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

[MidnightDragon]

MS claimed in a filing in the lawsuit with the FTC they don't have any idea when the first Call of Duty was released. Um, you're trying to buy the company that makes Call of Duty. Don't you think you should know that?!

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/gaming/microsoft-claims-it-has-no-idea-when-call-of-duty-came-out/ar-AA15Uaux

[Lance_87]

6 hours ago, MidnightDragon said:

MS claimed in a filing in the lawsuit with the FTC they don't have any idea when the first Call of Duty was released. Um, you're trying to buy the company that makes Call of Duty. Don't you think you should know that?!

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/gaming/microsoft-claims-it-has-no-idea-when-call-of-duty-came-out/ar-AA15Uaux

 

Another one fallen in the clickbait trap.

[Rozalia1]

11 hours ago, MidnightDragon said:

MS claimed in a filing in the lawsuit with the FTC they don't have any idea when the first Call of Duty was released. Um, you're trying to buy the company that makes Call of Duty. Don't you think you should know that?!

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/gaming/microsoft-claims-it-has-no-idea-when-call-of-duty-came-out/ar-AA15Uaux

 

It is nothing new, the gaming media which is very Microsoft friendly simply doesn't usually report Microsoft's nastiness. As I've been posting on here about. In documents Microsoft will claim supreme incompetence and ignorance in ways that contradict their previously made public statements (where are the mass articles on this?). They'll do console war stuff where they're the good little guy (the nerve) fighting the evil empire, even going to the point that they drop in documents the "arrogant Sony" meme, all while publicly they attack Sony with implications that they're the ones doing console war stuff.

 

4 hours ago, Lance_87 said:

Another one fallen in the clickbait trap.

 

Be careful you yourself don't fall. Anything critical of Microsoft is clickbait/wrong/whatever according to its supporters. As its not exactly common for Microsoft to be called out for their behaviour, anyone who does it has some value.

[majob]

Microsoft just stated they're closing the deal regardless of the FTC if they get an all clear from the EU/UK

 

https://mp1st.com/news/microsoft-lawyer-states-they-will-close-activision-acquisition-if-no-ftc-resolution-reached

 

They must feel confident the European investigations will be going their way and they know the FTC can't  stop the deal without a federal court mandate and even then they'll  have to fight it in court after the merger has already been completed to get that result.

[Rozalia1]

23 hours ago, majob said:

Microsoft just stated they're closing the deal regardless of the FTC if they get an all clear from the EU/UK

 

https://mp1st.com/news/microsoft-lawyer-states-they-will-close-activision-acquisition-if-no-ftc-resolution-reached

 

They must feel confident the European investigations will be going their way and they know the FTC can't  stop the deal without a federal court mandate and even then they'll  have to fight it in court after the merger has already been completed to get that result.

 

I wouldn't look too much into it. Microsoft has to try and appear confident about the deal as showing signs of fear will only embolden the idea that if enough delays and heat are applied to Microsoft then they'll back down themselves. They've largely been able to do this throughout this process but the CMA phase 1 showed a nice crack where they angrily began attacking the regulator in documents and did the laughable "Sony is trying to grow by making us smaller" when it is Microsoft who has been buying third parties and making their games exclusive. For those unaware that is the "accuse others of what you yourself are guilty of" tactic that has been used by the likes of Bush, Putin, and a number of other not exactly nice people.

 

Speaking of delays the CMA has hit a delay on their decision so many regulators will be making decisions around the same time. Frustrating as everyone wants a conclusion sooner, but all these delays do have the positive effect that the current Microsoft management can't buy anything else during this timeframe. Which means that yes, even if Microsoft fails talk will just shift to "who will Microsoft attempt to buyout now". As such the best case scenario is Nadella gets taken down by this failure or he at least has to back away from gaming while pinning all the blame on Spencer who'll have somehow mislead him. That should halt Microsoft's assault on the gaming industry.

[steel6burgh]

Sony being the more creative company and in my opinion the much better company of the two, I'd bet Sony will put the creativity of one of their top studios to work and within 5 years they will have a 1st person multiplayer war type shooter, similar to COD, that blows COD out of the water.  Microsoft is buying an old franchise and Sony will create a new one.  COD won't be shit in 10 years.

[DaivRules]

13 minutes ago, Rozalia1 said:

Frustrating as everyone wants a conclusion sooner, but all these delays do have the positive effect that the current Microsoft management can't buy anything else during this timeframe. Which means that yes, even if Microsoft fails talk will just shift to "who will Microsoft attempt to buyout now". As such the best case scenario is Nadella gets taken down by this failure or he at least has to back away from gaming while pinning all the blame on Spencer who'll have somehow mislead him. That should halt Microsoft's assault on the gaming industry.

 

I'll take the correct conclusion later, rather than a rushed, incorrect conclusion sooner. As I said many pages ago, this process should take a while to complete and people should be patient and give time for proper analysis. 

I can almost completely assure anyone who thinks Microsoft isn't or hasn't been in talks about other acquisitions while this is going on is absolutely wrong. MS is always courting companies to purchase throughout it's entire structure and this was almost guaranteed to just be one in string in the near future. All this would do, if ultimately rejected, is cause MS to pick up smaller companies that wouldn't be examined as heavily.

My original thought when this was first announced is if the Activision deal falls through, MS structures a slow siphoning of studios one or two a time until they get all of Activision anyway.

 

[Z1MZUM]

I bet the scalpers are watching to put the price up on those XBSX's that are apparently hard to find.

 

I hope Microsoft is successful.

[Rozalia1]

 

Microsoft once again hides behind incompetence. Activision is doing the same because as I said, Activision's statements on this is just Microsoft with their hand up their behind (this allows Activision to be the bad cop while Microsoft attempts a good cop).

 

Microsoft's supporters, who repeat Microsoft's arguments however stupid, are ignoring that Microsoft itself is saying it is wrong and are now obviously convinced that this must mean that the FTC is on its knees and going to surrender to Microsoft any day now... or possibly the FTC told them that any efforts Microsoft might make are pointless as long as they have such a horrible statement live so Microsoft had to retreat from it in hopes of getting anywhere.

 

11 hours ago, steel6burgh said:

Sony being the more creative company and in my opinion the much better company of the two, I'd bet Sony will put the creativity of one of their top studios to work and within 5 years they will have a 1st person multiplayer war type shooter, similar to COD, that blows COD out of the water.  Microsoft is buying an old franchise and Sony will create a new one.  COD won't be shit in 10 years.

 

Sometimes it matters little if you are better than the competition, sheer brand power and inertia can carry them through. If Sony were able to get something going that would overtake CoD it would likely be more Xbox's signature mismanagement completely messing up CoD to allow that to happen then Sony being so good that they overcome CoD.

 

11 hours ago, DaivRules said:

I'll take the correct conclusion later, rather than a rushed, incorrect conclusion sooner. As I said many pages ago, this process should take a while to complete and people should be patient and give time for proper analysis. 

I can almost completely assure anyone who thinks Microsoft isn't or hasn't been in talks about other acquisitions while this is going on is absolutely wrong. MS is always courting companies to purchase throughout it's entire structure and this was almost guaranteed to just be one in string in the near future. All this would do, if ultimately rejected, is cause MS to pick up smaller companies that wouldn't be examined as heavily.

My original thought when this was first announced is if the Activision deal falls through, MS structures a slow siphoning of studios one or two a time until they get all of Activision anyway.

 

I never said Microsoft hasn't been talking to others on buying them out, just that they can't do said buyouts while all of this is ongoing. On the matter of smaller companies I've put that down as a possibility many posts back yeah. I stated that for many who don't really care for Activision Microsoft failing here could be bad as failure would mean them going after studios that you'd actually care about. As I've also said, best case scenario the failure brings down some people and Microsoft gets scared off from doing further buyouts so that doesn't happen.

 

I disagree on that being a possibility. Activision is structured in such a way that they need all their studios to keep putting out their massive CoD projects. King is Activision's mobile side of thing that they need in case CoD hits into problems... at most Microsoft could perhaps get the Blizzard part of the company which is the least important but even that would be a ask I think. On top of that the FTC has made clear that they know all of the tricks that companies pull to avoid regulation so trying to pick up Activision piecemeal like that might get them in trouble once again. 

[Rozalia1]

https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/6/23543005/microsoft-washington-post-ad-cwa-unions

 

Microsoft putting out an ad to attack/mock the FTC and stress the narrative for its supporters to repeat above other failed narratives (like the FTC being illegal). How can we be bad for business if we recognise unions? Everyone should just ignore everything else.

 

Also, we keep getting told about Microsoft recognising unions (often in a company they don't even own) but what has been negotiated exactly? I've not heard a single thing regarding that. Recognising a union and actually giving them stuff are two very different things. I mean what are unions going to even threaten Microsoft with? Delays? Xbox mismanagement has mass delays as standard. What is X amount of days extra. Additionally I've noticed that thus far the ones getting unioned up are QA people, as in the most easily laid off people in the company. These big buyouts as we know cause layoffs, regardless of what the buying company says, so putting two and two together...

[MidnightDragon]

I still don’t think that this will change the

end result, but been interesting to watch.

[MidnightDragon]

The deal may not close until 2024 now.

 

https://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2023/01/11/microsoft-activision-deal-delayed-ftc-2024/

[majob]

44 minutes ago, MidnightDragon said:

The deal may not close until 2024 now.

 

https://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2023/01/11/microsoft-activision-deal-delayed-ftc-2024/

This is actually the FTC's gameplan at work, delay and delay until the party in question simply abandons the acquisition

[MidnightDragon]

1 minute ago, majob said:

This is actually the FTC's gameplan at work, delay and delay until the party in question simply abandons the acquisition

MS is stubborn. It’s not gonna work.

[majob]

2 hours ago, MidnightDragon said:

MS is stubborn. It’s not gonna work.

it's worked before with them actually in the 90s.

Edited January 11, 2023 by majob

[MidnightDragon]

2 hours ago, majob said:

it's worked before with them actually in the 90s.

Guess we’ll see.

[RadiantFlamberge]

Hard one to call. Oh sure, Microsoft wants to look confident, but their method could backfire. Microsoft just gave the FTC the bird more than once. It's possible the FTC may drop their gloves on the ice this time, and go after MS harder to the point where the merger is poleaxed (or at least delayed for a good long while).

[Rozalia1]

https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/lobbying-contracts/3805101-bottom-line-activision-blizzard-lobbies-up-amid-antitrust-fight/

 

Quote

Activision Blizzard hired Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck to lobby on issues related to labor and employment policy. The video game company, which is seeking to win regulatory approval to be purchased by Microsoft, is running ads in the nation’s capital noting that its workers’ union backs the merger. The firm enlisted Brownstein’s Nadeam Elshami, who served as chief of staff to former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

 

What a joke. While trying to crush the unions that have sprung up within it Activision is running ads talking the deal up as its unions support it. I hope someone takes this slime to task during or after this deal hopefully fails. If Activision is lobbying in this manner then that implies that they consider the unions as a good, and yet they're trying to crush something they apparently consider a positive thing.

 

23 hours ago, majob said:

This is actually the FTC's gameplan at work, delay and delay until the party in question simply abandons the acquisition

 

Certainly. It is also why they didn't injunction Microsoft as they can wait for the current process to get to its end before they drop the injunction which then would delay it even further. Microsoft has said that if the other two big regulators approve then they'll seek to close the deal without the FTC, which would be them knowing what the FTC is likely doing and so trying to bring out the injunction early. Microsoft supporters naturally don't see it this way, thinking that no injunction is filed because the FTC has no case and so can't file one which clashes with their argument that the FTC has no case to begin with and yet the FTC is putting the heat on Microsoft regardless.

 

Hopefully the CMA/EU mess this up for Microsoft as longing out likely wouldn't stop Microsoft closing this. On one hand yeah they're missing out on picking up non-gaming companies (recent news confirms a company worth 20 billion as being one Microsoft has missed out on due to this), but on the other Microsoft could fall into considering all this a sunk cost and that to not look stupid they need to keep going. We'll know if things are bad for Microsoft if they start up PR of keeping every Activision game multiplatform and not just CoD which is what a few analysts have said Microsoft should be doing. Considering how the big regulators don't like such remedies as if Microsoft getting all this stuff exclusive is a problem, then what sense does it make to allow Microsoft to carry out such a thing 10 years down the line, I don't think it'd work thankfully.

 

11 hours ago, RadiantFlamberge said:

Hard one to call. Oh sure, Microsoft wants to look confident, but their method could backfire. Microsoft just gave the FTC the bird more than once. It's possible the FTC may drop their gloves on the ice this time, and go after MS harder to the point where the merger is poleaxed (or at least delayed for a good long while).

 

Its a little odd because I remember before the hammer got dropped by the FTC there was talk that Microsoft was lobbying the Democrats (and it was working) to get them to stop the FTC, but a number of high ranking Democrats have been coming out against this deal. Sanders came out against it instantly but his influence is small certainly. Warren has also been against the deal and actually wants to ban any purchase over 5 billion. Heck, Biden himself has been talking about the evil of these deals and the FTC ultimately is carrying out his will so you can count the big cheese himself as being against Microsoft.

[Rozalia1]

https://www.vgchartz.com/article/455978/google-and-nvidia-express-concerns-to-ftc-over-microsofts-activision-blizzard-acquisition/

 

Google we've known has been on the attack against Microsoft, but now Nvidia joins the fray. They do say they're not against the deal yes, but their words are going to be used against Microsoft so the result is the same. The response from Microsoft and their supporters to this naturally would be that old argument of theirs that Nvidia could of course have CoD too on their service... for a fee. What would the fee be for a new CoD? High enough that absolutely no one would go for it so while on paper Microsoft would allow others to get it on their service, in reality they'll be the only ones who have it on a subscription service. Its all very dishonest and transparently so.

[MidnightDragon]

Has Nintendo said anything about this? Wasn’t sure.

[Rozalia1]

21 minutes ago, MidnightDragon said:

Has Nintendo said anything about this? Wasn’t sure.

 

I don't recall anything outside them saying that they received the contract that Microsoft sent them (nothing on actually signing it as keeps being reported). Nintendo is getting put aside by the regulators so Nintendo to get involved has to want to be involved. The whole contract thing from Microsoft is nice and all, but not worth getting into that hassle.

[MidnightDragon]

Yea, heard about the CoD deal on Nintendo systems, but don’t really think they were losing much sleep over that.  

[MidnightDragon]

Looks like the EU isn’t just going to let the deal go through quietly either. https://www.ign.com/articles/european-union-reportedly-preparing-to-challenge-microsofts-activision-blizzard-deal

[Rozalia1]

That there means that Microsoft's efforts to get it through the EU quickly have failed. According to Microsoft supporters it was so it would pressure the CMA to rule in their favour. Now I'm sure it'll flip to where the CMA are the reasonable ones Microsoft needs to win with to get the less reasonable EU to rule in their favour. Its funny that the FTC/CMA/EU have all had their moments where they're the most reasonable and least reasonable in supporters narrative.

 

Anyway, supporters aren't wrong that this doesn't mean the deal is dead dead. It just means that the EU won't let it through without concessions... the issue is... what concessions can there actually be? The 10 year CoD thing? Note how Microsoft has not submitted any concessions yet because the idea is you let the regulator do that first because if you submit first then they will likely ask for that + more... yet Microsoft has put forward the 10 year thing. Why? Because it is a joke. Subscriptions, the Cloud, and CoD itself is not currently in a position to hurt Sony big time so the 10 years are merely Xbox's timeable to build themselves up to where they can hurt Sony badly. If the EU judges that there are no concessions good enough (Microsoft wouldn't accept no gamepass for those titles + no exclusives either if that was requested) then they have to reject the deal outright.

 

Lets put this in perspective here, one that is not often stated for whatever reason. Activision's price is likely more than PlayStation's worth is and if not then it is close (not using Sony as PlayStation unlike Xbox is actually ran competently and could easily be independent from Sony if it came to it). How would it not be a problem for Xbox (Microsoft) to purchase a company worth more/near as much as their main competitor? This is on top of all the expansion they've already done and have said they intend to do in future. When Xbox has been made worth more than PlayStation and Nintendo combined, through tasteless buyouts and not growth, is that when certain people might start taking issues? At worse it'll be too late at that point, at best Xbox's incompetence will simply sink a good part of the gaming industry as even Microsoft will eventually have this catch up with them as shareholders realise how much has been spent for so little productive output.

[Rozalia1]

 

Simply amazing. I can see no way to make any sense of that statement outside it simply being dishonesty at play. In a 3 player market Microsoft is somehow in 4th place now. If we're restricted to the console market then Tencent being the mystery third company in front of Microsoft makes the most sense due to their revenue... except Tencent makes more money than Sony so that goes against Microsoft's framing of Sony as the biggest fish if there is in fact a bigger one. Furthermore Microsoft isn't in 4th in revenue, they're 3rd. Granted Nintendo makes actual serious profit while Xbox for all of its revenue hides how much profit they actually make because they're very likely bleeding money and have been for a long time. Loads of revenue matters little if its largely/totally getting wiped out. If this statement isn't restricted to just consoles then it would still be wrong as you'd have to include the likes of Apple and others that would push Microsoft further down than 4th.

 

Microsoft normally: We're number two behind Sony, ignore Nintendo.

Microsoft trying to buy Activision: Look we can't discount Nintendo so we're number 3.

Microsoft sweating nervously: Look we're number 4 pal behind Tencent/Valve < We are here

Microsoft panicking: Look if you think about it we're also behind Google, Apple, NetEase, Epic Games, and even Activision itself so we're 11th, not even top 10. You would deny 11th place buying the 10th? I thought we lived in a capitalist society, not in a communist one.

 

We're also nearing that time (tomorrow I think) where the break up fee gets upgraded to 2.5 billion I believe. Both the CMA and EU have delayed their decisions (which if against would kill the deal instantly) after this date... ummm. Considering how the big regulators have turned on these deals and seem to have a new way of thinking... could be part of it. Delay decisions until after the break up fee date and then reject it anyway, the break up fee acting as an extra punishment on the company for daring to try and pull such a move.