Rac3r
Member
More likely Chinese regulators block than FTC imo. Forcing divestment and having an American company acquire TikTok would be a huge win for Biden.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
More likely Chinese regulators block than FTC imo. Forcing divestment and having an American company acquire TikTok would be a huge win for Biden.
PaintTinJr
Member
For me this highlights the problem right here that Microsoft will have convincing the regulators - like the CMA and maybe the EC - that they should own more of the most popular games in the industry with the ATVI acquisition.
In this thread the notion of PlayStation needing a stronger competitor - at making AAA games to compete - and nothing of value being lost if Microsoft sold off Xbox has been floated a few times, and IMO that list is a fair indictment of the viewpoint, because - unless I'm reading it wrong - nothing in that list has originated from Microsoft's +20year investment in Xbox, and even games they acquired haven't registered on that list with the exception of Minecraft.
Although probably seen as a odd issue to bring up, on the Windows Store Microsoft has two excellent pieces of basic software in FreshPaint and Microsoft Jigsaw - along with Windows classics like Minesweeper, Solitaire, etc - all of which would be trivial to port and run on any other device to bring more software ("games") to people like they claim, and yet the first of these is a free platform exclusive to Windows, and the second is a free platform exclusive to Windows riddled with adverts for gambling games, or is available - but not to buy outright for £1 or £2 pounds - as a £8 per year service game to get rid of the despicable adverts. There isn't even a £70 one off B2P option for such a trivial game for your kids to use safely and unsupervised for 5mins at a time on their touchscreen PCs.
The old maxim of: "Trusted with small things, trusted with big things" probably applies in this situation for regulators. If you can't trust Microsoft to offer a Jigsaw game on fair terms to consumers - mostly for children and the tech illiterate elderly would be my guess - then why would you trust them with the treasure trove of IPs like the essential platform input that is CoD, and trust them to offer it on fair terms in perpetuity to a company they'd like to extinguish?
Last edited:
ChuckeRearmed
Member
FTC is a joke at this point. As there is nothing illegal in TikTok + Microsoft, it won't be able to do anything.
Chinese companies can't do that. Hasn't the same thing happened with Grindr (or whatever it is called) recently?
Last edited:
nikolino840
Member
Dick Jones
Gold Member
Destin has signed a 10 year deal with Microsoft. Just waiting on Brad Smith to tweet it's a victory for impartial journalism.
GHG
Gold Member
The quantity of the documents doesn't matter if you omit the most important and relevant ones. Do these clowns think before they regurgitate what they are being told to say?
Minecraft was an agreement with the original creator and those are only good points if you're part of a select group. Next.
Considering the documentation and information available at this stage it's intellectually dishonest to state that the only issue and objection against the acquisition is due to exclusivity, and more specifically a game being made exclusive at Sony's expense. Have you even bothered to take the time to read anything that isn't twitter regarding this topic?
ArcaneNLSC
Member
This motherfucker would sign a billion year contract like it was a Scientology contract
nikolino840
Member
GHG
Gold Member
Dick Jones
Gold Member
GHG
Gold Member
In a strange twist, it was all Sony's fault, all of it.
Dick Jones
Gold Member
Topher
Gold Member
Last edited:
Wind's Howling
Member
Sounds to me like they are trying to bury the FTC with paperwork in the hopes the FTC just gives the green light for the takeover.
Bunch of new files uploaded to the CMA page
https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/micros...erger-inquiry#full-publication-update-history
4J - positive general but they have worked with MS and basically said MS didn't pressure them on the games that they did work on re favouring MS platforms
B - short and sweet, no must have ip
C - MS is trustworthy, consolidation especially around cloud gaming is inevitable, Tencent competition (ownership of ABK shares and the asymmetric nature of the Chinese/Western markets)
D - hard to predict the outcomes but sees No impact on their business or their ability to distribute their games on xbox or other consoles.
E - PS sales stagnating and basically glowing of Xbox, bit weird one but ehh
F - supportive of the deal, basically thinks the arguments against the acquisition is exaggerated (small dig at Sony in there). Also says employees at ABK might be better under MS.
