bitbydeath
Gold Member
It might, CMA were asking for third parties to provide feedback on Microsofts cloud situation. If it isn’t related then it is highly coincidental because that’s exactly what this is about.
Last edited:
-
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
PaintTinJr
Member
The news report by Sky News about Ofcom reporting an impending issue in the UK Cloud market, just before the CMA decision to block this deal the first time, was just days before, and was against a backdrop of the deal definitely going through because the CMA had dropped the console SLC weeks before.
So this could be related, but even if it isn't directly, the CMA really needed to block this deal, so that Microsoft pre-emptively comply with anything that comes from this.
The 58page document to try an dissuade ofcom to investigate is a rerun of what they've done to get this deal to this point IMO. They don't respect the CMA, currently and the only way the CMA fix that, is to let them sample the consequences from this deal dying first.
In the long run it will save everyone time and effort, and money. Microsoft can also avoid threatening the UK again in a child like manner.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
If the CMA do decide to use this against the acquisition it is truely dead.
From the link:
Negotiator101
Member
No, it's got nothing to do with it. look at it this way. Microsoft have signed all past, present and future (15yrs) Activision Blizzard cloud gaming rights to Ubisoft, so Microsoft gain nothing in that market after the acquisition. That's why the deal has no bearing on this investigation as Microsoft's position in the Market will remain unchanged.
What comes of this investigation if anything is a completely separate issue that may have to deal with sometime down the line. I understand you're against the Activision deal and I get that but like I said sometimes it's best to look at the information in layman's terms.
PaintTinJr
Member
Well at a home consumer level, their OS monopoly for PCs is driven through their PC OS monopoly for gaming, so letting them buy the biggest publisher to have more means to draw people in to that monopoly that has lead to them hoovering up massive market share through IE4 style promotion of onedrive, not to mention that Xbox gaming is now an IE4 styled Xbox game bar, it is also the advertised publisher of all Windows games when loading, even those that predate even DirectX, such as Minesweeper, Solitaire, Freecell all do free adverts for Xbox from the OS monopoly, so you have to ask whether letting them do the same with ATVI games on WIndows, helps or hinders them monopolise Cloud services at a consumer PC level, IMO.
KungFucius
King Snowflake
This is really a bad way to respond. Pure whataboutism after being called out for trying to pass of a general cloud services concern as relevant to this deal. It is hardly even tangentially relevant to gaming. Better to just take the loss instead of making it worse. FFS pointing fingers at stock prices having no meaning instead of responding to the main complaint about your post being irrelevant is childish. You got called out for sharing something irrelevant and then deflected when the OP brought in more information and wrongly criticized a piece of that.
Very poor argument. But at least the article had Microsoft and cloud in it. It's the same awful internet arguments from people with no clue, post something that google can find as evidence for your why feelings are correct without even understanding it.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
Your reasoning would be more sound if that deal wasn’t temporary, we’ll find out soon enough, let’s just leave it as the timing is highly coincidental.
Last edited:
bitbydeath
Gold Member
It’s true though. Share prices mean nothing when it comes to the final decision, we even saw that the last time it got blocked.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Oof, it is targeting Microsoft (and Amazon) specifically.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/RHI7QAAUNJKDFJO2EM6AC65KLI.jpg)
UK regulator to push for probe into Amazon, Microsoft cloud dominance
British media regulator Ofcom will this week push for an antitrust investigation into Amazon and Microsoft's dominance of the UK's cloud computing market, according to two sources familiar with the matter.www.reuters.com
Sadly this isn't related to the gaming stuff.
//DEVIL//
Member
No offense. But at this point, I just wish this deal to go through just to piss you and PainTinJr .
It is so annoying to just watch you 2 trying to hold on to any hair if it can be against this deal as if your lives count on it.
Hopefully, we get something tomorrow as it's the deadline but this is tiring
Last edited:
Aguero9320
Member
Deal’s dead (once more with feeling).
reinking
Gold Member
bitbydeath
Gold Member
bitbydeath
Gold Member
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
GHG
Gold Member
You've said you hope this deal goes through before for other reasons.
No need to pretend this is now about sticking it to a couple of guys who post in this thread.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Topher
Gold Member
No offense G, but I explicitly want the deal to go through just for the express purpose of sticking it to a couple of guys
No offense adam, but fuck you.
Last edited:
King Dazzar
Member
Its the same as the classic "its nothing personal"
Never a truer word said in jest!No offense adam, but fuck you.
HoofHearted
Member
No offense adam, but fuck you.
PaintTinJr
Member
But I've already made peace with the idea that the deal is done and what that means for the industry, so I'm confused how do people make peace with deal and still be able to discuss options for the deal to fail without giving people like yourself the idea that one's life is depending on it?
Genuinely interested as a forum's purpose is to discuss, no?
Last edited:
There’s quite the difference between discussing possible ways the deal could fail, and you going “they don’t respect the CMA so the CMA needs to establish their dominance by blocking this deal to teach them a lesson”
reinking
Gold Member
Sony launched VR (for a second generation). Sony is launching a companion device. Sony is launching a Pro PS5. All are pretty big investments and risky. They might not be the right moves but they are not sitting idle.
HoofHearted
Member
Last edited:
PaintTinJr
Member
The two positions can be true. They've already pushed a 58 page document at Ofcom to dissuade any investigation at all, demonstrating a continued lack of respect for regulations, as they have in this situation by leaning on the government to lean on the CMA.
They have in the past ignored laws to pay fines even with the Block, so they have a history of which using this deal as a disincentive to forewarn them of the penalties and escalation from a failure to fully comply with this wider cloud investigation is probably just good advice.
How you think that undermines my position to have accepted the likely disappointment in the CMA for this deal passing, I don't quite understand.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
FYI, tomorrow (the 6th October) is the last day for CMA to receive feedback regarding the acquisition. Their preliminary statement very heavily implied that the deal is on the way to close successfully, so if all goes well and there are no last minute swerves, we might hear a concrete decision from them by next week. And if given the green light, MS is likely to want to close it at the earliest.
So we may see this acquisition complete within the next 8~ days.
So we may see this acquisition complete within the next 8~ days.
LordBlodgett
Member
Yeah, no......not happening. This would be the precursor to a realistic NFL2K revival. I don't see any league allowing exclusivity, and outside of licensed games EA doesn't have any must have games.
Where have they demonstrated a ‘lack of respect for regulations’?
They’ve followed the process to the letter. if the CMA didn’t revise their position, they’d have had no choice but to abandon the Activision deal. Lobbying or making public statements isn’t illegal or ‘disrespectful’.
in this case, they’ve already said they’ll be happy to engage with the CMA constructively. And there’s certainly nothing wrong with trying to dissuade an investigation or designation, such as how they successfully convinced the EU to take Bing off the ‘gatekeeper’ discussion.
It does seem like you’re the one displaying a lack of respect for the CMA’s position, since their (apparently) imminent approval of the ABK deal is only tied to Microsoft’s radical divestment of the ABK streaming rights and not from being ‘leaned on by politicians’.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
?
Aside Redfall, all the first party games in the last couple of years have been good.
No, today is the last day for them to receive feedback, so nothing from them today.
//DEVIL//
Member
Ah sucks. . Was hoping we get something
Varteras
Gold Member
PaintTinJr
Member
Please stop shilling. Cardell herself, in the most recent interview criticised their engagement with the process saying how it cost time and money from them failing to offer the same concessions earlier.
We all saw them threaten the UK in the press, and lobby in newspaper adverts, bordering on breaching rules, because rules like having politicians in your pocket, as is common in the US, and we've seen in the US used against the FTC regulator, are illegal in the UK.
Throughout the process Microsoft have given less than was asked of them and have only arrived at this point kicking and screaming, having earlier tried to bully the CMA with a judicial review appeal with dates that meant the CMA would struggle to man the case. If they thought the UK population were stupid enough to eat the "tax payers' money wasted" line, they would have used that here too in the process.
Are these the actions of a company that respects regulation, in the eyes of any genuine person making an argument about compliance?
PaintTinJr
Member
The only thing we could get, but we won't because it would look too soon, and they seem done, is an announcement saying they've reversed their preliminary decision, or are entering a phase 2 investigation.
Hero of Spielberg
Member
Her criticism was deflection from how poorly her organisation has handled this entire process. If she wants to blame anyone all she needs do is look in the mirror.
‘Shilling’, because I don’t subscribe to your conspiracy theories?
Cardell’s statements were nonsense, because all parties had had significant engagement with the CMA resulting in behavioral remedies in the console space. The Cloud block caught practically everybody by surprise.
It makes zero sense for a regulator to say the purchasing party should have offered long term, unwieldy structural remedies from the start, something no other regulator had asked for.
At the end of Phase 1, the CMA did not explicitly rule out behavioral remedies. Why then would any party propose a divestment?
The ‘bordering on breaching rules’ stuff is your imagination. It’s a major acquisition. and they were on the hook for over $1bn in penalties if it fell through.
They followed the right, legal process by taking the decision to CAT.
I’m not sure why you’re complaining about the FTC. They had their day in court and bungled it.
Again, this is a dishonest view of the situation. There’s no regulator out there that’s accused MS of not cooperating in this merger, with respect to engagement.
Deriding MS for asking for an accelerated CAT hearing when you know deadlines existed that translated to increasing penalties in billions of dollars to be paid to Activision. Why would you make claims you know are clearly disingenuous?
The fact that the CAT judge agreed with MS on the timing should show you the lack of merits in that argument.
Unknown Soldier
Member
I can't wait to see how they "improve" Call of Duty and Diablo!
After you’ve spent months arguing MS was on a path to monopolize the industry, it’s a bit jarring to see you claim they’ll ruin Activision.
Either way, we already have ample evidence MS is largely hands off with acquired publishers. At worst, COD and Diablo will remain the same. At best? They’ll have more resources and time to improve.
Seems like a win-win for everyone, especially since they’re being pushed to support Proton for all future Activision games.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
Barakov
Member
They do tend to sack full time staff and replace them with contractors though.
Source?
Negotiator101
Member
Bernardougf
Gold Member
Everytime someones says "i dont give a fuck, im a PC player , I just want for the sake of competition and for sony to be better" first thing you got to ask is
If you are a primarily PC player AND dont give a fuck ... why does it matter if Sony improves or not since they have almost no pc presence ??
In the end this is the GO TO statement for fanboys pretending neutrality for the sake of the industry.. It dosent get more crystal clear.
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
bitbydeath
Gold Member
Hard to believe you don’t know this?
Here’s one, a quick google will show millions of other complaints about their overuse of contractors.
It’s not just Xbox either, their love of contractors over full-time staff runs company wide.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked