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

[Nelson_]

On 4/26/2023 at 4:33 AM, Tsundokuist said:

Personally, I hope it works out for Xbox. I’ve never played a single Activision/Blizzard game so I won’t miss them and I’d rather Xbox became the ‘Murica Box so Playstation have to embrace being the Weeb’s machine of choice but it won’t happen, Xbox just want to pad Gamepass. I don’t even think they want to make consoles long-term. I think they’d happily just sell Gamepass subscriptions to PCs, Sony/Nintendo consoles and maybe their own set-top streaming box if they could.

 

Maybe this can help Sony with their obsession over the western

[majob]

7 hours ago, mcnichoj said:

 

 

What crackerjack of a box person did you hear that rumor from? Wouldn't make sense that Microsoft would force an Xbox Live subscription now when since the Xbox 360 era the subscription policy stated that subscription based MMO's were exempt from requiring Xbox Live.

If you didn't know, as of now even F2P games like Warframe require an Xbox Live subscription to play whereas Sony exempts it. So it's not a bonkers thing at all given how MS currently does business.

[MidnightDragon]

7 hours ago, UNLEADED_BRONZE said:

Kotick:

Another pay RAISE

 

CMA/UK:

No no no

We refuse this corruption

 

I’m not trying to be a jerk, but could you actually post something constructive? This stuff contributes zero to the conversation.

Edited April 28, 2023 by MidnightDragon

[MidnightDragon]

10 hours ago, mcnichoj said:

What crackerjack of a box person did you hear that rumor from?

I’ve seen that relations between ME and SE have deteriorated mentioned on a couple sites as well FWIW. The other stuff I hadn’t, but sounds like typical Microsoft.

[Rozalia1]

Some developments that have happened since the bombshell:

 

1: Microsoft have signed another 10 year deal with some cloud provider in Europe. You have to hope it was in the works before the CMA's decision but with it being Microsoft, it is not impossible they really think getting more now will somehow help. Apparently though this deal is even more worthless than the usual as the company they're signing this deal with already have access to Activision's games.

 

2: Details on the 10 year deals are coming out. Some of it is not new such as the fact that they asked Sony to pay such an absurd amount of money that they actually asked Sony to redact the amount as they knew it was indefensible. What is new is the fact that the 10 year deals with the small cloud providers have a clause in them that gives Microsoft 100% of all microtransactions that get made on those platforms for the Activision games these deals give access to. This was also a modified remedy meaning that Microsoft at first offered an even worse deal. Anyway, what these deals mean if Microsoft gets all the income is that those Cloud providers would simply become extensions of Microsoft and Microsoft would be able to kill them at will whenever they liked, though being regional extensions of Microsoft, their supporters aren't wrong that Microsoft would have little reason to kill them, so they're technically correct there but the reasons for why that would be the case are very bad. Nintendo is the part that is ??? because it is doubtful to me that they would take the same sort of deal as these cloud providers did, they're "killers" after all. Considering Sony's deal was different and the FTC is trying to get their hands on Nintendo's deal, presumably because they suspect it is different, I imagine Microsoft may well be giving Nintendo the 30% fee. What would that mean? It would mean that they would be giving 0% to the small Cloud providers, making Sony pay massive amounts if they don't want to be cut off, and giving Nintendo a great deal, all which would show Microsoft's intentions.

 

3: http://techrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/comes-3096.pdf

 

Perhaps because Brad Smith's recent insane outbursts have caused people to remark that this is how Microsoft of old acted, the above has gotten out there in the public again. It is an old internal Microsoft document from back in the day that outlines how Microsoft should (and did) operate to crush their competition. It is a lot of pages which might scare you from reading it, but most of it is in slide format so the pages go by quickly. If you do check it out you'll quickly notice stuff that Microsoft does right now because obviously, it is still the same Microsoft.

 

The below is my comments on the above and what goes on today. It is in a spoiler as it goes on for a bit and you may not be interested in it.
 

Spoiler

 

Xbox as we know has an ever degrading fanbase which should have no real energy as what exactly do they have to be energetic about? Yet anyone who has spent time across the internet will know that certain places have some odd levels of Xbox activity. The reason is astroturfing which Xbox actually got caught using for the Xbox One launch but obviously that has largely been forgotten and is considered bad form to bring up. The astroturfing comes in two varieties. The media/influencers/"experts" and of course the common fan shall we say. For the common fan you may have noticed certain accounts that at times become Gamepass advertisements. These could aptly be called Xbots funnily enough. Not all such accounts posting that stuff is bots of course as the bots posting promotes actual real people to join in, but they certainly help drives things. The media/influencers/"experts" meanwhile are obviously real people, but obviously they'll have stuff going on there too. Some simply get paid in some manner I'm sure but that is risky so most are likely going to be paid in access and the like. Look for example at those accounts that post how they had a great day meeting X amount of top Xbox people and the like, that is the payment to those people. Then you have Florian Mueller types who are "experts", "activists", and whatever they call themselves but if you dig even a small bit you'll find links to Microsoft at times so strong that they basically work for Microsoft, or did so until very recently. Finally you have of course like with the fans, people who do this for Microsoft for free and because they want to, the other mentioned groups promoting them to do it too of course.

 

A good example if someone needs one of them making use of the above was the reveals of the consoles. Remember how the Xbox Series X was a beast and was going to overpower the PS5 with no trouble and blah blah blah. You had so called expert after expert saying that and yet the reality as we see it is that the PS5 has been outperforming the Xbox Series X often. Note also that all this occurs while the Xbox Series X is up to 200 dollars more expensive for Microsoft to make than the PS5 is for Sony. So the actual truth is that Microsoft made a much more expensive console than Sony did and yet it is still often outperformed. Even worse is that apparently Microsoft was so confident in the Series S that production of their wafers for their consoles seem like they produce them for both of their consoles at the same time, several Series S wafers and one for the Series X, which if true explains perfectly why while Sony have fixed the supply issue Xbox has been unable to. Curiously, even though Xbox has these many technical issues we see nothing like the energy there was for the PS5 being a weak console in comparison to the X. The reason is simple enough, Microsoft doesn't have their thumb on the scale so to speak because obviously such talk is no longer of any use to them.

 

Then you have how they treat their competition. As the document outlines, Microsoft directly attacking competitors is ugly and will usually set people against them. This is why they've had guys like Spencer saying that console wars were ugly, people cared too much for a plastic box, shouldn't we all be friends, and all that. Yet as we see in the rare moments the mask slips, they are the most into the console wars out of everybody. Mask slipping aside, Microsoft instead leaves the attacks to their agents I've described above. The reason to attack their competition in this underhanded way is to present the idea that Microsoft itself doesn't attack people, they're good guys, and that their competition is evil. Naturally, if this succeeds then when Microsoft crushes them with their dirty tactics most people won't care, after all Microsoft's opponent was evil and so deserved to get crushed.

 

Finally you have how they respond to how the competition acts. Sony has frustrated people at times for how passive they are towards these attacks made against them, only responding if they absolutely must. However, it may be they are acting that way because it is how they've decided to combat Microsoft's dirty tactics, which considering at one point Jim Ryan even stated that Microsoft is a known monopolist implies to me they know Microsoft does what I've outlined above and is in the document linked. Notice how Microsoft and its agents apparently have free will to make any attack they want against Sony. Meanwhile if Sony says the slightest thing then they're the evil empire out to destroy everyone. In that environment I suppose it is better to keep talk to a minimum and be more controlled. Something to also note is neutrality or to be more specific the phrases such as "Stop console warring, just game wherever". These have been around for a long time and are obviously said by real people, however, they're also in use among Xbox's astroturfers. If everything else either fails or clearly will not work then using that argument is the best course of action to them. In certain places it is very noticeable as those accounts will have no issue with attacks on others but if it is on Microsoft then suddenly the discourse is ugly and should end.

 

 

10 hours ago, MidnightDragon said:

The FTC denied their completely ridiculous allegations. 

 

https://www.psu.com/news/bobby-kotick-believes-the-ftc-and-uks-cma-illegally-spoke-about-the-microsoft-activision-deal-shortly-before-cmas-block-decision-publication-ftc-responds-we-absolutely-did-not-collude/

 

Also, FTC policy says that they can cooperate in cross-border conduct investigations. Either way, he's not helping their case. Well, their temper tantrums probably won't do much to endear them to the EU regulators and they're already on thin ice with the FTC. I can only imagine how much they'll melt down if the EU also denies them next month. 

 

Still, just want this to be over because I'm sick of hearing about it. 

 

Kotick is just using the Microsoft playbook. Remember how evil and wrong Sony was for allegedly, as spread by Activision, saying that they wanted to kill the deal? Even though Sony is literally an opposing party against the deal which means on record they wanted the deal dead. Then you had big bad Sony "not taking Activision's calls"... when Activision due to the deal can't talk to Sony on such matters anyway and has to leave it up to Microsoft. It is just an effort to smear the enemy as evil and corrupt, banking on most of the public being too uninformed (media certainly won't do its job properly and fight back against Microsoft) to realise they're talking nonsense.

 

12 hours ago, mcnichoj said:

Unless MS is like, "here's however many billion to make a few COD titles exclusive". That would probably be more than enough to cover any loss in revenue for ABK.

If anyone remembers, the last time Sony "held the cards" was back during the PS2 era. Still, what happened with Resident Evil 4? It went to the GameCube. I'm sure people will point out that it eventually went to the PS2 but a big caveat there is that the PS2 port was pretty crappy in comparison. Ironically this is what Jim Ryan claimed Microsoft could do with PlayStation releases of COD if MS owned the IP. I mention these two things to make a point that you don't need to own an IP for crappier versions to end up on other companies hardware. Maybe instead of a straight out exclusive deal they could have a "make Xbox the premier platform" deal which might as well be code for "make the PS5 version worse". Regulatory bodies wouldn't be able to stop this.

 

Microsoft technically got a closer relationship through this whole process, so the 'failure fee' technically wasn't for nothing. They already have a Diablo game/Xbox console bundle lined up.

Would be weird if they decided to scrap the Xbox brand when it's currently at its most profitable.

https://fanspace.gg/microsoft-has-made-more-money-through-xbox-in-the-last-3-months-than-it-has-ever-made-in-its-20-year-history/

 

CoD is a monster that requires massive amounts of production and to cover that needs massive amounts of sales. As a result they need a lot of momentum, speed if you will, slowing down may well make them go boom like the bus in the movie Speed. On paper yes, Microsoft can pay the X billions to Activision to cover whatever they would likely lose by not having it on PlayStation, but if in doing so they likely lose momentum which then might be fatal for the brand and then ultimately them considering how much is invested in CoD being a success.

