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

[iroboto]

If Sony accepts a deal, does that change anything regards the regulators concerns? I wouldn't have thought so seeing as there's more at play here than just Sony. So I can't help but feel this COD news is all about PR while the real considerations are going on under the radar (where they should if you want real justice and not trial by public).

No. FTC won’t accept anything. There are no considerations happening. They are working on a way to block it, I’m fairly certain they are just dragging it out to make the companies stop the merger. Which will work if COD completely falls from grace which it will if they can delay this trial for years.

 

[eastmen]

If Sony accepts a deal, does that change anything regards the regulators concerns? I wouldn't have thought so seeing as there's more at play here than just Sony. So I can't help but feel this COD news is all about PR while the real considerations are going on under the radar (where they should if you want real justice and not trial by public).

Just makes the FTCs case weaker and most likely the other regulators cases weaker.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

If Sony accepts a deal, does that change anything regards the regulators concerns? I wouldn't have thought so seeing as there's more at play here than just Sony. So I can't help but feel this COD news is all about PR while the real considerations are going on under the radar (where they should if you want real justice and not trial by public).

This is exactly what is going on. I applaud Microsoft's PR on this because I've pointed to all the non-Sony, non-console concerns raised by UK and EU regulators and some people not only want to hear it, they will deny it. Posts made just today talk about the "deal" Microsoft claimed on Twitter that rejected at the start yet which is mysteriously not mentioned in any of Microsoft's published evidence. Why would Microsoft leave out something so critical to demonstrating good faith from evidence? There may be a mysterious good reason but it most definitely is a criminal offence, with harsh penalties, to make false statements in evidence.

Some folks seem to think that somehow Sony are in control, which is crazy. The suggestion is that Sony, a company with some of the crappest communications for a decade, are stealthily manipulating regulations in multiple territories, who are all too stupid to notice that. WTaF. People need to be checking their carbon monoxide detectors.

 

[SmooTh]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1602728792602333184

https://twitter.com/x/status/1602720143137710080

 

[Deleted member 11852]

No. FTC won’t accept anything. There are no considerations happening. They are working on a way to block it, I’m fairly certain they are just dragging it out to make the companies stop the merger. Which will work if COD completely falls from grace which it will if they can delay this trial for years.

I know very little about the FTC process that isn't explained on their terrible website, but how is that legal?

In the UK and EU, the Government cannot just stall decisions indefinitely which is why timeframes for decisions are set in the legislation. The moment Governments deviate from the power and authority bestowed upon them by the legislation, they are liable for challenge in the same courts that are empower the Government.

Microsoft are not some tinpot little company here, not only do they lobby with money extensively, which buys political influence, they have a lot of legal representation and can afford to engage a lot more.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1602720143137710080

Satya Nadella needs to break out QBASIC and write a proper sequel to DONKEY.BAS - only then will he be equal to Bill Gates.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

No. FTC won’t accept anything. There are no considerations happening. They are working on a way to block it, I’m fairly certain they are just dragging it out to make the companies stop the merger. Which will work if COD completely falls from grace which it will if they can delay this trial for years.

It's not just the FTC BTW. With the EU and UK considerations, and whoever else, COD on PS is just a drop in the bucket of concerns (AFAIK) so all the noise around COD seems like misdirection. MS is drawing attention to public complaints (started by Sony?) where there's likely a lot more bullet-points under consideration that aren't being talked about. Why present this 'peace offering' in public when it can't possibly sway the decision making process?

The kind of deal that'd need to be struck to satisfy concerns would be something like a binding deal that MS will rleease all it's AB produced content on non-MS platforms, whcih kinda defeats the whole point of the acquisition!

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It's not just the FTC BTW. With the EU and UK considerations..

Don't forget the beacon of democracy that is China. For whatever reason, Microsoft chose to initiate that regulatory process last.

Why present this 'peace offering' in public when it can't possibly sway the decision making process?

It feels like Microsoft are preparing for defeat and are beginning laying the foundation of a public narrative where they blame Sony. Having a regulatory acquisition decision go against you is not a good look, and whilst PR will not influence anybody that matters, for the vocal minority of gamers who care less about the truth, Microsoft may feel this is an advantageous move. Obviously it won't change anything, but it minimises the risk of being considered losers here.

What is really interesting about this whole process is that Microsoft seem to care about influencing the thinking of folks who support them whereas Sony don't seem to care. There comms have been bad for a long time, and nothing about this will change that.

 

[iroboto]

In the UK and EU, the Government cannot just stall decisions indefinitely which is why timeframes for decisions are set in the legislation.

It's not just the FTC BTW. With the EU and UK considerations, and whoever else, COD on PS is just a drop in the bucket of concerns (AFAIK) so all the noise around COD seems like misdirection. MS is drawing attention to public complaints (started by Sony?) where there's likely a lot more bullet-points under consideration that aren't being talked about. Why present this 'peace offering' in public when it can't possibly sway the decision making process?

Can't give you guys the right answer here.

I can only point to a possible pattern. Mainly, with respect the head of FTC : https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/12/06/lina-khans-battle-to-rein-in-big-tech
Her move is basically litigate instead of negotiate. And so, respectfully, she makes a solid point that a lot fo these big tech companies buy up shit way too much, in fact in general, and consumers don't have choices at all really, so she's just going to block everything. And it's entirely possible that MS and ABK knew this would happen, and they have been out their publicly going this thing, because they knew they'd be blocked and the counter arguments would be bogus, so get out there early and present your story before the FTC presents its story. _maybe_. They gave up many concessions to not be blocked, but they were blocked anyway. Sony only needed to be enough of a catalyst to ensure that regulators went down this route, they don't really need to do more than that really, the FTC would have made their own arguments, but Sony provided some for them, so that's what they went with it appears. There were some definite fabrications of things, fabrication of market segments, we don't have a high performance and low performance console market. etc etc.

From what I understand the FTC has their own system of administration process internally that does not require the federal court. The FTC pushes that date out as far as possible to gather evidence to win the case to block the merger in front of court. They will likely lose this court because if I understand it, FTC owns this one. If MS loses that case, they can appeal to move the case moves to federal court. , if MS wins the federal court they are free to merge. MS previously had the date to close ABK by June, from what I recall reading, it's now removed all dates on when it thinks this will close.

MSN

www.msn.com

What really happened is that the FTC filed an “administrative complaint” regarding the transaction in the FTC. In other words, the FTC is using its own internal procedures to decide whether the transaction is lawful. Based on past trends, we can expect the FTC will reach a decision on that question in early-mid 2024, at which point Microsoft could appeal the decision, which would delay final resolution to late 2024 or beyond.

In the meantime, nothing about this proceeding prevents Microsoft from closing the transaction and completing the acquisition. In order to actually block the transaction, the FTC would need to file suit in federal court and obtain an emergency order.

This is not to say that the FTC’s complaint is toothless. For one thing, if Microsoft completes the transaction and then loses its dispute with the FTC, Microsoft would be required to spin off, divest, or restructure its newly acquired assets.

Or go forward to merge, but if the FTC flunks them, they now have to find a way to separate. You asked how a company can be blocked after it's merger, this is how.

The weaknesses in the FTC’s complaint are not especially surprising. In recent months, the FTC has made clear that it is looking to test the boundaries of what antitrust law currently allows. Indeed, President Biden’s top antitrust officials “have said that they want the agencies to become more comfortable with taking big swings,” and that “a high win record in court likely means they aren’t challenging enough cases.” In other words, the FTC is willing to bring cases that it cannot win under the current state of the law, in hopes that it will persuade the courts to change the law. The FTC’s challenge to the Microsoft-Blizzard deal seems to fit that description to a tee.

Lot's of this stuff around about the anti-mergers in FTC. We have our version here with Telcos, so I get it. I would agree that the arguments are weak which is why these mergers keep happening and they keep losing in court. But that doesn't mean their intention to block is incorrect, but the fact that their arguments don't hold as much weight as people think they do. Anyway that's just my viewpoint.

 

[eastmen]

Can't give you guys the right answer here.

I can only point to a possible pattern. Mainly, with respect the head of FTC : https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/12/06/lina-khans-battle-to-rein-in-big-tech
Her move is basically litigate instead of negotiate. And so, respectfully, she makes a solid point that a lot fo these big tech companies buy up shit way too much, in fact in general, and consumers don't have choices at all really, so she's just going to block everything. And it's entirely possible that MS and ABK knew this would happen, and they have been out their publicly going this thing, because they knew they'd be blocked and the counter arguments would be bogus, so get out there early and present your story before the FTC presents its story. _maybe_. They gave up many concessions to not be blocked, but they were blocked anyway. Sony only needed to be enough of a catalyst to ensure that regulators went down this route, they don't really need to do more than that really, the FTC would have made their own arguments, but Sony provided some for them, so that's what they went with it appears. There were some definite fabrications of things, fabrication of market segments, we don't have a high performance and low performance console market. etc etc.

From what I understand the FTC has their own system of administration process internally that does not require the federal court. The FTC pushes that date out as far as possible to gather evidence to win the case to block the merger in front of court. They will likely lose this court because if I understand it, FTC owns this one. If MS loses that case, they can appeal to move the case moves to federal court. , if MS wins the federal court they are free to merge. MS previously had the date to close ABK by June, from what I recall reading, it's now removed all dates on when it thinks this will close.

I think the problem is that its just video games. Any one can start a company and create a first person shooter game. There are plenty of them out there. There was even new ones at the game awards being shown off. If they really care about monopolies why aren't they going after internet providers? There is literally one high speed internet choice in my town ?

If they are worried about a monopoly why not break up the duopoly of android and ios ? Perhaps its more worrisome that apple has the power to just remove apps no matter how big with the snap of their finger and destroy a company that they have to leave meetings with the fbi/cia to take apple calls.

This Activision deal wont really even move the needle. Ms has already commited to 10 year releases on other platforms including platforms COD isn't released on. The other IP are strong but aren't traditional console titles or even released on consoles like wow. The actual amount of major games from Activision/ Blizzard on consoles that are still relevant or produced is really small.

It's why I felt from the start there would have been better companies for MS to get in terms of console/pc ip.

 

[iroboto]

Lina hates all mergers and consolidations. There's good reason for her to feel that way, I'm not going to say that big companies don't lie. But it's so hard to predict. In Lina's perfect world, everyone would become like Steam, but, steam is also a monopoly, and Epic who is tryign to compete with steam, can't. Imagine if they tried to acquire something to compete with steam, Lina would block them. It's sort of like that. I don't know what the right answer is here.

 

[iroboto]

There is literally one high speed internet choice in my town ?

guy, come to Canada and feel the pain.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Lina hates all mergers and consolidations.

So the following Lina Khan's appointment in the summer the FTC is expected to reject all acquisitions?
A quick google shows this is not the case.

 

[iroboto]

So the following Lina Khan's appointment in the summer the FTC is expected to reject all acquisitions?

she was expected to rein in big tech. I don't think they expect her to reject all acquisitions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/technology/lina-khan-ftc.html

You can expect to see big lawsuits. We’re definitely focusing our resources on litigating. With limited resources, we’re having to focus on what we see as some of the biggest problems. I’ve made clear that focusing on dominant actors in markets is going to be a focus.

The Lina Khan Effect: Mega-Mergers "Plummeted in 2021"

Leadership does make a difference as Wall Street aims for lots of small transactions instead of a few mega-mergers.

mattstoller.substack.com

With Lina Khan at the Federal Trade Commission and Jonathan Kanter at the Antitrust Division, dealmakers are taking note and the marketplace is changing. Here’s the FT:

Mega takeovers in the US — deals north of $25bn or $50bn — plummeted in 2021, according to data from Refinitiv, as companies particularly in pharma and tech have shied away from taking regulatory risks.

At the same time, smaller mergers are accelerating.

Dealmaking hit an all-time high in 2021, with more than $5tn worth of transactions generated predominantly by private equity firms, which tend to do smaller deals that avoid regulatory attention.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

she was expected to rein in big tech. I don't think they expect her to reject all acquisitions.

Fair enough, I was only going on your statement: "Lina hates all mergers and consolidations" statement. So she doesn't hate all mergers, but she seemingly wants to stop the biggest companies on the planet getting even bigger.

Is that a fair assessment?

 

[iroboto]

Fair enough, I was only going on your statement: "Lina hates all mergers and consolidations" statement. So she doesn't hate all mergers, but she seemingly wants to stop the biggest companies on the planet getting even bigger.

Is that a fair assessment?

Yes. I mean, I think she does hate all mergers, but in the case of a highly fragmented market, perhaps she's not against it.
She penned this one here which I think helped her get the job:

Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox

Amazon is the titan of twenty-first century commerce. In addition to being a retailer, it is now a marketing platform, a delivery and logistics network, a payment service, a credit lender, an auction house, a major book publisher, a producer of television and films, a fashion designer, a...

www.yalelawjournal.org

 

[eastmen]

Lina hates all mergers and consolidations. There's good reason for her to feel that way, I'm not going to say that big companies don't lie. But it's so hard to predict. In Lina's perfect world, everyone would become like Steam, but, steam is also a monopoly, and Epic who is tryign to compete with steam, can't. Imagine if they tried to acquire something to compete with steam, Lina would block them. It's sort of like that. I don't know what the right answer is here.

guy, come to Canada and feel the pain.

Well its funny cause Sony keeps buying parts of Epic. So is sony going to be barred from buying more of epic in the future or even divest themselves of what they own now ?

Also I know Canada's internet is just as bad but at the end of the day that is the type of stuff these government agencies should be working to break up. Should have at least as many highspeed internet options as I do console options. That is what the FTC should be worried about. I should have at least as many cell phone OS providers as I do consoles providers and so on and so forth. That is what is important . Bringing up a software company is relatively easy to do vs bringing up hardware. All of us here could start a video game company tomorrow and get unreal engine and buy assets from the store and create our own and produce a video game.

So the following Lina Khan's appointment in the summer the FTC is expected to reject all acquisitions?
A quick google shows this is not the case.

I mean even the employees are disillusioned with her https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/07/13/ftc-lina-khan-rankings/

The Federal Trade Commission used to celebrate its reputation as an attractive employer with a website banner advertising its second place perch atop the “Best Places to Work in the Federal Government” list.

But the emblem was removed this spring amid reports of declining employee morale within the agency under its new chair, Lina Khan. The authors of the rankings had more bad news Wednesday morning for Khan: The FTC has slid to No. 22 on their newest list.

But hey if you think she is doing the right thing here then surely when people start calling to stop Sony's acquisitions because they are a market leader in high end video game consoles and will use them to create a monopoly you will be all for them being blocked right ?

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Yes. I mean, I think she does hate all mergers, but in the case of a highly fragmented market, perhaps she's not against it.

So she doesn't hate all mergers?

She penned this one here which I think helped her get the job:

Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox

Amazon is the titan of twenty-first century commerce. In addition to being a retailer, it is now a marketing platform, a delivery and logistics network, a payment service, a credit lender, an auction house, a major book publisher, a producer of television and films, a fashion designer, a...

www.yalelawjournal.org

Anti-trust is different like a forked branch of negative market behaviour from mergers, although mergers can lead to anti-trust issues. It looks like she understands the issues creates by large companies stifling smaller competition even when there is no ill will or malice intended.

I'll give you an example, when OUYA entered the market Microsoft ignored them. But Microsoft perceived Amazon and Google as serious competition (but not Nintendo or Sony). It wasn't that Amazon or Google were doing anything interesting or threatening, it's just that they were bigger than Microsoft in terms of being able to throw even more money at cracking markets than Microsoft. That was the threat, not what they were doing.

 

[iroboto]

So she doesn't hate all mergers?



Anti-trust is different like a forked branch of negative market behaviour from mergers, although mergers can lead to anti-trust issues. It looks like she understands the issues creates by large companies stifling smaller competition even when there is no ill will or malice intended.

I'll give you an example, when OUYA entered the market Microsoft ignored them. But Microsoft perceived Amazon and Google as serious competition (but not Nintendo or Sony). It wasn't that Amazon or Google were doing anything interesting or threatening, it's just that they were bigger than Microsoft in terms of being able to throw even more money at cracking markets than Microsoft. That was the threat, not what they were doing.

No, I believe she hates all mergers =P doesn't mean she is illogical about that process. Her beef is that the laws around M&A are not well equipped for the modern economy, which is a reasonable statement that I would agree with.

She definitely has a much stronger understanding of the implications of it for sure, and it's a solid observation of how big tech reacts to each other, but largely ignore the smaller players.
I've been slowly reading through that very long beast of her document, and I can see some resemblances to how she is targeting Amazon, to what MS is attempting here. Basically Amazon bought twitch and pushed out MS who bought Beam, or Mixer. Yea, so I totally get it.

The challenging part for her is to prove it with respect to the gaming market. Games are not like other products. If so, Hades, Shovel Knight and other indie games would be dead, since you know, ABK represents such an important part of the industry, but Indie titles are thriving more than ever. Hell, even the boardgame market is thriving more than ever now, and we have better video games than we've ever had. The gaming market has suffered a great amount of homogenization in how games are played, but at the same time, the smaller markets are picking up the slack and offering new ways to enjoy titles. The game industry lives and dies on discovery. It's very difficult to do well without support. Not sure what to say here.

 

[eastmen]

So she doesn't hate all mergers?



Anti-trust is different like a forked branch of negative market behaviour from mergers, although mergers can lead to anti-trust issues. It looks like she understands the issues creates by large companies stifling smaller competition even when there is no ill will or malice intended.

I'll give you an example, when OUYA entered the market Microsoft ignored them. But Microsoft perceived Amazon and Google as serious competition (but not Nintendo or Sony). It wasn't that Amazon or Google were doing anything interesting or threatening, it's just that they were bigger than Microsoft in terms of being able to throw even more money at cracking markets than Microsoft. That was the threat, not what they were doing.

What do you think MS's treatment of the steam deck is like? They put xcloud on it and have been supportive of it. That is a new player in the console market