Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
That's right. Is somebody claiming otherwise?
The whole process is published. The acquiring party has the most opportunity to manage the process because they get to provide as much evidence to support an approval at the time of engaging the CMA. The notifying parties can also submit additional evidence at any point. Everybody else is restricted to providing evidence in specific windows. Competitors do not see any evidence Microsoft has provided but Microsoft get to see all concerns - anonymised - to allow them to defend themselves.
Like the UK court process and prosecutions, and every UK statutory regulatory process, the procedure is specifically designed to make the bar for rejection very high. I.e, it should always be easier to yes than no - just like it's easier to acquit someone than find them guilty.
If you read the guidance linked above, you'll see that for those providing evidence, anonymity is the default position. Companies can consent to be identified and consent to allow the release of documents submitted in evidence (with redactions) which is what both Microsoft and Sony have done - as has a third party supporting Microsoft but they chose not to reveal their identity.
This is to permit a free and frank exchange of views which might not be the case where the notifying parties aware of the identify and testimony of those in the industry. This isn't a complex or unique process and these measures exist for a other investigatory processes, because they are modelled on them.
The whole process is stacked against saying not and every opportunity is afforded the notifying parties. If the UK CMA says no, it's because there are demonstrable concerns. But you can appeal a rejection. If you appeal fails you can seek judicial review, which is where an independent court reviews the process, the assessments and the evidence. The UK Government is in High Court all the time - but not for merger and acquisition assessments.
Last edited by a moderator:
I wasn't sure what you were claiming to be honest. My only interpretation from it was that other companies are pushing back against MS and that CMA had good reason to do this other than just Sony pushing back.
I do see that anonymity is the default, and I recognize companies can provide consent in to reveal their documents to the public. But if you are a direct competitor to MS, why bother with anonymity. They would have come out backing Sony in the statements. If the public has any say in this, more competitors pushing back against MS would be greater than just the market leader alone.
I understand anonymity if you are a supplier for Sony. That's likely what that redacted statement is. But I don't see why Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, or Netflix need to hide behind that veil if they want this merger stopped.
Then you discover Market A participant has shares in MS or ABK
I'm seeing chatter that Market Participant A is EPIC which has shares owned by Sony.
It doesn't need to be so nefarious. If CoD is taken off the market, Sony no longer spends marketing dollars on CoD. That money which we call X, and is likely a substantial amount, will now be spent on other titles, in which obtaining the marketing contracts from Sony could push your title to being #1 anyway due to just marketing power.Then you discover Market A participant has shares in MS or ABK
We have to assume Market A participant is a valid vendor for games. It's certainly not a competing platform. So they benefit by CoD getting devalued by Game Pass (MS doesn't need to market game pass games as heavily as traditional games need to) and moving to a competitor that has less influence than the market leader, and now they can grab this marketing deal and get significantly more exposure.
Which is why both EA and others have been readily encouraging of the merger. I really don't know if this is the best move for MS, because they may just end up having to buy the next game that Sony props up if that is what they are doing. Not the greatest of plans though.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I quoted a report. Those are not my words.
There are very few direct competitors with Microsoft that have nothing to lose to publicly expressing views that do not support Microsoft. Most companies with a view will want to preserve any relationship they have with Microsoft because they may wish to publish on Xbox or Windows. The Microsoft Store might be a joke now, but it could be different in two years time. Microsoft might have a relevant mobile platform in the future.
Burning bridges unnecessarily is stupid.
Microsoft produce a lot of software for Apple platforms that keeps their hardware competitive in the enterprise space. I know, I use a Mac and iPhone and I could't do that without - at the bare minimum - Office, Sharepoint, OneDrive and Teams support. The web offerings are not sufficient. Amazon, Google, Nvidia and Netflix should be more obvious because one of the non-console concerns that has been raised clearly originates from companies who want to stream games but are concerned about the ability to stream Windows games from non-Microsoft server/cloud operating systems. Look at the EU statement.
Look at Tim Sweeney's tweet linked by BRiT. Do you understand now?
I fully understand need to anonymity, but you make it seem like competitors are scared of MS here. Look at Sony here, MS could easily penalize them and just take Minecraft and others off Playstation platform. I don't think the retaliation between competitors is going to be as big as one would think it is. It's too childish, and regulators will look down on that. So they aren't going to make those moves. MS isn't going to take office off Apple store just because they said, no we don't want Xbox to buy ABK.
Once again, I don't dismiss all the topics brought up by regulators, but I am debating whether there are really more than 2 people protesting the merger (I think no).
