So the shares are on hold, the shareholders can't trade them, MS can't get them, and the fee is to compensate the share holders for the delay?
Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Yes. Activision-Blizzard was delisted on NASDAQ last week when the exchange thought the acquisition was likely going to take place. NASDAQ have been a bit vague why this thought this was a done deal because multiple regulators still have assessments to complete and the UK process was looking like it was going to take a couple more months - which has since been confirmed.
Delisting ahead of an acquisition is to prevent market manipulation, such as people shorting (devaluing) stock to bring it lower so it can be bought and sold to Microsoft for that guaranteed $95/share. Microsoft cannot buy Activision-Blizzard shares as FTC legislation limits share transfers between parties involved in acquisitions.
Technically, the original Microsoft Activision-Blizzard agreement is dead, but they will almost certainly renegotiate on very similar terms given Activision's shareholders want to divest any further legal responsible for Bobby Kotick's shitshow and given Microsoft are happy to buy that liability. Once this crawls over the line, any remaining legal issues will probably be dealt with quite generously by Microsoft.
I only saw FTC, CMA, EC, China.
Did i miss something, as that still leads me to believe that's the only ones that are mandatory in regards to closing it as it currently stands are those.
Hmmm I read applicable to be the ones they specifically mention. Otherwise why bother single those ones out.
Thanks for that though, as at least know where your coming from when you say needs them all.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
It's highly likely that Microsoft knew that UK, US, EU and Chinese regulator approval was required but other territories requirements were less clear when the agreement was drafted. Approval is generally only required where both parties are established (registered to operate and trade) in each territory, but even then the operations may so small as not require official approval.
This is why some South American countries approved the merger and others didn't; both companies don't both operate in all territories, often it makes sense to consolidate regional operations in one country. That is probably why the language hedges its bets about which countries would be consulted and which must give approval.
For example, you wouldn't want to write into the contract that approval from Brazil was required to complete, only for Brazil's Regulator to say actually that's outside the scope of their legislation. You would then be in limbo trying to obtain an approval you can't get because it's not required.
Last edited by a moderator:
US FTC official withdraws case against Microsoft-Activision deal before internal agency judge
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Federal Trade Commission official on Thursday withdrew the agency's case before an in-house judge that sought to block Microsoft's $69 billion acquisition of game-maker Activision. One was in district court, which refused last week to slap a preliminary...
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
To explain what this means, the FTC have withdrawn their case without prejudice. This means it may not be a permanent withdrawal, it is intended to pause the hearing before a judge while the FTC and Microsoft have a chat about the way forward. This is not dissimilar to what is happening in the UK, except the other way around, i.e. Microsoft withdrew their appeal to CAT.
It feels like this acquisition still has plenty of drama left in it before the deal eventually closes, with whatever mitigations various regulators feel are necessary.
And to re-iterate, the UK and US are not the only regulators yet to rule. Australia, New Zealand and possibly some other regulators below the radar are still assessing the acquisition. The acquisition cannot finalise until they all approve.
It feels like this acquisition still has plenty of drama left in it before the deal eventually closes, with whatever mitigations various regulators feel are necessary.
And to re-iterate, the UK and US are not the only regulators yet to rule. Australia, New Zealand and possibly some other regulators below the radar are still assessing the acquisition. The acquisition cannot finalise until they all approve.
Ubisoft believe that the acquisition is good news. Is that a hint to any other company?
www.vgchartz.com
Ubisoft CEO Says Microsoft's Activision Blizzard Deal is 'Good News' and 'Shows the Power of IPs'
Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot in the latest earnings call with investors spoke about Microsoft's Activision Blizzard acquisition and [...]
www.vgchartz.com
I really like it thatthis happened. The big players should learn more about the importance of conservation. Microsoft has been leading in that front. My respect.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Depending on who you listen to, backwards compatibility is either really important or not important at all as GamePass makes content ephemeral because games are something you play, then move on from to play something new. It's probably somewhere in-between for many gamers who have own some games that have replay value and who like to try new titles without risk too.
