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

7 hours ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

you’re really having fun with this, aren’t you?  

 

It's far more entertaining than most games released from either Microsoft or Activision.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

This presupposes that they are cutting jobs because they can’t afford them. 

they could have moved many of them to other teams and projects. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

Moving people is hard.  Cutting people is easy.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

9 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Moving people is hard.  Cutting people is easy.

I mean buying a company full of people that know how to make good, successful games is easier than figuring that out for themselves. Yeah, I know. I’m sensing a pattern from MS. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

they could have moved many of them to other teams and projects. 

Why would they move people to other teams or projects when they don’t need them? Just for fun?

 

They cut them because they didn’t need them.

[SuperSpreader]

6 hours ago, sblfilms said:

Why would they move people to other teams or projects when they don’t need them? Just for fun?

 

They cut them because they didn’t need them.

 

They definitely won't know what to do with all ABK either