Microsoft is buying Activision Blizzard for $68.7 billion [FTC sues to stop - CMA issues updated preliminary findings]

[Rozalia1]

19 hours ago, Z1MZUM said:

XBSX and XBSS is just an extension of the XB1 though, same controller and OS.

 

Gamepass did start on One so you could argue that, but I wouldn't think it fair to the One. The One was the culmination of Microsoft's long running strategy. It was lacklustre, but there was some attempt at having exclusives and growing gaming. They scrapped that when they did Gamepass and were very much thinking about their next console at that point.

 

23 hours ago, TheRetroManiac said:

So this has happened today my thoughts, it reeks of desperation too me.

 

10 hours ago, SnowxSakura said:

Not sure why Sony would ever divulge what they are currently working on, nor is it any of microsoft's business.

 

Learning that information has some use, not that Xbox is really set up to make use of it, but I think it is all so they can do some stupid "hey Sony is developing new FPS game/s so clearly this means that even if we took CoD away they'd be fine as they have their own shooter". They've already done that sort of thing with exclusive count (which they underreported their own exclusives by around 10% and threw in Vita games for Sony's number from what I recall) where they promoted raw numbers because obviously an exclusive CoD would have the same value as Stroke the X.

 

I know some, especially the supporters, think Microsoft has the best lawyers in the world and everything that happens is big brain moves... but we've seen the silly arguments they've made and even when trying to do this they gave it to Sony 3 days away from their deadline which meant Sony merely had to state that it wasn't the required 10 days and Microsoft had to scrap it to try again. You'd think such highly paid lawyers, and they have a lot of them, wouldn't make such a simple mistake.

 

7 hours ago, Property_Damage said:

Xbox is still a thing?

 

It won't be I'm sure if Xbox's full figures (which they hide) ever make it out into the wild. So much money down the money pit for so little. Their latest numbers, the ones they allow to be seen, were all negative except for overall Gamepass subs which grew a tiny amount (not enough to meet their goals so you can count it as a negative too) so imagine how bad the ones they don't allow to be seen are. Hardware was down which two years in isn't something that should be happening. They're currently getting outsold 2 to 1 (those numbers were America only too I think which would be even worse as Xbox is much weaker elsewhere) and this is with their pushing of the Series S which has been discounted, a console they sell at a large loss anyway, which means they're losing 200-300 dollars on each one depending on the discounted price.

[Z1MZUM]

3 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

 

Gamepass did start on One so you could argue that, but I wouldn't think it fair to the One. The One was the culmination of Microsoft's long running strategy. It was lacklustre, but there was some attempt at having exclusives and growing gaming. They scrapped that when they did Gamepass and were very much thinking about their next console at that point.

 

It did and I thought it was amazing at first but it didn't take long for me to cancel Gamepass. I think Sunset Overdrive is the only exclusive I played. 

[Rozalia1]

6 hours ago, Z1MZUM said:

It did and I thought it was amazing at first but it didn't take long for me to cancel Gamepass. I think Sunset Overdrive is the only exclusive I played. 

 

Thankfully that is what seems to be the case for most people. Games aren't movies or whatever where 2 hours and you're done and moving on to the next thing. While there are shorter games, games are usually at least x10 that timeframe to do and many are far more than that. Big time gamers are going to be spending significant time on non-Gamepass games to the point that even if they get on the service they'll start realising that it isn't all that worth them being on it (games they play for "free" have to exceed Gamepass's cost). Even the "only play CoD + free games" people that supporters think will go to Gamepass in mass numbers aren't primed for Gamepass as why get Gamepass when buying the game is cheaper, especially if what Microsoft says but is totally lying about (unless they mean they'll mismanage it to where it keeps getting delayed) is true, that being CoD getting more development time.

 

It is why I think they're doing this deal. They dream of subscriptions dominating and all that money rolling in but it isn't looking good so they've gotten desperate. Their Gamepass numbers are nowhere close good enough and even Microsoft eventually will run out of time as the money men don't like putting money into stuff that hasn't done the job in years and doesn't look like it ever will. Of course if Gamepass fails then we're likely looking at the end of Xbox itself with it. I don't think the odds are good that they'll even keep their game studios (possibly ones for mobile gaming if they still have hope towards facing off against Apple/Google, their real competition according to them and not Sony lets remember) due to all of the mismanagement. Ironically, if that happens and this deal gets rejected then that'll likely mean Activision will buy some bits of Xbox (with Microsoft's own money at that).

[TheRetroManiac]

Why would you come out and say shit like this, it makes you look very stupid, it's really simple get better at making your own exclusives and stop blaming Sony for making very good 1st party titles.

 

 

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by DaivRules
Embedded tweet

[DaivRules]

6 minutes ago, TheRetroManiac said:

Why would you come out and say shit like this, it makes you look very stupid, it's really simple get better at making your own exclusives and stop blaming Sony for making very good 1st party titles.

 

You got that right. As I assume the whole thread will be deleted by the author, the EVP Corporate Affairs and CCO, Activision Blizzard (ie, vested interest in a big buyout payday from MS) as a tweet tagging the FTC:
 

Quote

Hi @FTC — did you catch last night’s episode of The Last of Us? It was incredible. No wonder the show is breaking records. It’s a true blockbuster, watched by tens of millions. If you haven’t already, you should check it out. You may be particularly interested in the fact that

 

Quote

The Last of Us is produced by Sony Pictures Television and PlayStation Productions. It’s based on a best-selling video game developed by a Sony-owned studio and published by Sony as a PlayStation exclusive. Why does this matter?

 

Quote

The FTC has opposed the Microsoft - Activision Blizzard deal on the grounds that Microsoft could “suppress competition” from rival consoles by leveraging Activision games. It sounds like there’s some worry that Sony’s position as market leader could be jeopardized by this deal.

 

Quote

But there’s no cause for concern. Sony has an unrivaled warchest of IP, not just in gaming but TV, movies, and music — which can be developed into games, or can market existing games. Case in point: the TV show The Last of Us is already generating renewed interest in that game.

 

Quote

Sony’s talent and IP across gaming, TV, movies, and music are formidable and truly impressive. It’s no wonder they also continue to dominate as the market leader for consoles. In gaming, Sony is “the first of us” - and they will be just fine without the FTC’s protection.

 

As if Sony is the only one who the case is interested in protecting from being hurt, and not the citizens/consumers impacted by the eventual abuse of just about every monopoly that has ever existed in business.
 

[Lance_87]

1 hour ago, TheRetroManiac said:

Why would you come out and say shit like this, it makes you look very stupid, it's really simple get better at making your own exclusives and stop blaming Sony for making very good 1st party titles.

 

 

 

 

I swear i actually read "Lulu Cheng Misery".

[TheRetroManiac]

2 hours ago, Lance_87 said:

 

I swear i actually read "Lulu Cheng Misery".

Ha ha I did at first as well lol.

[Rozalia1]

I wouldn't expect a deletion of all of that. Lulu Meservey has been making stupid and trollish comments all throughout this thing in support of Microsoft. This current attempt is just so bad that even Microsoft's supporters have been backing away from it in embarrassment. Though ultimately her argument here is nothing new. It is simply the usual Microsoft argument without the narrative on top of them being the small little guy facing big bad Sony. That argument being that Xbox is completely incompetent and that Sony is extremely talented and so will be fine no matter how much Microsoft buys up. At the end of the day Microsoft had that Halo show first, of a property that used to be a real big hitter (bigger than anything Sony had at the time). They fumbled like they do most things and so in usual Microsoft fashion think that those failures mean they should be allowed to buy up a lot of things to make up for it. In essence Microsoft wants Sony to be punished for their success and Microsoft rewarded for their failure.

 

On the matter of regulators there is an interesting aspect that has popped up recently. When Microsoft dropped the "arrogant Sony" meme when responding to the CMA they cited Sony's price increases that got a bunch of press at the time. In essence Sony, the evil empire that it is, is clearly in a position where it cares not for competition as it doesn't actually have any (this is an argument where Microsoft pretends Nintendo doesn't exist, don't confuse it with their other arguments where Nintendo exists) so they can raise their prices at will. Microsoft getting this deal through will allow them to actually compete which will in turn help prevent big bad Sony from doing whatever it feels like and so win win for the consumer. What has predictably happened since then, not even all that long after? Microsoft after those words to the CMA, after trotting out Spencer for his PR song and dance, are raising prices too.

