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

[SmooTh]

Microsoft Sued by Gamers Over $69 Billion Activision Deal (2)

Microsoft Corp.'s planned $68.7 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard Inc. hit another hurdle Tuesday, when a group of gamers challenged the deal in court.

news.bloomberglaw.com

 

[eastmen]

Microsoft Sued by Gamers Over $69 Billion Activision Deal (2)

Microsoft Corp.'s planned $68.7 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard Inc. hit another hurdle Tuesday, when a group of gamers challenged the deal in court.

news.bloomberglaw.com

Could be good for MS if they get it fast tracked.

of course maybe we should sue these people for sueing ms . It will be lawsuits all the way down

 

[Dr. Nick]

EU regulators quiz rivals on Microsoft tactics after Activision

EU antitrust regulators have asked game developers and distributors if they think Microsoft will block their access to Activision Blizzard's games once it has bought the company, an EU document seen by Reuters shows.

www.reuters.com

 

[eastmen]

EU regulators quiz rivals on Microsoft tactics after Activision

EU antitrust regulators have asked game developers and distributors if they think Microsoft will block their access to Activision Blizzard's games once it has bought the company, an EU document seen by Reuters shows.

www.reuters.com

Seems really odd since MS already sent out 10 yaer contracts for the biggest activison franchise. Wow isn't a console game so that wouldn't matter and overwatch is on all 3 consoles as well as mobile and pc I believe and diablo 4 is coming to all consoles and pc. What is really left outside of new ip and at that point if its new ip does it even matter ?

 

[iceberg187]

Seems really odd since MS already sent out 10 yaer contracts for the biggest activison franchise. Wow isn't a console game so that wouldn't matter and overwatch is on all 3 consoles as well as mobile and pc I believe and diablo 4 is coming to all consoles and pc. What is really left outside of new ip and at that point if its new ip does it even matter ?

I believe that we are just going through the motions and formalities of this.

COD is going to be native, day and date for 10 years on Playstation, Nintendo and Steam. Something Activision wouldn't offer.
There will likely be resurrection of older IP, again, something current day Activision would do.

What the regulators are going to find is that, begrudgingly or not, Microsoft is going to put Activision games in more places than before.

 

[chris1515]

It seems South Korea goes to Phase 2, no decision before next year and same concern from Idas on era and a south korean article.

 

[BRiT]

Microsoft Sued by Gamers Over $69 Billion Activision Deal (2)

Microsoft Corp.'s planned $68.7 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard Inc. hit another hurdle Tuesday, when a group of gamers challenged the deal in court.

news.bloomberglaw.com

A lengthy article on why this may actually be good news for Microsoft/ABK:

'Consumer' lawsuit over Activision Blizzard acquisition more likely to complicate things for FTC than for Microsoft

It is, admittedly, counterintuitive that a lawsuit against a merger may ultimately be better news for the deal than for a party--here, the ...

www.fosspatents.com

Even though private class-action lawsuits (and I repeat myself again by pointing out that this is not formally--but practically and economically speaking--a class action) are virtually always filed by some lawyers trying to jump on a government plaintiff's bandwagon, I don't think it's a good thing from the FTC's perspective that it has happened here. In other words, it was expected, but it's still bad news for the FTC, especially because of the PI motion that means some things may happen pretty quickly in California.

For Microsoft, this is an opportunity to get the class-action lawyers' PI motion denied in a way that will expose the weaknesses of the FTC's complaint. The case will be assigned to a district judge shortly, and some judges in that district are really, really good. While most district judges keep their denials of PI motions short, this is a high-profile case, so there is a possibility of an order denying the motion for a preliminary injunction making the strongest case against the case against Microsoft-ActivisionBlizzard.

We may now also see some other class-action lawyers scrambling to bring their own Microsoft-ActivisionBlizzard cases as soon as possible in order to potentially earn some fees as well. Should there be cases in two or more federal districts, there might be venue transfer motions and they could all get consolidated in one place.

 

[SmooTh]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63a303238fa8f53917035814/Summary_of_public_responses_to_Issues_Statement_MS_Activision.pdf

- 2.100 emails reviewed, 3/4 in favor of the merger, the rest against
- There is a list of (14) views in favor and (11) against the deal
- The summary does not represent the views of the CMA

The CMA received approximately 2,600 emails, but some of these were excluded from our review because they contained abusive content (with no other substantive content), or were blank, unintelligible, stated to be from non-UK consumers, or not in English.

 

[iceberg187]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63a303238fa8f53917035814/Summary_of_public_responses_to_Issues_Statement_MS_Activision.pdf

The against replies read like console war babble. I've long thought it was going to pass. Seeing stuff like this reinforces that notion.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

The against replies read like console war babble. I've long thought it was going to pass. Seeing stuff like this reinforces that notion.

Nah, the spelling and grammar is too good.

 

[eastmen]

Nah, the spelling and grammar is too good.

I feel personally attacked right now

 

[stu11]

(b) the Merger will not harm rival consoles because Microsoft has made public and private commitments to keep Activision content, including Call of Duty, non-exclusive. The availability of Minecraft on rival consoles shows that Microsoft’s commercial strategy is not to make games exclusive;

Section 5b is false as microsoft has only given assurances that COD won't go exclusive, nothing has been said about any other existing ABK IP and obviously not any new IP either.

 

[eastmen]

(d) this would be the largest merger in gaming history, paving the way for a potential string of future acquisitions of publishers such as Take Two, EA, Ubisoft, thereby increasing concentration in the market;

Um these people making this comment do understand that after this Ms can't just go and buy stuff without any over sight ? Each time MS wants to purchase a larger company like Take 2 or EA all these governments will stick their nose in again

Microsoft will make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox, just as it did with Bethesda after it acquired ZeniMax Media;

Um bethesda is not a game. It's a development arm of Zenimax and now MS . MS followed all the contracts that existed at the time they bought Zenimx including releasing certain games on playstation. MS has already commited to a 10 year contract for call of duty if Sony signs it. So it would be nothing like Bethesda since there are legally binding contracts at play

Microsoft will have the incentive to make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox post-Merger. This will adversely affect gamers who cannot afford an additional console and they would therefore switch to Xbox at the launch of the next console generation;

Um again 10 year contract which wouldn't be signed until 2023 meaning there will be call of duty on play station until at least 2033. I hope the launch of the next gen consoles are before 2033

(g) Microsoft would be able to deteriorate the quality of Call of Duty games on PlayStation post-Merger, which could cause consumers to switch to Xbox;

How by having beta's only on xbox or early access or special content ? I mean that is already happening on xbox because of teh marketing deal with playstation.

) Microsoft can capture the multi-game subscription market after the Merger because it can afford to add games to Game Pass at a loss

Sony can do the same thing if they want too with their current content. But most companies will take a loss when entering markets or trying to gain market share. Sony took losses on the ps5 to make the ps5 more attractive in terms of pricing. MS does the same

Microsoft is already dominant in cloud gaming, and the Merger could affect the future of new entrants into that space;

Are they ? Sony has been in cloud gaming for a decade. MS only just in the last year or two entered that market. Perhaps sony should have done more to push cloud gaming like day an date releases ?

the Merger will raise barriers to entry for smaller studios and independent developers; and

How and why ? Smaller studios can release games just as they always did. This is the weirdest one I think

(k) the Merger will lead to an increase in Microsoft’s bargaining power in relation to game publishers.

how and why? The only thing that will increase Microsoft's bargaining power in relation to other game publishers is if they increase their market share. Just owning activision doesn't guarentee that

 

[eastmen]

Section 5b is false as microsoft has only given assurances that COD won't go exclusive, nothing has been said about any other existing ABK IP and obviously not any new IP either.

You are right. It's just like MS never said all Zenimax games would be multiplatform.

MS will meet their obligations on existing contracts and where it suits them to get the deal passed they will make new ones like with COD. But MS is never going to make a promise with all activision/blizzard games. What would that even look like in 10 years. What if they want to take one of the COD teams and make a new Microsoft Adventure ? Is that a MS game and thus it can be exclusive or is that an activision game so it has to be on all platforms ?

It would be a huge mess that no one is going to want to get involved with and I am sure MS is going to make the play that any new ip or rebooted or new to console ip will be exclusive to xbox.

 

[iceberg187]

Section 5b is false as microsoft has only given assurances that COD won't go exclusive, nothing has been said about any other existing ABK IP and obviously not any new IP either.

It doesn't matter though. Activision is literally a COD pusher. Diablo comes every blue moon. Legacy IP from Activision is never coming back from current day Activision. Why should other platforms be given the fruits of Microsoft's labor and money that current day Activision wouldn't provide if Microsoft doesn't want to provide them?

Starcraft 2 came out in 2010. Under Microsoft, the franchise has a chance at revival. Under current day Activision, 0% chance. Microsoft should have the right to place a hypothetical Starcraft 3 wherever they want and not be forced to do it.

They shouldn't be made to do anything that current day Activision isn't doing.

 

[stu11]

Um these people making this comment do understand that after this Ms can't just go and buy stuff without any over sight ? Each time MS wants to purchase a larger company like Take 2 or EA all these governments will stick their nose in again

And yet there are people out there (like you) that want there to be no investigations in to microsoft and nobody "sticking their nose" into them being able to buy up huge multi format publishers of games. When would you accept oversight and people poking around in their business? Maybe when they've bought up the entire industry minus Sony and (maybe) Nintendo? Or maybe we should have a free for all where Apple/Amazon/Google start copying ms and start buying up the industry, that would be fun too!

Do we really want (or need) another ms monopoly like Windows? Want to be able to install updates when it suits you? tough shit - microsoft makes you do it when they want, regardless of the chaos it causes.

You are right. It's just like MS never said all Zenimax games would be multiplatform.

MS will meet their obligations on existing contracts and where it suits them to get the deal passed they will make new ones like with COD. But MS is never going to make a promise with all activision/blizzard games. What would that even look like in 10 years. What if they want to take one of the COD teams and make a new Microsoft Adventure ? Is that a MS game and thus it can be exclusive or is that an activision game so it has to be on all platforms ?

It would be a huge mess that no one is going to want to get involved with and I am sure MS is going to make the play that any new ip or rebooted or new to console ip will be exclusive to xbox.

I agree and therefore the very fact that Microsoft aren't giving those assurances that this should be on the Against side.

It doesn't matter though. Activision is literally a COD pusher. Diablo comes every blue moon. Legacy IP from Activision is never coming back from current day Activision. Why should other platforms be given the fruits of Microsoft's labor and money that current day Activision wouldn't provide if Microsoft doesn't want to provide them?

Starcraft 2 came out in 2010. Under Microsoft, the franchise has a chance at revival. Under current day Activision, 0% chance. Microsoft should have the right to place a hypothetical Starcraft 3 wherever they want and not be forced to do it.

They shouldn't be made to do anything that current day Activision isn't doing.

And I'm sure you'll be fine that multiformat console IPs like Crash Bandicoot and Spyro/Skylanders, Guitar Hero, Tony Hawks and there are probably a fuckload more that would no longer be available on rival formats? You keep pulling stuff like WOW and Starcraft but purposely ignore the tons of other games that would get swept up in to Microsoft. Granted Nintendo won't give a fuck since they really don't want 3rd party games on their platforms anyway.

 

[iceberg187]

And yet there are people out there (like you) that want there to be no investigations in to microsoft and nobody "sticking their nose" into them being able to buy up huge multi format publishers of games. When would you accept oversight and people poking around in their business? Maybe when they've bought up the entire industry minus Sony and (maybe) Nintendo? Or maybe we should have a free for all where Apple/Amazon/Google start copying ms and start buying up the industry, that would be fun too!

Do we really want (or need) another ms monopoly like Windows? Want to be able to install updates when it suits you? tough shit - microsoft makes you do it when they want, regardless of the chaos it causes.




I agree and therefore the very fact that Microsoft aren't giving those assurances that this should be on the Against side.





And I'm sure you'll be fine that multiformat console IPs like Crash Bandicoot and Spyro/Skylanders, Guitar Hero, Tony Hawks and there are probably a fuckload more that would no longer be available on rival formats? You keep pulling stuff like WOW and Starcraft but purposely ignore the tons of other games that would get swept up in to Microsoft. Granted Nintendo won't give a fuck since they really don't want 3rd party games on their platforms anyway.

At that point in time, it's their IP to use wherever they want to place. Microsoft should not be obligated to continue on in a fashion that is governed by powers not their own. The fact that we have to do this song and dance with Call of Duty is crazy to me. If you own it, you should be able to do whatever you want with it. No one has a divine right to anything. It's the name of the game. Growing up, the Charlie Brown specials would air on regular television. Now if we want to watch them, you need Apple TV. I choose not to pay for the subscription so I don't get to watch them currently. It is what it is. I'm not owed what was once available to mein the past, now. Things change, situations change, ownership changes and what ownership chooses to do with their products and properties are their right to do. You want those games, buy an Xbox or a device where you can play Xbox games. Pretty simple solution. Don't want to buy one? That's your choice as well.

 

[Dr. Nick]

 

[stu11]

At that point in time, it's their IP to use wherever they want to place. Microsoft should not be obligated to continue on in a fashion that is governed by powers not their own. The fact that we have to do this song and dance with Call of Duty is crazy to me. If you own it, you should be able to do whatever you want with it. No one has a divine right to anything. It's the name of the game. Growing up, the Charlie Brown specials would air on regular television. Now if we want to watch them, you need Apple TV. I choose not to pay for the subscription so I don't get to watch them currently. It is what it is. I'm not owed what was once available to mein the past, now. Things change, situations change, ownership changes and what ownership chooses to do with their products and properties are their right to do. You want those games, buy an Xbox or a device where you can play Xbox games. Pretty simple solution. Don't want to buy one? That's your choice as well.

The Charley Brown analogy is an apples to oranges comparison, if you want to watch the specials you can pick up a DVD (yea physical) and watch it whenever you want and on any player you want (DVD is a standard). Same can't be said for Activision games post MS acquisition.

 

[Nesh]

At that point in time, it's their IP to use wherever they want to place. Microsoft should not be obligated to continue on in a fashion that is governed by powers not their own. The fact that we have to do this song and dance with Call of Duty is crazy to me. If you own it, you should be able to do whatever you want with it. No one has a divine right to anything. It's the name of the game. Growing up, the Charlie Brown specials would air on regular television. Now if we want to watch them, you need Apple TV. I choose not to pay for the subscription so I don't get to watch them currently. It is what it is. I'm not owed what was once available to mein the past, now. Things change, situations change, ownership changes and what ownership chooses to do with their products and properties are their right to do. You want those games, buy an Xbox or a device where you can play Xbox games. Pretty simple solution. Don't want to buy one? That's your choice as well.

MS should be able to govern games big studios and their games either