• 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)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?

  • Yes, will be approved without changes.

    Votes: 221 24.9%

  • Yes, will be approved but with structural changes to ABK.

    Votes: 102 11.5%

  • Yes, will be approved but only with behavioral concessions.

    Votes: 262 29.6%

  • No, will not be approved.

    Votes: 301 34.0%
  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
zapper

zapper

Member
does activision have any summer events planned to communicate its next releases? if the new cod is not announced in microsoft showcase it could also be an indication that the agreement will not be extended in July.

or do they still have marketing deals with sony?

i expect activision titles like ow2, diablo and crash at the sgf with keighley
 
mrmustard

mrmustard

Banned
Bernoulli said:
The CMA said multiple studios and publsihers came to tell them their concern and that they were against it
Click to expand...
A list of the studios was leaked:

Bend Studio
Bluepoint Games
Fabrik Games
Firesprite
Firewalk Studios
Guerrilla Games
Haven Studios
Housemarque
Insomniac Games
London Studio
Media Molecule
Naughty Dog
Nixxes Software
Pixelopus
Polyphony Digital
San Diego Studio
San Mateo Studio
Santa Monica Studio
Savage Game Studios
Sucker Punch Productions
Team Asobi
Valkyrie Entertainment
XDev
/joke
 
R

reksveks

Member
zapper said:
does activision have any summer events planned to communicate its next releases? if the new cod is not announced in microsoft showcase it could also be an indication that the agreement will not be extended in July.

or do they still have marketing deals with sony?

i expect activision titles like ow2, diablo and crash at the sgf with keighley
Click to expand...
Sony still has marketing rights for a year and a bit iirc.
 
Bernoulli

Bernoulli

M2 slut
for those saying Activision doesn't want Cloud

The CMA believes that Activision's stance on cloud gaming is positive, in general (page 255)

Overall, we consider that Activision's stance on cloud gaming as emerging from these documents is positive. This is despite some documents pointing towards scepticism from [REDACTED] to partnerships with cloud gaming providers, [REDACTED]. In particular, as we assess below, we have seen evidence of Activision, including Activision's senior leadership and [REDACTED], actively discussing potential opportunities with cloud gaming providers in the last three years.
 
Riky

Riky

$MSFT
Bernoulli said:
the good thing is that CMA knows that
just like they said in their report that Microsoft plan was to make COD exclusive until regulators stepped in so they can't be trusted

The CMA didn't consider the agreement with Nintendo as evidence that MS was interested in distributing COD to more platforms because the agreement was entered during the review process (page 186)

Regarding the Nintendo agreement, in addition to noting that this theory of harm is primarily focussed on SIE for reasons already explained, we also consider the points discussed in the ability assessment regarding the uncertainty created by certain terms of this agreement also apply to our incentive analysis. With regards to Microsoft's submission that this agreement demonstrates a general intention to distribute CoD on more consoles, we note that this agreement has been entered into during the course of our Merger investigation (and those of other authorities). We therefore do not consider this is reliable evidence of what Microsoft's incentives would otherwise be in the ordinary course.
Click to expand...

This is pretty illogical, Spencer said before any interaction with regulators that they would keep Call Of Duty multiplatform and they can provide precedent with Minecraft.
 
Heisenberg007

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
reksveks said:
That's a truth that can be applied to all publicly traded companies.
Click to expand...
True, but I'm referring to their statement, "We see this as a benefit to cloud gaming," which is a load of horseshit.

Nvidia doesn't see this as a benefit to cloud gaming (it is in fact to opposite if one company holds the major IPs and all other cloud gaming companies are basically that one company's customers). They simply see it as their own temporary benefit and pretending as if it's good for the industry.
 
T

Three

Member
Riky said:
This is pretty illogical, Spencer said before any interaction with regulators that they would keep Call Of Duty multiplatform and they can provide precedent with Minecraft.
Click to expand...
Who cares what Spencer said. Spencer also said this when the Bethesda deal was announced:

"This deal was not done to take games away from another player base like that," Spencer said. "Nowhere in the documentation that we put together was: 'How do we keep other players from playing these games?' We want more people to be able to play games, not fewer people to be able to go play games"

Then weeks after the deal closed

"the thing I want you to know is this is about delivering great exclusive games for you that ship on platforms where Game Pass exists. And that's our goal, that's why we're doing this"

And went on to cancel the in development games on other platforms.

The CMA are rightly calling out the idea that MS wants to bring games to more platforms and that it only made the deal when challenged by regulators.
 
Last edited:
Bernoulli

Bernoulli

M2 slut
Last edited:
H

hlm666

Member
PaintTinJr said:
But going by that list, how would any of that be "rubbish" in regards of the CMA(UK) trying to protect the viability of a nascent cloud market for cloud start-ups - primarily - to bring innovation and competition?
Click to expand...
Whats rubbish is believing a small startup is going to be able to afford to pay activision for their games without the EU remedies. In the current market/system if you buy cod somewhere you can only use it on your local machine as they block all services like geforce now/boosteroid. With the EU remedy the streaming service provider doesn't need to also get permission from activision, if you have a license for cod you can use it on any of them without them having to make an agreement and possibly pay activision.

Blocking the deal doesn't actually protect startups in streaming, they are not going to have the money to outbid ms/sony/amazon/nvidia for streaming rights. They should block the deal and enforce the EU remedy on all current publishers if the goal is to help startups in the "nascent" cloud market.
 
G

Godot25

Banned
Bernoulli said:
for those saying Activision doesn't want Cloud

The CMA believes that Activision's stance on cloud gaming is positive, in general (page 255)

Overall, we consider that Activision's stance on cloud gaming as emerging from these documents is positive. This is despite some documents pointing towards scepticism from [REDACTED] to partnerships with cloud gaming providers, [REDACTED]. In particular, as we assess below, we have seen evidence of Activision, including Activision's senior leadership and [REDACTED], actively discussing potential opportunities with cloud gaming providers in the last three years.
Click to expand...
And Activision said that those conversations was between lower level Activision employees that have no decision power in that matters.
Sooooo?

Like...No shit Sherlock that they were discussing possibility. Everybody is currently talking about future of cloud gaming. But talking about it and doing something about it is pretty different.
If Activision cared about cloud, they would already be on cloud services. That should tell you all you need to know.
 
Last edited:
bitbydeath

bitbydeath

Member
Riky said:
This is pretty illogical, Spencer said before any interaction with regulators that they would keep Call Of Duty multiplatform and they can provide precedent with Minecraft.
Click to expand...
For 10 years only.
Microsoft considers that a period of 10 years is sufficient for Sony, as a leading publisher and console platform, to develop alternatives to CoD
Click to expand...
While Microsoft is prepared to continue to discuss this constructively with the CMA, there is no basis for extending the remedy beyond the period proposed by Microsoft,” it claimed
Click to expand...
www.videogameschronicle.com

Microsoft says 10 years is ‘sufficient for Sony to develop Call of Duty alternatives’ | VGC

Xbox tells UK regulator “there is no basis” for offering Sony a longer licensing agreement…
www.videogameschronicle.com www.videogameschronicle.com
 
Bernoulli

Bernoulli

M2 slut
Riky said:
The precedent of Minecraft is solid evidence it wasn't just PR.
Click to expand...
the precedent of Bethesda games and this message from them is solid evidence that it was PR only
Microsoft considers that a period of 10 years is sufficient for Sony, as a leading publisher and console platform, to develop alternatives to CoD

the even confirm that Playstation won't have new games after the deal ends

“Microsoft considers that a period of 10 years is sufficient for Sony, as a leading publisher and console platform, to develop alternatives to CoD.

“The 10- year term will extend into the next console generation [redacted]. Moreover, the practical effect of the remedy will go beyond the 10-year period, since games downloaded in the final year of the remedy can continue to be played for the lifetime of that console (and beyond, with backwards compatibility).”
 
Last edited:
Heisenberg007

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
Godot25 said:
And Activision said that those conversations was between lower level Activision employees that have no decision power in that matters.
Sooooo?

Like...No shit Sherlock that they were discussing possibility. Everybody is currently talking about future of cloud gaming. But talking about it and doing something about it is pretty different.
If Activision cared about cloud, they would already be on cloud services. That should tell you all you need to know.
Click to expand...
Don't fall for these companies' bullshit.

Exhibit A:



Exhibit B:

SFhss4M.jpg


Several Activision-Blizzard games are already available on Boosteroid.
 
feynoob

feynoob

Member
Riky said:
This is pretty illogical, Spencer said before any interaction with regulators that they would keep Call Of Duty multiplatform and they can provide precedent with Minecraft.
Click to expand...
Keeping it and how you keep it is different.

MS is dirty and they know that very well. They offered 100% of revenue for cloud, even though they get paid to put the game on cloud.
You cant trust a company that does that kind of behaviour with 10 year deal. They made it harder for Sony to get the game to their streaming service and get a pie of it.
 
Riky

Riky

$MSFT
10 years is a very long deal in technology terms, we don't know if Call Of Duty will still have that sort of draw in another decade, trends change quickly.
Also they didn't remove anything with Bethesda acquisition, to take something away you must have it in the first place.
The games on rival consoles are still there and have been supported like nothing happened, Fallout 76, ESO and even the Quake release are fully supported the same as Xbox.
Games that were never announced or released on PlayStation cannot be taken away.
However the console competition part of the acquisition has been thrown out anyway, it's irrelevant. Cloud gaming is the blockage.
 
feynoob

feynoob

Member
Riky said:
10 years is a very long deal in technology terms, we don't know if Call Of Duty will still have that sort of draw in another decade, trends change quickly.
Also they didn't remove anything with Bethesda acquisition, to take something away you must have it in the first place.
The games on rival consoles are still there and have been supported like nothing happened, Fallout 76, ESO and even the Quake release are fully supported the same as Xbox.
Games that were never announced or released on PlayStation cannot be taken away.
However the console competition part of the acquisition has been thrown out anyway, it's irrelevant. Cloud gaming is the blockage.
Click to expand...
10 year is a blink of an eye.
Both PS5 and XSX were released in 2020. Right now we are in 2023. They bought bethesda in 2020, right now we are in 2023.

That is almost 3 years gap. Its less than 7 years of your timeline.
 
Last edited:
G

Godot25

Banned
Three said:
Lol, "no decision powers". Maybe try reading.

"Activision's senior leadership and [REDACTED]"

You make it seem like it was some janitor.
Click to expand...
Mate. Have you read the documents?

I'll refer you to the pages 11-15 where Activision states that CMA wrongly interpreted internal documents :) (wouldn't be the first time when CMA wrongly interpreted something)


The Provisional Findings argue that Activision Blizzard’s documents “[]”.53 To the contrary, all the cited documents show is that []. There is nothing unusual about gaming employees discussing or seeking more information about developments within the industry. Further, the evidence shows that, [] – especially at the highest levels, whose approval would be required due to the [] described above – have never been convinced that []. Moreover, the Provisional Findings ignore the plain observation that Activision Blizzard has no involvement in cloud gaming today and that none of its documents that set company strategy, [] cloud gaming.5
Click to expand...

The mention in the document of [] clearly refers to a draft [], which is a threshold step to even preliminary business discussions. []. Activision Blizzard employees regularly consider various opportunities for growth before presenting these to decision makers. Moreover, the document being referred to [] was merely a deck for discussion and not an actual [] and is described in its cover email as a “[]”.83 The statement therefore cannot be relied upon to indicate a concrete step toward implementing any plans.
Click to expand...

The Provisional Findings allege that Activision Blizzard was “[]”.78 It considers this statement is supported by Activision Blizzard’s internal documents. But no Activision Blizzard internal documents relied upon in the Provisional Findings demonstrate that Activision Blizzard was considering []. In fact cloud gaming has never been a part of Activision Blizzard’s [] as Activision Blizzard’s documents plainly show.
Click to expand...

All that the document shows is that individuals at Activision Blizzard have []. 72 Through such evaluations, Activision Blizzard has repeatedly concluded that []. Inexplicably, the Provisional Findings fail to cite the statement made in the same document, that “[]” of cloud gaming. Nor do the Provisional Findings consider that the document is two years old, and Activision Blizzard has not made its games commercially available on any cloud gaming service in the meantime.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
T

Three

Member
Riky said:
10 years is a very long deal in technology terms, we don't know if Call Of Duty will still have that sort of draw in another decade, trends change quickly.
Click to expand...
And we don't know if it won't. The game has been the top selling game for well over 10yrs already though so ten years isn't that long. If anything this deal would make sure that Call Of Duty would remain dominant and keep that sort of draw by cutting off alternatives that benefited somewhat from it not having entered some markets.

Riky said:
Also they didn't remove anything with Bethesda acquisition, to take something away you must have it in the first place.
The games on rival consoles are still there and have been supported like nothing happened, Fallout 76, ESO and even the Quake release are fully supported the same as Xbox.
Games that were never announced or released on PlayStation cannot be taken away.

However the console competition part of the acquisition has been thrown out anyway, it's irrelevant. Cloud gaming is the blockage.
Click to expand...
Oh so what you're saying is that Phil was talking about Call of Duty Ghosts and Cold war remaining on PS. Not future CoD being on PS. Come on, not this crap again.

Did they want to bring Zenimax/Bethesda games to more platforms when they cancelled the Zenimax/Bethesda games on other platforms, yes or no?
 
Last edited:
Heisenberg007

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
Godot25 said:
Mate. Have you read the documents?

I'll refer you to the pages 11-15 where Activision states that CMA wrongly interpreted internal documents :) (wouldn't be the first time when CMA wrongly interpreted something)

Click to expand...
All this becomes a moot point based on what I shared above.

ABK games are already on Cloud.

What's even more ironic (or hypocritical?) is that ABK games are already on Boosteroid. Which is one of the services Microsoft made an agreement with to bring ABK to -- a service that already has ABK games yet claims that ABK games are not coming on Cloud.

What a sham!
 
T

Three

Member
Godot25 said:
7Mate. Have you read the documents?

I'll refer you to the pages 11-15 where Activision states that CMA wrongly interpreted internal documents :) (wouldn't be the first time when CMA wrongly interpreted something)

Click to expand...
I can understand the incentive of Activision downplaying its interest and there probably even being somebody always above like Kotick but Activision's Senior Leadership isn't "low level employees that have no decision power in that matters [sic] ". Activision Senior leadership was actively discussing potential opportunities with cloud gaming providers. Not some low level grunt. What came of it isn't relevant to who was discussing it.
 
supernova8

supernova8

Banned
Faust said:
After some deliberations with the mod team/admins, we will remove continued posts of Florian in this thread. Please find and utilize other sources of information.

Thank You.
Click to expand...
Good call, precisely why I asked the question about other experts to move us away from him and get back to more constructive discussion.
 
Goalus

Goalus

Member
Bernoulli said:
You can't do that because you can't have access to the data, most of it is redacted and MS can't ask CMA to provide the data

CAT doesn't care about the data either, they just look if the decision argument makes sense and that the data os credible

It was well explained by someone on era bur don't remember who

Basically CMA can't be attacked on math/data unless they actually falsified/forged data

And the CMA used multiple points to get to the conclusions not only based on math
Click to expand...
Wishful thinking.
 
Bernoulli

Bernoulli

M2 slut
supernova8 said:
Killed or successful, if Xbox getting Call of Duty means Jim Ryan stops fucking around and gives us "proper" next gen games on PS5 then ... meh I'll take it (mainly because I'm not interested in COD anyway).
Click to expand...
iads
As has been explained multiple times, an appeal under section 120 faces a high barrier to overcome because MS/ABK must show either that there was no evidence at all to support the CMA's decision or that, on the basis of the evidence the CMA could not reasonably come to the conclusion it did.

For MS/ABK is not sufficient to demonstrate that the evidence could support a different conclusion. In fact, the CAT won't reassess the evidence and substitute its own views for those of the CMA. The CAT won't even reassess the relative weight to be given to a piece of evidence.
 
