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

[BloodyHell]

On 7/14/2023 at 11:19 AM, DPCyric said:

 

I actually think this merger is a net positive for the industry and gamers for the following reasons:

1. Activision/Blizzard has been a bad working environment for a while now and especially with the recent failure of Redfall Microsoft will want to improve the work culture.
2. Microsoft has other studios making them money they aren't in a situation where they need to pump out Call of Duty every year to survive.

3. All those unused Activision IP's have an opportunity to be used now.

4. With development freed up where a Call of Duty isn't needed every year development studios can work on other things so employees won't be burned out doing the same game over and over again.

5. This forces Sony to be a bit more competitive if they wanted they could make their own Call of Duty but that isn't necessary. However maybe now they will be more careful when launching stuff and not supporting it (ala PSVR2 and the Vita)... maybe just maybe PS+ will be improved as well which is a benefit for Playstation owners.

The only valid point you have is 3 and 5. 3 because Phil has spoken about about wanting to revive a lot of dead IP. 5 because, yes, Sony has had it too easy. Everything else is nonsense.

[BloodyHell]

On 7/14/2023 at 4:24 PM, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

One does wonder if the FTC has any legal ground to stop any merger at this point. Courts and regulars will just take the buyer at their word that they really really promise to not stifle competition or gouge consumers if we just let them own a majority share of some industry. 
 

I mean how’s that Ticketmaster and Livenation merger working out for everyone? I mean must be going well. Nobody seems to give a fuck if we repeat the same mistakes. 

Ticketmaster/livenation is far different than this. There are still other major competitors and platforms in the video game market.

 

There was never a chance of the FTC winning this, which is why they tried to run out the clock instead, only filing the lawsuit for a PI in early june. 
 

Lina Khan has embarrassed herself again and again. There was never a point where they would win in the US. The trial was ridiculous, wirh the judge having to remind the FTC that Sony’s dominance isn’t a concern of the court.  Then rhere was the FTC trying to pretend there was a separate market for Nintendo, which is also completely ridiculous. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

In the UK, MSFT/ABK/CMA are arguing in front of the CAT judge to grant them a stay to suspend their litigation while the CMA evaluates the revised proposal.  The judge is really quite annoyed at everyone, but seems to be especially annoyed at the CMA.

[DPCyric]

On 7/14/2023 at 10:49 AM, SuperSpreader said:

 

1- Microsoft who has laid off over TEN THOUSAND this year is gonna fix Activision? Get real. 

 

2- They bought it for COD they're gonna milk it all they can. 

 

3- The same shit that happened to Rare IPs is gonna happen to Activision ones. 

 

4- This isn't how corporations think. 

 

4- Yes, Sony needs a solution. 

 

Second post to add details. 

 

1. WTF does layoffs that were mostly due to over hiring during the pandemic have to do with this? Get a real argument.

 

2. I doubt they keep up with yearly mainly releases and are more willing to delay things that need a bit more polish. Unlike Activision it isn't their golden goose and they have room to breath.

 

3. Part of the issue with Rare IP is Rare isn't interested in reviving them but this is also a bad argument because we are getting a Perfect Dark basically no one asked for 

 

4. After the debacle of Redfall among other titles it is something I am sure they are thinking about.

 

 

On 7/14/2023 at 11:24 AM, crispy4000 said:

  

 

1. The stink of Activision's workplace culture issues is a managerial problem that goes all the way up to Kottick.  I don't think Microsoft is willing to take the retributive steps to totally clean house, or go much further than Activision already has internally.

 

2. They've argued they're the underdogs on a downward trajectory, and purchasing Activision will help them find competitive footing.  They're not spending $69 billion for Activision employees to ease up.

 

3. Most of Activision's dead and burried IP is even less valuable than Rare's.  If they do bring things back, they'll likely be kept from Sony/Nintendo regardless.

 

4. Taking resources away from CoD would need to result in another type of leverage worth the money and risk.  Like, say, a 3rd person Call of Duty offshoot that isn't ported to PlayStation.

 

5. We're likely seeing Sony invest so much more in live services games as a result of this.  That's not the worst timeline  ... buying up other major publishers as Microsoft is.  But I think a lot of people are frustrated that Sony isn't sticking to their guns.  It's going to be a lot of Destruction All-Stars until they land a hit.

 

1. A lot of Activision employees and press think that it will be a notable improvement over the current situation.

 

2. They have given their other studios a lot of freedom and while I think Microsoft will be more involved going forward thanks to Redfall I do believe it will be better than the current state of things.

 

3. See above and below.

 

4. That is a good point but Microsoft is in the position where they can try something a bit different.

 

5. I really don't understand why with a successful roster of single player franchises and all the other failed live service games Sony is so focused on them. Microsoft tried a few and I think they are pretty much done outside of ones they acquire. 

 

3 hours ago, BloodyHell said:

The only valid point you have is 3 and 5. 3 because Phil has spoken about about wanting to revive a lot of dead IP. 5 because, yes, Sony has had it too easy. Everything else is nonsense.

 

Sony really needs to get their shit together the PSVR2 is totally my type of console seller but their lineup was fucking abysmal 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

This is a great summary from a ResetERA poster as to what's happening with the ongoing hearing in front of the CAT judge:

 

Quote

The judge has laid down a number of (fairly) simple legal tests that the CMA and MS/ABK have to meet in order for him to be satisfied that a postponement of the CAT hearing is reasonable.

Both the CMA and MS/ABK are struggling to meet those tests, because the CMA don't want to admit they fucked up with the original report, and MS/ABK don't want to expose the specifics of their new deal due to market sensitivities.

The judge perfectly understands what is actually going on here, the CMA and MS have a new deal and want this thing closed and out of the way ASAP, he's been about as explicit as it's possible to be on that point.

The problem is he needs a legal basis to allow that, and MS and the CMA are struggling to provide one.

 

[Brian]

Sad state of affairs to see the CMA prostrating itself to avoid setting a precedent that it fucked up.  Embarrassing 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

12 minutes ago, Brian said:

Sad state of affairs to see the CMA prostrating itself to avoid setting a precedent that it fucked up.  Embarrassing 

 

From another ResetERA poster:

 

Quote

 

MS and CMA lawyers seem unprepared: to justify an adjournment, they must prove to the Tribunal that there is a proper basis to do, which is backed by evidence. They have had without prejudice discussions and have clearly worked out a deal/way forward. On this basis, it seems they turned up to court very excited and took it as a mere formality. However, they forgot that they need to evidence the proper basis for an adjournment and now they've created this issue for themselves where, due to the without prejudice discussions, they are unable to submit evidence to the judge so he can satisfy himself the legal test for an adjournment had been met.

 

Which is why the judge keeps banging on about quashing the decision because he understands the parties cant give him any evidence, so quashing will provide provide a route to an adjournment.

 

I don't understand why CMS and MS' lawyers didn't anticipate this.

 

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Based on what the CMA's lawyer is stating, it's blatantly obvious that they and MSFT have reached a pretty firm agreement on the remedies that will satisy the CMA's cloud SLC.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

The CAT judge has granted a "conditional adjournment" of the legal proceedings between the CMA and MSFT.

[stepee]

Now that Microsoft owns Crash, Spyro, Conker, Voodoo Vince , Banjo, Blinx, Pitfall guy, Raz, and all the Skylander freaks, it’s time for them to pick up Aero the Acrobat, Bubsy, Sparkster, and that kid from 40 winks.

[BloodyHell]

And adjourned. So this goes through tonight?

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

10 minutes ago, BloodyHell said:

And adjourned. So this goes through tonight?

 

Absolutely not as the CMA's interim order globally halting the acquisition is still in effect.

 

All indications are that the closing will occur in August.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

The judge has given the parties until mid-day on Thursday to submit the evidence supporting the "material change of circumstances" that would remove the "conditional" status of the adjournment.

[silentbob]

32 minutes ago, stepee said:

Now that Microsoft owns Crash, Spyro, Conker, Voodoo Vince , Banjo, Blinx, Pitfall guy, Raz, and all the Skylander freaks, it’s time for them to pick up Aero the Acrobat, Bubsy, Sparkster, and that kid from 40 winks.

So your saying that they should start working on their own Smash Bros like game with all the mascots they have now?

[crispy4000]

12 hours ago, DPCyric said:

1. A lot of Activision employees and press think that it will be a notable improvement over the current situation.

 

Hoping for change from new corporate overlords while the old cronies still manage the day to day.  The one positive to come that we know of was Raven unionizing.

 

12 hours ago, DPCyric said:

2. They have given their other studios a lot of freedom and while I think Microsoft will be more involved going forward thanks to Redfall I do believe it will be better than the current state of things.

 

Activision has long had the freedom to do things in the way it wants.  They didn't need a buyout to be flush with capital.  And again, its the same people still making the decisions.

 

I'd love to be wrong.  Perhaps one day I will be.  But then we'll be taking about whatever would-be multiplatform new IP, revived IP or spin-off not coming to Sony and Nintendo platforms.

 

The main thing Microsoft enables Activision to do is save face on the harassment lawsuits.

 

12 hours ago, DPCyric said:

4. That is a good point but Microsoft is in the position where they can try something a bit different.

 

Again, Activision has long been in the position to try something different.  Remember Skylanders?

 

12 hours ago, DPCyric said:

5. I really don't understand why with a successful roster of single player franchises and all the other failed live service games Sony is so focused on them. Microsoft tried a few and I think they are pretty much done outside of ones they acquire.

 

Because they own Call of Duty, WoW and Minecraft now, among others.  Sony sees it as a gap in their portfolio, and they're not wrong.

[Dodger]

Jesus this feels like it will never end

[crispy4000]

51 minutes ago, Dodger said:

Jesus this feels like it will never end

It’s at the finish line.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

2 hours ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

Absolutely not as the CMA's interim order globally halting the acquisition is still in effect.

 

All indications are that the closing will occur in August.

So wait, the CMA can order a global halting of the acquisition? What happened to them not needing the CMA? 

[Mr.Vic20]

Big business takes time. I know folks feel like this is taking forewver, but really its moving quite quickly! 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

So wait, the CMA can order a global halting of the acquisition? What happened to them not needing the CMA? 

 

Yes, the CMA issued a global halt of the acquisition.

 

Of course, they could close "over" the CMA's order, but there's no need to open that legal can of worms at all.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

1 minute ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

Big business takes time. I know folks feel like this is taking forewver, but really its moving quite quickly! 

is it? Didn’t they originally estimate June -August of last year that this would be signed off on and a done deal, until Sony started stirring things up? 

[Mr.Vic20]

Just now, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

is it? Didn’t they originally estimate June -August of last year that this would be signed off on and a done deal, until Sony started stirring things up? 

Yes, but given that they have received all this opposition, the subsiquent maneuverings and rulings have been swift! 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

3 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

is it? Didn’t they originally estimate June -August of last year that this would be signed off on and a done deal, until Sony started stirring things up? 

 

Sony played zero role in the length of time involved in this transaction.

 

A $70 billion multinational acquisition was ALWAYS going to be subject to intensive regulator scrutiny, no matter what MSFT/ABK said initially.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

7 minutes ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

Yes, but given that they have received all this opposition, the subsiquent maneuverings and rulings have been swift! 

 

6 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

Sony played zero role in the length of time involved in this transaction.

 

A $70 billion multinational acquisition was ALWAYS going to be subject to intensive regulator scrutiny, no matter what MSFT/ABK said initially.

yeah, I guess so. We’re 3-4 months over the length of time it took to approve Disney buying Fox. 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

13 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

Yes, the CMA issued a global halt of the acquisition.

 

Of course, they could close "over" the CMA's order, but there's no need to open that legal can of worms at all.

Is that where we get into ABK having to pull out of the UK or operate as if they were still separate from MS within the UK? Or is there more to that legal can of worms? 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

13 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Is that where we get into ABK having to pull out of the UK or operate as if they were still separate from MS within the UK? Or is there more to that legal can of worms? 

 

Yes to all of the above

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

4 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

Yes to all of the above

Could the other legal can worms result in sizable fees or fines, or jeopardize the entire merger? 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Just now, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Could the other legal can worms result in sizable fees or fines, or jeopardize the entire merger? 

 

Definitely the fines which would be 10% of global revenue.

[Dodger]

From what I've seen looks like MS and CMA will get a deal done and MS wants do it "the right way" as it's just overall easier for a multitude of reasons even if it takes longer. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Just now, Dodger said:

From what I've seen looks like MS and CMA will get a deal done and MS wants do it "the right way" as it's just overall easier for a multitude of reasons even if it takes longer. 

Exactly.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Want the clearest indication that this acquisition is all but executed?

 

ATVI closed today at $93.20/share which is only $1.80 below the $95/share price that MSFT will be paying upon execution of the deal.

[SuperSpreader]

7 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

The main thing Microsoft enables Activision to do is save face on the harassment lawsuits.

 

That's what this was all about 

[DPCyric]

20 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

 

Hoping for change from new corporate overlords while the old cronies still manage the day to day.  The one positive to come that we know of was Raven unionizing.

 

 

Activision has long had the freedom to do things in the way it wants.  They didn't need a buyout to be flush with capital.  And again, its the same people still making the decisions.

 

I'd love to be wrong.  Perhaps one day I will be.  But then we'll be taking about whatever would-be multiplatform new IP, revived IP or spin-off not coming to Sony and Nintendo platforms.

 

The main thing Microsoft enables Activision to do is save face on the harassment lawsuits.

 

 

Again, Activision has long been in the position to try something different.  Remember Skylanders?

 

 

Because they own Call of Duty, WoW and Minecraft now, among others.  Sony sees it as a gap in their portfolio, and they're not wrong.

 

Skylanders was a thing nearly a decade ago they have not been in the position to try something different in a long time. CoD sells and is what makes their investors happy, they had several flops outside of that and moved all the studios with flops to CoD development. Fortunately we have gotten some Crash games lately but they are way too reliant on CoD currently and how long is that really sustainable?

[Dodger]

CoD has basically hollowed out Activision, and if MS isn't careful it will start to hollow out their studios as well. If CoD switches to every other year releases it won't be so the studios can work on other games, it will be cause games take a long time to develop now and it just takes that long to develop the games. At first I was hopeful that would happen but I doubt MS is spending this kind of money so we can get new Crash and Spyro games. It's to get CoD on GamesPass to drive that recurrent revenue. CoD on Games Pass allows MS to buy another studio that can make other content, not free Activision to do it. 

[crispy4000]

54 minutes ago, DPCyric said:

 

Skylanders was a thing nearly a decade ago they have not been in the position to try something different in a long time. CoD sells and is what makes their investors happy, they had several flops outside of that and moved all the studios with flops to CoD development. Fortunately we have gotten some Crash games lately but they are way too reliant on CoD currently and how long is that really sustainable?

 

More than any other major publisher, Activision is laser focused on franchisement.  If a game doesn't have potential to turn into something long running and hugely profitable they won't (continue to) pursue it.  If they wanted to be more like an EA and take more chances, they certainly could.

CoD is the gravy train, of course they're going to support it in what capacity it needs to keep churning.  If it ever was to stop for them, they'd simply pursue something else.  Blizzard and Candy Crush kept them plenty safe.  That's been their leverage.