Working on the rest whilst getting my steps in. May read the ABK, MS and Sony ones when I get to my laptop. I am wondering when the Google and other bigger participants responses drop.
Sony was a repetition of previous arguments but there was some stuff that was close to being interesting. I would argue that Sony not having a GaaS does make this an apple to orange comparison although a valid one.
https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/micros...erger-inquiry#full-publication-update-history
4J - positive general but they have worked with MS and basically said MS didn't pressure them on the games that they did work on re favouring MS platforms
B - short and sweet, no must have ip
C - MS is trustworthy, consolidation especially around cloud gaming is inevitable, Tencent competition (ownership of ABK shares and the asymmetric nature of the Chinese/Western markets)
D - hard to predict the outcomes but sees No impact on their business or their ability to distribute their games on xbox or other consoles.
E - PS sales stagnating and basically glowing of Xbox, bit weird one but ehh
F - supportive of the deal, basically thinks the arguments against the acquisition is exaggerated (small dig at Sony in there). Also says employees at ABK might be better under MS.
Working on the rest whilst getting my steps in. May read the ABK, MS and Sony ones when I get to my laptop. I am wondering when the Google and other bigger participants responses drop.
Sony was a repetition of previous arguments but there was some stuff that was close to being interesting. I would argue that Sony not having a GaaS does make this an apple to orange comparison although a valid one.
Last edited:
cornonthecrobb
Banned
wondering now if this is even worth all this effort... theres a good chance that this isnt going through so why keep fighting it
DrFigs
Member
I basically think it's the regulator's job to make sure that companies can compete against each other by putting a cap on how much of the market microsoft can buy out.
skit_data
Member
I’m really interested in which publisher Participant E is.Bunch of new files uploaded to the CMA page
https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/micros...erger-inquiry#full-publication-update-history
4J - positive general but they have worked with MS and basically said MS didn't pressure them on the games that they did work on re favouring MS platforms
B - short and sweet, no must have ip
C - MS is trustworthy, consolidation especially around cloud gaming is inevitable, Tencent competition (ownership of ABK shares and the asymmetric nature of the Chinese/Western markets)
D - hard to predict the outcomes but sees No impact on their business or their ability to distribute their games on xbox or other consoles.
E - PS sales stagnating and basically glowing of Xbox, bit weird one but ehh
F - supportive of the deal, basically thinks the arguments against the acquisition is exaggerated (small dig at Sony in there). Also says employees at ABK might be better under MS.
Working on the rest whilst getting my steps in. May read the ABK, MS and Sony ones when I get to my laptop. I am wondering when the Google and other bigger participants responses drop.
Probably ABK
/s
Guaranteed 2bn loss on the line is one good motivating factor.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I think its 2.5B now, and goes up to 3 in April.
GHG
Gold Member
E is an indie developer. They state so in the document:
I will also add that the last 2 paragraphs are suspiciously similar to some of the posts I've seen here from certain individuals, even down to the structure of the sentences and words used.
Last edited:
Might be correct, wasn't 100% sure.
Topher
Gold Member
Out of the six external ones, one was named. We should in theory see more but unsure when.
Can read them in the CMA page I linked a couple of posts up.
Last edited:
zapper
Member
I've only read that of microsoft and sony, to me seem like the usual things, microsoft tries to dismantle the thesis of the cma, sony instead agrees with the cma.
strange enough this continuous accusation by microsoft against the cma of creating unprecedented precedents, since an acquisition of this kind in the sector gaming is really an unprecedented event... curious that there is nothing related to zenimax in the answer, basically they defend themselves by saying that with cod they offered contracts to competitors while with zenimax no, they misdirected.
the most relevant part is a reference to a superman game, they have leaked something in development?
strange enough this continuous accusation by microsoft against the cma of creating unprecedented precedents, since an acquisition of this kind in the sector gaming is really an unprecedented event... curious that there is nothing related to zenimax in the answer, basically they defend themselves by saying that with cod they offered contracts to competitors while with zenimax no, they misdirected.
the most relevant part is a reference to a superman game, they have leaked something in development?
Last edited:
ChuckeRearmed
Member
That's not how any of it works, should or will work. Some braindead politicians in USA though are trying to push that angle but you cannot set limits on how much companies should be able to invest in anything.
P
Probably misspelling of Spiderman.
Last edited:
nikolino840
Member
Sony can do the same?
Clicked the tweet links. First response is from a MS partner for over 15 years. Second is an independent dev who gaslights (would UK gamers be better if Tencent bought Activision is asked in paragraph 3). Third is anonymous, cannot predict effects of merger, but doesn't think their company will be harmed. Fourth is praising GP because people don't like buying their games on PS very much (as I read it). There was nothing for 5 or 6 to read.
I'd put as much weight on these as letters from parents of those involved.
DrFigs
Member
I think someone is looking to be bought out by Xbox.E is an indie developer. They state so in the document:
I will also add that the last 2 paragraphs are suspiciously similar to some of the posts I've seen here from certain individuals, even down to the structure of the sentences and words used.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
T
They can't. Their system does not accept japanese language /s
GHG
Gold Member
They are not in the same position as Microsoft in this court case.
Why is it always "but Sony" without any logic being applied to the situation at hand?
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Bumblebeetuna
Gold Member
“SIE cannot protect against the loss of Call of Duty”
Aw, poor Sony said that. Been making games for over thirty years and they can’t survive without some third party titles revenue. The closest thing they have of their own is Destiny? Can someone please remind me how they came to own Destiny, was that one of these magical organically created Sony studios and IPs? Oh wait I forgot, the whole “adapt and compete!” nonsense only applies to Microsoft.
Aw, poor Sony said that. Been making games for over thirty years and they can’t survive without some third party titles revenue. The closest thing they have of their own is Destiny? Can someone please remind me how they came to own Destiny, was that one of these magical organically created Sony studios and IPs? Oh wait I forgot, the whole “adapt and compete!” nonsense only applies to Microsoft.
Last edited:
DrFigs
Member
Sony isn't arguing that MS should not ever be allowed to buy studios or publishers. Just this specific one.
Bumblebeetuna
Gold Member
Yes I know why Sony is against it… because muh call of doody revenue. Which they will still have, because the game will stay multi platform.
I’m glad we saw some responses from other people actually in the industry, and they have no problems with the deal. It’s basically Sony clutching their pocketbook and their warriors falling in line.
GHG
Gold Member
ulantan
Member
I mean who else benefits from call of duty right now that would be relevant
Bumblebeetuna
Gold Member
No one benefits from ABKs work on CoD as much as Sony. Which is exactly why they are fighting so hard against this.
Wind's Howling
Member
E is an indie developer. They state so in the document:
I just do not see as to why an opinion of an Indie developer has any substantial say in the matter.
We are not talking about Microsoft buying dozens of Indie developers for 67 billion. We are talking about Microsoft buying one of the biggest publishers in gaming industry.
If you want your game to have substantial sales on the PS4/PS5, create a game that caters to the market who buys those consoles instead of using it as an argument to defend such a takeover.
ulantan
Member
So other than sony and Microsoft no other publisher or dev makes money off of cod why do we even care what they think.
reinking
Gold Member
How is that an argument against Sony when it could also be used against MS? Not only would MS not be able to compete without CoD, the argument many seem to be making is they can't compete unless they take ownership of it. Seems like a weak one to make since both companies can/will survive regardless of how this acquisition turns out.
Bumblebeetuna
Gold Member
I don’t think it’s an argument against Sony, or Microsoft for that matter. it’s just taking the same argument people use against MS and applying it to Sony.
By Sonys own admissions to the CMA, they are too reliant on all the money CoD brings in for them and they have failed to create anything themselves that can replicate it. The closest they’ve been able to come to it is Destiny, which they acquired the same way MS is trying to acquire ABK.
Which, again, is all moot anyway because the game isn’t going anywhere. Sony is just making Microsofts case for them of why it makes no sense for them to remove CoD from PlayStation.
Christocolus
Member
Couple of things to correct here.
They were founded in 2013, in Romania:
This information is consistent across 2 Romanian business directories:
https://www.romanian-companies.eu/boosteroid-games-srl-31715471/
https://www.lista-firme-romania.ro/en/company/reland-activ-srl-31715471-sxsgin/
Their presence became public around 2016, this is verified across both linkedin and crunchbase:
They didn't even launch their service in the Ukraine until 2021 by way of a partnership with Kyivstar:
https://good-time-invest.com/blog/boosteroid-cloud-gaming-service-launched-in-ukraine/
They are still headquartered in Romania, this is referenced several times in their terms and conditions that can be found on their website but they do have operations in Ukraine. Nobody is disputing their current operations in the Ukraine however it is both timely and highly convenient from a PR perspective to define them as a "Ukrainian" business despite the location of their headquarters and the fact that they have a scattered presence across Europe and the Middle East.
It's also worth mentioning that when they signed a deal with Huawei back in 2020 they were happy to be defined as a company "headquartered in Dubai":
https://e.huawei.com/en/case-studies/industries/2021/boosteroid-cloud-gaming
Also note the reference to their Ukraine operation here.
So it seems that they are happy to go where the wind blows in order to secure business deals.
Nothing wrong with the business deal, especially considering they are a company that was previously singled out by regulators, but everything wrong with the political framing of it by Microsoft and their willingness to go along with it. This is about having a factual discussion, a regulatory process is a factual one, but Microsoft are attempting to sway opinion through emotion by weaponising the current war in Ukraine. That's wholly unnecessary and poor taste.
That Indie devloper made great points. Increased Xbox and Game Pass sales increases Indie game exposure.E is an indie developer. They state so in the document:
I will also add that the last 2 paragraphs are suspiciously similar to some of the posts I've seen here from certain individuals, even down to the structure of the sentences and words used.
Win win all around. Why would anyone have a problem with these points I wonder?
Thirty7ven
Banned
Bunch of new files uploaded to the CMA page
https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/micros...erger-inquiry#full-publication-update-history
4J - positive general but they have worked with MS and basically said MS didn't pressure them on the games that they did work on re favouring MS platforms
B - short and sweet, no must have ip
C - MS is trustworthy, consolidation especially around cloud gaming is inevitable, Tencent competition (ownership of ABK shares and the asymmetric nature of the Chinese/Western markets)
D - hard to predict the outcomes but sees No impact on their business or their ability to distribute their games on xbox or other consoles.
E - PS sales stagnating and basically glowing of Xbox, bit weird one but ehh
F - supportive of the deal, basically thinks the arguments against the acquisition is exaggerated (small dig at Sony in there). Also says employees at ABK might be better under MS.
Working on the rest whilst getting my steps in. May read the ABK, MS and Sony ones when I get to my laptop. I am wondering when the Google and other bigger participants responses drop.
Sony was a repetition of previous arguments but there was some stuff that was close to being interesting. I would argue that Sony not having a GaaS does make this an apple to orange comparison although a valid one.
I only read the participant’s E out of curiosity and I’m just in awe. Would love to know who’s the dev that wrote that basic ass shit with nothing but anecdotes. Reads like a forum post.
Topher
Gold Member
E is an indie developer. They state so in the document:
I will also add that the last 2 paragraphs are suspiciously similar to some of the posts I've seen here from certain individuals, even down to the structure of the sentences and words used.
Looks like another coordinated effort from Microsoft to me. We had the union organizations publishing letters publicly on websites on the same day, addressed to the FTC. We had the "victory for Ukraine" tweet with Boosteroid changing their location from Romania to Ukraine. I see no reason why Microsoft wouldn't have some of its close partners write letters on their behalf. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with any of it. Microsoft is approaching this thing from every angle they can.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked