Silent_Buddha
Legend
Even the legality of that would be tricky in some countries. So, they'd also have to somehow limit streaming to only go to those countries where that could be legally binding.
Regards,
SB
Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
Even the legality of that would be tricky in some countries. So, they'd also have to somehow limit streaming to only go to those countries where that could be legally binding.
Regards,
SB
Or more realistically give up their unrealistic expectations that asking people nicely will see everyone follow the rules. 
Livestream, or don't. There's no asking people what to do and not do with the digital content afterwards.
Livestream, or don't. There's no asking people what to do and not do with the digital content afterwards.
I know its the UK but here in the USA we had something similar happen in the 1920s with War of the Worlds. The started the broadcast with a disclaimer that it wasn't real and then never said anything else. So people tunning in later on thought it was real leading to some panic esp in the part of New Jersey the aliens were said to have invaded.
I am glad to see the one from the other day had scrolling text every few minutes. Still regardless of what the UK says they don't have any legal authority over any other country or other countries citizens that are not in the UK
I was already aware of that. Orson Wells.
I don't think they have legal authority of UK citizens tuning in either. A polite message "please don't do this" isn't generally legally binding. A case of taking existing form invented hundreds of years ago and trying to apply it to modern tech, and then wondering why it failed hard.
Thats ironic coming from someone who is living in the US
That is trueI was already aware of that. Orson Wells.
I don't think they have legal authority of UK citizens tuning in either. A polite message "please don't do this" isn't generally legally binding. A case of taking existing form invented hundreds of years ago and trying to apply it to modern tech, and then wondering why it failed hard.
I think the TRO is only for 5 days after the Hearing begins on the 22nd. For MS its a lot better than waiting for August. My guess is if MS wins in this case on the 22nd they will signal to other countries that they will close the deal and places still pending will likely say yes as they are all smaller markets and I doubt they want any headaches with MS. I think that will make it more likely that the Tribunal in the UK sends it back to the CMA and the CMA and MS work out something so that the CMA can pretend they won. edited in- Just to further explain my thinking process. One of the reasons the FTC is going for this block is that its rumored that the CMA is working with microsoft on a resultion and patch to closing the deal
Microsoft’s Activision Blizzard appeal proceedings appear to lean in favour of the merging parties, UK antitrust lawyers say
Microsoft’s appeal against the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) decision to block its merger with video game publisher Activision Blizzard appears to be headed towards a remittal of the case to the UK antitrust regulator, […]www.equityreport.co.uk
If MS looses this then I think the deal is likely done. But hey they can likely buy embracer since apparently that is going belly up
I somehow missed this. The site is paywalled and a search didn't turn up much. Is this solid info or just a rumor? (I know nothing of the veracity of the site you linked.) Thx in advance,.
It's as good of a site as any for information on governmental procedures. No one knows what is going on except the players involved. I am assuming The cma and ms / abk continue to talk and the same with the FTC or other government agencies. I am sure none of them want to get stuck holding the bag.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
It's no longer a government a process, the CAT is part of the UK's judiciary so it's now a matter for this specialist court.
It's unlikely that there is any communication between the CMA and Microsoft now, that process has concluded and this court case is about reviewing the CMA's process with regard to this particular acquisition. The CMA can't change that. Microsoft can't change that. The CMA and Microsoft talking can't change that. To be clear, the CMA cannot change their earlier assessment. It's done.. final.
Things are now in motion and this appeal will continue unless Microsoft and Acvitison-Blizzard withdraw their request for appeal. Even then, the CAT may decide to continue with the review. The law is not something that can be tuned on and off at will. At least, not in the UK!
Microsoft and ABK response to the PI motion.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Having read numerous accounts of how the FTC action is "good for Microsoft" and having read this filing earlier, which is predicated on there being 'no evidence that Microsoft might remove Call of Duty from PlayStation', ignoring that previous Microsoft publisher/studio acquisitions over the last five years has announced zero games for release on PlayStation - but plenty on Xbox/Windows - I am not convinced this action is good for Microsoft.
Unless Microsoft are planning a insanity plea defence predicated on them being corporately bipolar. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Securing/acquiring assets Ito bolster your companies product portfolio, by reducing the appeal of a competitor by exclusions, I think is completely fine. But when you overtly deny that is what your are doing whilst the evidence shows that is what you are doing, I don't know how Microsoft expect this to play out.
GhostofWar
Regular
I've always found the debate about this weird. For something to be removed it must exist/be there right, so when I see we wont remove cod it doesn't make sense that people say oh they removed cod 2026 from playstation. For this to make sense they would need to take something off that's already there right like warzone or elder scrolls online etc. I guess it's just when I first saw that my first thought was oh this is how microsoft jumps the hurdle about future exclusivity with some smug speak saying we said we wouldn't remove anything and we didn't, we just didn't add the new release or whatever.
They offered the 10 year thing so maybe my take on that wording is wrong anyway. Maybe remove doesn't mean what it used to and is why textures don't get removed from vram when not needed anymore in new games having vram issues
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
The discussion on removing content is regarding IP, rather than specific content. Generally, content already released on a platform is rarely removed except where there is a specific content licensing issue, e.g. certain music for GTA. An IP, like Elder Scrolls, Hellblade, and Fallout being developed by an independent publishers and released on multiple platforms, then acquired by a platform and no longer made available, is the "removal" of IP from a platform.
What IP has MS removed from other platforms ? Minecraft is still on all platforms, even more than when they bought Mojang even the subsequent games like Dungeons and Legends. Everything else that has been announced for rival platforms were still released on rival platforms. MS has never removed anything from any platform.
You list a bunch of stuff like Elder Scrolls and fallout but none of them have been removed from any other platform and become exclusive to the xbox. Even hellbade is still on all platforms. If we are talking about Hellblade 2 that is still on multiple platforms coming to Xbox/ Steam.
If we are talking about IP in a general sense and that if it was on a platform it must always be on a platform that sets a dangerous precedent. Spiderman for example was on xbox as an IP all the way back on the original xbox. So using your argument sony should have been blocked from purchasing Insomniac and making spiderman exclusive to PlayStation. moving forward any studio that Sony or Nintendo wants to buy that owns an ip or any ip that sony/nintendo want to liscense that has been on competiting platforms must then always stay on competing platforms ? Should the CMA force Sony to sell Bungie because Marathon wont be on mac and therefore sony is foreclosing on that platform ?
What about FF , it's been on nintendo platforms before and MS platforms before. Should sony be bared from entering an exclusivity contract with Square for exclusive Square RPGs because of that? Should they only be able to enter into deals with new IP from Square? Where does it end and stop ?
Further on to this. MS releases their games on the same day on multiple platforms and no other platform holder does this. So unlike other companies making purchases of studios you don't actually have to buy MS hardware or use an MS service to play the game. This isn't true of Nintendo , Sony or Valve. So with that said is it now okay if MS purchases ABK and puts call of duty 2025 out day one on xbox and steam and then 4 years later puts it out on sony's ps5 or 6 ? Like sony does with it's games on steam ? Would that now no longer be the removal of IP from a platform ?
What arbitrary goal posts do you want to set up for how MS purchases limit platform choice but other company purchases don't ? Because as far as I can see if Sony or Nintendo had purchased bethesda I'd only be able to play it on their platform day one and in sonys case would have to wait years to play it on another platform or in Nintendo's case never. With MS I can play it on MS devices , xcloud through apple/android/fireos/ tv's or any modern web browser or a bunch of other streaming services that aren't from MS like geforce now. Heck I can even buy it day one on steam and run it on my linux powered steam deck.
MS is pointing this out
and then some more interesting stuff
Man I wish I could see what Jim had said
- MS turned down the Marvel (Spider-Man) exclusive!! Why should governments intervene on MS making dumb choices?! The recent Spider-Man titles should not in any way be used in any exclusivity arguments as the situation around its existence has nothing to do with hard-core exclusivity dealings and buying up rights. And every time it's thrown up as an argument in MS's favour, it's just plain embarassing MS once again that they turned down Marvel!Silent_Buddha
Legend
Sure but that's like saying that Sony "turned down" the Bethesda acquisition or Sony "turned down" the ABK acquisition. Likely because Bethesda and ABK were asking more and/or MS were offering more and Sony didn't think either was worth the eventual selling price. Similarly MS likely figured that the Marvel Spider-Man exclusive wasn't worth the asking price for licensing/exclusivity and/or weren't willing to enter into a bidding war with Sony for it.
I mean is it embarrassing that Sony turned down Bethesda?
Yes, there's a difference in scale. This is just meant to illustrate that these are all purely business decisions. Is X worth spending Y?
Ignoring the whole government intervention thing, I'm not sure why MS turning down Spider-Man should be viewed as any more or less embarrassing than Sony turning down Bethesda. Which basically means that in the long term, Sony turned down Starfield.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
Similar threads
