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

[SelectiveGamer]

Well since this deal is being approved everywhere except the UK... it's time for Sony to acquire Square Enix and stop their BS NFT shilling ?

 

Am I kidding? I don't know... you decide.

Edited May 15, 2023 by SelectiveGamer

[MidnightDragon]

The CMA said it stands by its decision.
 

https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2023/05/uks-regulator-responds-to-european-commissions-decision-to-pass-xboxs-activision-buyout

 

Guess we have to see what happens stateside next. It’s the saga that never ends.

[DeepEyes7]

So... How bad is this for Sony and PS now?

[majob]

17 minutes ago, DeepEyes7 said:

So... How bad is this for Sony and PS now?

If MS wins their appeal, it's bad. If MS loses their appeal, it's not bad.

[Eraezr]

There would probably be a lot of Blimey mate! to go around in the CMA offices if this gets approved by every major territory in the world and UK is the only one not approving it.

[Oberlin1694]

8 hours ago, The_Kopite said:

Fair enough. This surprises me but it's good to see the CMA sticking to their decision. It's logical to stand by the decision that they took a long time in making and were very thorough about considering the pages and pages of documents they published. Still think that the US will end up following suit and giving Microsoft the yes with the same concessions, considering Microsoft is an American company.

 

The UK has a big video games market, but it's a comparatively small slice of the overall pie and Microsoft could take the hit in order to have the rest of the world the way they want to have it with this ABK deal. 

 

I'm not saying I think it will happen, but if Microsoft eventually get approval from the US they might be willing to do it. 

 

I don't want it to go through personally but if it does, then I'm just glad it isn't Capcom, Sega or Square Enix. 

Yeah that won’t happen, that would mean any Microsoft product including all their computing systems would have to cease operation. And if that happened it would have a huge impact on UK infrastructure and prove CMA right on everything they said and more, at which point the rest of the world would reject/oppose the deal.

[disaster500]

I've read comments on the Xbox Series X subreddit a few times about this deal and some of the stuff I read there blows my mind.

 

Take this comment for example:

 

"I have all three major consoles, but it’s crazy to me that Sony has blocked the Final Fantasy 7 remake from Xbox for years, and will now do the same with FFXVI and the KOTOR remake, yet the CMA treats them like some poor underdog company. Timed exclusives are the worst kind of anti-consumer practice."

 

Timed exclusives are the worst anti-consumer practice? Xbox have to wait 6 months for FFXVI (a franchise that historically sells poorly on Xbox iirc), the horror. That's so much worse than Microsoft permanently denying PS players of Starfield, any new Fallout or TES, any future Arkane games, any new Doom or Wolfenstein etc, the list goes on. And they'll do the same thing with Activision/Blizzard if they can. Imagine if Crash Bandicoot, one of the OG PlayStation mascots becomes Xbox exclusive.

 

I've been enjoying reading this thread and all the discussion in it, let's hope the UK does the right thing (we haven't done that much lately) and continue to block this deal.

[Z1MZUM]

On 5/13/2023 at 0:21 AM, Rozalia1 said:

 

 

I love how blatant all of this is. Yay, we think that Microsoft put the pressure on the government to defang the CMA, yay corruption. Obviously a guy like Florian is whatever, literally being paid to have the views he has, but the Xbox fans who are actually real and not Xbots/Shills should try and have some self respect.

 

As for the matter at hand. The PM is saying all of that and on top of it he is doing it on the Microsoft owned LinkedIn, oh ho, sending a message to Microsoft he is on side. He does only mention British businesses, but as Florian says, that is just for the voter rubes, he really means big tech companies like Microsoft. 

 

Amazing stuff. Microsoft doesn't just hire incompetent management for the gaming division, they hire incompetent shills/experts/analysts/consultants too. Always treating this like this is all going on in America where such issues can be easily overcome. Straight up is the government in the UK corrupt? Of course, but that in itself means little as basically every government is corrupt to varying degrees. What matters is the level of corruption and if there are other factors which can help reduce the impact of the corruption. In the UK the civil service (which the CMA belongs to) is extremely powerful and has been for a long time. This can of course be bad as the civil service can resist/reject positive changes meaning good and positive change fails to happen, but it can also be good as it has the capacity to fight off an attempt at a bad policy coming from corruption.

 

On top of what I've said, which is that it ain't a simple matter to overcome the civil service, the claims made here are a joke. He posted it on LinkedIn? And? LinkedIn is considered the business social media and if you're going to message people working in business then that is considered the place to do it. It doesn't have to mean any more than that. The post mentions financial services and then goes on to talk about anti-competes, reducing requirements that force people to report stuff, and that regulation should be the last course taken and not the first. Where does any of this apply to the CMA blocking the Activision deal? Is the idea that the message here is that the CMA would get changed to the point where they'd say no thanks for checking a deal like the Activision one and just wave it through? Not what I'm seeing in the text. Ah, but the "steer". Surely that means that the government will tell the CMA to pass the deal and that will be that. There is a reason the word "steer" is used and not a firmer one. They will suggest the direction for the CMA to take who will certainly work with them on that, but that doesn't mean the government gets to tell them what to pass and not to pass.

 

There is of course also the teeny little detail that even if these delusions were accurate, it'd all come too late for the Activision deal anyway. The CMA blocked the deal because Microsoft refused to do structural remedies, in fact even worse than that Microsoft didn't (wouldn't) provide certain information to allow the CMA to best determine what would be acceptable for a structural deal. Why didn't they? Because they knew that it wouldn't have looked good for them. So now in their arrogance they'll be appealing, citing the CMA blocking on cloud grounds as nonsense. Note that Brad Smith is on record saying the deal is about the cloud and basically finishing up their stack as they believe their current line up of games/studios was insufficient. Spencer meanwhile is on record stating that Sony/Nintendo are basically irrelevant because Cloud is the future and they don't have the capacity for that so gaming in the future is going to be Microsoft/Google/Amazon. To not even get into the decade+ that Microsoft has been bleating about the cloud in general.

 

 

Its just the local flavour. 

 

With the EU being as corrupt as it is and the FTC basically irrelevant as companies can just put it in front of a corrupt pro-business judge, it is very good for everybody that the CMA is around. 

 

I'm just having a laugh, I love the UK and it's people. I just want the food to be super spicy

 

What a read though let's face it, we have no say, we are not the global elite.

 

Edited May 16, 2023 by Z1MZUM

[Rozalia1]

Predictably the "crying", "insecure", "insane", "embarrassing", so forth attacks that we've seen in the past towards Jim Ryan are getting astroturfed towards the CMA. Public humiliation being a key element in Microsoft's playbook to try and get what they want. Remember though, Brad Smith going insane and talking as he did about Great Britain because Microsoft got told no though? Totally reasonable behaviour to these same people real or otherwise. The CMA are considered the regulator that matter and the EU, while essentially agreeing with their analysis, has come out against them by believing that the pathetic 10 year deals are enough, so naturally people are going to want to talk with the CMA to see what they think about the matter. No one is rapidly going to the FTC or other regulators to find out what they think because they ultimately don't matter.

 

8 hours ago, DeepEyes7 said:

So... How bad is this for Sony and PS now?

 

It changed absolutely zero. The CMA continues to block and a CMA block is considered a kiss of death to a merger.

 

Something that should also be noted, and Microsoft themselves eventually will no doubt note it to excuse their behaviour post CMA block, is that Microsoft/Activision has a duty to keep trying to pass the deal until all options (such as an appeal) have been exhausted. If either party tells the other that they should just give up now the other can use that to get the fee for the deal failing early. So yes, even if Microsoft/Activision know the deal is dead they have to continue, so there is no 'Microsoft wouldn't continue if they didn't think they could get the deal through'.

 

56 minutes ago, Z1MZUM said:

I'm just having a laugh, I love the UK and it's people. I just want the food to be super spicy

 

What a read though let's face it, we have no say, we are not the global elite.

 

I'm no food connoisseur so it's never really bothered me. Goes for most people unlike in some countries where they take food a bit more seriously if you will, but I think a lot of that allegation of bad food is just a meme at this point. People who say that are laughing at fish and chips or whatever and not having a go at Black pudding, Haggis, Jellied eels and so forth.

 

You'd be wrong. Brexit gets a lot of hate but on this it certainly is seemingly leading to being the "elite" on the matter as the CMA has been raised up due to it. The EU used to be seen as the top regulator even though they allowed openings for companies to do certain bad things and then just handed out fines that companies were all too happy to pay as the damage was done. Now they've changed their process so that as they make decisions the companies involved in the deal can have their lobbyists (the so called experts the EU has been talking to) present the whole time influencing things so I guess they want to get paid at the start of regulation now on top of at the end. The Chinese regulator in theory is a major regulator and has power, but unless the orders have come from the Chinese government that gives them no choice (and the government has other ways to hurt companies then regulation) they can't rock the boat too much or they'll instantly lose the importance they're trying to gain. The FTC meanwhile is a joke to the point that Microsoft stated they'd happily close without their approval even though if the FTC later beat them in court it would be utterly devastating to Microsoft/Activision as they'd have to re-split the merged company, lose a great many billions, and get put on the naughty list for a long time. So we got corrupt, afraid to rock the boat, and powerless. The other many other minor regulators all fall into at least one of those camps.

 

The CMA meanwhile is independent which while not a 100% cure for corruption, is certainly much better then regulators that have people politically appointed to it. The FTC for example might be good now, but under the Republicans or even a different Democrat than Biden would instantly change into a corrupt one. On the matter of "not rocking the boat", I don't need to tell you that a considered typical British trait is not caring about such things. Britain did Brexit, a massive shakeup with no care for whatever Europe or the world was going to think. Microsoft, whatever they think of themselves, is nothing compared to that. On the matter of power they're also, at least on these mergers, near unassailable (have yet to be beaten in end in fact) be it from a judges or government officials so companies are much less able to put political pressure on getting a decision they want. As you can see, the three issues other regulators can have present in them, aren't present in the CMA.

 

All of that can of course change in time, but currently the CMA through this deal and few other smaller deals they've been the ones to block, are shaping up to be the "final boss" of regulators. Microsoft is astroturfing that the CMA is who is corrupt is laughable and you can see in the very process how wrong a view that is. Every step of the way we've had massive amounts of documents published by the CMA, with certain necessary redactions that companies don't want public in place obviously, so the public can make out what has been going on. We know that their review has been in-depth because we've seen so much of it. What of the EU though? It gets put behind closed doors. If we hear stuff it'll be leaks that Microsoft is obviously making and paint them in the best light possible.

 

8 hours ago, Eraezr said:

There would probably be a lot of Blimey mate! to go around in the CMA offices if this gets approved by every major territory in the world and UK is the only one not approving it.

 

Britain did Brexit. This is nothing by comparison. Europe going against the CMA is more a sign to them they're correct to block than otherwise.

 

9 hours ago, majob said:

If MS wins their appeal, it's bad. If MS loses their appeal, it's not bad.

 

I wouldn't even go that far. In a previous case the company involved won 3 different appeals and it didn't matter as each time after following an appeal the CMA came back with the same decision. As long as the CMA sticks to their decision, and as this deal revolves around speculation of a future market that Microsoft itself believes will in the future be the be-all and end-all that is certainly not outrageous, there is nothing Microsoft can do. They can win an appeal, they can win 10 appeals, it just staves off their defeat.

 

That is why Microsoft has been dishing out threats and public humiliation towards the CMA, because if they CMA doesn't give in to them then they're finished on trying to get this through. Loopholes such as ring fencing (not possible to even begin with) or mass investments in Activision have also been closed by the CMA who know companies like Microsoft will obviously attempt such things.

 

10 hours ago, MidnightDragon said:

The CMA said it stands by its decision.
 

https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2023/05/uks-regulator-responds-to-european-commissions-decision-to-pass-xboxs-activision-buyout

 

Guess we have to see what happens stateside next. It’s the saga that never ends.

 

The FTC might be able to expose a few things that embarrass Microsoft, but beyond that whatever goes on there doesn't matter due to them being powerless. Unless some miracle happens anyway and whoever judges the case is suddenly filled with justice and goes against Microsoft and in the process all of big business in the process.

8 hours ago, disaster500 said:

I've read comments on the Xbox Series X subreddit a few times about this deal and some of the stuff I read there blows my mind.

 

Take this comment for example:

 

"I have all three major consoles, but it’s crazy to me that Sony has blocked the Final Fantasy 7 remake from Xbox for years, and will now do the same with FFXVI and the KOTOR remake, yet the CMA treats them like some poor underdog company. Timed exclusives are the worst kind of anti-consumer practice."

 

Timed exclusives are the worst anti-consumer practice? Xbox have to wait 6 months for FFXVI (a franchise that historically sells poorly on Xbox iirc), the horror. That's so much worse than Microsoft permanently denying PS players of Starfield, any new Fallout or TES, any future Arkane games, any new Doom or Wolfenstein etc, the list goes on. And they'll do the same thing with Activision/Blizzard if they can. Imagine if Crash Bandicoot, one of the OG PlayStation mascots becomes Xbox exclusive.

 

I've been enjoying reading this thread and all the discussion in it, let's hope the UK does the right thing (we haven't done that much lately) and continue to block this deal.

 

It is very funny when people say that the likes of Octopath Traveller 2 has had Sony pay for it to not be on Xbox, when it not only is on Switch, but Nintendo even has the marketing rights for it. There being so much astroturfing blunts it a bit though because it means a lot of such people are only saying stupid stuff because they're getting paid in some manner for it/or are literal Xbots. 

 

Also in case you missed it, an angle I've seen is that Sony isn't getting the likes of FF7R signed to temporary exclusivity, no, in reality they're secretly forever exclusivity cutting out Xbox and Xbox only. Massive persecution complex over there.

[Eraezr]

8 hours ago, disaster500 said:

Timed exclusives are the worst anti-consumer practice? Xbox have to wait 6 months for FFXVI

 

Had no idea that was even coming to Xbox lol

[Rozalia1]

1 hour ago, Eraezr said:

Had no idea that was even coming to Xbox lol

 

It'll come as long as Microsoft gives them some bags of cash. The problem as Microsoft has already found out, is that when you start giving people bags of cash for such things not only do they expect the money to keep flowing for future games, but others start expecting you to give them bags of cash too and then games you might have gotten before you no longer get.

Edited May 16, 2023 by Rozalia1

[Rozalia1]

The CMA went in front of some politicians who asked some questions. It has been billed by the likes of Eurogamer as a "grilling" and many people real or otherwise who didn't even watch the thing are stating that the CMA got battered out there as clearly everyone is against them for daring to stop Microsoft. Florian, the most notable Microsoft shill, covered the event and provided absolutely outrageous coverage that was if he was in another reality, and when you see Xbox people talk on the matter know that they're usually going to be going off his statements.

 

That said, there was a few eyebrow raising moments from a certain guy. Seemed to clearly be raising the issue of Microsoft and was out there asking questions putting forward that idea that Microsoft has been putting out there, that being that CMA is a FTC puppet and blocking this deal for them, the issue being that the CMA and FTC briefly had a conversation at one point. The CMA of course had just as much and I'm pretty sure even more conversation with the EU, but that of course curiously never came up as an issue. There was a few more things but the point here is it seemed quite obvious he was a Microsoft shill. 

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/03/revealed-bim-afolami-tory-mp-was-paid-2000-a-month-by-lobbying-firm

 

And here is a story form the 3rd of May about that very shill. Turns out he has been getting paid £2000 a month to chair a group (expect its members to also be getting paid, though either in marked down gifts or they're simply not getting an upfront payment) pressuring the government to reduce the power of regulation. Seems like a cheap buy I know, but in Britain these sort of payoffs usually come with a job post your political career that pays you a lot of money to do very little, so the 2000 a month is just some extra upfront spending money for the guy no doubt.

 

Quote

In April, Afolami also launched a report for the group suggesting that a “lack of democratic oversight of regulators is holding back UK productivity and economic growth”, with the author listed as an economist at WPI Strategy, with editorial control from MPs on the group.

 

Look at that. They want politicians/judges to be able to overrule the CMA. Of course to be clear Microsoft is not listed as being behind this corruption, but it doesn't mean they weren't involved in some manner. Microsoft has been found straight up bribing people before and with how they operate they would no doubt have contacted shills for hire like this guy and his friends to lobby for them with possible future rewards coming their way if they do.

 

Will the gaming media who have been reporting that "politicians took the CMA task and are not happy", make note that the main guy doing it is a known paid shill? Doubtful, and anyone who does will likely come under heavy astroturfing attack as we know.

---

 

Something that is really getting the green guys excited is word from the big man at Microsoft himself.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SORT6-Fv8s

 

3:41 is the relevant bit. Interviewer askes him about selling products in the US (note the zero respect shown to the FTC), in the EU, but not in the UK. Rather then respond that such a thing is not even worth talking about as it is madness, Nadella responds with a smile on his face 'Let's wait and see how it plays out'.

 

This of course gives fire to the idea that Microsoft can simply ringfence their business in the UK and they'll easily overcome the CMA. Again, as I said the moment the idea began being floated around, ringfencing in the UK is not available for this matter (it is for some things, financial services I believe) to begin with. The CMA recently went even further and put out a ban of 10 years of Microsoft even investing in Activision. This is to not even talk of the yearly fines the CMA can slap on Microsoft which would be, due to the massive amount of money they make, 20 billion every year that they are in breach of the CMA's order. These aren't EU style fines Microsoft will be all too happy to pay with a smile on their face. In no world are Microsoft's shareholders going to stand for Microsoft having to pay 20 billion yearly to have a buyout for their already unprofitable gaming division which most shareholders don't even want Microsoft to have.

 

They won't even pull out of Russia but they're going to pull out of the UK? It is completely ridiculous and yet Florian, Pachter, Windows Central, and other shills of theirs are all pushing it as totally a thing that can happen. I struggle to see what the point even is in pushing this. Are the people in charge of the astroturfing just out of ideas but they got to be doing something to get paid so they're directing this? Or is this some attempt at a Russian style throw out a whole bunch of nonsense out there to make people lose faith in what is being said so not only will people disbelieve Microsoft's side but they'll also disbelieve the opposing side?

[Eraezr]

On 16/05/2023 at 10:10 PM, Rozalia1 said:

 

It'll come as long as Microsoft gives them some bags of cash. The problem as Microsoft has already found out, is that when you start giving people bags of cash for such things not only do they expect the money to keep flowing for future games, but others start expecting you to give them bags of cash too and then games you might have gotten before you no longer get.

 

Never saw it that way until now. Good point.

[Rozalia1]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/activision-blizzard-microsoft-chancellor-jeremy-hunt-brad-smith-b2340520.html

 

So the above is getting spread about by a number of people, but interestingly they're all leaving a certain key part out at the end.

 

Quote

Speaking at the British Chambers of Commerce’s annual conference, he said: “When it comes to Microsoft, there was a merger between two American companies that the US regulator is seeking to block, and the UK regulator took the same view.
 

“I think one of the reasons that companies like Microsoft and Google want to invest in the UK is because we have independent regulators that are not controlled by politicians and therefore they can be confident there will be a level playing field.
 

“I would not want to undermine that at all, but I do think it’s important all our regulators understand their wider responsibilities for economic growth.

 

“But for our tech sector, it isn’t just about being able to get through big deals, competition really matters.”

 

If you leave out that bit at the end the statement can be taken as "government mad at CMA", but with it at the end the statement is no such thing. What even is the point in doing this? You're misleading people with it yeah sure, but is it going to make anyone who was against deal suddenly be for the deal? Not that it would even help if it did as the FTC/CMA have already shown that they seem very aware of Microsoft's disgusting astroturfing tactics.

 

Also to address the "economic harm" stuff. To start with Microsoft very recently invested in a tech start up in the country so for all their bluster they're still investing. However, beyond that, this whole idea that regulation needs to be toothless on mergers so these massive companies like Microsoft can buy out small tech start ups safely (not that Activision is one, but people making this argument bundle them together with them) is... just wrong. Yeah, there are people who start companies up with the end goal of getting bought out by the likes of Microsoft and then being able to retire on the spot. Nice for them, but when it comes to society that is not a good thing. Look at Microsoft itself who have been a tasteless company from the very start (even MS-DOS was something they bought out). When they buyout companies they'll often do so to pass off their work as their own yes, but every single time it is also to eliminate possible future competitors to them. That is what this whole big companies buying out start ups is largely about, buying out possible future competition. If the FTC and CMA are apparently going to hurt those buyouts happening and so these smaller companies persist and gain the drive to start eating into big companies business, then that is a good thing. Microsoft are literally a trillion dollar company and if they can't survive without buying people out then they don't deserve to be successful anyway.

[DARKKRAKEN666]

51 minutes ago, Rozalia1 said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/activision-blizzard-microsoft-chancellor-jeremy-hunt-brad-smith-b2340520.html

 

So the above is getting spread about by a number of people, but interestingly they're all leaving a certain key part out at the end.

 

 

If you leave out that bit at the end the statement can be taken as "government mad at CMA", but with it at the end the statement is no such thing. What even is the point in doing this? You're misleading people with it yeah sure, but is it going to make anyone who was against deal suddenly be for the deal? Not that it would even help if it did as the FTC/CMA have already shown that they seem very aware of Microsoft's disgusting astroturfing tactics.

 

Also to address the "economic harm" stuff. To start with Microsoft very recently invested in a tech start up in the country so for all their bluster they're still investing. However, beyond that, this whole idea that regulation needs to be toothless on mergers so these massive companies like Microsoft can buy out small tech start ups safely (not that Activision is one, but people making this argument bundle them together with them) is... just wrong. Yeah, there are people who start companies up with the end goal of getting bought out by the likes of Microsoft and then being able to retire on the spot. Nice for them, but when it comes to society that is not a good thing. Look at Microsoft itself who have been a tasteless company from the very start (even MS-DOS was something they bought out). When they buyout companies they'll often do so to pass off their work as their own yes, but every single time it is also to eliminate possible future competitors to them. That is what this whole big companies buying out start ups is largely about, buying out possible future competition. If the FTC and CMA are apparently going to hurt those buyouts happening and so these smaller companies persist and gain the drive to start eating into big companies business, then that is a good thing. Microsoft are literally a trillion dollar company and if they can't survive without buying people out then they don't deserve to be successful anyway.

They are not a friend to the U.K, they don't even pay full U.K taxes, they funnel the bulk of the profit through Rep. Ireland. Wow 1 tech startup that must mean they deserve special treatment... how about paying full taxes first.

Edited May 17, 2023 by DARKKRAKEN666

[Rozalia1]

5 hours ago, DARKKRAKEN666 said:

They are not a friend to the U.K, they don't even pay full U.K taxes, they funnel the bulk of the profit through Rep. Ireland. Wow 1 tech startup that must mean they deserve special treatment... how about paying full taxes first.

 

That reminds of the time Microsoft/Activision did the us vs them thing against Asia, which they got zero backlash for even in the climate of today where even little things can be blown out of proportion and get you labelled this and that. Their argument basically was that regulation hurts western companies who have to compete with eastern companies, really Chinese companies, but they lumped in Japan because of Sony, who are fully backed by their government which is unfair for western companies. To begin with such a comment is stupid as governments aid western companies all the time, but when you factor in the taxes thing it only makes it worse. Those Chinese companies do have unfair advantages due to their government yeah, but they certainly pay for that benefit and China has been better off as a result of it (though the government seems to be hurting business over there for culture/political reasons at the moment). Not that you even need to talk about the Chinese companies as local companies in the west who actually pay taxes have to contend with these giants who are wealthier to begin with but also pay less tax then them on top of that.

[Rozalia1]

 

Press release talks of first of many so they should be putting Xbox's games on the small cloud platforms too. If that doesn't happen then it'd mean Nvidia got a special clause for themselves that they get Microsoft's games whatever happens with the deal.

 

While not an issue with Nvidia as far as I know, though one with the Cloud providers, even with 100% of microtransactions (which many of their games don't even have) Microsoft will not be happy at having to honour these contracts even if the deal fails. These deals would have happened years ago already if Microsoft wanted them and they only did them to try and fool the CMA. Another loss on top of everything else.

 

Whatever the case, the regulator in China is next. Microsoft's presence in China is limited though they recently signed a deal with a Chinese cloud company. Activision had more of a presence in the past but less so as they got into a feud with NetEase who is a big deal in China. Activision some months back ran a PR campaign against NetEase where they told people that NetEase attempted to blackmail them (do what we want or we'll tell the regulator to kill your deal) hence why they pulled out of China. NetEase responded to that by stating that it was false and just another PR move to try and manipulate regulators (in this case the Chinese one) to pass the deal. The idea being that if the Chinese regulator blocks the deal then, as Activision has already made the claims of blackmail, it will appear that NetEase got the Chinese regulator to block the deal and carry out their threat as well known good boy Kotick bravely refused to kneel to their threats.

 

If NetEase attempted to blackmail Activision with threats like that is true is... hard to say. It certainly would not be impossible that NetEase might have done that as Chinese companies aren't exactly the nicest of actors, but with this information coming from the slime that is Kotick, and him having made good use of the Microsoft machine which is all about PR campaigns and astroturfings against opponents... I'm inclined to believe that NetEase is in fact innocent and it's just another Microsoft plot. The problem with being such a deceitful company like Microsoft is you simply can't trust that this isn't just another of their dirty tricks. Then you have the matter of us vs them that Microsoft/Activision has been riling up to where they're saying the US government needs to hurt East Asian companies. Situation is just like with Britain where Microsoft arrogantly took no care to act correctly in the region and brought out stuff like threats which perhaps might have an effect elsewhere, but are taken very badly in Britain (the EU did that during Brexit, a much bigger deal, and we all know how well that worked out). Doing that sort of thing with China is likely even stupider, so we'll see what happens.

[DARKKRAKEN666]

19 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

 

That reminds of the time Microsoft/Activision did the us vs them thing against Asia, which they got zero backlash for even in the climate of today where even little things can be blown out of proportion and get you labelled this and that. Their argument basically was that regulation hurts western companies who have to compete with eastern companies, really Chinese companies, but they lumped in Japan because of Sony, who are fully backed by their government which is unfair for western companies. To begin with such a comment is stupid as governments aid western companies all the time, but when you factor in the taxes thing it only makes it worse. Those Chinese companies do have unfair advantages due to their government yeah, but they certainly pay for that benefit and China has been better off as a result of it (though the government seems to be hurting business over there for culture/political reasons at the moment). Not that you even need to talk about the Chinese companies as local companies in the west who actually pay taxes have to contend with these giants who are wealthier to begin with but also pay less tax then them on top of that.

 

Off-topic but I'm not sure why the Rep. Ireland is allowed to become a tax haven, it's not a tiny ireland or enclave or something. They don't even have to maintain an effective armed forces as any enemy would have to go through the whole of europe to get to them. They recently started up a sovereign wealth fund as they have more money than they know what to do with all at the detriment of the U.K.

 

All the deals seem to be around 10 years.... Part of the CMA's point is that the cloud may not be the dominant platform now but 10 years now it very well could be. I bet Microsoft are rubbing their hands in glee being able to play the good guy knowing in 10 years they can do what they like if the CMA's changes it's decision.

[Z1MZUM]

On 5/16/2023 at 10:29 AM, majob said:

If MS wins their appeal, it's bad. If MS loses their appeal, it's not bad.

 

If MS wins their appeal its maybe good. If MS loses it's definitely bad.

 

There are millions of people like me that are only interested in COD when it comes to Activision and any change, I mean ANY would hopefully be positive. I actually want Sony cut out of future Activision games tbh and that thought is based on how disgusting Acitivsions management is.

Edited May 19, 2023 by Z1MZUM

[Zephrese]

Feels like this sometimes:

 

Spoiler

 

Edited May 19, 2023 by Zephrese

[Rozalia1]

 

First guy to know this if it turns out to be true and seems like it will. How would he get the scoop like that? Well that New York-based financial analyst he says told him? Swap that out for Microsoft and you got the answer.