I feel like I exist in some weird niche as I mostly buy games with complex mechanics (usually RPGs) where replay provides increased value. I'm not randomly dipping in games because I just don't have time for that outside of existing friends and family commitments.
Last edited by a moderator:
yup. GoG has a business around that, so does Steam. Timeless great games can be discovered like that. Thanks to the "infinite" BC of the PC a friend of mine showed me Divinity Original Sin Enhanced Edition. From there I fell in love with the series and got Divinity Original Sin 2 and plan on getting DoS 3 at launch day. I only did this with Diablo 4 as of late and Diablo 3 back in the day, but I rarely buy games at launch nowadays.
I'm sort of different .. but the same.
RPGs I only tend to play once, or twice if if they've pretty accessible and not too long. But I buy them because, god dammit, if I'm going to get attached to a game I want to own it. I still have my copy of Phantasy Star on the Master System. I'm never going to play it again (at least not the already-tortuous-but-even-slower PAL version). I still have my Panzer Dragoon Saga, which is probably worth a lot now. Not selling though. I'm really happy knowing I've got Fallout New Vegas in my Steam Collection, even though I'll probably never play it again on leet like I said I would.
Weirdly, there are games that I've put far more time into and play far more often and yet I don't have the same attachment to.
Actually come to think of it, if I hadn't bought FO: New Vegas I wouldn't have given it a fair shot of the sixgun. Initially I gave up after a few hours thinking it was hard work and a bit unrewarding. But because I'd bought it, after playing The Outer Worlds I gave it another shot . It's now firmly one of my very favourite games of all time. If I'd only ever tried it once on a GameFlix service I'd probably have missed out. Hmmm...
Silent_Buddha
Legend
So, one sign that Microsoft's acquisition of ABK will likely go through. For the first time ever, Blizzard games are going to appear on Steam.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23328115/OW2_Blizzcon_2019_Rio_IGC_Group_03.jpg)
Some Activision games (COD) started to appear on Steam shortly after the announcement of Microsoft and ABK entering into a deal to be acquired, but Blizzard games had been absent. Activision games had been on the service in the past before Activision opened their own storefront, but Blizzard games never have been.
Regards,
SB
Some Activision games (COD) started to appear on Steam shortly after the announcement of Microsoft and ABK entering into a deal to be acquired, but Blizzard games had been absent. Activision games had been on the service in the past before Activision opened their own storefront, but Blizzard games never have been.
Regards,
SB
I don't think so as ubisoft has a lot of drama with the stock and hostile take over attempts.Ubisoft believe that the acquisition is good news. Is that a hint to any other company?
Ubisoft CEO Says Microsoft's Activision Blizzard Deal is 'Good News' and 'Shows the Power of IPs'
Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot in the latest earnings call with investors spoke about Microsoft's Activision Blizzard acquisition and [...]
My guess is that they figure all non diablo,cod, over watch stuff from ABK will become exclusive to xbox freeing up purchases on ps5 for ubisoft to gain a better foot hold.
Looking back over my almost 42 year existence I have been playing games since I was around 3 on my fathers intellivision. I have played thousands of games across every platform known to man. I would say there are perhaps a 100 or so games across that library of games that I ever go back too.
It's just like movies. I have seen more movies and tv shows than I could ever count and way more than games. However my dvd collection number in the low thousands and its mostly cause I worked at blockbuster. My hd-dvd and bluray collection didn't even hit 100 and my ultra hd collection only just hit 12.
I know there are people who went off the deep end and own every game or every movie and then there are people who own even less than I do and everywhere between the 3 points.
For many people the vast majority of content they consume are one and done. That is why people stream music and movies instead of buying them. That is why tv and watching movies run on tnt or tcm or hbo was so much more popular than buying even vhs. You get a lot more bang for your buck.
With that said , titles should still always be avalible for a person to purchase. Everyone has different tastes and tastes change. More to the point FF16 is a big game right now, it could in theory get people who may have ff16 as the first and only Final Fantasy they played interested in going back and playing al lthe prior games.
Similar threads
