-
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
feynoob
Gold Member
Here is better clear info for you.
What happens if the deal doesn't get approved?
The merger agreement says that MS and ABK expect the deal to close in 12 months (January 18th 2023) or less. But the agreement also includes two possible extensions of 3 months each one (until April 18th 2023 and the other one until July 18th 2023). That's why MS says that they expect the deal to close in fiscal year 2023.
Those extensions apply automatically if by January 18th 2023 or April 18th 2023 the transaction is still pending regulatory approval.
The transaction can be terminated by MS or ABK if:
The transaction can be terminated by ABK if:
- Both parties agree.
- The Activision Blizzard stockholders reject it (it was already approved, so it's doesn't apply anymore).
- A court or a regulator rejects the deal and there is no way to appeal it.
- There is a new law that prohibits this kind of deal.
- By January 18th 2023 or April 18th 2023 the deal is still pending but NOT for regulatory reasons.
The transaction can be terminated by MS if:
- There is an infringement of the agreement by MS and during the period to resolve that, MS doesn't do anything.
- Before the approval by Activision Blizzard stockholders, ABK receives a better offer and pays MS a $2,270,100,000 termination fee.
If the deal doesn't happen, someone has to pay for it
- There is an infringement of the agreement by ABK and during the period to resolve that, ABK doesn't do anything.
- The Activision Blizzard Board of Directors doesn't recommend the deal anymore.
Activision Blizzard has to pay Microsoft a termination fee of $2,270,100,000 if:
Microsoft has to pay Activision Blizzard a termination fee of:
- MS is still waiting for the ABK stockholders meeting to happen by the termination dates.
- Regulatory conditions were not satisfied and the reason is a breach by ABK.
- ABK infringes the agreement.
- The ABK stockholders reject the deal.
- The Activision Blizzard Board of Directors doesn't recommend the deal anymore.
- ABK receives a better offer.
Reasons for this possible termination fee in favor of ABK:
- $2,000,000,000, if the termination notice is provided prior to January 18th, 2023.
- $2,500,000,000, if the termination notice is provided after January 18th, 2023 and prior to April 18th, 2023.
- $3,000,000,000, if the termination notice is provided after April 18th, 2023.
- A court or a regulator rejects the deal and there is no way to appeal it.
- There is a new law that prohibits this kind of deal.
- MS infringes the agreement.
- Regulatory conditions were not satisfied and the reason is a breach by MS.
drganon
Member
Seriously, how many times are people going to bring this crap up. Nintendo and Sega's bad decisions weren't Sony's fault.
No. No they did not.
Square had a falling out with Nintendo and they wanted a storage medium that could fit their games at an affordable price. N64 carts would not work for them and Saturn was DOA.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
feynoob
Gold Member
They are the only one that benefits the most.
ChorizoPicozo
Banned
Americans use America. You know, the center of the world; maybe they believe is the only continent
Should have said USA.
KingT731
Member
Based on every interview given by the people who worked at Square at the time...it was all on Nintendo and the tech they chose. Square hadn't committed to the N64 and just made the FF6 SGI Interactive Demo that people assumed was going to be on the platform.
Dick Jones
Gold Member
I would like to congratulate Lulu on her obvious token hire. It doesn't appear she was hired on basic competency skills.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Banned
Nah. Is the opposite.
Why did we have a round about conversation just for you to post the same information that shows what I said before you chimed in?
Please read before telling people they misunderstand things.
Wulfer
Member
No this is good for the US because its keeping companies like Tencent from buying up more American companies. Tencent already owns 4.99% of ABK. This will stop further purchases of ABK from Tencent.You don't live in America, so...
Not that I agree with political motivation, if it truly is. The FTC shot themselves in the foot long ago by allowing what should not have been way back when they should have stepped up, but again, was politically motivated then too by lobbyists and bureaucrats, only to now do something.
With that said, I still don't think this is "good for the industry." It is good for MS and only MS.
feynoob
Gold Member
Because we are in a forum. We must contradict each other, before agreeing on the obvious fact.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
The concept of being a $2 Trillion dollar company with a de-facto monopoly on the PC space and a humongous presence in lucrative enterprise and defence contracts flexing that much much much larger wallet to content starve their competitors in an environment where they have been ineffective at competing otherwise (not as much as they wanted to) and what that means seems to be lost on you or you are intentionally trying to deflect and move the goal posts or just get off on that.
The last 20 years saw competition at work, now this is one company trying to avoid having to compete and changing the game by outspending everyone by a large amount (buying off the biggest Multiplatform publishers). Could have they invested in studios and grew as a publisher in 20 or so years? Yes, do you seem to care? No or you would see how they can both be a dangerous precedence setter as well as not making the best of the last 20 or so years.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
American corps must love this attitude… :/.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
feynoob
Gold Member
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Microsoft Says FTC Violates The Constitution By Blocking Activision Blizzard Acquisition
In a response to the FTC, Microsoft defends the legality of its $69 billion deal.www.gameinformer.com
I just hit my line. I'm done. Microsoft is attempting to exploit the partisan hack Supreme Court by raising a constitutional objection to the very notion of FTC enforcement, something that is so destructive to the few checks and balances we have left in our economic system that it could be the final blow in our slide to neo-feudalism. Sorry, Call of fucking Duty ain't worth that.
I have always been platform neutral/Team All the Systems, but fuck this.
At this rate we're gonna get a January 6th-style insurrection from Xbox diehards if this deal gets shut down. That is both frightening and hilarious to think about.
YEAH!! ALL THE
Kagey K
Banned
If people actually care about consolidation they should be looking at Tencent and Embracer."Tencent, the boogyman of gamers"
Seems most only care if it threatens their console of choice though.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Nothing stops the FTC from blocking foreign entities either. In fact, some of us in this thread, especially myself, said the USA should adopt similar laws of Japan and other countries have about foreign bodies buying up their companies.
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
“betterment of American based game companies (Microsoft vs. Sony)” ah, I knew there was a good “exceptionalism / patriotic” competition escape clause.
Like literally any argument is used: Sony is the big bully vs poor MS, MS is there to protect us against Tencent, MS protects the US of A against Asian globalists, MS is there to make money but will not remove games from competitors ever they just want to spend $80 Billion to make sure the industry is protected (what altruistic intent), “What about £40 Million for Psygnosis in 1993?!? How could MS survove without spending $80 Billion for Zenimax and then now Activision - Blizzard”, “We gave peace a chance…”, etc….
On the good side, at least this is getting lots of MS cronies to go full mask-off. It'll be fun holding them to this BS for years afterwards when they try to pretend they said none of it.
Also funny these people suddenly want to be patriotic when it means licking the taint of a megacorp's best interests, but some the same ones will call you evil for celebrating the 4th of July. Their brains are broken.
I've spoken out against both in the past, FWIW. But the thing is, Tencent is bleeding out (in market value) at a record pace, and neither they nor Embracer have a self-owned proprietary games service or console platform of which they're trying to grow wherein the content they acquire or invest in can be leveraged in ways to prop up their own solutions over rivals.
And to that point about services, neither of them have a big push for a model that's the antithesis to the direct sales model which currently works very well for console gaming by an overwhelming margin. In other words, Tencent and Embracer, some BS aside, have no conflicting interests in business models that presents a concern or possibility of them not providing their content to as many platforms & ecosystems as possible through the business model the console market actually thrives off of (direct sales).
Microsoft simply cannot make a similar claim, which is a big part of the problem.
Last edited:
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Important to note that time is against MS with this acquisition, as the markets are going to crash and have been on a slow decline for about a year now generally. Whether there is going to be a dramatic crash next year no-one knows but it seems likely.
Acti-Blizz stock price has been steadier than most, but we can assume they will not be worth $68bn next year given such forecasts. This would encourage MS to end their attempts before this is dragged out in the courts with the FTC next year.
Acti-Blizz stock price has been steadier than most, but we can assume they will not be worth $68bn next year given such forecasts. This would encourage MS to end their attempts before this is dragged out in the courts with the FTC next year.
ChorizoPicozo
Banned
I don't think so.
Thirty7ven
Banned
No. No they did not.
Square had a falling out with Nintendo and they wanted a storage medium that could fit their games at an affordable price. N64 carts would not work for them and Saturn was DOA.
Look at grandpa talking history over here boo context sucks
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
MS doesn't need to buy Tencent to prevent this. America just needs better laws to prevent foreign corporations and investors from buying out American businesses or buying too many shares in them, like
DeepEnigma
suggested.Considering MS are on public record saying they would consider buying more publishers after acquiring ABK, that definitely seems to be their strategy. Buy up the big 3P pubs, subsidize their dev costs with profits generated from non-gaming markets (same way this deal is happening with profits outside of the Xbox division), consolidate marketing by bunching everything up into GamePass, eat the losses on cheap GP subs to net people into the ecosystem and then have them develop a dependency on the service so they'll pay whatever you set the price at...
...or just keep it cheap because their user data will be beneficial for marketing firms and other corps to use for targeted advertising opportunities. Then there's the fact they are shoring up big publishers in order to have them useful as Azure clients. I'm not saying using your greater corporate resources to your advantage is a bad thing (Sony did the same thing when starting out the PS1), but there are levels to this. In Sony's case, they were never going to continually eat losses from PS even in the mid '90s when they were around their peak. If the PS1 failed to stand on its own, they would've shut it down. They almost did that with the PS3 in fact and that's after two generations of dominance. They weren't going to buy a 2nd publisher if Psygonsis didn't work out; they would've just shut down the division.
But everything they did back then was to help PS stand on its own two feet and prove its own worth to the company in terms of generating revenue and profit, and once it managed to do that, they basically stabilized their strategy & operations. They didn't suddenly say "Hey let's go buy more publishers!" or "Let's go buy these devs up!". The only devs they did acquire either did not have much history with other platform holders or were PC/Amiga-only (or predominantly). They bought shares in companies like Squaresoft because of success on PS1, but companies like Squaresoft chose the PS1 because it provided the best opportunity for them in terms of tech, costs & marketing. There are stll people who think FF VII would have been a multiplat if it wasn't a PS1 exclusive but in what reality does FF VII as-is work on an N64? How would the MPEG FMVs have worked out on the Saturn when it had to expend CPU power to decode those?
MS have been in this industry as a platform holder for 20 years. They already made huge acquisitions from Day 1 (Rare, Bungie etc.). They already had the leading platform at one point in the market (360). And they ruined all of that. We haven't even seen how they can elevate the Zenimax teams (which include a mobile studio and various resources as well as mobile-friendly IP....i.e everything they claim they need ABK for suddenly) outside of just being a piggy bank, and yet they want to buy ABK and potentially even more publishers.
Last edited:
Even if the stock price of ABK crashes the owners of ABK still have the games and IPs and staff and everything else that made them worth the $90 billion in the first place.
MS aren't going to abandon the deal just because of a stock market crash, unless that causes MS to complete rethink their gaming strategy.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Microsoft and Activision's seriousness about this deal is really escaping some. Unless the European Commission and/or the CMA somehow block it, they're taking their case all the way to the Supreme Court if they have to. There's zero chance they'll abandon it if the only obstacle left is the FTC.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Microsoft may be in 3rd as a gaming platform but Xbox does not exist in isolation or even as a subsidiary; they are a PART of the whole of Microsoft and Microsoft as a corporation is among one of the most dominant in the world period, let alone when it comes to the tech space. Their OS is on 90% of all PCs, they have a massive footprint with MS Office suite, and Azure is one of the leading cloud platforms worldwide. This is a company that brings in $60-$70 billion annually in net profits per FY...just let that sink in for a moment.
MS are inept in gaming in that their upper management is just awful. They are dominant in that they are flushed with tons of cash and resources from non-gaming sectors that they actually know how to manage. We also know that in the past, they've made certain lucrative arrangements with other companies to position themselves in the sweet spot for growth in these sectors which they now enjoy the benefits of having done, even if those agreements back in the days were of questionable business ethics.
We actually know how Nintendo grew in part to become so big in gaming: they had draconian licensing agreements with many Japanese developers in the Famicom/NES era, preventing them from making games on rival platforms. They also had some questionable pricing practices. We know this to be true because they lost an antitrust lawsuit in 1991. However, Nintendo were humbled because competition provided products that more customers resonated with, so they had to adapt.
Sony bought a publisher who mainly made games for Amiga computers and the niche Mega CD add-on platform, and did leverage their own chip fab plants and distribution channels to help PlayStation. However they also offered a product that was generally seen as superior to what Sega & Nintendo offered that gen by gamers, developers AND publishers, leading many of them to choose supporting PS. This basically repeated with the PS2, which benefited from PS1 but PS1's success was a reward by the customers in the market choosing them over competition, and it's not like Sony prevented Sega or Nintendo from choosing different chip makers, fabs, or distribution options. Sony were humbled due to competition from MS and Nintendo with the PS3, so they had to adapt. And they did that by making select exclusives with 3P devs and increasing the output of their 1P teams in the last years of PS3 leading into PS4.
In both Nintendo & Sony's cases, they were humbled as a whole, not just in one division. Even companies like Apple were humbled and faced dying off. IMHO the issue with MS is that they have never been truly humbled as a corporation. Yes they have had failed products in certain areas but they've never been put in a situation where they had to get creative as an entire corporation and work with limited resources in order to bring themselves back from the brink. The strategy they're employing in order to supposedly fix their games problem with Xbox is 100% indicative of this lack of humility.
Did it ever occur to you maybe one of the other reasons the FTC avoided the Federal Court is because they're concerned the judges could be bribed? You know, like by corporations?
Yes because using 70% market share to make deals to content starve the competition is how its supposed to be done? If Sony has the best studios in the world whats the need to go on a money hat world tour? Yep to push Microsoft out of the sector. Sony could of bought zenimax but they thought it be better to money hat their games instead until Microsoft fought back.
Report: Sony Contacted All Major Third Parties for Exclusivity Deals, Offered More Money Than Microsoft
Report: Sony Contacted All Major Third Parties for Exclusivity Deals, Offered More Money Than Microsoft Kinda Funny’s Imran Khan said: There isn’t a major third party out there Sony failed to approach asking what kind of deals they could work out. Some had content, some had games, some had...
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Ah the what about the exclusivity deals bingo card… or it the false equivalence card? Keep getting confused…Yes because using 70% market share to make deals to content starve the competition is how its supposed to be done? If Sony has the best studios in the world whats the need to go on a money hat world tour? Yep to push Microsoft out of the sector. Sony could of bought zenimax but they thought it be better to money hat their games instead until Microsoft fought back.
Report: Sony Contacted All Major Third Parties for Exclusivity Deals, Offered More Money Than Microsoft
Report: Sony Contacted All Major Third Parties for Exclusivity Deals, Offered More Money Than Microsoft Kinda Funny’s Imran Khan said: There isn’t a major third party out there Sony failed to approach asking what kind of deals they could work out. Some had content, some had games, some had...www.neogaf.com
.
feynoob
Gold Member
mansoor1980
Gold Member
DarkMage619
$MSFT
The acquisition is competition. Is MS the only company that has acquired other studios? Just because you don't like the way they are competing doesn't change that they are. People are always quick to talk about how they should conduct their business but get bent out of a shape when people suggest Sony do what MS is doing.
Organic nonsense and the Sony way aren't the only way to conduct business in this industry and no one can point to a tangible negative that this acquisition or any other MS has made to consumers. It's like we fail to realize that Xbox is third and prefer to pretend they are some sort of monopoly. MS' PC presence is irrelevant other than acknowledgement they are less than 3rd in gaming on the PC market too.
How about letting each company carve their own path and let the market decide? If after this acquisition the Xbox completely fails as a brand then it will disappear and people will enjoy the remaining platforms. I appreciate options when it comes to playing games and I appreciate the value proposition Xbox alone is making. I like that they are offering things the Japanese companies are not.
ChorizoPicozo
Banned
You guys are funny.
When is the next batch of articles, answers or something new supposed to happen?.
When is the next batch of articles, answers or something new supposed to happen?.
feynoob
Gold Member
who the hell is Feist ? headache inducing article..................
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Yes because using 70% market share to make deals to content starve the competition is how its supposed to be done? If Sony has the best studios in the world whats the need to go on a money hat world tour? Yep to push Microsoft out of the sector. Sony could of bought zenimax but they thought it be better to money hat their games instead until Microsoft fought back.
Report: Sony Contacted All Major Third Parties for Exclusivity Deals, Offered More Money Than Microsoft
Report: Sony Contacted All Major Third Parties for Exclusivity Deals, Offered More Money Than Microsoft Kinda Funny’s Imran Khan said: There isn’t a major third party out there Sony failed to approach asking what kind of deals they could work out. Some had content, some had games, some had...
What have Sony moneyhatted this gen? Go on, name the actual games. I'll help you out, and show you what "moneyhat" actually means:
-Kena: Sony assisted with co-development. No different from MS on games like The Ascent or High on Life
-Sifu: Similar to Kena
-Stray: Unknown status as far as Sony's involvement, but ultimately no different than the indie exclusivity deals MS does for GP
-Spiderman Miles Morales: 1P game, license offered to MS who rejected it, that's MS's fault
-Silent Hill 2 Remake: Sony put in for co-funding. MS did not.
-Metal Gear Solid Remake (rumored): Similar to Silent Hill 2, perhaps even more so.
-Final Fantasy VII Intergrade: Upgrade to a console exclusive that Sony helped out with rebooted development on, and helps co-market. Prior FF games on Xbox sold horribly.
And outside of that, Sony hasn't actually had a lot of big 3P timed exclusives this gen. The games people were fearmongering back in 2020 that you'd THINK they would have done such with, like Street Fighter 6, Tekken 7, Avatar, Hogwarts etc. are all multiplat Day 1 releases. Co-marketing, when you're putting in some of the effort to help promote and advertise the game, is not a moneyhat the way you lot want to keep abusing the term. At least Sony had the interest to help with marketing the games, the question should be...why didn't Microsoft show any interest in doing similar?
Meanwhile Microsoft engages in all of the same 3P timed exclusive strategies with games like Ark 2, STALKER 2, The Ascent, The Medium, High on Life, Replaced (a game I'm looking forward to playing), etc. but you pretend like these don't exist. Just to pretend like Sony are the only ones who try securing 3P exclusives or timed exclusives. And ONLY when Sony does it, say they just threw a bag at 3P publishers and that's the extent of their involvement, or that somehow they forced 3P publishers to ban Microsoft from bidding on getting exclusivity rights to those games.
It's just more of the same FUD at this point.
You're very optimistic. I understand. Bets will do that to 'ya
feynoob
I'm skim-reading that article rn and it's basically all the same talking points combined into a single read. Not much new insight there, it's more a summation of the current situation if anything.
Last edited:
feynoob
Gold Member
Last edited:
demigod
Member
Last time i checked, all 3 of those companies have more videogame consumers than microsoft. Why would any of them approve of this merger? Yeah no.
Oh man, my doghater friend got a ban again.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Banned
What are going to do the people in here when the acquisition gets approved and all of their "fears" are proven wrong?
Are they going to have balls, humility, or whatever to accept they were wrong?
Are they going to have balls, humility, or whatever to accept they were wrong?
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
How you do and the level you do things matter, but do not let me stop the latest odd at best and vehemently disingenuous argument at worst you are weaving
.Make an argument, does not stick, moves onto another, etc…
So now, after crying about anti consumer Sony this anti consumer Sony that we are just so blatantly going to just throw it all away for laissez-fairs capitalism without any rule?
.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
If one of those "fears" is that the acquisition won't lead to a reformation of upper management, or an increase in software quality or new/more ambitious games that would not have been possible outside an acquisition, then those "fears" aren't going away and aren't proven wrong.
For some of us we're more interested in the long-term output quality & scale, not just how much more money MS makes out of it or how cheap they can offer a service through heavy subsidizations. They haven't shown consistency on this with studios acquired two decades ago, haven't shown so yet for teams acquired four years ago, or last year in the case of publisher Zenimax.
So obviously there's some issue when they want to buy yet an even larger publisher and have said they are looking to buy even more in the future. You can't buy results; you make them.
feynoob
Gold Member
Last edited:
Banjo64
cumsessed
I mean, I think this deal still might go through but that doesn’t mean every single regulatory board has fulfilled their obligation. It just means the deal has gone through. Do I think having ABK on board will result in higher quality game pass games and low costs for me, the consumer? No. So I just laugh and play until MS try the usually shitfuckery of price increases and shit games.
akimbo009
Gold Member
And their customers...
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Disingenuous like arguing that because Sony conducted business one way MS should follow Sony's example? They are different companies with different strategies. Like it or not there is nothing illegal about this acquisition and more platforms will have access to games like CoD than before. I don't see any other platforms expanding access and ways to play titles.How you do and the level you do things matter, but do not let me stop the latest odd at best and vehemently disingenuous argument at worst you are weaving
I have made one argument. Xbox is in third place and this acquisition harms no consumers or competition. This is true using the standard practices for regulation of the gaming market; ones that include Nintendo and acknowledgement that Game pass and retail are not separate markets. I have never claimed Sony was anti-consumer so you'll have to take that up with the person who made that argument.Make an argument, does not stick, moves onto another, etc…
So now, after crying about anti consumer Sony this anti consumer Sony that we are just so blatantly going to just throw it all away for laissez-fairs capitalism without any rule?
3liteDragon
Member
What did they get banned for?
D
Deleted member 471617
Unconfirmed Member
I know they have two studios. Either way, it wouldn't have made any sense to get Insomniac for Spider Man if you're Spencer. There's no guarantee they say yes on the Xbox side and what if they still get acquired by Sony later on? Then what?
Microsoft/Spencer made the correct decision at the time and things worked out great as we got two great Spider Man games and a third one incoming.
ChorizoPicozo
Banned
Wow, someone got under their skin?
feynoob
Gold Member
This is their warning.
Seems that they were in some serious debate.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
When do we think Sony and MS might have a showcase in 2023 to make things a bit more interesting.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked