Johnny Awesome
Veteran
I think MS are pretty confident that the rest of their content will still drive gamers to xCloud over competing services.
Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
Why would they do that and not just stream from the same servers current PS4/5 games are streamed from?
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I think the hypothetical that was being discussed was how would Sony handle a user on their streaming service wanting to stream a game that they own on PC that may or may not exist on console/PlayStation ... I believe World of Warcraft was the example being used.
Regards,
SB
Forced means they wouldnt have done it at all if EU didnt request the remedy. MS said it themselves they were forced.
MS's own words. There is no yes and no. It either is or it isn't.
The rest of your argument is trying to find a convenient explanation/correlation to lesser the fact.
But we can find a lot of reationale behind releasing globally and a simple one is, which is not common practice (if at all), is release your multimillion blockblaster on, lets say, console A only in EU, while deliberately not in US, Australia etc. Makes no sense and it sends a message to the rest of the world of strategic exclusion and confirms the concerns of the regulators.
MS never said they were forced.
I should point out; people are taking aim at your word force over the word requirement.
A Requirement implies consent or compliance, an item that needs to be met in order for something to proceed. I’m this case global automatic makes for a behavioural remedy to be easily enforceable with no additional work. This is what CMA complained could not be accomplished without a structural remedy.
Forced, that means you were given no consent compliance. You don’t get a say in the matter, you don’t get to walk away or even comply. Thus it is forced on you. As in the regulators divested COD from the merger and MS and ABK and they must accept the result.
You are trying to give in interpetation to the word force that blurs that MS did not want to give such remedies, but they had to because the costs of not making the merge happen were higher
They literally wrote requirement. I want a Ferrari for $20,000 dollars, they tell me it’s $350,000. If I don’t pay it I don’t get it. If I pay the price I am forced?You are trying to give in interpetation to the word force that blurs that MS did not want to give such remedies, but they had to because the costs of not making the merge happen were higher
Common.
What you want and what you are willing to give in exchange for it is not a force.
A force is having to go to court with the FTC because they went straight to suing to block and delay. They have no interest in exploring any merger of this size. That is a force.
In business and economics there is something called opportunity costs. Secondly if the merger didnt happen MS is under obligation to pay ABK an amount for the failed merger.
Thus your scenario doesnt fit this.
Its as if you want a car to move to a place where you will have a life changing career,the seller tells you to pay triple, but you cant say no because not taking the opportunity will cost you more.
In business and economics there is contract negotiations. And everyone starts contract negotiations with what they want. Both the buyer and seller don’t have to accept it. In the end buyers and sellers know what a fair contract is, and a fair contract is where both parties benefit from the deal. The deal is a win for consumers and the deal is a win for ABK and MS.
So I disagree entirely with what your saying because Opportunity cost is the cost of not doing something or doing something else in exchange for what you have decided to do. For instance, The opportunity cost of buying ABK that 70B could be spent on buying another company with a better return.
That is opportunity cost, for MS is minuscule to exit the negotiation for 3B versus spending 70B on merging with ABK. They clearly have worked out the math that is it still worth it for them to continue with the merger even if they have to give free streaming licenses for ABK content for 10 years.
What you saw was mutual benefit negotiation. Forced negotiations is when one party loses their shirt and pants and the other party walks away with everything.
Which they would have done already if such opportunity existed.
And there you have it. Both an opportunity cost of not making the merger happen and the billions they will have to pay ABK as a compensation of the failed merger. MS didnt want to provide such remedies but they had no choice if they wanted it to happen. They didnt come by themselves with these remedies.
Hour long video of the UK Parliament session and FM's thread about it:
They can spend 70B anywhere. It doesn’t have to be with Xbox. And the penalty for failing to merge is 5%. It’s only large because the merger value is. The conditions exist so that shareholders are not being put through a rollercoaster to ensure that both parties are doing best effort to achieve the goal. They know precisely where their don’t sign line is, just like we all know there is a price we will not accept or pay for something.
You are making this way more than it is.
They see value in the deal and continue to push, no one is forcing MS to do anything. They had to meet fair conditions for competition. Not getting what you want is not the same as being forced. I’m done with this argument.
I wish Florian Mueller would separate his takes from the reporting of what happened. They should talk about the live stream of what happened of UK Parlaiment and then have a section of how he views it. Not intermixing the two within the same tweet.
This is arguing semantics at this point. Any compromsie can be considered as being forced from a certain POV. Best just to agree to disagree on this one.You are trying to give in interpetation to the word force that blurs that MS did not want to give such remedies, but they had to because the costs of not making the merge happen were higher
I told them to split it down the middle, you know, voluntold!
Hour long video of the UK Parliament session and FM's thread about it:
@11:00:15, CMA getting broader powers it seems. If I'm not mistaken, doesn't this acquisition specifically require the US, EU, and UK for it to be approved? I know other countries are involved in the process, but the current agreement for this acquisition specifically states the big three most be in agreement for this to happen? One market analyst mentioned this morning that it is imperative for Microsoft & Activision to seek UK's approval, but as it stands, she doesn't see the acquisition materializing without UK's approval.
Edit: Yeah, they do require the big 3 to all be in agreement for the acquisition to pass.
Some other recaps and tidbits...
Last edited:
If there was a better option they would have done it. Apparently the merger is still the best option than putting the money elsewhere. The penalty is a clear loss and loss of the business opportunity arising with the merger.
A cost benefit analysis makes the merger the better option even if having to make compromises than losing it completely.
Actually you are the one who makes it more than it is. I pointed that MS wasnt planning to provide that support without pressure by the EU, you got too attached on the word force.
Then you should go back and review my original post
you used the word forced
You quoted Tom Warren on his usage of the word force
You claimed MS said themselves that they were forced
Tell me who used the word forced
Vestager did not use the word force
Brad Smith did not use the word force
I'm not hung up on the word force, you could have easily have solved this by saying ok, they weren't forced, they had to agree to, they had to compromise to, they had to add an additional concession that by not giving this up they were being anti-competitive. Instead you chose to alter the definition to win the argument. Force is not a concession. Concession is admission, adminssion of the reality that they cannot get what they want because it is not realistic or logistically possible if everyone is doing their jobs correctly. In admission of reality they signed the concession because this still works for them. According to you there is no grey area, "there is YES they were forced or NO they were not forced".
They said no to divestiture of COD when the CMA requested that for them to continue without blocking.
now you know what force means. Saying no means having a choice.
In this case, they were not forced. Thank you.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
The EU report identifies the exact same concerns as the UK CMA. The difference in outcome is because of the difference in assessed relative impact. One highly-developing technology-focussed country and consumer market versus a much larger, but also more more diverse market.
I can't count the number of times where I've said that each regulator has to look at the impact on it's market. The EU market is very wide. Had the EU only had to consider the impact to France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain, it may have been a different outcome.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
