Activision (ABK)

What IP Should MS/ABK Bring Back?


  • Total voters
    15

Microsoft's legal team also expects the antitrust authority in Britain to oppose the transaction, while it believes the European Commission is open to potential remedies, according to four people briefed on the matter who were not authorized to speak publicly.

Some of these people said that Microsoft was hoping to convince both Britain and the European Union to accept its concessions and approve the deal, which could make it easier for the company to reach an agreement with the F.T.C. before the scheduled administrative trial starts in the summer. If all of the agencies accept the compromise, the (perhaps wishful) thinking goes, none of them will look weak on Big Tech.
———————————————————————————

From the lawyer covering the topic…

———————————————————————————

If the CMA and the EC are indeed aligned in the case, it would make sense because we already know that the EC has concerns. So, the CMA also having concerns could be logical.

The 70 billion $ question is what kind of remedies may address those concerns 👀 Divesting Activision (and keeping Blizzard and King) would be the perfect one (for the CMA). But could MS/ABK accept that? 🤔
What is the point of buying if you have these fvckers keep crying and have it their way? I tell you, after this mess, I would change that contract and give them non after the SONY contract with COD is complete and give it to Nintendo, they have more than enough user base to cover SONY.

After this mess, I would do everything to see them sink.
 
sorry, can't read it. This site telling me to remove the ad blocker.
Microsoft is reportedly ready to fight what it expects to be opposition from the UK's competition regulator.

According to the New York Times (£) (thanks, VGC), the megacorp believes "the antitrust authority in Britain to oppose the transaction". It follows a similar intervention from the EU, which objected to a perceived risk in Microsoft owning Call of Duty given it could reduce competition in the video games industry.

According to four people "briefed on the matter who were not authorised to speak publicly", Microsoft hopes "to convince both Britain and the European Union to accept its concessions and approve the deal, which could make it easier for the company to reach an agreement with the FTC before the scheduled administrative trial starts in the summer".

Microsoft recently responded to the European Union's now-formalised antitrust warning, slapping down to contest its attempt at an Activision Blizzard acquisition.

As Tom recently summarised for us, the EU's intent to object to Microsoft's proposed $68.7bn deal was first reported last month. Now it has been finalised - and Microsoft has said it was "confident" it could address the issues raised.

It's expected that Microsoft will offer concessions to the EU - and to the other authorities which have expressed objections - to get the deal approved. Indeed, the EU's warning was the next step along that path while informal dialogue on what those concessions might be continues behind the scenes.

Microsoft faces similar complaints from the UK's Competition and Markets Authority and the US Federal Trade Commission.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DriedMangoes
I am not understanding the big deal besides I see the FTC has an agenda against MS. They did this with Meta and lost so, Meta end up buying the company anyway. Sony is crying way more because they know the PS4 was their last rodeo. They knew this was coming. First, they don't have any servers like the 4 big boys. 2, Microsoft is buying Zinemax and now ABK,

Sony wants MS to stay down there in last place and does not want to give them any leverage to have a fair fight. What SONY doesn't want, by any chance Microsoft decided to not give SONY anything with COD, they have Nintendo to give and they also have a large user base.

This is what SONY is afraid of, being left out.
 
I am not understanding the big deal besides I see the FTC has an agenda against MS. They did this with Meta and lost so, Meta end up buying the company anyway. Sony is crying way more because they know the PS4 was their last rodeo. They knew this was coming. First, they don't have any servers like the 4 big boys. 2, Microsoft is buying Zinemax and now ABK,

Sony wants MS to stay down there in last place and does not want to give them any leverage to have a fair fight. What SONY doesn't want, by any chance Microsoft decided to not give SONY anything with COD, they have Nintendo to give and they also have a large user base.

This is what SONY is afraid of, being left out.
They already bought zenimax, and they got a partnership with MS for gaming using azure….even though we’ve yet to hear anything new.

I’m sure it’ll go through tho…it’s not like Sony is gambit trowing poo that’s been super charged ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nervusbreakdown
They already bought zenimax, and they got a partnership with MS for gaming using azure….even though we’ve yet to hear anything new.

I’m sure it’ll go through tho…it’s not like Sony is gambit trowing poo that’s been super charged ;)
What kinda gets me is how everyone is saying, "Microsoft had 20 years to cultivate and grow their developers. They don't need ABK!"

But, like, hasn't Sony been in the game over 20 years? And why don't they have at least ONE competing FPS that can, at the very least "compete" with CoD - even being the market leader for every. Single. One of those years!

They don't even have a FPS (after 20+ years) to throw in the ring with other FPS to lose with! Got damn! Not even for Halo (supposedly a massively irrelevant IP these days)

Why after 20 years as market leader, don't they have a Gamepass service that trump's Gamepass? They even had theirs first, and it's still subpar after 20. Freaking. YEARS!

Why doesn't Sony, again, after 20 years as market leader, don't they have anything REMOTELY resembling a cloud infrastructure? They've been killing it in the business for this long??? And still don't have anything for Azure??

And you'd think as being market leader for this long, they could've AT LEAST threw in a counter offer to the ABK deal. They couldn't even step onto the playing field. Let alone make any counter offer worth a s***. Instead, they have to run behind the FTC to help block the deal! YOU'VE HAD TWENTY FVCKIN' YEARS, YO! GET RICH, FFS!

This is why I stand by this deal. Microsoft made mistakes. But they are working to fix them, even if they have to purchase [willing] participants with years of experience to help them do it. It's not their problem Sony leans heavy on an IP that wasn't theirs to begin with.

Sony is like the college kid who gets to stay in his rich friends summer house for the summer, gets comfortable, and then gets mad when his friend says, "summer's over bro! Time to go! Plus, I found a buyer."

Sorry for the rant. Had to release though
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: karmakid
What kinda gets me is how everyone is saying, "Microsoft had 20 years to cultivate and grow their developers. They don't need ABK!"

But, like, hasn't Sony been in the game over 20 years? And why don't they have at least ONE competing FPS that can, at the very least "compete" with CoD - even being the market leader for every. Single. One of those years!

They don't even have a FPS (after 20+ years) to throw in the ring with other FPS to lose with! Got damn! Not even for Halo (supposedly a massively irrelevant IP these days)

Why after 20 years as market leader, don't they have a Gamepass service that trump's Gamepass? They even had theirs first, and it's still subpar after 20. Freaking. YEARS!

Why doesn't Sony, again, after 20 years as market leader, don't they have anything REMOTELY resembling a cloud infrastructure? They've been killing it in the business for this long??? And still don't have anything for Azure??

And you'd think as being market leader for this long, they could've AT LEAST threw in a counter offer to the ABK deal. They couldn't even step onto the playing field. Let alone make any counter offer worth a s***. Instead, they have to run behind the FTC to help block the deal! YOU'VE HAD TWENTY FVCKIN' YEARS, YO! GET RICH, FFS!

This is why I stand by this deal. Microsoft made mistakes. But they are working to fix them, even if they have to purchase [willing] participants with years of experience to help them do it. It's not their problem Sony leans heavy on an IP that wasn't theirs to begin with.

Sony is like the college kid who gets to stay in his rich friends summer house for the summer, gets comfortable, and then gets mad when his friend says, "summer's over bro! Time to go! Plus, I found a buyer."

Sorry for the rant. Had to release though
I feel you, like I said before, SONY knows their run is coming to the end because there is where the Big boys play and SONY is not one of them. They are just good at getting into the public eye.
I have a feeling the reason the business acting the way it is now is because SONY made those standards where they made the calls and have a clause for making games on their consoles for years.

That could be the reason why you never see a Madden game on Dreamcast or a street fighter. They also had an influence in Game stores when the Xbox was about the debut and Sony told the stores to put the XBOX ads away or they will remove the Playstation games from the store and go elsewhere (yes, that did happen because I see the letter when I use to work at Gamestop).

Microsoft came in and saw how Sony was pretty much-locking things down and they know they were in a battle. They came in when SONY already had command of the gaming space.

Now all of sudden, Microsoft buys 2 publishers and gets even footing, and all of sudden the "Market Leader" said it can hurt them with no proof.

They just want to make sure the boot stays on Microsoft's neck as long as possible because they don't want to be left behind.

Long how long it took them to get their online to work, their online now is as good as the Xbox 360 era, but not anywhere near XBOX level. They know this.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Mcmasters
I feel you, like I said before, SONY knows their run is coming to the end because there is where the Big boys play and SONY is not one of them. They are just good at getting into the public eye.
I have a feeling the reason the business acting the way it is now is because SONY made those standards where they made the calls and have a clause for making games on their consoles for years.

That could be the reason why you never see a Madden game on Dreamcast or a street fighter. They also had an influence in Game stores when the Xbox was about the debut and Sony told the stores to put the XBOX ads away or they will remove the Playstation games from the store and go elsewhere (yes, that did happen because I see the letter when I use to work at Gamestop).

Microsoft came in and saw how Sony was pretty much-locking things down and they know they were in a battle. They came in when SONY already had command of the gaming space.

Now all of sudden, Microsoft buys 2 publishers and gets even footing, and all of sudden the "Market Leader" said it can hurt them with no proof.

They just want to make sure the boot stays on Microsoft's neck as long as possible because they don't want to be left behind.

Long how long it took them to get their online to work, their online now is as good as the Xbox 360 era, but not anywhere near XBOX level. They know this.
Agreed. Hopefully this deal goes through. This entre industry needs a shake up, I'm here for it!
 



Microsoft statement:

"We are committed to offering effective and easily enforceable solutions that address the CMA's concerns. Our commitment to grant long term 100% equal access to  Call of Duty to Sony, Nintendo, Steam and others preserves the deal's benefits to gamers and developers and increases competition in the market When we say equal, we mean equal. 10 years of parity. On content. On pricing. On features. On quality. On playability."

Source :

Tell us you don't know Jack without saying it...

 

About the CMA:

The CMA "seem like they've been co-opted by the FTC ideology, and [are] not really using independent thought, or thinking about how this transaction would positively impact the UK", Kotick said. He contrasted this with the EU, where he said regulators had shown "a lot more insight and recognition of what the risks are in the economy from a macro perspective".

About UK government:

UK prime minister Rishi Sunak is "smart" and "understands business", Kotick said. But "it doesn't seem like there is any real vision in the leadership for pursuing these kinds of opportunities", he said, adding: "It seems like a bit of a fragile government. Where's the leadership?" "If I look at our hiring plans, we're more likely to find the next 3,000 to 5,000 people that we need in the UK than almost any other country," Kotick said.
Click to shrink...

About Sony:

"Suddenly, Sony's entire leadership team stopped talking to anyone at Microsoft," Kotick said, adding that his own calls to Sony's chief and other executives were not returned. "I think this is all Sony just trying to sabotage the transaction," Kotick said. "The whole idea that we are not going to support a PlayStation or that Microsoft would not support the PlayStation, it is absurd."

In response to a request for comment, Sony said: "We are in contact with Microsoft and have no further comment regarding our private negotiations."
Click to shrink...

About the future of the deal and the FTC:

Kotick was optimistic the Microsoft acquisition would close by July 2023.

In its fight with the FTC, Kotick noted that Microsoft had hired Beth Wilkinson, a Washington-based lawyer who was hired by the commission in 2012 to lead a probe into Google. "She feels like if she is going to have to litigate against the FTC, she will absolutely crush them."
 
From the lawyer covering it

——————

Provisional findings from the CMA:

- Short version
- Summary
- Long version not available yet
- Press release

The merger may be expected to result in a substantial lessening of competition in:

A) console gaming in the UK due to vertical effects resulting from input foreclosure; and

B) cloud gaming services in the UK due to vertical effects resulting from input foreclosure.

Possible remedies:

1) Requiring a partial divestiture of Activision Blizzard:

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.

2) Prohibition of the merger.

3) Access remedies will be considered:


18. Microsoft has, however, informed us of existing and potential contractual arrangements with third-party platforms relating to access to Call of Duty. Accordingly, while none of the circumstances in which the CMA would select a behavioural remedy as the primary source of remedial action in a merger investigation (as summarised in paragraph 15 above) appear to be present, the CMA will also consider a behavioural access remedy as a possible remedy.

19. Access remedies are a form of behavioural remedy which seek to maintain or restore competition by enabling competitors to have access on appropriate terms to the products and facilities of a merger entity that they require to remain competitive. Access remedies normally require an access commitment which is set out in significant detail so that both customers and monitoring agencies can enforce compliance effectively. In this case, an access remedy would look to ensure third party access to Activision Blizzard, Inc's content that is necessary to remedy the provisional SLCs.

44. As noted above, the circumstances in which the CMA might select a behavioural remedy as the primary source of remedial action are not present in this case. The two markets in which the CMA has provisionally found SLCs are multi-faceted and continue to develop. This is particularly the case in cloud gaming, where the customer offerings and business models of market participants are evolving rapidly. We are of the initial view that any behavioural remedy in this case is likely to present material effectiveness risks. We invite the Parties to provide evidence on how these risks could be appropriately managed to ensure that any behavioural remedy is effective.


Next steps

MS/ABK and interested parties have until 17:00 UK time on 22 February to respond to the remedies notice.