Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13

[Deleted member 11852]

It absolutely has everything to with being able to review investments and acquisitions. Can't have every national regulator within a trading bloc making independent rulings otherwise you'll see rampant smuggling of 'contraband' within the trading bloc ...

You say that, but acquisitions and mergers do not fall within the EU's definitions of trade in goods and services because a company is neither, although they may provide such.

A single member state must NEVER threaten the primacy of the EU commission's authority on the bloc's trading policy as it's a violation of EU law ...

Again, at the risk of being repetitive, buying a company is neither trade in goods nor services.

Member states don't have a choice but to follow a unified EU-wide trade policy so there's very little regulatory divergence to be seen ...

There is only unified trade policy as far as trade tariffs, barriers and intra-EU trade go, this is an acquisition by one US firm, acquiring another, along with all of its subsidiaries.

As for the idea that there is an EU-wide trade policy, I guess it depends what you mean by trade policy. It is most definitely not for Brussels to tell individual member states what their trade policy should be nor what they should be allowed to trade. I'll give you an example in which I have some experience, take exports controls of strategic goods.

Such goods fall into two types: dual-use (goods which have both a civil and military use) and military goods (goods specially designed or modified for military use). The EU is the competent authority for dual-use goods in the EU, therefore it sets the decision-making framework (called the Common Position) for assessing exports of dual-use goods but it doesn't for military goods. And whilst the EU sets out the assessment criteria, it is not involved in individual decisions that falls to individual national export control across the EU. So for example, if France decides not to sell nuclear fuel (dual use goods) to Canada, that's up to the French and it makes no iota if somebody in Brussels wants to promote more nuclear trade with Canada or not.

Whilst there is a general expectation of free movement of people and goods in the EU, it's not quite that black and white. Just because the EU gets to set the rules for Member States it doesn't enact them so you will also get member states who just do their own thing. And if you think that is a short list, think again.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It absolutely has everything to with being able to review investments and acquisitions. Can't have every national regulator within a trading bloc making independent rulings otherwise you'll see rampant smuggling of 'contraband' within the trading bloc ...

Where's your understanding coming from? DSoup's is apparently from actually dealing with the EU in a government capacity so I'm more inclined to side with his perspective on this.

 

[Lurkmass]

There is only unified trade policy as far as trade tariffs, barriers and intra-EU trade go, this is an acquisition by one US firm, acquiring another, along with all of its subsidiaries.

As for the idea that there is an EU-wide trade policy, I guess it depends what you mean by trade policy. It is most definitely not for Brussels to tell individual member states what their trade policy should be nor what they should be allowed to trade. I'll give you an example in which I have some experience, take exports controls of strategic goods.

Such goods fall into two types: dual-use (goods which have both a civil and military use) and military goods (goods specially designed or modified for military use). The EU is the competent authority for dual-use goods in the EU, therefore it sets the decision-making framework (called the Common Position) for assessing exports of dual-use goods but it doesn't for military goods. And whilst the EU sets out the assessment criteria, it is not involved in individual decisions that falls to individual national export control across the EU. So for example, if France decides not to sell nuclear fuel (dual use goods) to Canada, that's up to the French and it makes no iota if somebody in Brussels wants to promote more nuclear trade with Canada or not.

Whilst there is a general expectation of free movement of people and goods in the EU, it's not quite that black and white. Just because the EU gets to set the rules for Member States it doesn't enact them so you will also get member states who just do their own thing. And if you think that is a short list, think again.

Mentioning military or any dual-use goods is one of the few non-sequiturs and video games are clearly not one of them in this case. Although the EU has limited enforcement powers, member states diverging on a common regulatory undermines the whole concept of the union ...

If a member state wants to violate EU customs by implementing it's own border checks then it should be prepared to face retaliation by other members doing the same to the original offending member state ...

Where's your understanding coming from? DSoup's is apparently from actually dealing with the EU in a government capacity so I'm more inclined to side with his perspective on this.

Article 30 of the Treaty for on the Functioning of European Union states that "Customs duties on imports and exports and charges having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States. This prohibition shall also apply to customs duties of a fiscal nature" which effectively means no customs border's between the different member states ...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Article 30 of the Treaty for on the Functioning of European Union states that "Customs duties on imports and exports and charges having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States. This prohibition shall also apply to customs duties of a fiscal nature" which effectively means no customs border's between the different member states ...

As DSoup says, that's not the legal domain of this corporate acquisition nor regulation of such; this isn't imports and exports. What's the governance on corporate acquisition regulation?
Googled it...

European Union merger law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That said, perusing that Wiki doesn't reveal any degree of indepence is possible by member states.

 

[Lurkmass]

As DSoup says, that's not the legal domain of this corporate acquisition nor regulation of such; this isn't imports and exports. What's the governance on corporate acquisition regulation?
Googled it...

European Union merger law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That said, perusing that Wiki doesn't reveal any degree of indepence is possible by member states.

Mergers that transcend national borders and with an annual turnover of the combined business exceeds a worldwide turnover of over EUR 5000 million and Community-wide turnover of over EUR 250 million must notify and be examined by the European Commission

Well there's your answer ...

National regulators mostly only dictate cases pertaining to M&A exclusively within their own geographic area which are businesses that solely operates in it's own country ...

If any business has significant operations involving more than 1 member state then M&A cases falls under the jurisdiction of the EU Commission. An EU customs union can't work and would conflict with every national regulator doing their own thing so the fix is to have one unified regulator which is none other than the EU commission ...

 

[iceberg187]

Nixing a major deal for its presumed future impact on a market that doesn't really exist yet had many scratching their heads. In a note to clients last week, Colin Sebastian of Baird wrote that the real reason for the denial might have been "more about setting a precedent against consolidation involving 'big tech.' " Clay Griffin of MoffettNathanson concurred, citing the agency's mention of Microsoft's other major business lines. "The fact that the CMA tried to tie Microsoft's position via Windows + Azure + Xbox to paint a picture of irreconcilable dominance in a 'market' that does not exist tells us all we need to know about the CMA's overarching theme: 'big is bad, bigger is worse,' " Mr. Griffin wrote in a note on the ruling.

Microsoft’s Activision Deal Is No Longer Just About Activision

The expansive reasoning of the U.K.’s decision to block Microsoft’s takeover of Activision Blizzard threatens to put other tech and game deals at risk.

www.wsj.com

Big, bad tech. Nothing on the merits. All on ideology. Just crazy to me.

 

[JPT]

I do not understand the sympathy people have for corporations, getting their nickers in a twist over MS not being allowed to buy Activision by one country's regulation authority. Like why care at all?
I would understand if it was the other way around, if people felt it would detrimental to consumers while the authorities just gave them a blanket pass.
Unless you work for MS or stand to gain decent financial gains, why the sympathy?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Big, bad tech. Nothing on the merits. All on ideology. Just crazy to me.

The two are inseparable. 'Merits' have to be valued against 'ideology'. A different ideology will see some changes as gains whereas another ideology would see them as losses. eg. Civil Rights versus Security depends entirely on your ideological POV affecting how you feel about things like Identity Cards or listening in on phone calls or national vaccination programs.

However, we shouldn't discuss political ideology here. That's for RSPC.

 

[orangpelupa]

gain decent financial gains

For me, decent savings, with gamepass

 

[Nesh]

For me, decent savings, with gamepass

Those decent saving will appear as a cost later indirectly. Reports show that the cost to produce a AAA game is becoming less and less sustainable.
I do not believe at all that Gamepass can support financially such super costly projects. I foresee that the subscription based model is going to haste the contraction of such projects if gamers buy into it in critical numbers,.
It is the perfect place for smaller scale games and indies though, but thats because their costs are less, and MS can have the flexibility to absorb the risk by treating them case by case basis.
I wouldnt be surprised if Redfall was scaled down to be supported by Gamepass

 

[iroboto]

I do not understand the sympathy people have for corporations, getting their nickers in a twist over MS not being allowed to buy Activision by one country's regulation authority. Like why care at all?
I would understand if it was the other way around, if people felt it would detrimental to consumers while the authorities just gave them a blanket pass.
Unless you work for MS or stand to gain decent financial gains, why the sympathy?

Depends if value is being created or not. If Tesla bought a prominent car manufacturer to turn an CIVIC into cheap EVs and could do so in a way that would bring mass adoption across the world should we care if it’s blocked?

Yes. Because the world needs to move on getting off fossil fuels and that acceleration of growth today is worth more than blocking them to ensure that they aren’t securing their position as an EV leader 20 years from now. Those cheap EVs would be affordable for the mainstream where Tesla is still largely for the upper and upper middle in wealth.

This merger creates value, many cloud providers had access to COD. They would bring COD to gamepass and cloud. Unionization efforts are all happening under MS. I see immediate value for workers and consumers in exchange for a risk of MS entrenching themselves into a cloud future which makes no sense, I have no idea if ABK will produce flops or if existing franchises will continue to be popular that far out. So to me it’s worth the risk to let it happen.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I disagree with that theory imo gamepass is good solution to increasing costs of big AAA titles as you have guaranteed cash flow. Its very disturbing how much current games costs to produce and one bad decision can basically ruin company if you cannot recuperate losses. GP gives financial stability imo. It is also evident in case of smaller projects as well, there was few interviews where smaller developers stated that because of GP deal they didnt had to close or sell.

Not going to argue the financial situation with GP as I don't know, but bare in mind hearing from some studios is not the same as hearing from all, or even a majority, of studios. Who was talking and why? Are they a best case being highlighted, or the median experience most devs can expect? That discussion is happening here and isn't for this thread.

Again, risk of going OT on to discussing everything related to gaming ever in this thread! This isn't the place to discuss the value of gamepass to developers, or the future of the game streaming per se, or the history of PlayStation, or discussing the political ideals of the regulators. This thread needs to focus on news on regulators, their choices and decisions, reflect on those choices and decision relative to other cases/industry activities, and MS's actions and business strategies.

 

[Shortbread]

I do not understand the sympathy people have for corporations, getting their nickers in a twist over MS not being allowed to buy Activision by one country's regulation authority. Like why care at all?
I would understand if it was the other way around, if people felt it would detrimental to consumers while the authorities just gave them a blanket pass.
Unless you work for MS or stand to gain decent financial gains, why the sympathy?

It's simple. Be it Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Apple, or any other large company, a certain segment of people get (way) too emotionally invested in their favorite products and/or services. As such, any outside interference that they perceive as harmful to the growth of their favorite products/services, you will get this type of backlash. Sometimes people (myself included), just need to except certain things (for good or bad) and move on with their lives, because "big business" will.

 

[mr magoo]

Is it really that much different than cheering for favourite team? I am not getting any financial gains, i do not know personally any players, my life will not change in any way if Team A wins yet i am cheering for team A for whatever reasons. And people stil say "We won we won!" besides observing the game they didn't had any impact on actually winning.

 

[iceberg187]

The two are inseparable. 'Merits' have to be valued against 'ideology'. A different ideology will see some changes as gains whereas another ideology would see them as losses. eg. Civil Rights versus Security depends entirely on your ideological POV affecting how you feel about things like Identity Cards or listening in on phone calls or national vaccination programs.

However, we shouldn't discuss political ideology here. That's for RSPC.

No worries, I'm not trying to go through the exercise of argument specifics. Politics and religion arguments are a no-no from me. However, instead of putting those aside, I'm just of the mindset that these regulators started from no and worked themselves into this ultimate stance. You can still have your beliefs but give a good faith effort towards what is really right and what is wrong. I sincerely do not believe that last part was done here.

 

[davis.anthony]

I've never really bothered to follow this as I personally don't care what happens but I know it's bad as my Twitter feed has been crazy with Sony fanboys cheering and Xbox fan boys raging the last week or so.

Some of the stuff being said and the memes posted on Twitter are quite comical.

 

[Shortbread]

No worries, I'm not trying to go through the exercise of argument specifics. Politics and religion arguments are a no-no from me. However, instead of putting those aside, I'm just of the mindset that these regulators started from no and worked themselves into this ultimate stance. You can still have your beliefs but give a good faith effort towards what is really right and what is wrong. I sincerely do not believe that last part was done here.

Maybe, maybe not. But it seems from reading in between the lines that the CMA is looking after the UK's better interest (which is their job) on not relying so much on foreign technology or infrastructure, but building up their own. It's the bigger picture of technology, and not simply gaming. From what I can see of the UK from my American bubble, is that they want to build up their own Silicon Valley of dreams (i.e., software, hardware, datacenters, communication, etc.), and not rely so much on the likes of Google, Microsoft and other foreign entities. Can't blame them though, because we Americans say the same thing about relying too much on foreign products and services.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

It's pretty simple for me: I want Sony to face more competition from MS and I want some ABK titles on GP. Hopefully they work around this obstruction.

 

[techuse]

Good for everyone that this didnt go through.

 

[see colon]

Good for everyone that this didnt go through.

I'm sure there are plenty of ABK employees who are fed up with the management that don't think it's a good thing. Nor shareholders who were set to make a bundle on the deal.