Pelta88

Pelta88

Member
Bernoulli said:
iads
As has been explained multiple times, an appeal under section 120 faces a high barrier to overcome because MS/ABK must show either that there was no evidence at all to support the CMA's decision or that, on the basis of the evidence the CMA could not reasonably come to the conclusion it did.

For MS/ABK is not sufficient to demonstrate that the evidence could support a different conclusion. In fact, the CAT won't reassess the evidence and substitute its own views for those of the CMA. The CAT won't even reassess the relative weight to be given to a piece of evidence.
Click to expand...

As this sinks in you should expect the narrative to shift back to "Microsoft can just leave UK or threaten the king."
 
Last edited:
Negotiator101

Negotiator101

Member
Bernoulli said:
iads
As has been explained multiple times, an appeal under section 120 faces a high barrier to overcome because MS/ABK must show either that there was no evidence at all to support the CMA's decision or that, on the basis of the evidence the CMA could not reasonably come to the conclusion it did.

For MS/ABK is not sufficient to demonstrate that the evidence could support a different conclusion. In fact, the CAT won't reassess the evidence and substitute its own views for those of the CMA. The CAT won't even reassess the relative weight to be given to a piece of evidence.
Click to expand...
The meer fact the EC passed the deal along with many more countries I think it's wise not to second guess what the CAT will do. They've been particularly harsh on the CMA before when mistakes were made.
 
Ar¢tos

Ar¢tos

Member
Negotiator101 said:
The meer fact the EC passed the deal along with many more countries I think it's wise not to second guess what the CAT will do. They've been particularly harsh on the CMA before when mistakes were made.
Click to expand...
Many countries..... where Xbox barely exists...
While in the ones it does, the deal is blocked (or being sued to block in the case of the FTC).

That must mean something...
 
T

Three

Member
GHG said:
It is what?

You're so quick to cry about Sony this Sony that without even being capable of putting together a coherent post.
Click to expand...
I think he's trying to say "sony shills" say it's the case in the UK too. i.e Xbox doesn’t sell there.

I think he's mixing up third party game sales and console sales.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GHG
MasterCornholio

MasterCornholio

Member
bitbydeath said:
EC confirmed they passed it because Xbox doesn’t sell there. That’s not the case for UK.
Click to expand...

We have decided that prohibition of the Merger would be an effective and proportionate remedy to address the SLC in the market for cloud gaming services in the UK and its resulting adverse effects.
Click to expand...

Obviously since they are studying the market in the UK they can come to a different conclusion than other regulators. I don't believe the CAT will focus on markets outside the UK since the UK is where their jurisdiction is.
 
bitbydeath

bitbydeath

Member
Negotiator101 said:
Let's see the quote where that was said?
Click to expand...
"The overall market share for Microsoft and Activision was generally low in Europe. It's only when you look at specific segments like 'shooter games' that you get to above 20 percent. And for consoles, Sony sells about four times more PlayStations than Microsoft sells Xboxes. With this context, we did not think the merger raised a vertical issue.
Click to expand...
www.eurogamer.net

EU explains Microsoft Activision deal approval - and why it disagrees with the UK's block

The boss of the European Commission has explained in detail why her agency approved Microsoft's $68.7bn Activision Bliz…
www.eurogamer.net www.eurogamer.net
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Microsoft has Closed the Activision Blizzard King Deal
22 23 24 25 26
1K
73K
MasterCornholio replied
Microsoft now says the CMA was ‘tough and fair’ over Activision Blizzard deal
Opinion Business Game Dev
17
2K
DaGwaphics replied
FTC appeals to block already-completed Microsoft-Activision deal
2
63
5K
Mythoclast replied
  • Locked
UK minister defends CMA's decision to block MS/ABK
News
0
753
Daniel_Mallorca1985 replied
  • Locked
Microsoft to sell off Activision cloud gaming rights to Ubisoft in bid for UK approval
News Business 2 3 4
154
13K
Spyxos replied
Top Bottom