 

 

Bloody hell, Microsoft really is doing those Russian tactics (this guy is their paid shill and speaks for them). On one hand China is bad to western business and the US government needs to trade war them for Microsoft. On the other hand they cleared Microsoft's buy out so suddenly they're "open for business".

 

On a related note. The word of the week/month for Microsoft's astroturfing team seems to be "pressure". X happening means pressure is now on the FTC/CMA. Y saying Z means pressure is now on the FTC/CMA. Again, they continue to misjudge things which I'm very thankful for. Remember that Microsoft could have gotten this deal through if they sat down with the CMA to work out structural remedies, but they refused to do so because they believed the "pressure" would be too great on the CMA to block the deal so they'd have no choice but to pass it with just the worthless 10 year deals.

[majob]

15 hours ago, Z1MZUM said:

 

If MS wins their appeal its maybe good. If MS loses it's definitely bad.

 

There are millions of people like me that are only interested in COD when it comes to Activision and any change, I mean ANY would hopefully be positive. I actually want Sony cut out of future Activision games tbh and that thought is based on how disgusting Acitivsions management is.

There is no possibility where microsoft obtaining more power is a good thing. 

[AJ_-_808]

15 hours ago, Z1MZUM said:

 

If MS wins their appeal its maybe good. If MS loses it's definitely bad.

 

There are millions of people like me that are only interested in COD when it comes to Activision and any change, I mean ANY would hopefully be positive. I actually want Sony cut out of future Activision games tbh and that thought is based on how disgusting Acitivsions management is.

 

Should be the other way around.  What makes you think the hands-off management style of MS is going to fix Kotick?  Your best bet now is for the merger to fail and the ACTI board removes Kotick to get back in good graces.

[Herwest299]

11 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

 

First guy to know this if it turns out to be true and seems like it will. How would he get the scoop like that? Well that New York-based financial analyst he says told him? Swap that out for Microsoft and you got the answer.

 

 

Bloody hell, Microsoft really is doing those Russian tactics (this guy is their paid shill and speaks for them). On one hand China is bad to western business and the US government needs to trade war them for Microsoft. On the other hand they cleared Microsoft's buy out so suddenly they're "open for business".

 

On a related note. The word of the week/month for Microsoft's astroturfing team seems to be "pressure". X happening means pressure is now on the FTC/CMA. Y saying Z means pressure is now on the FTC/CMA. Again, they continue to misjudge things which I'm very thankful for. Remember that Microsoft could have gotten this deal through if they sat down with the CMA to work out structural remedies, but they refused to do so because they believed the "pressure" would be too great on the CMA to block the deal so they'd have no choice but to pass it with just the worthless 10 year deals.

Christ, that guy on Twitter is just cringe-inducing (like all of those celebrating it). Dude's acting like his team is winning the World Cup with the exclamation marks and excitement in his tone. Over a business deal lmao. 

[Zephrese]

Gotta love it when so many people blindly roll over and clap like brainwashed seals for every major multimillion (or, in this case, billion) dollar acquisition by multibillion dollar corporations, and mindlessly praise a blatantly corrupt multibillion dollar corporation with a long and well established history of shady business practices, anti-consumerism, and an entire menagerie of excuses as to why their products (in this case from their gaming division in specific) come out in the often sloppy manner that they do (if they come out at all). And usually all on the account of "muh capitalism", a system that's become incredibly tumorous, predatory, and anti-consumer over the last few decades (it's "better" than some other economic/political systems, but that's not saying much at this point). It's an even bigger kicker when people focus on the evil of the company being acquired, completely ignoring the objectively greater and much more all-encompassing evil that is posed by the company doing the acquiring (and how the evil of the former is likely to be swept under the rug and not properly addressed or punished in the process). Wonder how these same people will feel when corporations (likely inevitably) don't need the governments of the world as a middle man and puppet anymore because of how easy it is to convince people to eat from their hands and turn them against people who're not falling for it like an angry mob of mind controlled zombies.

Edited May 20, 2023 by Zephrese