 

As for RE4. It and half a dozen other games were exclusive to Nintendo not because Nintendo signed a deal, but because management at Capcom at the time hated PlayStation. The PS2 was apparently harder to code for than what had come before and Sony being an entertainment company was viewed by them as someone who was going to degrade gaming and that sort of thing. They'd have actually put the games on Xbox too but Microsoft in the meeting basically told them that they aimed to be like Sony and that caused Capcom to write them off also. As we know the PS2 was massively successful and the management holding the grudge against Sony got forced out as result which then caused the ports to start coming out.

 

You're incorrect on the Xbox brand being profitable. Microsoft provides only the revenue numbers (simply the income) and not the costs because if they did it is widely thought that the numbers would not look good. Making 10 billion in revenue for example sounds good, but is absolutely horrible if you had to spend 30 billion to make it. We're at the point that even their subscriber numbers haven't been provided in a year and a half as they two years running failed to meet their projections. MAU as a result is the only thing they love to provide alongside revenue and which they've claimed publicly is higher (barely) than Sony's, but from what I recall admitted in documents to the regulators that it wasn't the case. Obviously Microsoft isn't making up the figure so how does that larger than Sony's figure exist? Easy enough. For a start include PC gaming in the figure, to the point that I've heard talk that they even include people firing up Solitaire. Then you have Minecraft which is on many platforms as we know, just include them as MAUs for the Xbox platform. If you cook the books enough you can make it look like you have a higher figure than PlayStation.

 

Going back to the revenue. Let me put it this way. PlayStation has 8 billion or whatever more revenue than Xbox (whose number is perhaps inflated also but lets say it is legit). PlayStation is better ran than Xbox and has lower costs than Xbox. PlayStation has been reporting 3+ billion or so profit (Nintendo with 9 billion less revenue makes 5+ billion in profit by the way). With that in mind... it is simply impossible that Xbox makes any profit at all. Nintendo can do it because of how effective they are, legendarily so, but Microsoft has bigger costs than Sony. They sell their consoles at massive losses (Sony doesn't, Nintendo very much doesn't). Gamepass they hide the figures for but we know is a moneypit. All of this with 8 billion less revenue. As such them losing at least 5 billion on Xbox every time wouldn't be a surprise to me, and that number if anything is only getting worse and not better.

 

8 hours ago, Nelson_ said:

Maybe this can help Sony with their obsession over the western

 

Microsoft dropping out might help promote Sony to focus more on the East I'd say. As long as the threat of Microsoft exists they have to focus in the west as Microsoft is an aggressive party while Nintendo hasn't been for some time now.

 

4 hours ago, majob said:

If you didn't know, as of now even F2P games like Warframe require an Xbox Live subscription to play whereas Sony exempts it. So it's not a bonkers thing at all given how MS currently does business.

 

This is incorrect but I don't blame you for having missed it as it was recent. Xbox finally stopped mandating Xbox Gold for F2P games as an apology for trying to double Xbox Gold's price in an effort to make more people sign up to Gamepass. Yes, Microsoft really got so arrogant they thought they could just double the price while giving nothing extra and the media/astroturfers would successfully defend them from any outrage.

 

2 hours ago, MidnightDragon said:

I’m not trying to be a jerk, but could you actually post something constructive? This stuff contributes zero to the conversation.

 

I agree. It is at least understandable at times but others I don't even see a point.

 

Edited April 28, 2023 by Rozalia1

[MidnightDragon]

Something I found rather amusing about this was in relation to Nintendo.

 

https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2023/04/nintendo-switch-is-not-technically-capable-of-running-call-of-duty-games-says-cma

 

I love Nintendo. I have a Switch, cut my gaming teeth on the NES and have owned all their systems but Virtual Boy at one time or other, but they got burned there.

Edited April 28, 2023 by MidnightDragon

[MidnightDragon]

I accidentally made a comment about this on a social media thread and a bunch of toxic XBots attacked me. If you like XBox, fine, but don’t be a fanboying dick over it. Can’t see this crap really isn’t good for anyone.

Edited April 29, 2023 by MidnightDragon

[Herwest299]

I've seen a lot of people online talk about how this means the deal is basically dead. Has it really? Is the UK blocking this really that big? Because most of the time since this acquisition was announced, and even when the FTC said they were looking into it, people on all sides still generally believed that this deal would go through. But it feels like this is the first time many people are having doubts now. Are we still leaning towards the deal going through, or have the tides changed somewhat?

 

It's also funny seeing the reactions of Xbox fans, especially on Twitter. They're so angry and livid. Like, imagine being that tied emotionally to a corporate business deal, that your week is literally ruined because of something like this. 

[AJ_-_808]

35 minutes ago, Herwest299 said:

I've seen a lot of people online talk about how this means the deal is basically dead. Has it really? Is the UK blocking this really that big? Because most of the time since this acquisition was announced, and even when the FTC said they were looking into it, people on all sides still generally believed that this deal would go through. But it feels like this is the first time many people are having doubts now. Are we still leaning towards the deal going through, or have the tides changed somewhat?

 

UK/EU is harder to appeal/beat in court than FTC according to some. I say it that way, because my knowledge of it is basically what's been said previously in this thread.

[MidnightDragon]

Even if this collapses, that slimy son of a bitch Kotick still gets a nice payday.

 

https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2023/04/activision-poised-to-pocket-a-cool-usd3-billion-if-xbox-buyout-breaks-down

[UNLEADED_BRONZE]

Sorry,Something tells me 

Another court-case

 

CMA/UK V MSFT/ACT 

Deal or Deal Denied

:Oh,Noooo

[MidnightDragon]

28 minutes ago, UNLEADED_BRONZE said:

Sorry,Something tells me 

Another court-case

 

CMA/UK V MSFT/ACT 

Deal or Deal Denied

:Oh,Noooo

Again, stop spamming the thread with stuff like this. It’s annoying and not constructive. 

[TJ_Solo]

1 hour ago, MidnightDragon said:

Even if this collapses, that slimy son of a bitch Kotick still gets a nice payday.

 

https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2023/04/activision-poised-to-pocket-a-cool-usd3-billion-if-xbox-buyout-breaks-down

 

Cancel culture in this day and age is strange. I am sure that he deserves this money if this was part of the deal he crafted.

[MidnightDragon]

21 minutes ago, TJ_Solo said:

 

Cancel culture in this day and age is strange. I am sure that he deserves this money if this was part of the deal he crafted.

I know it’s not unusual for the brass to get some sort of payoff. 

Edited April 29, 2023 by MidnightDragon

[Rozalia1]

Some news.

 

1: To start with both Microsoft and Activision have come out and rubbished Cloud gaming. Odd. Remember Microsoft bringing CoD to more than 150 million gamers? Remember how they aimed to reach over a billion gamers eventually with their Cloud? Well, the Cloud has no such power apparently now that they've had their deal blocked. In fact, apparently in the UK, Microsoft's second biggest market easily (you could argue 2nd out of 2 granted) can only have 5000 players using the Cloud at the same time. I just love it when Microsoft is forced to stop lying and admit to their failures. It will be a magical day if Microsoft is ever forced to show Xbox's finances and its enormous losses since the start which is perhaps more than Sony is worth.

 

2: https://www.ft.com/content/b4aa87d0-9a56-4f4a-a823-b0e168c1d83b is an article in the Financial times, which ran ads for Microsoft regarding the deal by the way, backing Microsoft's claims about this being bad for the UK's business. The two people they got to comment on the matter was a venture capital person and some guy whose business had shares bought by Amazon, which was eventually cleared but had to have it investigated. Curiously they also list people saying otherwise, yet the articles title implies that the view that it is bad is dominant. In short, the usual corrupt titling of articles to give a false impression.

 

https://sifted.eu/articles/microsoft-activision-cma-uk-tech-sector-news this article's title says otherwise. A very smart point made within it is that this will have zero effect regardless of what Microsoft says. No company is going to think "I better not risk doing my 100 million buyout because Microsoft failed in their 69 billion buyout".

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/nils-pratley-on-finance/2023/apr/27/ignore-microsoft-whines-activision-blizzard-the-cma-did-its-job is from a major paper in the UK. Not happy with Microsoft's behaviour since they've been blocked. Microsoft are fools if they believe they can "win the public" in the UK acting this way. 

 

On 28/04/2023 at 6:08 PM, MidnightDragon said:

Something I found rather amusing about this was in relation to Nintendo.

 

https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2023/04/nintendo-switch-is-not-technically-capable-of-running-call-of-duty-games-says-cma

 

I love Nintendo. I have a Switch, cut my gaming teeth on the NES and have owned all their systems but Virtual Boy at one time or other, but they got burned there.

 

Nintendo doesn't mind. They make more money than Sony does in gaming and that is with 9 billion less revenue.

 

The one thing that might give Nintendo some worry would in fact be Microsoft dropping out. The current situation is very good for them as Sony can't afford to not focus on Microsoft due to who Microsoft is (check Monopolist in the dictionary and you'll find Microsoft's picture), while Microsoft itself due to having the policy of being friends with others until they can destroy their main competition (whereupon they turn on them) avoids even the smallest of conflict with Nintendo.

 

14 hours ago, MidnightDragon said:

I accidentally made a comment about this on a social media thread and a bunch of toxic XBots attacked me. If you like XBox, fine, but don’t be a fanboying dick over it. Can’t see this crap really isn’t good for anyone.

 

I wouldn't worry about it. Many of those accounts are literal Xbots due to all the astroturfing Microsoft does.

 

13 hours ago, Herwest299 said:

I've seen a lot of people online talk about how this means the deal is basically dead. Has it really? Is the UK blocking this really that big? Because most of the time since this acquisition was announced, and even when the FTC said they were looking into it, people on all sides still generally believed that this deal would go through. But it feels like this is the first time many people are having doubts now. Are we still leaning towards the deal going through, or have the tides changed somewhat?

 

It's also funny seeing the reactions of Xbox fans, especially on Twitter. They're so angry and livid. Like, imagine being that tied emotionally to a corporate business deal, that your week is literally ruined because of something like this. 

 

Something to keep in mind. The experts were saying the FTC was going to pass the deal no problems all those months back. FTC blocked it. All the experts were saying the CMA was going to pass it with at most some minor remedies. CMA blocked it. They're still currently saying the EU will pass it with some minor remedies. They've been wrong every step of the way... though granted, I don't rule them out being right on that one for all that it will matter (zero).

