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

[AbsolutSurgen]

Can you currently stream CoD on GeForce NOW?

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Just now, AbsolutSurgen said:

Can you currently stream CoD on GeForce NOW?

 

Nope!

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

MS and Sony aren't even "close" to reaching an agreement and MS flatly rejects (at least publicly) any remedies that would involve divestment:

 

Microsoft signs deal with Nvidia, but is 'not close' to deal with Sony over Activision Blizzard

WWW.GAMESINDUSTRY.BIZ

---

A hearing is taking place in the European Commission today

 

Quote

 

Sony remains opposed to Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard, despite the two companies meeting in Brussels today.

 

But Microsoft has reached a deal with Nvidia, which will see Xbox games (that are also on PC) released on Nvidia's GeForce Now cloud service. This will include Activision Blizzard games (and Call of Duty) if the deal goes through. It follows a similar deal the firm has signed with Nintendo.

 

Persons familiar with the situation told GamesIndustry.biz that a deal is ‘not close’, earlier today, and it's a report backed up by Microsoft's Brad Smith in a post-hearing press conference.

 

 

Quote

Smith also rejected the idea that the company could sell a part of Activision Blizzard — such as the Call of Duty business — to get deal approved. These structural changes were proposed by the UK regulator the CMA.

 

[XxEvil AshxX]

Jesus H, Sony just sign the goddamn contract already. I'd really like to not have to pay for Diablo IV.

[Guest]

It would be amusing if the end result of all of this is MS owning ABK and having no deal in place with Sony, but deals with everybody else.

[Remarkableriots]

Why should Sony sign a deal just to get CoD while all the other games get removed from PSN which probably includes Diablo 4?

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

Just now, sblfilms said:

It would be amusing if the end result of all of this is MS owning ABK and having no deal in place with Sony, but deals with everybody else.

That has been in my mind since this started. lol Sony ends up not getting AB games and MS is like “well it’s your own damn fault”. Because once the deal gets approved Sony has no leverage. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

4 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

It would be amusing if the end result of all of this is MS owning ABK and having no deal in place with Sony, but deals with everybody else*

 

* Excluding Valve.

[XxEvil AshxX]

2 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

* Excluding Valve.

 

Valve gets the corner booth automatically. They don't need a reservation.

 

I really do kinda want to see Sony shoot themselves in the foot after all this. Their hubris is impressive.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Remarkableriots said:

Why should Sony sign a deal just to get CoD while all the other games get removed from PSN which probably includes Diablo 4?

Because they like all the money CoD brings them, and a post acquisition negotiation leaves them in a much worse position.

[AbsolutSurgen]

Companies that currently can't get CoD are willing to sign a contract that will give them access (Nintendo, Nvidia).

Companies the currently have it, aren't interested (Sony, Valve).

[crispy4000]

56 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

The agreement with Nvidia is the same 10-year one that was offered to Nintendo, Sony, and Valve:

 

What of Amazon?  That’s (one of) the elephants still remaining in the room. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

20 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

What of Amazon?

 

I am not aware of any offer that was extended to Amazon.

[LazyPiranha]

I want to see this go through now just to witness ten years of pity ports to the Switch.

[crispy4000]

21 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

I am not aware of any offer that was extended to Amazon.

 

Not surprised if it wasn’t.  The UK report was also concerned about the acquisition stifling future competition in the space.  

 

GeForce Now isn’t really a serious competitor IMO, considering you’d have to outright purchase any CoD game you’d want to play on it.  Microsoft/Activision still gets their cut.  Even if bought on Steam or something.

 

But they’d never sign a deal for Amazon to make CoD available on Luna through Prime.

[XxEvil AshxX]

Considering how many brick n mortar businesses Amazon snuffed out, I don't think they should get to complain about anything.

[crispy4000]

9 minutes ago, XxEvil AshxX said:

Considering how many brick n mortar businesses Amazon snuffed out, I don't think they should get to complain about anything.

 

I wasn’t aware that they were.

[XxEvil AshxX]

Just now, crispy4000 said:

 

I wasn’t aware that they were.

 

I don't think they are, but someone above asked about them.

 

EDIT: Oh, it was you lol.

[crispy4000]

4 minutes ago, XxEvil AshxX said:

 

I don't think they are, but someone above asked about them.

 

That’s my point.  UK regulators are still making that cloud arguement on their behalf.  Or even Apple entering the space. Appealing to Nvidia alone probably isn’t enough. 

[crispy4000]

30 minutes ago, Remarkableriots said:

Why should Sony sign a deal just to get CoD while all the other games get removed from PSN which probably includes Diablo 4?

 

I don’t think Diablo IV gets taken off PlayStation in any capacity.  It’s too soon, and some deals might already be inked.

 

Other future Blizzard projects could skip PS consoles and/or subscription services potentially.  With how they’re managing Bethesda, anything is possible.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

An actual ABK executive tweeted this:

 

[Brian]

36 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

It would be amusing if the end result of all of this is MS owning ABK and having no deal in place with Sony, but deals with everybody else.

And somehow UK loses CoD in the process

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

An actual ABK executive tweeted this:

 

REALLY?!?! 😂😂😂😂😂

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Just now, sblfilms said:

REALLY?!?! 😂😂😂😂😂

 

Yes, really.

 

Her name is Lulu Cheng Meservey, an Executive Vice President for Corporate Affairs and Chief Commercial Officer.

[Guest]

Just now, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

Yes, really.

 

Her name is Lulu Cheng Meservey, an Executive Vice President for Corporate Affairs and Chief Commercial Officer.

This does my former console warrior heart so much good

[crispy4000]

Quote

Google parent Alphabet also went to the FTC with dissatisfaction about Microsoft's deal, Bloomberg reported.

 

"The European Commission asked for our views in the course of their inquiries into this issue. We will continue to cooperate in any processes, when requested, to ensure all views are considered," a Google spokesperson told CNBC in an email.

 

Smith declined to comment on Alphabet's exact concerns with the Activision deal but recognized the company's potential misgivings.

 

"It's easy to understand that Google might have questions about whether something like Call of Duty would be available in the future on say Chromebooks and the Chrome operating system," Smith said.

 

The Nvidia agreement addresses that as the GeForce Now cloud gaming service is available on ChromeOS, Smith said. Microsoft is able to maintain compliance with the sorts agreements with European regulators that might require it to keep Call of Duty on Chrome OS, he said during the press conference.

 

"With the agreement we've done with Nvidia, we've just ensured Google will benefit as well," Smith said.

 

Hahaha, no.  That’s one heck of a reach around.
 

Nvidia supports Microsoft, Activision merger after Xbox deal to add games to cloud service

WWW.CNBC.COM

---

The Nvidia deal might help Microsoft remove one hurdle for its largest acquisition to date, video-game publisher Activision Blizzard.

 

[crispy4000]

18 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

An actual ABK executive tweeted this:

 

 

Then they’d have nothing to complain about if other parts of the acquisition were provisionally divested in 10 years time.  Right?

 

10 years is not long term.  It’s a looming countdown timer on the horizon.  I’ll never understand their fixation with that number.  If the shoe was on the other foot, they’d be crying foul over it all the same.

[Brian]

I find it odd that these corporate behemoths get to cry wolf to these government agencies when they all do the same shit. Yes let’s ask the worst offenders to comment on this shit because their opinion is always in the best interest of the public. They never try to fuck the public at the first chance. 
 

All this is fucking dumb. 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

9 minutes ago, Brian said:

I find it odd that these corporate behemoths get to cry wolf to these government agencies when they all do the same shit. Yes let’s ask the worst offenders to comment on this shit because their opinion is always in the best interest of the public. They never try to fuck the public at the first chance. 
 

All this is fucking dumb. 

Yep. It felt pretty unnerving seeing regulators argue this deal could hurt Amazon. So what, Amazon can’t get BIGGER and own even more of the world? 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

48 minutes ago, LazyPiranha said:

I want to see this go through now just to witness ten years of pity ports to the Switch.

that’s why I hoped for a quality and performance parity clause in the contract. So since it would be impossible to make the Switch version look as good in 4K at 60fps, every version gets to be 800p at 24fps. Lmao 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

I await the announcement that MS has reached a 10-year agreement deal with newgrounds.com

[stepee]

21 minutes ago, Brian said:

I find it odd that these corporate behemoths get to cry wolf to these government agencies when they all do the same shit. Yes let’s ask the worst offenders to comment on this shit because their opinion is always in the best interest of the public. They never try to fuck the public at the first chance. 
 

All this is fucking dumb. 

 

It is kind of weird how these regulators don’t seem concerned about if the deal would hurt the public or not (I believe it would be largely to the public’s benefit cuz gamepass) only if it would hurt this one other already huge company that is known to be pretty damn anti consumer when it can be. It’s like they want to stop it just to stop it and are creating an imaginary market that excludes anything besides MS and Sony to make the argument for a monopoly.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

3 minutes ago, stepee said:

 

It is kind of weird how these regulators don’t seem concerned about if the deal would hurt the public or not (I believe it would be largely to the public’s benefit cuz gamepass) only if it would hurt this one other already huge company that is known to be pretty damn anti consumer when it can be. It’s like they want to stop it just to stop it and are creating an imaginary market that excludes anything besides MS and Sony to make the argument for a monopoly.

 

MS's own filings indicated that they don't consider Nintendo to substantially compete with them.

 

My personal opposition to the deal stems from my belief that anything that prevents further consolidation in any industry -- even if that consolidation "benefits" consumers -- is a worthy objective in and of itself.

[stepee]

2 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

MS's own filings indicated that they don't consider Nintendo to substantially compete with them.

 

Yeah they argue that because it helps their case, but they are in the same market still, they just don’t compete. That they can both exist in the same market without one harming the other is a good sign that this deal will be fine for consumers. But regulators seem to be removing all aspects of the market beyond Sony and MS and are focused solely on if MS will hurt Sony with this, is what I mean.

[Brian]

19 minutes ago, stepee said:

 

It is kind of weird how these regulators don’t seem concerned about if the deal would hurt the public or not (I believe it would be largely to the public’s benefit cuz gamepass) only if it would hurt this one other already huge company that is known to be pretty damn anti consumer when it can be. It’s like they want to stop it just to stop it and are creating an imaginary market that excludes anything besides MS and Sony to make the argument for a monopoly.

There should be some advocacy groups that can share a neutral opinion on the merits of this acquisition . There were advocacy groups vehemently against the Ticketmaster and Live Nation merger. No one seemed to care. Now I get to pay Ticketmaster fees that cost as much as the tickets did so my daughter can see Disney on Ice. I assume this merger is bad as most are, but its ridiculous dissenting opinion is being sourced by the likes of Google. It’s absurd.