Support NeoGAF

[feynoob]

This is just pretty normal, considering MS doesnt want to have any concessions, in which EU and UK want from MS. Its why this deal is having a problem with those regulators.

But Microsoft has declined to offer EU regulators any legal remedies ahead of an expected full-scale probe that could kick off on Nov. 8, Reuters reported last week. Microsoft had the option of offering the EU so-called behavioral remedies, such as a formal promise to keep “Call of Duty on PlayStation,” but declined to do so. The company could still do so later on during a full-scale probe.

Bobby Kotick-led Activision would prefer that Microsoft take a more accommodating stance with regulators now, since the game-maker’s shareholders will get paid out regardless of whether Microsoft makes concessions, Activision insiders and analysts said.

“If you’re Activision, you want Microsoft to offer everything forever for free,” a hedge fund analyst closely following the deal told The Post. “But that obviously destroys the economics of the deal.”

In a statement to The Post a spokesman for Activision said “We’re very appreciative of our close working relationship with Microsoft. We’re confident in the deal and its progress, and we know Microsoft is working diligently to get it done. Any suggestion to the contrary is false.”

 

[feynoob]

Article is indicating there is internal panic behind the assuring faces of executives on both sides of the deal, and that the easy path to approval will be a lot bumpier than expected, especially since regulators likely don't have much knowledge of the industry involved, and the lack of Microsoft providing any concessions.

Read the article very well. MS and activision are confident the deal would go through.

The issue is concessions, which MS doesnt want to make.

 

[TransTrender]

ngl, i hope this go through, otherwise Microsoft would use the 70bil on something else

 

[Chiggs]

Isn't the NY post a right wing tabloid? Are any more relevant sources reporting on the claim?

No, it’s actually the oldest newspaper in the United States.

 

[adamsapple]

We have an OT for all this folks !

 

[VAVA Mk2]

No, it’s actually the oldest newspaper in the United States.

It is a shit tabloid paper owned by Rupert Murdoch, though.

 

[feynoob]

We have an OT for all this folks !

It wont get attraction for certain people.

 

[feynoob]

Eddie-Griffin​

Anything about this deal should be posted here.
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/micr...oval-watch-ot.1641775/page-125#post-266887473

 

[Chiggs]

It is a shit tabloid paper owned by Rupert Murdoch, though.

It’s owned by Murdoch, but that doesn’t automatically mean it’s a shit tabloid. They’ve often broken news stories that other "reputable" publications ignored, like the Hunter Biden laptop stuff, which the NY Times and Washington Post sneered at and labeled a product of a Russian smear campaign. Flash forward 2 years later and Hunter Biden is about ready to be indicted.

I'll grant you that it's right of center and leans more toward the USA Today style of news, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

 

[feynoob]

This smells like this fox news article.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/china-wants-take-over-your-xbox

 

[VAVA Mk2]

It’s owned by Murdoch, but that doesn’t automatically mean it’s a shit tabloid. They’ve often broken news stories that other "reputable" publications ignored, like the Hunter Biden laptop stuff, which the NY Times and Washington Post sneered at and labeled a product of a Russian smear campaign. Flash forward 2 years later and Hunter Biden is about ready to be indicted.

I'll grant you that it's right of center and leans more toward the USA Today style of news, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

LOL. It is a shit news source. No dodging it.

 

[feynoob]

Edit: People are taking ideas from this report.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/dea...ust-review-activision-deal-source-2022-10-31/

BRUSSELS, Oct 31 (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp's (MSFT.O) has not offered any remedies to EU antitrust regulators reviewing its proposed $69 billion bid for "Call of Duty" maker Activision Blizzard (ATVI.O) ahead of an expected full-scale EU probe, a person familiar with the matter said on Monday.

Microsoft said it continues to work with the Commission on the next steps and to address any valid marketplace concerns, such as those voiced by Sony.

"Sony, as the industry leader, says it is worried about Call of Duty, but we've said we are committed to making the same game available on the same day on both Xbox and PlayStation," Microsoft said in a statement.

Companies typically do not offer remedies during the EU preliminary review when they know regulators subsequently intend to open a four-month long investigation.

 

[Nvzman]

It is a shit tabloid paper owned by Rupert Murdoch, though.

This smells like this fox news article.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/china-wants-take-over-your-xbox

LOL. It is a shit news source. No dodging it.

All news sources do this shit regardless of political leaning. The bias here is pretty insane, get out of your narrow world view.

 

[Valedix]

I'm just happy to see microsoft lose 70b

 

[ZehDon]

... if Microsoft didn't expect this level of scrutiny, why did they announce they didn't expect the deal to clear regulators and close until the middle of 2023 at the earliest?

 

[feynoob]

All news sources do this shit regardless of political leaning. The bias here is pretty insane, get out of your narrow world view.

?????

 

[feynoob]

... if Microsoft didn't expect this level of scrutiny, why did they announce they didn't expect the deal to clear regulators and close until the middle of 2023 at the earliest?

Because they expected.
This is just for clicks.

Speaking during the Wall Street Journal Tech Live event this week, Xbox head Phil Spencer said he believed scrutiny around such a significant deal was warranted and revealed that he had been meeting regularly with regulators around the world.

“It might be surprising to people, but I’m not an expert on doing 70 billion dollar deals,” he said. “But I do know that we’re very focused on getting approval in the major jurisdictions, and I’m spending a lot of time in Brussels, London and with the FTC here in the US

 

[adamsapple]

I'm just happy to see microsoft lose 70b

If the deal doesn't go through, they don't 'lose' 70bn...

 

[Unknown?]

ngl, i hope this go through, otherwise Microsoft would use the 70bil on something else

Yeah, agreed. Buy a crappy one-trick pony company rather than something that has talent.

 

[Chiggs]

LOL. It is a shit news source. No dodging it.

Yes, actually there is. Like a lot of newspapers, it simply picks up its news from the AP and runs that. And the AP is not a shit source.

So if you're questioning the validity of this article, then you should really focus your critique on the two authors that wrote it, and not the overall publication.

 

[feynoob]

If the deal doesn't go through, they don't 'lose' 70bn...

All they would lose is 3b. But that would also mean, MS will now have $65b cash on hands.

 

[feynoob]

Interesting days to mark from Idas.

- First impressions from the European Commission (November 8th) and the beginning of Phase 2.
- Decision from New Zealand (November 11th), although there could be a new delay.
- Canada usually updates each 10th calendar day with the completed merger reviews (by time the ABK deal could be one of them).

And the usual suspects (China, Japan or South Korea, for example) could publish an announcement about the merger at any time.

 

[adamsapple]

Yes, actually there is. Like a lot of newspapers, it simply picks up its news from the AP and runs that. And the AP is not a shit source.

So if you're questioning the validity of this article, then you should really focus your critique on the two authors that wrote it, and not the overall publication.

But the article in OP is not under your AP authored links ..

 

[Chiggs]

But the article in OP is not under your AP authored links ..

Right, but his statement is that the New York Post is a "shit" news source. My rebuttal is that the New York Post heavily leverages the AP, which most newspapers in this country do. So then are all the newspapers shit news sources?

Or is it...."I don't agree with one article I read on the New York Post," therefore the entire newspaper is a shit news source?

What's the measurement here?

Edit:

“Microsoft’s decision to buy Activision is all about exclusivity,” Wedbush Securities managing director Dan Ives told The Post. “If giving up exclusivity is one of the required concessions, Microsoft is going to have to think long and hard if this is still the right deal.”

So are we mad at the shitty New York Post, or are we mad at Wedbush Securities or one of the many analysts quoted in the story?

 

[Barakov]

Activision insiders fret $69B Microsoft merger could fall apart: sources

Microsoft’s $69 billion Activision buyout is facing heightened scrutiny from regulators — and some insiders at the game studio behind “Call of Duty” are worried that the Xbox maker could …

nypost.com

Article is indicating there is internal panic behind the assuring faces of executives on both sides of the deal, and that the easy path to approval will be a lot bumpier than expected, especially since regulators likely don't have much knowledge of the industry involved, and the lack of Microsoft providing any concessions.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

You can do it Uncle Phillip Mortimer Spencer HIP HOP HOORAY

 

[adamsapple]

So are we mad at the shitty New York Post, or are we mad at Wedbush Securities or one of the many analysts quoted in the story?

That quote isn't saying anything they haven't said already. "If it's about exclusivity" - they've said just a few days ago that as long as there's playstations, they'll keep publishing CoD games for it.

This article just seems like a round up of last month's news with some 'insider' commentary.

 

[feynoob]

That quote isn't saying anything they haven't said already. "If it's about exclusivity" - they've said just a few days ago that as long as there's playstations, they'll keep publishing CoD games for it.

This article just seems like a round up of last month's news with some 'insider' commentary.

Its not some insider. Its related to article on post #24

 

[THE DUCK]

Very little chance of it not going through.
But on the off chance it crumbles, that same money could be used to buy a lot of other companies.

 

[Valedix]

If the deal doesn't go through, they don't 'lose' 70bn...

Yeah but thats not going to happen lol

 

[Razvedka]

I hope it falls to shit. Antitrust needs a shot in the arm.

 

[Chiggs]

Very little chance of it not going through.
But on the off chance it crumbles, that same money could be used to buy a lot of other companies.

If the deal falls through, it's because MS pulled out due to poison pills. And honestly, that's not the worst thing ever, because they'd just:

• Continue to swallow up moderate-sized dev houses.

and

• Throw a fit whenever Sony attempts to do anything even closely-resembling a large acquisition.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

ngl, i hope this go through, otherwise Microsoft would use the 70bil on something else

It doesn't work quite like that, but yes, they'll look into buying a lot of smaller assets which will be more disruptive to the industry.

If the deal falls apart, and as a result ABK shares fall off a cliff, and they do mass layoffs, spending cuts, studio spinoffs... If all that happened and MS stepped in to buy at a lower price would regulators still say No?

They'll still say no as long as it is tied to Call of Duty.

Activision don't need MS. Their latest game broke records and Blizzard is finally releasing games again.

They panicked and sold for no reason.

This is laughable... Their stock price is entirely being held up by this deal and they're facing a mass exodus from employees either way.


Ultimately there is a very real chance that this deal gets blocked, but I think the deal being blocked is bad for Microsoft, bad for Sony, bad for Activision, and bad for the industry.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

There is zero chance it's blocked. Guess I know more than the Activision "insiders."

 

[DaGwaphics]

Author probably trying to make people dump the stock so they can buy cheap and make more money when the deal closes.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Sony must know that this deal not going forward will hurt them in the long run. My guess is they've taken an antagonistic approach to the deal with the hopes of weakening the deal enough to get concessions or flat or killing the deal to buy them time to shore themselves up.

Sony has to ask itself if this deal fails, what is next for Microsoft? Who else would they look to purchase?

They could try to buy EA, but EA doesn't really have a major franchise like CoD. And Sony's response would be to buy T2. EA could also be blocked.

Microsoft could buy T2, which I think would be sum of all fears for Sony. There is no counter or remedy to this. I think they would be the obvious alternative target. My guess is Sony has reached out to T2 to ensure the next "X number of GTA games are on PS" already and probably the same for Red Dead and maybe 2K sports.

Japanese companies get a bit more complicated since Japanese regulators could help block the purchase of major Japanese publishers. There may also be less willing to sell to Microsoft, but Square Enix could certainly be a target if the deal for Activision fails.

There really aren't that many companies worth buying to make a large impact. You could probably buy Ubi Soft, but what does that do short/long term.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

There is zero chance it's blocked. Guess I know more than the Activision "insiders."

Anyone who tells you there is a zero chance this gets blocked is entirely delusional.

CMA, EU, and FTC are all likely to take a strong look at this and any one of them could block the deal.

 

[darrylgorn]

Sigh, might as well buy Sony instead then.

 

[bender]

 

[diffusionx]

There is zero chance it's blocked. Guess I know more than the Activision "insiders."

Put your money where your mouth is, buy ATVI stock right now, it’s currently trading well below the sale price. In this age of inflation and overall uncertainty it’s free money.

 

[SlimySnake]

I didnt foresee so much chatter about this. I figured this deal would go through no problem.

Everyone celebrating this deal falling through is going to be in for a rude awakening when MS goes and buys franchises we actually give a shit about. Like Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, GTA, Red Dead, and yes Assassins Creed. You dont want Ubisoft getting bought out by Microsoft. They make like 50% of the games released every year.

 

[a multicultural team of v]

Contrarian take: Microsoft doesn't want the deal to go through.

 

[DarkMage619]

Main take away:

Activision wants MS to bend over and offer every concession to get the deal done and save their share price while MS is looking to limit concessions as much as possible. This may be causing some tension between the two companies, but MS is not going to go through with the deal if the concessions are too large.

Or MS will not offer concessions during a preliminary review of the acquisition. They'd essentially be negotiating with themselves. MS offered no concessions to Brazilian CADE either and we a saw how that turned out. Once the full review is done they can offer a set of general concessions if necessary that all regulators will accept and complete the purchase. MS never claimed this would be a quick a easy purchase no 70 billion acquisition is. June '23 is the expected completion date. Worry if that date passes and there has been no word on the deal.

 

[feynoob]

Anyone who tells you there is a zero chance this gets blocked is entirely delusional.

CMA, EU, and FTC are all likely to take a strong look at this and any one of them could block the deal.

They need a tangable reason to block it. Even then, they have to prepare for the court, since MS would take them there. and prepare strong argument, as to why the deal should be blocked.

In any case, the regulators wants a concession, but MS doesnt want to give one. Either one of them would give up.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

They need a tangable reason to block it. Even then, they have to prepare for the court, since MS would take them there. and prepare strong argument, as to why the deal should be blocked.

In any case, the regulators wants a concession, but MS doesnt want to give one. Either one of them would give up.

What was the "tangible" reason to block the Nvidia Arm deal?

These regulators have pretty far reach in terms of blocking deals on antitrust grounds. If they conclude Microsoft buying the largest 3rd party publisher in the games industry would result in reduced competition, the courts aren't going to side with Microsoft.

Microsoft is really shooting for the moon here in this attempt and there really isn't any precedent for this happening.

 

[MatrixReloaded101]

It's going to go through no issue. I'm looking forward to Microsoft securing these franchises and adding more value to their eco system. It's going to be a hell of a time to be a MS fan.

I wouldn't worry about these articles. It's a done deal. You'll see.

Microsoft does not have the best track record with Studios they acquire. Outside of maybe getting the older Activison games in game pass I don’t see what’s really exciting about this deal. COD may not even be in game pass for a few years because of the contracts with Sony.

This deal just feels like a big waste of time but I guess someone had to buy them and Xbox game pass needs content… whatever.

 

[Del_X]

I guess they’ll have to buy Asobo and CDPR if this falls through.

 

[DaGwaphics]

I guess they’ll have to buy Asobo and CDPR if this falls through.

They should try to grab Asobo regardless of anything else they have going on. Solid studio that does great work. And they have a close working relationship with them, I always hear that is important.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Is Sunday over here.

 

[zcaa0g]

Translation: Regulators taking bribes as usual.