 

Many of the experts people have listened to has been American ones who have treated the UK like it were America, which it ain't as things are set up differently. For example if you hear someone state "Microsoft will win over the CMA as they'll take it to the courts and the courts will obviously rule in Microsoft's favour" then you can discount them as not knowing what they're talking about instantly. That works in America as the FTC, who was the first to oppose this deal many months back, can be overcome by going to court and getting a corrupt pro-business judge to overrule them. You can't do that against the CMA on mergers like this one. Of course even Microsoft itself apparently doesn't have or listen to their British lawyers as they keep trying American tactics that simply don't work in Britain. The pressure they're trying to put on the government to force the CMA to pass the deal is another case of absolute madness. The time for debating work arounds, remedies, and the like is over. The CMA told Microsoft that they needed structural remedies if they wanted the deal to go through. Microsoft told them no so the CMA blocked the deal entirely. The end. They can appeal if they like wasting time and money for the pleasure of it, but they'll not get Activision.

 

Look at this way on the Xbox fans. They've taken nothing but losses since the Xbox One launch (10 years ago). They've been promised good things by Microsoft year after year and never had it delivered to the point that it is a meme that Spencer says every year will be the greatest ever for Xbox. Microsoft astroturfed hard that this generation was going to be the one. The Series S was cheap and would be popular with casuals so they'd have massive sales numbers. The Series X was going to be a beast that would be at least 20-30% more powerful than the PS5. Gamepass was going to destroy the traditional buying of games which would put Sony in trouble while Microsoft would be laughing as they'd be building a monopoly. Its all been a failure but Microsoft has been buying out companies and then they presented this big one, buying Activision and Call of Duty. This was it, finally Microsoft would have a victory and it wouldn't stop there because to them Microsoft was going to keep going (as they've said they would) and would buy out Take Two, Capcom, you name it. Sony has a good 1st party huh? Lets see how good it is at selling PS5's when Microsoft has bought out every single notable third party. Then once again Microsoft has failed. Heck, even the other buyouts have been failures as games are massively delayed and if they eventually come are likely to be of suspect quality.

 

Xbox fans are massively into this console war business and they'd love nothing more to see games taken away from everyone else just so Microsoft, of all companies, can "win". It is very annoying I know. Up to a few years ago I didn't even need to give Xbox/Microsoft a single thought and was happy for it, but now I have to take notice due to all their attacks.

 

1 hour ago, MidnightDragon said:

Even if this collapses, that slimy son of a bitch Kotick still gets a nice payday.

 

https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2023/04/activision-poised-to-pocket-a-cool-usd3-billion-if-xbox-buyout-breaks-down

 

He was always going to get a massive payday. This failing does mean a smaller one though, at the very least if he gets forced out soon after the failure. If he keeps control and Activision eventually gets worth more than what Microsoft was paying for them then he'll down the line get a bigger payout.

 

Personally though, as bad as Kotick is, I hope he can get some more money out of Microsoft by extending the deal period and making them cough up another 3 or 4 billion on top of the current 3 billion fee. The more time and money that Microsoft spends in their pathetic efforts the better.

[MidnightDragon]

I know it's not unusual for these payouts to executives and their ilk, but still sucks. Especially after all he's done. Kotick still needs to go...that's probably one of the few things XBox and PlayStation fans can agree on with this.

 

As for the papers, you know that whether it's pro-big business or anti-big business and/or their politics will skew it one way or the other. And wouldn't be surprised if MS had a stake in the Financial Times...just sounds like they would.  

 

These console wars are still nothing compared to the Nintendo/Sega heyday, but doesn't make it any less immature and stupid. Yet clearly MS was talking out its ass when they said they no longer believed in it. Nintendo just gave up on it and decided to go their own way, which was smart. 

[TJ_Solo]

23 minutes ago, MidnightDragon said:

I know it's not unusual for these payouts to executives and their ilk, but still sucks. Especially after all he's done. Kotick still needs to go...that's probably one of the few things XBox and PlayStation fans can agree on with this.

 

As for the papers, you know that whether it's pro-big business or anti-big business and/or their politics will skew it one way or the other. And wouldn't be surprised if MS had a stake in the Financial Times...just sounds like they would.  

 

These console wars are still nothing compared to the Nintendo/Sega heyday, but doesn't make it any less immature and stupid. Yet clearly MS was talking out its ass when they said they no longer believed in it. Nintendo just gave up on it and decided to go their own way, which was smart. 

 

What did he do that negates him getting money he created?

[Rozalia1]

14 minutes ago, MidnightDragon said:

I know it's not unusual for these payouts to executives and their ilk, but still sucks. Especially after all he's done. Kotick still needs to go...that's probably one of the few things XBox and PlayStation fans can agree on with this.

 

As for the papers, you know that whether it's pro-big business or anti-big business and/or their politics will skew it one way or the other. And wouldn't be surprised if MS had a stake in the Financial Times...just sounds like they would.  

 

These console wars are still nothing compared to the Nintendo/Sega heyday, but doesn't make it any less immature and stupid. Yet clearly MS was talking out its ass when they said they no longer believed in it. Nintendo just gave up on it and decided to go their own way, which was smart. 

 

Do they? Microsoft supporters claim if backed into a corner that they're against Kotick who is this and that, but they'll back his words on these matters 100% of the way. The great liar tells nothing but the truth if Microsoft is involved. Lets imagine for example Kotick after this fails decides to cash out at Activision and Microsoft gives him Spencer's job at Xbox. Do you think Xbox fans will revolt and get Kotick removed? Doubtful. As I said in my previous post, Xbox fans are the most invested in the console wars and I'm sure they'll accept Kotick if the idea is he is a great businessman who'll be able to use Microsoft's resources to finally defeat Sony.

 

They did FT a favour with the ads and that can be thanked later with an article like the one I linked, no need for further money changing hands. Microsoft is all about that PR as we know, though their outbursts are absolutely wrecking all that work they've put in. Say what you will about Meta, Google, Apple, and so forth, but I don't recall them making mobster like comments such as "remember who helps in your cyber security" when they've received a set back.

 

I disagree. Neither Nintendo or Sega had the financial might to throw around like Microsoft does. Neither tried to use a government against the other via a trade war. Nintendo and Sega were also very open in their attacks on each other, which you can respect, while Microsoft only attacks directly if they lose their cool and largely does undercover attacks via their astroturfing agents.

[mcnichoj]

8 hours ago, majob said:

If you didn't know, as of now even F2P games like Warframe require an Xbox Live subscription to play whereas Sony exempts it. So it's not a bonkers thing at all given how MS currently does business.

If you didn't know, as of a little over a year ago F2P games like Warframe no longer require an Xbox Live subscription. Sorry, had to do that.

https://tech.hindustantimes.com/gaming/news/microsoft-makes-over-50-games-free-to-play-without-xbox-live-gold-71619086045796.html

 

5 hours ago, MidnightDragon said:

I’ve seen that relations between ME and SE have deteriorated mentioned on a couple sites as well FWIW.

I was specifically talking about the part of needing both Xbox Live Gold and an MMO specific subscription for FF14. FF11 before it didn't require Gold nor did Phantasy Star Universe from Sega.

 

3 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

What is new is the fact that the 10 year deals with the small cloud providers have a clause in them that gives Microsoft 100% of all microtransactions that get made on those platforms for the Activision games these deals give access to. This was also a modified remedy meaning that Microsoft at first offered an even worse deal.

 

CoD is a monster that requires massive amounts of production and to cover that needs massive amounts of sales. As a result they need a lot of momentum, speed if you will, slowing down may well make them go boom like the bus in the movie Speed. On paper yes, Microsoft can pay the X billions to Activision to cover whatever they would likely lose by not having it on PlayStation, but if in doing so they likely lose momentum which then might be fatal for the brand and then ultimately them considering how much is invested in CoD being a success.

 

As for RE4. It and half a dozen other games were exclusive to Nintendo not because Nintendo signed a deal, but because management at Capcom at the time hated PlayStation. The PS2 was apparently harder to code for than what had come before and Sony being an entertainment company was viewed by them as someone who was going to degrade gaming and that sort of thing. They'd have actually put the games on Xbox too but Microsoft in the meeting basically told them that they aimed to be like Sony and that caused Capcom to write them off also. As we know the PS2 was massively successful and the management holding the grudge against Sony got forced out as result which then caused the ports to start coming out.

Oof, If the updated clause was 100% MTX revenue I wonder what the deal before that was. Whoever is penning up these deals at MS should be fired.

 

Couldn't we say the same about how Sony kept MLB games off other platforms? Yet that stayed exclusive for an entire generation till MS went over their heads to the MLB association. Show 21 being multiplat did over two million in sales (while also being on GamePass). In its heyday The Show releasing on all three; PS2/PS3/PSP, it peaked at about 1.5 million sales. Sales wanned after that when they were the only baseball game on the market while other sports franchises flourished. COD on the other hand I think would be fine being omitted from a single platform. It would do less numbers obviously but if they want to push a huge amount of consoles and/or GamePass subscriptions then this would be a way to do it.

 

This all goes back to my point that people can choose to hold a grudge despite if they're with one company or not. Plenty of people are in for big pay days or promotions if the deal goes through and if the deal doesn't, not all of these people are leaving the company. Them along with their bitterness will still be at ABK.

2 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

Personally though, as bad as Kotick is, I hope he can get some more money out of Microsoft by extending the deal period and making them cough up another 3 or 4 billion on top of the current 3 billion fee. The more time and money that Microsoft spends in their pathetic efforts the better.

Anyone is free to hate Microsoft or Xbox but lets not say we hope a sexual assault enabler that also threatened the life of a victim should get more money.

[MidnightDragon]

49 minutes ago, Rozalia1 said:

Say what you will about Meta, Google, Apple, and so forth, but I don't recall them making mobster like comments such as "remember who helps in your cyber security" when they've received a set back.

MS thought they were going to make an offer the CMA couldn’t refuse.

 

….I’ll show myself the door now. That was bad.  

Edited April 29, 2023 by MidnightDragon

[cy1999aek_maik]

What exactly are MS' options if the appeal fails? Can they legally go through with the merger anyways and what would be the consequences? I assume since it's a matter of 2 US companies that the CMA couldn't actually block it, but Microsoft wouldn't be allowed to continue conducting their business in the UK if they were to go through with it. Is that at all accurate? I know it would be a stupid move, I'm asking hypothetically. I also know I'm ignorant on the subject, which is why I'm asking if this is even possible

[mcnichoj]

26 minutes ago, cy1999aek_maik said:

What exactly are MS' options if the appeal fails? Can they legally go through with the merger anyways and what would be the consequences? I assume since it's a matter of 2 US companies that the CMA couldn't actually block it, but Microsoft wouldn't be allowed to continue conducting their business in the UK if they were to go through with it. Is that at all accurate? I know it would be a stupid move, I'm asking hypothetically. I also know I'm ignorant on the subject, which is why I'm asking if this is even possible

The deal could still go through if things go good in the US and EU. While generally the FTC would agree with whatever decision the CMA makes, the CMA reasoning fucks with the reasoning the FTC has built for why the deal shouldn't happen. The FTC could update their reasoning but it may make them look goofy in the process.

