• 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.
DeepEnigma

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Topher said:
My understanding is that Phil Spencer, as an officially designated representative, has legally obligated Microsoft with that testimony. Ogbert Ogbert (a lawyer) and I were discussing this right as it happened and I thought the same as you, but he said that was incorrect. I googled a bit to prove him wrong and what I found indicated that he was actually right.

I posted the result of my research on it. I'll try to find it again.

Edit: Here is the post:

Click to expand...
Bojanglez said:
Because there are many factors. Even the FTC questioned how he could guarentee something that Sony itself had a say in.

here are just a few scenarios:

  • Phil Spencer leaves XBox (voluntarily or is pushed) and their new leader decides a change in direction
    • could MS be held responsible for Spencer's 'commitment' under oath?
    • could Spencer be held accountable for 'lying' if things changed after he left?
  • What terms was this guarantee made on?
    • Length
      • Just 10 years? 100 years? Things change.
    • Business terms
      • 30/70 split or will MS try and leverage a better deal? If so what happens if PS deny it?
      • Contractual clauses that Sony introduce as standard for all publishers that MS may not agree with
      • Contractual clauses MS introduce as standard for all platforms using CoD that Sony may not agree with (or are incompatible with their own)
    • Hardware
      • For all Playstation consoles in perpetuity?
      • Just the PS5
      • What happens if PS6 is a change in direction that causes development headaches?
        • Different architecture
        • Different control mechanism
  • What version of CoD?
    • All mainstream single player games
    • Warzone (or similar)
    • Mobile
    • A new concept with CoD branding that we are not aware of yet?
The list could probably go on. I'm just not sure his grandstanding in court is meaningful. Maybe a legal expert can clarify though.
Click to expand...
Heisenberg007 said:
I remember reading a conversation (from the court room) that the judge hinted that Phil isn't binding the entire Microsoft company with his testimony. Something along those lines.

Besides, even if that's not the case, I really wouldn't trust Phil Spencer.

Remember he has a binding agreement to release Minecraft IP games on PlayStation. Common sense and integrity dictate that they would continue publishing those games on PlayStation without even thinking about it twice. Even then, Phil, on record, was asking his team to find ways out of it and make Minecraft Dungeon an Xbox console exclusive. And he was frustrated that they couldn't find a way out of it.

So as long as there is a loophole in the contract (which I expect now after the Minecraft frustration and seeing Nvidia's 10-year deal agreement), I fully expect phil to exploit it and use it.
Click to expand...
In the end they still only said PlayStation 5.
Think About It GIF by Identity
 
Heisenberg007

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
NickFire said:
30(b)(6) is a procedural rule for identifying who will testify on behalf of a legal entity such as a corporation. In now way, shape or form does it convert statements of future intent into legally binding obligations for the legal entity. If the person giving testimony outright lies about future intent the person and legal entity has liability for perjury, fraud (subject to litigation privilege), etc. But liability for a lie does not create a contract.

Phil's testimony does not lock MS into legally binding deals to keep COD multiplatform. Full stop.
Click to expand...
Season 4 Wow GIF by The Office
 
POKEYCLYDE

POKEYCLYDE

Member
splattered said:
I know it's one of people's favorite words right now but I do feel like Bethesda exclusivity is a bit of an "experiment" to analyze and determine future big title exclusivity decisions... That and/or a short term stop gap to fill in a bit of the gaps from their own studio 1st party releases until the machine really gets churning and releases become more frequent.
Click to expand...
Starfield's exclusivity at least has shown to be a console seller. Seeing series X sales jump over 1000% after the direct.
 
Dick Jones

Dick Jones

Gold Member
Bernardougf said:
Didnt the lawyer asked a follow-up question that spencer spoked for MS and spencer remained silent or just said no ? Im pretty sure
Click to expand...
When the judge asked, Spencer said "I would testify/swear to it" (I think but not sure exactly to it) and the wording sounds like he was not seearing to it there, but was open to. I'd say it is an easy nothing for MS lawyers to swat aside should Spencer be pulled up on it.
 
DeepEnigma

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
NickFire said:
30(b)(6) is a procedural rule for identifying who will testify on behalf of a legal entity such as a corporation. In now way, shape or form does it convert statements of future intent into legally binding obligations for the legal entity. If the person giving testimony outright lies about future intent the person and legal entity has liability for perjury, fraud (subject to litigation privilege), etc. But liability for a lie does not create a contract.

Phil's testimony does not lock MS into legally binding deals to keep COD multiplatform. Full stop.
Click to expand...
At the end of the day, you still need a legal binding contract. I think everyone can agree on that.
 
Bernardougf

Bernardougf

Gold Member
Dick Jones said:
When the judge asked, Spencer said "I would testify/swear to it" (I think but not sure exactly to it) and the wording sounds like he was not seearing to it there, but was open to. I'd say it is an easy nothing for MS lawyers to swat aside should Spencer be pulled up on it.
Click to expand...
Yes I got that part.. but I also remember something on the lines of the lawyer trying to bind his words to MS and him saying no or remaining silent... would have to watch this part again
 
Last edited:
Topher

Topher

Gold Member
NickFire said:
30(b)(6) is a procedural rule for identifying who will testify on behalf of a legal entity such as a corporation. In now way, shape or form does it convert statements of future intent into legally binding obligations for the legal entity. If the person giving testimony outright lies about future intent the person and legal entity has liability for perjury, fraud (subject to litigation privilege), etc. But liability for a lie does not create a contract.

Phil's testimony does not lock MS into legally binding deals to keep COD multiplatform. Full stop.
Click to expand...

Then what am I reading here:

"Once the corporation has designated a deponent on a particular issue, it becomes “bound” by the designee’s testimony."
 
DeepEnigma

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Topher said:
Then what am I reading here:

"Once the corporation has designated a deponent on a particular issue, it becomes “bound” by the designee’s testimony."
Click to expand...
For this,
liability for perjury, fraud (subject to litigation privilege), etc. But liability for a lie does not create a contract.
Click to expand...
Still needs a legal binding contract. Can they be sued? Sure, for damages and such, but there still isn't a legal binding contract.

This is America, baby, we are all about contracts since the Declaration of Independence. 🤭
 
Last edited:
N

NickFire

Member
Topher said:
Then what am I reading here:

"Once the corporation has designated a deponent on a particular issue, it becomes “bound” by the designee’s testimony."
Click to expand...
You are reading it correctly. They can't later say that Phil never had the right to testify as to the matters he was the 30(b)(6) designee for. That's the entire point of 30(b)(6). But again, that is a procedural rule in federal court, which many / most / possibly all state rules of procedure have a version of. It is nothing more or less than a rule for designating people who will testify on the entity's behalf.

Topher said:
N NickFire is that your personal take on it or did you find that somewhere? I'm not trying to argue either way. I'd just like to know the fact of the matter.
Click to expand...

I've hinted before. There is more than 1 lawyer on this forum. Some even practice in the US and have signed their name to 30(b)(6) deposition notices before.
 
Topher

Topher

Gold Member
Bernardougf said:
Didnt the lawyer asked a follow-up question that spencer spoked for MS and spencer remained silent or just said no ? Im pretty sure
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. That would be interesting to know.

NickFire said:
You are reading it correctly. They can't later say that Phil never had the right to testify as to the matters he was the 30(b)(6) designee for. That's the entire point of 30(b)(6). But again, that is a procedural rule in federal court, which many / most / possibly all state rules of procedure have a version of. It is nothing more or less than a rule for designating people who will testify on the entity's behalf.



I've hinted before. There is more than 1 lawyer on this forum. Some even practice in the US and have signed their name to 30(b)(6) deposition notices before.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Ogbert Ogbert did say US law may be different from what he was saying. No idea. I just write code for a living.

Awkward John Krasinski GIF by Saturday Night Live
 
tmlDan

tmlDan

Member
Topher said:
Then what am I reading here:

"Once the corporation has designated a deponent on a particular issue, it becomes “bound” by the designee’s testimony."
Click to expand...
There is also this:

"At the deposition, attorneys may inquire about matters outside of the scope of the deposition notice. However, the answers that the designee provides to those types of questions are generally treated as personal positions akin to Rule 30(b)(1) depositions."

"Rule 30(b)(6) provides the rules for taking the deposition of a corporate entity. Rule 30(b)(6) requires that the notice of deposition to a corporation party be addressed to, and served on, the corporation and set out with reasonable particularity the matters of examination."

"The reasonable particularity standard is “not toothless.”23 The requesting party must designate with “painstaking specificity” areas that will be investigated.24 Broad or generic notices are not sufficient.25"

Do we have any documentation that this was provided, specific to always being on PlayStation or 10 years guaranteed? Otherwise, it means nothing but personal positions.

Edit: i did not read other responses and i aint no lawyer lol
 
Last edited:
splattered

splattered

Member
Bernardougf said:
vF6zQYb.jpg


Here it says "my goal is" saying my goal is not saying he will ... wording is essential

Now the most important

iDQBHOx.jpg


See.. the FTC asked him to bind his words to MS and he stayed silent
Click to expand...

He may have realized the slippery slope they were trying to lead him down so he decided to remain silent.. COD has been the sole focus this entire time which everyone has agreed upon will stay multiplatform. FTC was trying to be sneaky and get him to commit to ALL Activision games in the future which may or may not be fully decided within Microsoft yet. Nothing wrong with him not wanting to swear under oath for anything beyond COD at this point.
 
Bojanglez

Bojanglez

The Amiga Brotherhood
Topher said:
I'm not sure. That would be interesting to know.



Fair enough. Ogbert Ogbert did say US law may be different from what he was saying. No idea. I just write code for a living.

Awkward John Krasinski GIF by Saturday Night Live
Click to expand...
Yes, he basically questioned Spencer on how he could guarantee on oath that CoD would be on Playstation when it is subject to mutual agreement with Sony. He was basically getting at the kind of questions I was raising, however the judge stopped that line of enquiry as I think she was worried it was going slightly off topic (the point had been made). Obviously some people interpreted this as "the FTC getting shot down by the judge" :messenger_grinning_smiling:
 
N

NickFire

Member
Ogbert said:
I’m strictly here for the memes.
Click to expand...
We stand in solidarity on this point. 🤝

But hey, since we know you are a UK lawyer (or is solicitor over there?), can we read anything into MS (apparent) willingness to close despite the CMA decision? That part of this saga has me all sorts of confused. I've heard so much about CMA having teeth, not getting overturned usually, etc. So their willingness to close makes no sense to me. So what's your take on that? Could they have gotten assurances from someone who can overturn CMA decision that it will happen?
 
Bernardougf

Bernardougf

Gold Member
splattered said:
He may have realized the slippery slope they were trying to lead him down so he decided to remain silent.. COD has been the sole focus this entire time which everyone has agreed upon will stay multiplatform. FTC was trying to be sneaky and get him to commit to ALL Activision games in the future which may or may not be fully decided within Microsoft yet. Nothing wrong with him not wanting to swear under oath for anything beyond COD at this point.
Click to expand...
If he dont bind his words to the company they are just his personal words and thoughts.. is simple as that .. you may take from that what you wish.. but in the end he didnt bind the corporation.. so is just one director answering questions for himself not binding the company and using words like "my goal is"

Well my goal is to own a ferrari.. good luck for me
 
Last edited:
splattered

splattered

Member
DeepEnigma said:
BOMBSHELL™

This shill does not know how to read dates. That was all prior to seeing the contracts they were sent, and the constant goalpost moving.
Click to expand...

Naw man come on, Sony been disingenuous from the start. Just like people say MS has. Everyone is being lead around by their noses cash in hand by both of these corporations while we wildly swing at each other like a bunch of children. So dumb.
 
splattered

splattered

Member
Kilau said:
Other than being cocky I’m not sure why it’s a bombshell.
Click to expand...

Because it blatantly disproves the whole "our business may never recover" shtick they keep spouting... even Sony realizes this is more about mobile for MS than everyone thinks. Forest for the trees and all that, that's what people keep saying here yeah?
 
Last edited:
DeepEnigma

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
splattered said:
Naw man come on, Sony been disingenuous from the start. Just like people say MS has. Everyone is being lead around by their noses cash in hand by both of these corporations while we wildly swing at each other like a bunch of children. So dumb.
Click to expand...
Sure, they both have. Nobody is disputing that.

But context and nuance are a thing. The date is January 2022, the opinions changed after contracts were sent and Phil decided to PR shit in public since he can never keep his mouth shut, where then Jim saw the writing on the wall for CoD foreclosure and spilled the beans about the 3 years only.

Gamer amnesia to try and "stick it to brand A or B" needs to stop. Full stop.
 
Last edited:
Kilau

Kilau

Member
splattered said:
Because it blatantly disproves the whole "our business may never recover" shtick they keep spouting... even Sony realizes this is more about mobile for MS than everyone thinks. Forest for the trees and all that, that's what people keep saying here yeah?
Click to expand...
I guess it’s just what is the context of if being a bombshell? It’s not a surprise and I don’t see it changing anything in the hearing. Certainly not with the CAT.
 
splattered

splattered

Member
Kilau said:
I guess it’s just what is the context of if being a bombshell? It’s not a surprise and I don’t see it changing anything in the hearing. Certainly not with the CAT.
Click to expand...

Nah i dont think this changes anything, i just appreciate the transparency being put on display from both sides. This is all the stuff i've been waiting to see through the whole process.
 
IntentionalPun

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Ozriel said:
Welp

Click to expand...

Jim: Make every single game available and if it's day 1 on Gamepass it needs to be day 1 on PS+.

What he's asking for is that MS basically not put things on Gamepass, because day 1 on PS+ would never happen as MS would charge something enormous and Sony wouldn't agree to it.

Jim playing hardball.. really it's just "We will never agree to this acquisition or make any deal with you" because he's clearly asking far too much.
 
splattered

splattered

Member
DeepEnigma said:
Sure, they both have. Nobody is disputing that.

But context and nuance are a thing. The date is January 2022, the opinions changed after contracts were sent and Phil decided to PR shit in public since he can never keep his mouth shut, where then Jim saw the writing on the wall for CoD foreclosure and spilled the beans about the 3 years only.

Gamer amnesia to try and "stick it to brand A or B" needs to stop. Full stop.
Click to expand...

I don't know, i feel like we still aren't getting the full picture here as far as Jim/Sony are concerned... we've heard him say that the deal was inadequate, we've heard him say if MS puts an inferior version of COD out their business may never recover, we've seen that they are rejecting even a 10 year deal, we've heard them say Starfield exclusivity isn't anti-competitive, etc etc. Then we've also seen that Sony aren't even worried about COD or exclusives in the first place... and now importance of mobile. I mean what are we really worried about here Sony? It still feels all smoke and mirrors in my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Microsoft has Closed the Activision Blizzard King Deal
22 23 24 25 26
1K
77K
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
797
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
14K
Spyxos replied
Top Bottom