 

Anyway, no word yet from the EU so perhaps we've hit another delay for whatever reason. One thing that looks good is Microsoft with Lulu and the other guy angrily whining a bunch. Previously when a crack in Microsoft's mask revealed itself like that was when the FTC dropped the hammer on them so possibly what Microsoft has heard is the EU is either no on the deal or worse when it comes to future PR, wanting some measures for Microsoft to follow that Microsoft simply cannot accept.

[Rozalia1]

 

 

The guy posting at the top is the lead communicator for Microsoft so perhaps Microsoft has finally committed to the viewpoint that Nintendo is not relevant to this case... or they haven't as Microsoft tomorrow might come out with a statement saying Nintendo needs to be considered. Note also that Microsoft has received the notice from the EU already and continues these whining public comments by their people, could mean something.

 

As for the PlayStation results. Microsoft supporters were going to be happy with either result as it being down for Sony would give them some console wars ammo, while it being good gives them (perceived) ammo for this deal. The thing about competition is Sony doing well doesn't mean that competition isn't happening, in fact it is very much the opposite. They've obviously got a good operation and product and are thus being rewarded for it. Xbox is a complete mismanaged mess and as a result is doing much worse. That is competition. Competition doesn't mean that bad products need to be bought out of pity as otherwise there is no competition. 

 

However, the thing with me is I don't forget their former arrogant comments. This whining about their being no competition because they're losing is actually a new angle. The old angle was... that Microsoft doesn't even compete with Sony to begin with. 1st party a mess. Selling less consoles. Less revenue (and much less net income, if they make any at all, though they've never admitted to it). Who cares said Microsoft, they're in the subscriptions business and they're so far ahead of Sony on it that they don't even think of Sony as competition anymore. Google, Amazon, Apple, those sorts are competition to Microsoft. Sony is just a Blockbuster afraid of their Netflix. Now the story is very different and it turns out that Sony are competition and the 1st party output, the console sales, the revenue, it is all actually relevant. Sony rather than some irrelevant nobody to Microsoft is also an endless evil empire that even trillion dollar Microsoft lives in fear of. As their people have said, even if Microsoft gets the deal Sony is so powerful and Microsoft so incompetent that nothing will change but at least there will be some hope.

 

With all that said, on the matter of the numbers themselves. This is all of Microsoft's own making. I don't buy the supporters excuse that the Xbox One is to blame for all of this. Nonsense. Microsoft are selling less consoles and games? That is a result of the Xbox One 10 bloody years ago? Or is it because Xbox is completely mismanaged (worse than ever before it seems) and they have straight up incentivised people into not buying their games and instead getting on their subscription? Even their consoles they'll tell you are pointless and you can just your PC or phone as it is all about that subscription. They seemingly can't convert casual gamers as what interest do they have in such a service when they play such a small pallet of games, many of them free at that. While hardcore gamers who are signing up if they ever go subscription only will mean very bad business for Microsoft as those are the people who buy a lot of games.

Microsoft at this point knows it is all going badly but they've poured so much money down the money pit that they're full speed ahead into the sunk cost fallacy. If Microsoft did the smart thing they'd fire Spencer, Booty, and anyone else in management at Xbox. They'd remove the policy of their 1st party games day 1 on Gamepass. All while cutting back on Gamepass itself so it is more of a compliment than their spear tip.

[Rozalia1]

Remember the talk of Microsoft wanting Sony to reveal everything they're working on? Tip of the iceberg. The word is Microsoft seemingly wants to know every word ever uttered at Sony in the last 10 years. They want to know the inner workings of every private deal PlayStation has, they want to know the private information of PlayStation's customers, they even want to see documents relating to management, promotions, and worker evaluations. It was thought that Sony had been getting the timeframe pushed back as they were playing a game where they stalled until the regulators made a decision, but it appears it was simply Microsoft demanding stuff that would take ages to get together and much of it, as Sony has complained (and hopefully will get support from the Judge to discount it) is irrelevant stuff just meant to frustrate Sony by having them waste time and money. Granted I can believe management and worker related stuff while not relevant to the deal is certainly relevant to Microsoft itself. After all, if they see how Sony handles it maybe they can learn how to run a gaming business. Anyway, no shocker Microsoft was going to attempt this nonsense as people called it from the start.

 

Something interesting is according to a scoop from the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/04/business/dealbook/microsofts-activision-deal.html), Microsoft's lawyers apparently are feeling like the CMA is going to go against them. Could mean absolutely nothing as Microsoft's people involved in this deal have been about as competent as Xbox management, but I'm pretty sure that while they've sweated about setbacks, this is the 1st time they've shown worry of the deal dying.

 

Another interesting thing to be coming out is that the Microsoft supporter narrative of third party developers who have chimed in to regulators are all backing Microsoft is very much wrong. A significant number apparently have privately to regulators spoke against the deal. Its simply much more risky for those against to be open then those for (and even many of those haven't revealed themselves). Many companies are taking advantage of money mark Microsoft but if they anger them then that could mean no deals for them.

[RadiantFlamberge]

One other reason I couldn't care less about XBSX is that most games I'd want for it are on PC. Perhaps they should release some of their studios' Xbox games as timed console exclusives, with a wait of say 6 months before the PC version. Also, Xbox should refrain from having a new release in the Gamepass lineup until it has been out for maybe 30-45 days, so they can try for more initial sales. Releasing demos of games prior to the full release wouldn't be bad.

 

Hopefully the regulators don't accept even one concession from MS. Go all-in or not at all. Better they fight the deal wholeheartedly, win or lose. Any compromises would be as bad as not even trying.

[Rozalia1]

6 hours ago, RadiantFlamberge said:

One other reason I couldn't care less about XBSX is that most games I'd want for it are on PC. Perhaps they should release some of their studios' Xbox games as timed console exclusives, with a wait of say 6 months before the PC version. Also, Xbox should refrain from having a new release in the Gamepass lineup until it has been out for maybe 30-45 days, so they can try for more initial sales. Releasing demos of games prior to the full release wouldn't be bad.

 

Hopefully the regulators don't accept even one concession from MS. Go all-in or not at all. Better they fight the deal wholeheartedly, win or lose. Any compromises would be as bad as not even trying.

 

I have thought the same right from the start. Microsoft putting their 1st party titles on Gamepass day 1 does nothing but lose them money because those most likely to sign up to Gamepass are their more hardcore fans... who would buy their games day 1 anyway. Their current day 1 titles (whenever they actually release) are like the PS3 exclusives back in the day when the PS3 was struggling. They can be great games, they can have their fans, they can make a little bit of money, but ultimately mean little in the grand scheme of things to most people. This is especially the case with them because as you said, they go day 1 on PC too. Microsoft should know this as they once infamously boasted that their exclusive Halo 3 outsold all of Sony's shooter exclusives on its own, which might be why they're after CoD as CoD fits the bill of a phenomenon/cultural hit... though considering their lack of ability, the constant offerings to not have it be exclusive, and the fact they always seem to learn the wrong lessons... more likely to just be dumb luck.

 

As for Demos... not so sure Microsoft would want to do that. Due to the state of their operation demos would likely hurt their operation rather than help. Their Halo demo got the game delayed for a year which ultimately did nothing for the game meaning they wasted more time and money.

 

I agree on your view regarding what the regulators should do. I've heard some say that the regulators have struggled with this because an outright denial wouldn't be completely correct, but there seems to be no concessions that Microsoft would accept that would actually work in making the deal a good one. For Microsoft supporters such a thing means the regulators should default to accepting the deal or putting laughable concessions on it (10 year promise and such). That makes little sense to me (I doubt it does to Microsoft's supporters either and they're just being dishonest) as surely blocking the deal in that scenario would be the most correct decision as it avoids harm entirely.

[SuchRemorse]

On 1/23/2023 at 11:49 PM, Z1MZUM said:

 

XBSX and XBSS is just an extension of the XB1 though, same controller and OS.

It's like an xb1 pro lol...

[Rozalia1]

So Kotick and Nadella both went on TV to talk up the deal and desperate is the word I'd use to describe it. Kotick was the more open one about it while Nadella tried to be undercover but in essence Microsoft is in last place in Japan by miles because Sony/Nintendo have it as a protected market which is unfair to Microsoft. The implication in their statements seems to be that the western market should protect these American companies in the fight against the foreign barbarians. Activision apparently doing bad business in Japan was as a result of this too. China was also brought up as a protected market for Tencent and others to help strengthen their argument of "the west is losing badly to the east". Interestingly there was a guy who did an opinion in the NYT I think it was that put forward this very argument which leads me to think that Microsoft is organising their people to put forward this type of message. That in essence regulators are protecting eastern companies and hurting western ones. Of course, this argument goes back further as since the start Microsoft's crudest supporters have been making that case, that the deal being between two American companies at the expenses of a Japanese one should mean that the deal should be accepted on that basis alone.

 

To address that crap. To begin with two wrongs don't make a right. Now while they would have a point with Tencent/others and China... the one in focus here is Sony and Japan. Sony as we know has degraded heavily in Japan so acting like Sony is protected and uplifted there is nonsense, it also certainly is not why they're dominating Microsoft currently. Beyond that nothing in Japanese governance (unlike the Chinese, which hurts Sony as much as Microsoft by the way) hurts Microsoft making inroads there. What hurts Microsoft is the consumers there I assume still usually valuing local companies goods over foreign ones. As for Activision, how much of their stuff even appeals to the common Japanese gamer? How many of their top selling games does Microsoft even put on the Switch which owns the market there? Another element that makes this particularly odious is while there is certainly nothing wrong with the nationalist argument of "support local businesses", Microsoft is a multinational company and has no right to make it.

 

Anyway, to top it all off Kotick finished his piece with a threat towards the UK, that being that if the CMA dares block than tech companies will flee/not invest further there. Thankfully to begin with the CMA has already shown that such angles don't work, but furthermore... why would the CMA be afraid when them blocking would be fully backed by the FTC and largely backed by the EU?

If the big money men are echoing Microsoft supporter trolls in their arguments before a decision has been made then that sounds good to me for the chances of this deal getting blocked. I also have to wonder if they're at such a low level already then how low will they go once the deal is blocked? They have a million PR people which I assume will stop them, but it'll be a feast if they breakdown and start angrily slinging out absolutely hilarious stupid comments. Perhaps we'll see Microsoft once again call out the FTC as unamerican and against the constitution while implying (perhaps not even implying this time) that the FTC shouldn't exist. Then you have the mess that is Activision whose workers you imagine will want to riot against management the moment the deal is confirmed dead.

[MidnightDragon]

Looks like the UK will oppose the deal, too. 

 

https://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2023/02/06/microsoft-activision-deal-opposed-uk/

 

It's delaying the inevitable, but it is nice it's not just being rubber stamped.

[Rozalia1]

It appears that after Kotick did the talk that I mentioned he also went on Fox, the Financial Times, basically a PR blitz. These revealed some more stuff.

 

For a start Kotick claims that the CMA are not showing independent thought and appear to have been corrupted by the FTC. He once again threatened the UK and appeared to appeal to its Prime Minister to go above the CMA and force the deal being accepted. Unfortunately for this scumbag while the PM could do that, it'd at the very least require a large amount of big companies to do such an appeal so the PM could frame it as the "CMA has gone mad", and even then it would be a political risk as it'd be nakedly corrupt. The PM doing that process which would involve straight up changing the law just for Microsoft shouldn't be something that'll be happening. Likely this is Kotick thinking that things in the UK operates like America.

 

He also has claimed that Sony isn't talking to Microsoft (beyond what is mandated by the court), and they're ignoring Activision entirely and not responding to Activisions pleas for dialogue. I wonder why that would be. Could it be that since this has started Activision has been attacking Sony (usually saying things as aggressive as Microsoft would like to) as an evil empire that needs to be stopped? Could it be that Activision now publicly (it was behind the scenes previously) putting forward a West vs East angle to things might sour things? Na, I'm sure it is just another instance of evil empire Sony trying to crush any rebellion against them. Poor good guy Bobby. He then caps all this off with "I'm confident the deal will go through" which just shows you have fake all of those "We're confident" comments are considering how can such a thing be said after everything else he said.

 

This is all very spicy and I'm interested to see if Sony comes for Kotick after this if the deal fails. I remember when Kotick was in trouble people appealed to Microsoft & Sony to talk to Activision and tell them that Kotick had to go. We know that Microsoft did talk to Kotick and you know, offered him the way out of selling the company to them and that they'd do PR for him by talking him up whenever he came up (doesn't get enough mention this, that Nadella/Spencer/the rest back Kotick as they do). Sony meanwhile didn't do anything because its generally not a thing you should do... but with Kotick having gone to war against Sony, calling for western regulators to screw Sony because they're a Japanese company... We might well get Sony adding their voice to Activisions woes and asking the board at Activision to remove Kotick. Sony to an independent Activision is key to their business so such a call (no need to even hand out threats) would be very powerful.

 

10 hours ago, MidnightDragon said:

Looks like the UK will oppose the deal, too. 

 

https://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2023/02/06/microsoft-activision-deal-opposed-uk/

 

It's delaying the inevitable, but it is nice it's not just being rubber stamped.

 

I mentioned this news when it happened some posts back, that Microsoft's people felt that the deal was going against them. On its own as I said it doesn't mean anything, but what has followed afterwards with all the recent pathetic displays from Microsoft and their proxy Activision do give further fuel to it being the case.

 

What do you mean by delaying the inevitable by the way? If the CMA blocks then this deal is cooked. It ain't like in America where they can take it to a court with a corrupt pro business judge and get it all overturned.

[Rozalia1]

I post and the CMA follows: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63e2589a8fa8f50e85820fb0/Microsoft-Activision_PFs_Summary_2.pdf

 

I'm reading it now but from I've seen from others it looks unacceptable to Microsoft.

[willmill97]

What's the tl;dr here?

[Rozalia1]

4 minutes ago, willmill97 said:

What's the tl;dr here?

 

Working on one right now, but it appears that the deal should be dead in the water. Microsoft can buy certain parts of ABK but Activision and CoD seems off the table. Activision it is thought would fall apart if they didn't have the Blizzard & King part of their business so such a deal even if Microsoft was fine with it would likely be unacceptable to Activision itself. We'll see now if Microsoft was lying about "this deal is about King", because if it is then why not just take it?

 

Also this explains why Microsoft and Activision did the madness the other day. They knew this had been the result.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Rozalia1

[DaivRules]

14 minutes ago, willmill97 said:

What's the tl;dr here?

To be more precise:

 

Quote

In our Notice of possible remedies, published alongside our Provisional Findings, we have set out three options to remedy the provisional SLC: prohibition of the merger, divestiture of a part of Activision’s business, or behavioural commitments by the Parties. We also invite submissions from interested parties on these initial views by 22 February 2023.

The document is pretty straight forward without all the drama spin about “he said then he said” and lays out the current findings and that they’re open to input before making their final recommendation. 
 

[Rozalia1]

Just now, DaivRules said:

To be more precise:

 

The document is pretty straight forward without all the drama spin about “he said then he said” and lays out the current findings and that they’re open to input before making their final recommendation. 

 

Could we get a title change? The CMA is key to all of this so this is a big development.

[DaivRules]

3 minutes ago, Rozalia1 said:

 

Could we get a title change? The CMA is key to all of this so this is a big development.

The title is still accurate for what’s happening. 
 

[Rozalia1]

Just now, DaivRules said:

The title is still accurate for what’s happening. 

 

It is, but I mean just an update in brackets to inform people that the CMA has responded.

[DaivRules]

17 minutes ago, Rozalia1 said:

 

It is, but I mean just an update in brackets to inform people that the CMA has responded.

The title will be updated when the situation materially changes. People can read the newest posts to see any updates as they happen. 
 

[Rozalia1]

Just now, DaivRules said:

The title will be updated when the situation materially changes. People can read the newest posts to see any updates as they happen. 

 

You're the moderator so it is up to you but I feel it is a mistake. The thread getting a new post doesn't inform those seeing the thread getting posted in that something important has happened. It could be any manner of normally commentary that isn't new information. By providing something in brackets that something big has happened people can see instantly that something has happened and thus then check out the thread. I don't see why you'd be against this as the current title can be kept while providing the update, but as I've said its all up to you as moderator.