[Rozalia1]

5 hours ago, mcnichoj said:

Oof, If the updated clause was 100% MTX revenue I wonder what the deal before that was. Whoever is penning up these deals at MS should be fired.

 

Couldn't we say the same about how Sony kept MLB games off other platforms? Yet that stayed exclusive for an entire generation till MS went over their heads to the MLB association. Show 21 being multiplat did over two million in sales (while also being on GamePass). In its heyday The Show releasing on all three; PS2/PS3/PSP, it peaked at about 1.5 million sales. Sales wanned after that when they were the only baseball game on the market while other sports franchises flourished. COD on the other hand I think would be fine being omitted from a single platform. It would do less numbers obviously but if they want to push a huge amount of consoles and/or GamePass subscriptions then this would be a way to do it.

 

This all goes back to my point that people can choose to hold a grudge despite if they're with one company or not. Plenty of people are in for big pay days or promotions if the deal goes through and if the deal doesn't, not all of these people are leaving the company. Them along with their bitterness will still be at ABK.

Anyone is free to hate Microsoft or Xbox but lets not say we hope a sexual assault enabler that also threatened the life of a victim should get more money.

Anyone is free to hate Microsoft or Xbox but lets not say we hope a sexual assault enabler that also threatened the life of a victim should get more money.

Some manner of payment to Microsoft based of their yearly income or something, they're getting CoD games on the cheap on their service after all. It's really telling that Microsoft wasn't even willing to give the 30% for the 10 year period.

 

I'm not hugely familiar with the MLB situation. It seems to be a special case due to being a sports game yes.

 

Some people really can't get their heads around that one. That businesses, even behemoths ones, can have their management hold a grudge and do things that isn't best for business. Things can very much be personal in business.

 

It's largely Activision getting the money. On the matter of Kotick and his scandals, as I've said in the past, the people working at Activision if they had kept pushing would have likely been able to force Kotick out a year and half ago. Instead many of them decided to believe Microsoft (who has protected Kotick ever since) that Kotick sticking around needed to be a thing to get this deal through whereupon good guy Microsoft was going to take care of them real well. While the most problematic to management people got taken out they allowed Kotick time to get back in the good graces of polite society (note how he goes on all those news programs with no hint of fear saying whatever he wants). Like I feel sorry for those left and all... but they made a mistake and are going to have to live with it if now post this deal failing they can't muster up enough heat to force Kotick out. Not to say I want them to now fail of course. Microsoft stabbed them in the back on this matter but I would think going to Sony on it would now work as Sony would want Kotick removed for business/personal reasons. After all, as we talked above, personal feelings do come into business and even if Kotick hasn't developed a grudge towards Sony, I'm sure he likely feels indebted to Microsoft for all the assistance they've provided him when he was at his lowest point.

 

2 hours ago, cy1999aek_maik said:

What exactly are MS' options if the appeal fails? Can they legally go through with the merger anyways and what would be the consequences? I assume since it's a matter of 2 US companies that the CMA couldn't actually block it, but Microsoft wouldn't be allowed to continue conducting their business in the UK if they were to go through with it. Is that at all accurate? I know it would be a stupid move, I'm asking hypothetically. I also know I'm ignorant on the subject, which is why I'm asking if this is even possible

 

The 1st issue for Microsoft would be that the deal they have with Activision specifies that they need approval from the CMA (among others) or the deal doesn't go through. As such they'd need to renegotiate the deal which would likely mean Activision squeezes more money out of them. Activision shareholders would have to also vote again on the matter and possibly they might take issue with Microsoft attempting such a rogue move. Assuming they manage that then they'd have to pull out all of their business from the country, not simply Xbox but Windows, Office, Azure, everything. Certain so called experts talk of Microsoft being able to "ringfence" the rest of their business away from the gaming one but that wouldn't work in the UK, not that it would have to begin with as far as I'm aware as Xbox is an operating segment of Microsoft itself anyway (so they can hide Xbox's massive losses with their profitable divisions).

 

Furthermore the CMA would issue fines, massive ones (based off Microsoft's global revenue) that would keep coming until Microsoft abides by their decision, and if Microsoft refuses to pay then they'd start confiscating whatever Microsoft owns in the UK. In terms of gaming we'd see studios like Ninja Theory, Playground Games, and Rare get taken away from Microsoft for example. Microsoft can of course do some shady dealings to attempt to get talent out of the country, but they'd certainly lose the IPs which as we know Microsoft values more than the talent. Said studios/IP would then get sold to third parties at fire sale prices. In America the FTC would no doubt label Microsoft a rogue company and a show as to why antitrust law in America needs to be reinforced. The EU, if they had previously accepted Microsoft's deal would also likely go back and block the deal (they can do that even years after having accepted it if they wish) to send the message that Microsoft's conduct is unacceptable.

 

Something to note as I've seen it come up, is that if Microsoft was to disregard the CMA and get punished for it then Microsoft could appeal the punishment and get the matter in front of a court. Microsoft supporters trying to find any hope at all believe that such a thing would mean it'd then work like in America and some corrupt pro-business judge would side with Microsoft and just like that the CMA's position would collapse. No. It'd be an open and shut case that Microsoft would instantly lose.

 

In short they don't have options unless you count suicide as one.

[mcnichoj]

2 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

(note how he goes on all those news programs with no hint of fear saying whatever he wants)

 

but they'd certainly lose the IPs

I think it's because he's a sociopath. You don't have to worry about being evil if you don't care about being evil.

