Ouch, I am so happy lots of these union "benefits" are backed by law in Norway/EU
Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
Ouch, I am so happy lots of these union "benefits" are backed by law in Norway/EU
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that Microsoft will just can anybody or organisation unionised regardless of this agreement?
I don't believe they would and find it surprising anyone would think they would do so.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Particularly after making a very public statement about this labor neutrality agreement. If Microsoft really were planning to do this, they wouldn't become embroiled in this issue at all and certainly not publicly.
Blizzard plans to acquire Spellbreak studio Proletariat to bolster World of Warcraft
Blizzard Entertainment has acquired Spellbreak maker Proletariat to beef up the staff on its World of Warcraft.
venturebeat.com
Blizzard acquires Spellbreak studio Proletariat to bolster World of Warcraft
Blizzard Entertainment has acquired Spellbreak maker Proletariat to beef up the staff on its massively multiplayer online role-playing game World of Warcraft.
Under the deal, Boston-based Proletariat will become part of Blizzard, and its team of 100 people will begin working on World of Warcraft, including the Dragonflight expansion coming later this year. Spellbreak, a battle royale game where wizards and witches cast spells at each other, will be sunset. (The company announced this news yesterday.)
Blizzard plans to acquire Spellbreak studio Proletariat to bolster World of Warcraft
Blizzard Entertainment has acquired Spellbreak maker Proletariat to beef up the staff on its World of Warcraft.
Blizzard acquires Spellbreak studio Proletariat to bolster World of Warcraft
Blizzard Entertainment has acquired Spellbreak maker Proletariat to beef up the staff on its massively multiplayer online role-playing game World of Warcraft.
Under the deal, Boston-based Proletariat will become part of Blizzard, and its team of 100 people will begin working on World of Warcraft, including the Dragonflight expansion coming later this year. Spellbreak, a battle royale game where wizards and witches cast spells at each other, will be sunset. (The company announced this news yesterday.)
It's like Russian nesting dolls. Just have Activision buy all the companies MS wants and then get them all through the purchase of Activision. Trojan horse !
I still don't understand why people refer to Activision Blizzard as Activision, Blizzard (Vivendi) bought Activision, not the other way around. Also in this case it was specifically Blizzard Entertainment portion of the company that bought the dev
It was a merger.
I mean the name is Activision - Blizzard and so to shorten it I just go with Activision ?
You can call it what you will but before there was Blizzard owned by Vivendi and after there was Activision Blizzard owned by Vivendi.
They refer to the company as Activision Blizzard because that's the companies name.
They were only ever the majority shareholder in the merged company. Somewhere north of 50% but less than 65%. About a year after the merger finalized Activision Blizzard bought back most of the shares Vivendi owned, leaving them with something like a 5-6% stake in the company.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I don't think Kaotik has a disagreement with that. He's just wondering why people refer to Activision-Blizzard as just Activision rather than as Blizzard.
I think it's just a combination of laziness (it's the first word in the name) as well as Activision having more name recognition on console while Blizzard has more cachet on PC than console.
Regards,
SB
I guess this is the thread to put this in. Please move this to the appropriate thread if I am mistaken.
www.videogameschronicle.com
It is likely that ResetEra is the source of this news. The thread there goes into Microsoft's response to Sony's comments in more detail.
Xbox has accused Sony of paying developers Game Pass ‘block fees’ | VGC
The company claims Sony is trying to “inhibit growth” of its subscription service…
www.videogameschronicle.com
Metal_Spirit
Regular
I guess this is the thread to put this in. Please move this to the appropriate thread if I am mistaken.
It is likely that ResetEra is the source of this news. The thread there goes into Microsoft's response to Sony's comments in more detail.Xbox has accused Sony of paying developers Game Pass ‘block fees’ | VGC
The company claims Sony is trying to “inhibit growth” of its subscription service…
When you make an exclusive deal, you can see it in two ways:
- You are buying an exclusive for your platform.
- You are paying for a content to be excluded from other platforms.
If Sony has done something else other than paying for exclusive contents, and in it's clauses refering explicitly that the game, during the duration of the exclusivity, cannot appear on competitors services, refering them by name to kill legal openings to escape the deal, then Microsoft should show something to prove it.
Because if they don't have it, then Sony is not doing anything Microsoft doesn't also do. And watching an exclusivity deal, not as a deal for exclusive content for the platform, , but as deal to keep content out of other platforms, neglecting to say that they also do the same, is just something twisted and wicked fitted to serve as an argument on a narrative that serves their purposes.
Note that a clause that specifies the services where the game cannot appear, is not the purpose of the deal, but a mere clarification on what de deal allows and do not allow. So, Microsoft saying this, takes us to think that there are deals where the main purpose of the contract is to keep games out of their services.
And as such, Microsoft should prove this, by showing such a contract, or, if they cannot, retract their statements, because they also make exclusivity deals. Or the launch exclusives and other exclusives from third partys appeared by kindness of the devs?
"The April lawsuit's language doubles down on wanting to confirm a failure by Activision-Blizzard and its board to properly negotiate a per-share acquisition value based on the company's stock price before the California lawsuit became public knowledge. Its list of outstanding data demands is lengthy, and it seeks more details about five other "potential transactions" that could have led to more highly valued acquisition offers."
So let me get this straight, the suit alleges that Act hid a lawsuit from public eye then negotiated a per-share acquisition before the lawsuit was known by the public. If thats the case, why isn't MS suing and not the shareholders? Stock prices don't tend to act positively to negative news especially news of a lawsuit that may end up a liability. Public knowledge of the lawsuit should have worked in MS's favor as it can be argue that Act unfairly negotiated from an unfair position with an inflated share price.
New York says Microsoft’s $95/share offer undervalues the company, which was trading at close to that before Activision’s public scandals began last summer.
Microsoft and Activision announced the deal in the middle of a major downturn of the US markets. Regardless if the scandals existed or not, Activision's share price would have been no where near $95 or the share price from last summer.
It expresses frustration that Kotick, already under fire, headed up rapid negotiations in late 2021 to sell the company to Microsoft.
People or companies don't tend to sell hastily for the expressed purpose of undermining the value of the item being sold. Given the market climate at the time, anyone selling would purposely try to expediate the purchase as lengthening the process might increase the chance of the buyer pulling out due to unfavorable economic conditions.
The only thing that is keeping Activision shares afloat now is MS's announcement of the acquisition.
Last edited:
Unless MS is twisting language, which could easily be retorted by Sony, MS isn't describing the action as engaging in exclusivity deals. It calls them blocking rights and that they are aimed at Game Pass and other subscription services.
There is a difference between McDonalds telling Coke they want exclusive rights to their beverages versus telling them, we just don't want Coke beverages being sold by a particular restaurant franchise's drive thrus.
Last edited:
Instead of going to sites which have been using clickbait headline articles for years now, you can read the document directly. You can use translation services to have the filed response translated. Here is the what Microsoft filed with Brazil: Microsoft Response Document
Metal_Spirit
Regular
Beeing Portuguese, I can ashure that at least the Resetera/Neogaf quotes are correctly translated.
Sorry just saw these when entering the thread for the new news.Particularly after making a very public statement about this labor neutrality agreement. If Microsoft really were planning to do this, they wouldn't become embroiled in this issue at all and certainly not publicly.
Companies do this all the time. Walmart closes stores that try to unionize , starbucks goes out and fires the people trying ot unionize stores.
All MS has to do is wait a few months or a year after the merger and then close it down. Then just bulk up hiring for similar roles in another location.
First thing I did. Exclusivity appears 15 times in the document while blocking rights only appears once. MS argues exclusivity is at the the heart of Sony's strategies and a common strategy throughout the gaming industry, so Sony's argument doesn't seem rational when it comes to making exclusivity arguments against MS's acquisition of Act.
Similar threads