You brought up a great example, but we can quickly deduce who made that statement: Google.
Geforce Now doesn't support Linux, and doesn't even support it from a client perspective.
Amazon Luna currently uses windows and is transitioning to Proton and Linux like Steam Deck (which is supported by MS to move Windows binaries to Linux) So no issues there
Steam uses Proton.
Google Stadia, is the only one that uses Linux, and Linux only and they are dead before things moved to stage 2.
Netflix is an unknown at this moment, but that still leaves Proton open if they want to release games to Netflix and PC platforms.
Sony is the only other competitor that this wouldn't work for since all their titles would need to port to directX. And of course they would prefer to have it as native GNM.
XCloud uses Xbox hardware however, so technically speaking, APIs and Operating systems aside, Sony and Xbox could be on equal ground in building out the hardware for cloud gaming here.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Scared? Nobody but you has used that word. The process is supposed to be a "safe place", where opinions and concerns can be shared without risk of reprisals or consequences. That is all.
On the client, what about the sever? All of the concerns are about the ability to compete with Microsoft streaming games, most of which only run on Windows or Windows-derived operating systems. Sony don't have a dog in that race at all so any concerns being taken seriously by regulators are not coming from Sony. Layers like Proton work only as long as Microsoft chose not to frustrate them. DirectX isn't open, and it's been well established that APIs are fair game in copyright thanks to Oracle vs Google. A lot of companies pursuing streaming of Windows games are coasting on lack of avarice from Microsoft.
GFN uses windows servers for gaming.
Proton is invented by Valve and they support MS here, my general conclusion is that MS will never mess with Proton. And Steam Deck is another vector for their games to land without them needing to foot the bill for yet another device.
Fair
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Now.. but perhaps not in the future. It would be cheaper to use linux. The process is looking towards the future.
Now.. but perhaps not in the future. The process is looking towards the future.
People buying any old Windows game from Valve, not requiring Windows to run it on hardware that also does not provide any monetisation to Microsoft is not a situation that I expect to endure. If Microsoft want to provide assurance to folks running Windows games on non-windows OS then they have the opportunity to open source (or open licence) the API.
They don't want too. I understand why. This is a lever they can pull in future.
They need to make this into a movie when its all said and done. its a wild ride
Proton is open source and it can run for most Windows titles.
Steam Deck supports Game Pass.... so does a particular VR headset as well.
I dunno, I don't see MS pulling anything here that will get them into trouble. No reason to when you can make profits in other avenues.
Paywalled article:
news.bloomberglaw.com
Looks like MS included to let CoD on PS+ as well for a price which is fair.
That's a lot of safe measures.
Microsoft's Call of Duty Offer to Sony to Include Subscription
In a bid to win regulatory approval for its $69 billion purchase of Activision Blizzard Inc., Microsoft Corp. has offered rival Sony Group Corp. the right to sell Activision blockbuster Call of Duty as part of its gaming subscription service.
Looks like MS included to let CoD on PS+ as well for a price which is fair.
That's a lot of safe measures.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Proton relies on Microsoft allowing it to exist. That is the consequence of of the Oracle vs Google case on APIs.
A quick history lesson, DirectX isn't an open API, it's proprietary. As you may recall, Microsoft supported Google in Google vs Oracle on the position that APIs should be open, and this point was won because of the proportionality argument, i.e. that Google had used barely 0.4% of the API in Android. But for DirectX, you would need to implement most of the API.
Since that position, with many thought would spark DirectX being openly licensed, Microsoft have heavily resisted making DirectX open. If they don't want to leverage it, why? Why not open it like OpenGL or Vulkan?
Then why are Microsoft spending $70bn in the videoganing space to make more money?
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Looks like MS included to let CoD on PS+ as well for a price which is fair.Microsoft's Call of Duty Offer to Sony to Include Subscription
In a bid to win regulatory approval for its $69 billion purchase of Activision Blizzard Inc., Microsoft Corp. has offered rival Sony Group Corp. the right to sell Activision blockbuster Call of Duty as part of its gaming subscription service.
Microsoft are back-peddling like crazy at this point. if I was Sony, I'd hold out to see what Microsoft would offer next. It just looks desperate at this point.
But as has been stated already, Sony isn't control of any of these regulatory processors. They are now under their own legal inertia.
But Steam itself is a vector for profits is what I'm saying.
For MS the future is xcloud, I don't think they're going to get very far strong arming tiny markets like Steam Deck.
Similar threads
