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

[Deleted member 11852]

And if I'm understanding the weird turn of events involving the Canadian regulator, they have opened their investigation into the acquisition following various disclosures of contradictory evidence disclosed in certain FTC testimonies. Is this what is actually happening? And Microsoft are trying to fight it.

Microsoft, I'm not sure conventional regulatory deadlines apply if the Canadian Government believe you have lied to them. This is utterly batshit crazy.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1674481808778338320

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Doesn't that show the stupidity of making things exclusive, and indicate why MS would keep ABK content on other platforms?

And yet all of the disclosures in the past 90 minutes have shown that Microsoft had no intention to bring certain content to PlayStation, despite saying that was their intention. You're following the trial right? It feels like you're not watching what @Shortbread and I are watching.

 

[eastmen]

And yet all of the disclosures in the past 90 minutes have shown that Microsoft had no intention to bring certain content to PlayStation, despite saying that was their intention. You're following the trial right? It feels like you're not watching what @Shortbread and I are watching.

No none of what has been disclosed actual says any of that. It's all been consistant with their stance from the purchase of Zenimax

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It also checks out with install base as Sony outsells MS 2:1

Not really as it includes last gen. It's no indicator of current selling ratios. But it's also likely MS is being massively outsold but they've conceded the 'console war' and aren't trying very hard any more.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

No none of what has been disclosed actual says any of that. It's all been consistant with their stance from the purchase of Zenimax

Re-read the twitter coverage that @Shortbread was posting. It absolutely demonstrates that, and this was Microsoft's own testimony.

 

[eastmen]

Not really as it includes last gen. It's no indicator of current selling ratios. But it's also likely MS is being massively outsold but they've conceded the 'console war' and aren't trying very hard any more.

Does it include vita and ps3 ? Because minecraft was also on 3ds as well as switch which could account for the numbers

 

[Shifty Geezer]

And yet all of the disclosures in the past 90 minutes have shown that Microsoft had no intention to bring certain content to PlayStation, despite saying that was their intention. You're following the trial right? It feels like you're not watching what @Shortbread and I are watching.

I'm not watching it. I'm reading a stream of text and tweets and getting kinda lost. The funniest part is when the responses are so radically different. It's the same as Trump or Johnson, all these trials are being seen through polarising glasses.

 

[Shortbread]

Doesn't that show the stupidity of making things exclusive, and indicate why MS would keep ABK content on other platforms?

Yes, and no. Microsoft is using some type of deal model or evaluation scale on determining game availability on competing platforms. Meaning, if Sony is still the market-leader in console sales, it makes sense on keeping COD on the system. If Microsoft [Xbox Brand] becomes the market-leader (substantially), then offering COD on competing platforms doesn't make sense, or at the very least, they would force Sony into taking a smaller cut (or nothing at all) on sales. As highlighted in the FTC case, Microsoft believes it can be number one in the gaming space in terms of gaming revenue by 2030, if the Activision acquisition goes through.

 

[eastmen]

Re-read the twitter coverage that @Shortbread was posting. It absolutely demonstrates that, and this was Microsoft's own testimony.

I did read it. MS had previously publicly said it would be on a case by case basis for the Zenimax stuff. They never said for how long or how much they would make multiplatform.

 

[Shortbread]

I'm not watching it. I'm reading a stream of text and tweets and getting kinda lost. The funniest part is when the responses are so radically different. It's the same as Trump or Johnson, all these trials are being seen through polarising glasses.

It is. Both camps, my side is winning, your side is loosening.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I did read it. MS had previously publicly said it would be on a case by case basis for the Zenimax stuff.

And today they admitted that they never intended to realise anything on PlayStation. They also admitted they regretted not being able to say this.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1674451581629071363

https://twitter.com/x/status/1674451790966792193

https://twitter.com/x/status/1674460557544398848

"Wish we could just come out and say we were talking it all exclusive at this point."

edit: being picked up by gaming media: Xbox's Phil Spencer Seemingly Decided to Make All ZeniMax Games Exclusives in 2021 Meeting

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I'm not watching it. I'm reading a stream of text and tweets and getting kinda lost. The funniest part is when the responses are so radically different. It's the same as Trump or Johnson, all these trials are being seen through polarising glasses.

This is very true. I am mind-boggled that Microsoft's own counsel was asking Microsoft awkward questions about how bad they are doing. I am sure this will be part of their strategy, in terms of establishing that they are the underdog, but looking at it it felt like they were setting out a pattern of failure after failure and burning through huge amounts of cash with no plan to monetise the investment.

Every effort to establish being in third place felt like it came with a heavy admission of deceit in terms of promises to the public, and regulators in previous acquisitions ( Zenimax) about their intention to cut-off other platforms (Sony and Nintendo). I said it earlier, but this feels like an absolute throw-everything-at-the-wall last ditch effort to not lose the foothold Microsoft have in the console market.

Boom or bust.

 

[Shortbread]

And if I'm understanding the weird turn of events involving the Canadian regulator, they have opened their investigation into the acquisition following various disclosures of contradictory evidence disclosed in certain FTC testimonies. Is this what is actually happening? And Microsoft are trying to fight it.

Microsoft, I'm not sure conventional regulatory deadlines apply if the Canadian Government believe you have lied to them. This is utterly batshit crazy.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1674481808778338320

Not a good look at all. And yes, if Microsoft purposely provided false and/or inaccurate statements during the regulatory process, regulatory bodies have the absolute right on reopening case, regardless of their status. And if I'm not mistaken (it's been awhile since my last brush-up on international trade/goods regulatory laws), US and Canada share special agreements (mostly because of the U.S. & Canada Cooperation Agreement) which extends shared regulatory processes across their respective borders, but in a more unified manner. As such, lying to one means that your lying to other under the agreement. And in this context, this allowed the Canadian regulatory authorities to intervene (or interject information) into the FTC's case without having it tabled for discussion.

 

[iroboto]

US and Canada share special agreements (mostly because of the U.S. & Canada Cooperation Agreement) which extends shared regulatory processes across their respective borders, but in a more unified manner.

From a Canucker's perspective; it's a bit of a nothing burger here. Our regulatory bureau failed to stop the Rogers-Shaw merger, in which we legitimately suffer from competition related issues in the telco space such that they have been doing everything possible to induce competition to drive prices down. Right now we have the highest prices for voice and data plans in the planet, and after years of scrutiny from the public and the government they still failed to stop another telco merger.

What you're seeing is, basically, hey we can't stop them, but the best we can do is make a statement and offer some corrections to a memorandum. Not really anything significant, I think if they tried to stop MS they know they would have failed horribly.

Many considered blocking the acquisition a simplistic open and shut case (horizontal merger where Canadians spend billions of tax dollars to give advantages to new entrants to lower prices here), and they lost. This is a vertical merger by comparison.

Block-buster: Competition Bureau Unable to Stop Rogers-Shaw Deal

www.mccarthy.ca

 

[Shortbread]

From a Canucker's perspective; it's a bit of a nothing burger here. Our regulatory bureau failed to stop the Rogers-Shaw merger, in which we legitimately suffer from competition related issues in the telco space such that they have been doing everything possible to induce competition to drive prices down. Right now we have the highest prices for voice and data plans in the planet, and after years of scrutiny from the public and the government they still failed to stop another telco merger.

What you're seeing is, basically, hey we can't stop them, but the best we can do is make a statement and offer some corrections to a memorandum. Not really anything significant, I think if they tried to stop MS they know they would have failed horribly.

Many considered blocking the acquisition a simplistic open and shut case (horizontal merger where Canadians spend billions of tax dollars to give advantages to new entrants to lower prices here), and they lost. This is a vertical merger by comparison.

Block-buster: Competition Bureau Unable to Stop Rogers-Shaw Deal

www.mccarthy.ca

My point wasn't about who will win (or perceived nothing burgers), but that Canada (and most regulatory bodies) have the right to reopen cases if deemed necessary.

 

[iroboto]

My point wasn't about who will win (or perceived nothing burgers), but that Canada (and most regulatory bodies) have the right to reopen cases if deemed necessary.

What I'm saying is that, they're not likely to reopen it. We're a colossal failure when it comes to competition bureau. If they couldn't block Rogers-Shaw in which the whole nation was up in arms about, I can't see them stopping this, which is no where near the magnitude of importance Rogers-Shaw acquisition does. Or from another perspective, them interfering is about the limit of what they could achieve.

 

[Cyan]

a badly censored Sony document reveals some secrets regarding the actual sales of Sony games, revenue, etc, and it shows that only 1 million people have a playstation to play Call of Duty.

Sony’s confidential PlayStation secrets just spilled because of a Sharpie

Confidential information includes how much Sony spends on games

www.theverge.com

 

[eastmen]

And today they admitted that they never intended to realise anything on PlayStation. They also admitted they regretted not being able to say this.





edit: being picked up by gaming media: Xbox's Phil Spencer Seemingly Decided to Make All ZeniMax Games Exclusives in 2021 Meeting

And yet they have clearly released Bethesda games on Playstation.

So your assertion isn't true

MS never made any concessions to any government about making zenimax games multiplatform nor were there any contracts broken.

 

[iroboto]

Hoeg says 50/50.

Don't bet unless you want to lose lol

 

[see colon]

That is weird because if you value a product or service you presumably want it to stick around so that you can continue to enjoy the benefits, whereas if it's not generation as much profit as the operator likes, that increases the risk the product or service might change drastically to something less appealing.

I did say I think that it's worth double if the Activision content gets added.

Just to name a few, embracing releasing apps on iOS and Android and ditching all plans for a MS powered phone. Keep in mind that MS greatly expanded their efforts on iOS and Android even as they were attempting to compete with Windows Phone. That's sort of shooting yourself in the foot in try to get your platform established unless you really do fundamentally believe that exclusivity hurts everyone.

It's older than that, even. Microsoft was releasing software on Mac since the 1980s.

I think you're mis-remembering that Micosoft did try to compete with iOS and Android, they even held a mock funeral for the iPhone!, but couldn't get inertia on third party developers in terms of app support so killed it. So their mobile customers are now on iOS and Android, and if you want them you need to go where they are. This is a little different to what you claim.

And yet, they had Office and Outlook on Android and IOS while they were still trying to gain a foothold in the modern smartphone OS market. If I remember things correctly, they even had a custom lock screen and launcher for Android around the same time Windows Phone 10 released.