 

Would they actually lose the IP though? Wouldn't acquisitions of any studios result in the rights of their IP being directly transferred to wherever the parent companies main HQ is? They hold trademarks and copyrights in countries all over the world, I doubt the CMA can just override that.

It'd probably be more of a situation like how anime studios sell licenses to foreign companies in other countries. Although I don't know who'd want to buy a Battletoads license where you can only distribute software, media and merchandise in the UK.

[Rozalia1]

1: It has started to be reported among the Xbox crowd that Microsoft missed doing several buyouts in gaming they'd be interested in due to the Activision deal having been ongoing. Some have placed doubts on this because "how would they know, they're just lying for clicks". Actually no. Not only was this information in the most recent papers released by the CMA, but it was in a previous one also which I remember bringing up here. Also while not in the CMA papers, I remember also citing something in another tech field that Microsoft also skipped due to all the attention from Activision so it goes beyond just gaming.

 

This is why even if Microsoft doesn't care about spending more money on lawyers to fight for this deal continuing is just foolish. The more time they're tied up with this Activision business the more companies they have to skip buying out.

 

2: Companies pulling out of the UK is coming up such as Kingspan to support Microsoft's claims. For those unaware Kingspan is a building company who has massive heat in the UK and whose reputation is dirt. If they're pulling out it would be to try and avoid punishments that they know are likely to be coming their way, not because "the UK is closed for business". Now this stuff could be coming up because Microsoft supporters are bringing it up, but I simply don't trust Microsoft to not be astroturfing this.

 

3: 

 

 

Now to be clear. These things don't get put together in a day. Microsoft didn't have a tantrum and suddenly they did this in response. It is however very possible they started putting this together a year and a half ago when all this started, knowing that there were going to be problems in the future with big tech. Microsoft's response is a nice gift to the bill as it gives it the backdrop of a big tech company told no going insane over it.

 

4: 

 

 

> I am a neutral figure, just an expert, and not a shill

> Microsoft gets told no

> Microsoft will win and Sony will be made to PAY!

 

Considering their top shill speaking like this and Microsoft already clearly being angry at Sony even before this failed... just what are Microsoft going to do now? They can try even harder with the US government to attempt to attack Sony, but what else might they have? The thing is... I'm not sure that is the scary thought it once was. Xbox itself has never looked weaker and this month alone has been an absolute nightmare for them. Microsoft itself while making lots of money still and being successful in Azure and the like is also meeting critical losses. Their US government efforts against Sony don't seem to be going anywhere. Their Activision deal, and with it likely their subscription/cloud monopoly plan, is dead. The fake good boy reputation they have built for the last two decades has been ruined.

 

The smart move is of course to just give up and retreat, but if Microsoft was rational in gaming they'd have pulled out at minimum 10 years ago. As I've said, I think the fact that the company handing them loss after loss is Sony and not a Google and such is what is really hurting them. Retreating against Sony would be a humiliation to them.

 

9 hours ago, mcnichoj said:

I think it's because he's a sociopath. You don't have to worry about being evil if you don't care about being evil.

 

Would they actually lose the IP though? Wouldn't acquisitions of any studios result in the rights of their IP being directly transferred to wherever the parent companies main HQ is? They hold trademarks and copyrights in countries all over the world, I doubt the CMA can just override that.

It'd probably be more of a situation like how anime studios sell licenses to foreign companies in other countries. Although I don't know who'd want to buy a Battletoads license where you can only distribute software, media and merchandise in the UK.

 

I'd disagree. He was certainly shaken at the start and pulled back, something which is completely gone at this point. Additionally if he is a sociopath it wouldn't mean that he would act without care of what people think. He certainly doesn't care what people who work for him that he can bully think, but he knows that he can't operate that way in polite society. There are levels to these things.

 

Its hard to be 100% as companies going rogue in that manner against a major market like the UK is something that simply doesn't happen, but I imagine that they would lose IP yes though perhaps not on a global basis. It's similar in a way to the ring fencing idea that certain so called experts have put forward which wouldn't work. In that scenario a new company would be made called whatever, Activision UK for simplicities sake, and they'd get transferred the rights to all Activision properties (possibly all Xbox properties if the CMA pushed hard enough) in the UK, meaning that Xbox would be able to publish their games elsewhere but they'd have to leave it up to this new company to do it in the UK, who'd largely be who would then benefit from Xbox's products in the country.

 

As such my understanding is that the court could decide that the split off companies from Xbox (Ninja Theory, Playground Games, and Rare) would take with them the rights to any properties they've created while at Xbox (and any they held before being bought). Of course unless the courts in America/EU agree with that (more likely if Microsoft has gone rogue) then you'd have a ring fenced situation where the listed studios would only have the rights to the IPs in the UK and not elsewhere which would mean the IP would become useless to them. Microsoft on the other hand if they retained IP usage elsewhere would be able to use the IP elsewhere, but not in UK (even if they became able to do business there again) unless they come to an agreement with those listed studios. It's an interesting subject but as I think I've been making clear is pretty pointless to talk about. Microsoft destroying their whole company in the name of CoD would be the biggest business fail the world would have ever seen.

 

Side note. Remember that argument that Microsoft would save Activision workers from their management who mistreats them? Well a bunch of Microsoft supporters are putting forward the idea that Microsoft can just pull out of the country and tell its workers to go live and work in Ireland instead. Sure sounds like nice and cuddly management, telling workers to move to another country or they're fired.