Solidus_T
Banned
Oh shit! Well it looks like I was off by one. I forgot about song of the deep!Who did you forget about?
-
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
ChorizoPicozo
Gold Member
the consensus (not here) is that the FTC got ridiculed by MS and even the Judge.
but some things could make the final decision spicy.
ChorizoPicozo
Gold Member
nope. just business.
POKEYCLYDE
Member
So judge thinks she will have a decision by the 7th, then it will go public the 12th?
tryDEATH
Member
OR maybe the title is gong to be a next gen only like Starfield so they don't want to commit to releasing to a past gen console.
Ambiguity is something a majority of people in this thread need to familiarize themselves with especially in the business world and even more so in courts.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
That means nothing.
I sit in business meetings or hear recaps at work saying the company wants to sell to Walmart some exclusive skus. It happens every time a new brand or line up of products come out. Some pre-launch mover and shaker news about which products go to which stores.
Then the product is nearing launch time and suddenly those exclusive products are opened up to any account manager to sell to their accounts.
The same can also go the reverse way. A product is sold to any store who wants to carry it. Then a strategic decision is made a few years later to funnel all sales to one store. Everyone else delist it. So it can be argued this is even worse than gaming since how often does a game sell on different platforms for years and then suddenly that exact product gets funneled to one platform going forward? Yet nobody cares.
Happens all the time in every company selling shit to stores.
Last edited:
T0minator
Member
I get its business, it's also about their word meaning nothing. Just an observation. I personally don't play into console war bs. Just funny to see how things playout
ChorizoPicozo
Gold Member
I think that is one of the points the Judge could consider. i dunno
skit_data
Member
Sorry if already posted, thread moves damn quick
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Gold Member
i mean the stakes are so damn high...anything "sus" should be eliminated of the equation. but what do I know?...im just a damn chorizo.
Kilau
Member
Yeah, it's a funny situation and a good article on it.
They address the point that the FTC didn't ask for her to recuse herself.
Unknown Soldier
Member
More to the point, why bother antagonizing the judge instead of waiting for the judgement to be handed down and then use conflict of interest as a reason to appeal?
Keeping that in your back pocket for an appeal is one of the only smart things the FTC has done this hearing.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
So they posted a letter? I'm sure it isn't related at all to their plan for Biden to focus his message on 'corporate crackdowns'.
What makes you think this is fanboy wars? And it wasn’t foreign Sony fanboys signing prewritten letters to send to the CMA. It was xbox fanboys. That's the only time I've seen the ridiculous fanboy stuff have maybe any kind of influence whatsoever on the process.
Last edited:
yet_another_alt
Member
Attention Microsoft: I don't have a PS5 and will gladly fanboy for you for the low, low price of 5 years of Gamepass Ultimate. I might even buy a Series X to use it on.
Seems more like they think it violates some code of conduct
Not sure how relevant it is but it seems to apply.
I was on a jury once and some guy had to bounce later because he didn't disclose that a family member of his knew the defendant. Didn't see him the next day.
RickMasters
Member
Foreclosure is competitive strategy…as demonstrated by Sony themselves on a few occasions. And it’s obviously acceptable in the biz as part of competition, between these big companies. I think they should just be up front and say they are making things exclusive…. Put people out their misery, quick and fast instead of letting them cling to some false sense of hope. This is why we get all those “ bu-bu- but Phil said….” PostsI'm gonna make an omlette out of your eggs.
I don't care what they do. I just want to make the point that there is a reason to not trust them if they say they won't foreclose. They can and have and they can eat those losses. There is no reason to trust them if they say they won't.
And errrr …… don’t forget the Italian sausage with sage in that omelette …. Or the bacon…. or the tomatoes and red peppers…. otherwise you ain’t made a proper omelette, fella! Bon appetite
.
freefornow
Gold Member
FTC Lawyers would (should) know the law around this. They did not raise any objection after she "disclosed" the relationship between her son/microsoft to both sides.
Like most things "legalese" it would come down to how FTC lawyers determined "impartiality might reasonably be questioned". I'm sure if there was a chance to get judge to recuse, they would have taken it?
dotnotbot
Member
Would be cool for green warriors but there's a good reason they're so desperately trying to avoid saying that loud and clear.
Last edited:
Torrent of Pork
Banned
It was a private meeting, execs say it wild shit all the time behind closed doors. People can also change their minds, I have no doubt that if the FTC and CMA both dropped their objections in exchange for Bethesda releasing on Playstation as well you'll see a Starfield port in a few months.
Varteras
Gold Member
Foreclosure is competitive strategy…as demonstrated by Sony themselves on a few occasions. And it’s obviously acceptable in the biz as part of competition, between these big companies. I think they should just be up front and say they are making things exclusive…. Put people out their misery, quick and fast instead of letting them cling to some false sense of hope. This is why we get all those “ bu-bu- but Phil said….” Posts
And errrr …… don’t forget the Italian sausage with sage in that omelette …. Or the bacon…. or the tomatoes and red peppers…. otherwise you ain’t made a proper omelette, fella! Bon appetite
I have no issue with the strategy in particular. I think once you pay for something, you can do with it what you want. But, if we're talking about if you can trust Microsoft to not do so and that determines for someone if the deal like ABK should be allowed, I don't think one should take them at their word.
ToadMan
Member
To be honest I wouldn’t read too much into this.
On the one hand, while she probably could have recused herself it is a “marginal” conflict of interest according to the guidelines I read.
And the timing of this watchdog group to make the call is interesting - just as the judge starts deliberating. Like they’re throwing some shade her way to try and sway the outcome or cast doubt on it.
We were talking about this here day one and this watchdog report wasn’t raised then. The timing is “convenient”.
But MS has tried to be cute as well.
I hope and trust the Judge is able to dissociate her Son’s employment from her decision making, and that MS is not a company that would use this relationship regardless of the verdict.
If/when there is an appeal, let’s see what shakes out.
Bojanglez
The Amiga Brotherhood
When listening to the closing arguments, I think the cloud angle was most effective by the FTC.
The lawyer questioned the relevance of the deals signed (to the US consumer) given most of these services had no infrastructure in the US and nobody seemed to know if they could even legally operate in the US.
They argued that the deals were merely a panic gesture by MS with no meaningful data modelled as to how this may benefit the consumer, and therefore a full investigation would be required to assess the potential effects (i.e. grant in favour of the FTC now so that can be assessed in the full case)
Also, quite rightly, said that MS is trying to manipulate the cloud market by 'picking winners' at this stage and questioned why other interested parties (e.g. Amazon) were not given a 'deal'.
It will be interesting to see if this lands with the judge, I think all the FTC need to do is raise enough doubt in this aspect to make the judge think it is better to go to full trial rather than assume (with the acknowledgement lack of evidence) that MS is not using Activision content to manipulate the cloud market.
Portugeezer
Gold Member
She definitely should have removed herself.
The fact she didn't says it all. We all know how the decision will go.
Jimmy_liv
Member
She only needs to think it needs a closer look at. She isn't trying to find MS at fault - just have enough reason to delay the acquisition and its all over.
the consensus (not here) is that the FTC got ridiculed by MS and even the Judge.
but some things could make the final decision spicy.
DJ12
Member
Even if the ftc dropped the ball and she doesn't agree with them, there's been enough gotchas from MSs own employees to sow that element of doubt.
If the injunction isn't granted, corruption has happened.
Negotiator101
Gold Member
Why? All she is concerned about are the facts on both sides and how they pertain to her judgement.
Jimmy_liv
Member
Lol! Or she simply has a different opinion to you.
Silent Viper
Banned
Oh snap
X-Wing
Member
That’s incorrect. If the judge made that comment than it means she failed to grasp a lot of what happened in court.
Silent Viper
Banned
Banjo my friend you pc gamer, you get everything. Why you showing fake concerns lol.
Silent Viper
Banned
You saying Sony didn't keep some features exclusive to PS for CoD games?
She failed to grasp and you sitting in your house and typing on gaf know everything lol
Last edited:
Ronin_7
Member
Non sense.
Naru
Member
They are worried that MS will potentially have some skins Sony doesn't have while we already know Sony had whole CoD game modes exclusive in previous CoDs. This shit is so funny to watch. Completely clueless. This is happening for years with all consoles and generations, having exclusive skins and stuff.
Last edited:
Artistic
Member
Are all signs pointing to that happening?
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Both Sony and Xbox have kept features exclusive to their respective platforms.
And they could do that because ... Activision was working as an independent company. Open market and equal opportunities and all.
mansoor1980
Member
the great phil-anthropist , games for everyone
freefornow
Gold Member
Banjo64
cumsessed
Even when things are going relatively well for M$ you green rats can’t help but cop perma-bans
Banjo64
cumsessed
You’ve lost me.
Silent Viper
Banned
Or you seem lost
X-Wing
Member
Who was the platform holder that previously held the marketing deals with Activision?
Banjo64
cumsessed
StueyDuck
Member
Her son fucking works for microsoft
Why is the American legal system such a circus of clowns. Isn't any potential conflict of interest the first thing considered.
That is genuinely the most corrupt thing I've read all week... and I'm South African, we basically run on corruption here
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked