Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I'm going to guess that unlike the CMA, the EU isn't concerned about a hypothetical cloud gaming market that currently exists mostly in name only and may or may not exist in 10 years.
Assuming that Reuter's sources are correct, of course.Regards,
SB
Apparently according to some people, Sony used their secret UK goverment connections to bias them in favor of Sony even though they didn't even block the deal on behalf of Sony and the CMA isn't even a governmental body but an independent institution
It can't be that the CMA and the FTC dont approve of corporate consolidation of that size or don't believe they can fully regulate the markets involved to make the merger "safe" at the scale of everything involved. It's just a conspiracy against Microsoft for some reason. Because people are emotionally invested in the deal going through at all costs and MS getting a "win" and don't care/want to hear about any of the contrary arguments.
MS dwarfs Sony in market cap.
You would think MS has more financial ties in the UK than Sony. MS has probably all kinds of government contracts over there, not to mention all the different products and services they offer.
Sony, maybe they make movies and TV shows over there? Or have some UK musicians under their label?
They likely do have more government contracts and all the products they deliver , that is why if the UK is the last one standing saying no they will quickly reverse course and start saying yes.
I have no idea how big sony's foot print is but they do have about a 3rd of the music industry and a decently sized pot of television/movies However you wouldn't really need to out spend someone else you just need to find people who oppose your opponents and back them.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/ZZY5EVQTHVIKNMDLWCROJX37QI.jpg)
EU decision clearing $69 bln Microsoft, Activision deal expected May 15, sources say
EU antitrust regulators are set to approve Microsoft Corp's $69 billion acquisition of Activision next week, with May 15 as the likeliest date, people familiar with the matter said.
www.reuters.com
Guess we will know next week what the EU says. If they say yes then I see Ms going through with the deal and closing. FTC will loose in court esp if they conspired with the CMA to block the deal.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
It's not that they all love Sony (although that one CMA guy certainly did), it's that they hate MS and Sony benefits.
To be real: I expect Sony and MS to bullshit (spin things) to the CMA, but the CMA is supposed to be an independent body that is above all that and protecting consumers and they really aren't either of those things right now.
I agree it looks like hypocritical argument in which you say correctly "you say it's not important, but you won't go without it"
It's a big game without a doubt, but I would look at that and ask if, it being important to MS is the same thing as being important to the industry; the latter is what they need to regulate.
MS has a lot of issues they need to solve here, namely, they need to be able to release 1 banger a year, ideally 1 banger a quarter, to stay relevant in the gaming market. And if you have COD, whether it is truly a "critical input" or not, you know you're putting out at least 1 banger per year, so you need only 3 others to fill in the other quarters.
That's how I would look at it, and so, it's understandable while they recognize it's not this incredible IP that will win you the industry, but COD would pretty much fill in 25% of their requirement for releasing a solid 'AAA' title, which you and I can agree that as of this moment, are struggling to do. It could very well save the core of their business, cause without Bethseda, they launched nothing in the form of AAA games this year or last (2022: nadda. 2023: Hi Fi Rush, Redfall, Starfield). It's quite a painful process they are having to go through right now to setup and deliver on that pipeline of games.
To me, that's why it's worth fighting for this merger for MS. They have more studios than ever, but they've got to learn all the lessons that come with having such a big portfolio of studios, and it takes time, mistakes are made that need to be learned from, these are all issues with experience. And if you're not confident that you'll be able to hit on all your goals, then I think having COD is definitely what you need to ease investor concerns about Xbox.
They have dropped from their list of moves, buying exclusivity. It appears outside of some timed exclusivity, they won't go there anymore. So they really do need to build everything, and that's not something easy to do on a dime.
Last edited:
Where do you base these claims other than from assumption?
Inuhanyou
Veteran
Well. We know MS blatantly have far more ties in the US. Hence why we see so much funding in politicians pocketbooks recently in Congress, and they just so happen to start advocating for "competition" in the gaming industry and more benefits for Microsoft. these fossils who don't even know what a video game is
luckily the FTC is also against the dealTaking random quotes out of content is where the issue lies. MS never said that COD was not important in every situation. They have only said that isn't their primary reason for buying it (king mobile stuff is) and that COD isn't important as an exclusive. But obviously COD is a huge part of Activisions revenue and so its important financially to making the deal work.
The reason for MS to fight for this purchase is because if they don't the UK can block everything by pointing at cloud. But also because they will gain a huge amount of relevant IP and teams to continue making those big IPs
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Had the Commission also had to consider the UK market, that would be a slightly different assessment although it may not have changed anything regards the final EU assessment. The UK sets out its international trade and technology policies periodically and it mostly refreshed what is called the 'Integrated Review' in March. This long-term strategy documents prioritises technology as a key objectives for Government, industry and academia. Government will influence the behaviour of the later via various incentives, such as tax benefits and grants.
The EU position is more muddied. As a whole, there are great chunks of the EU with really poor telecommunications infrastructure and where countries have different industrial priorities. A consequence of this, is when you look at the impact across the Union as a single territory, the whilst the impact of a acquisition like this in counties like France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain might be relatively high, when you toss in the other member states, it kind of balances out. There is always a challenge with any federation of parties where there is diversity. For years, regional parliaments in Belgium, representing Belgian farmers, prevented the EU-Canada free trade agreement being signed because they felt it would disadvantage then. Federations are hard and it means taking the rough with the smooth.
I don't buy this. Microsoft are the biggest software company in the world and have had dozens and dozens of teams delivering products for decades. All of these teams have the benefit of working for the company that makes the development tools, APIs and for console, the hardware, that they work with. They have every advantage in the world.
If Microsoft are no longer bidding for marketing exclusives, or third party exclusives, this removes options from them in a market in which they admit that they are struggling to compete in. It also makes it easier for Nintendo and Sony to carry on doing this to maintain their market positions. I don't understand why any company would take competition options off the table. Why make things harder for yourself?
This isn't the place to discuss the benefits/costs of Brexit.
AFAICS that entire argument is, "the Jury ruled differently to me; therefore they are all probably on the take."
But then we see that typically on discussion boards. "Here's my logical reasoning. That person disagrees with me. Ergo they must be an illogical, blind fanboy." Sometimes they are, but sometimes they just see thing differently.
That's how some people's brains work, I guess. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
UK further restricts Microsoft and Activision merge
CMA ain't f-ing around! The bold is telling, or at least they suspect something has happened behind the scenes that shouldn't have occurred.
Good luck with that!
CMA ain't f-ing around! The bold is telling, or at least they suspect something has happened behind the scenes that shouldn't have occurred.
Good luck with that!
Last edited:
I believe that is normal interim orders for all acquisitions and mergers during Phase 2 Investigations.
Sure, phase 2B discusses this (or requires this information to be disclosed). But for them to publish this separately and recently, just seems coincidental towards all the [supporting acquisition] talking heads about circumventing CMA's decision.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
When did the CMA last place similar measures?
Likely CMA isn't happy that MS is giong to move forward without them and is throwing a temper tantrum.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
If the EU doesn't block, I still think this is happening in spite of the CMA's bullshit.
Similar threads
