Bet: Will the Activision Deal close? - It has closed

Started by the-pi-guy, Feb 01, 2023, 05:14 PM

previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Go Down

the-pi-guy

Quote
MS is requesting all documents related to performance reviews and evaluations of all Sony gaming leadership or management, all documents relating to SIE's gaming business sent to, received from, or exchanged with other Sony entities, and executed copies of every content licensing agreement SIE has entered into with any third-party publisher over the past 11 years, among others.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/the-microsoft-activision-blizzard-acquisition-ot-antitrust-simulator.633344/page-411#post-100726990

Sounds big.

nnodley

And also reeks of desperation and not being at all confident of the deal closing

the-pi-guy

The impression I'm getting currently is that the acquisition is likely to go through with concessions. People are talking about MS acquiring Blizzard + King but not Activision for example.

Legend

The impression I'm getting currently is that the acquisition is likely to go through with concessions. People are talking about MS acquiring Blizzard + King but not Activision for example.
That's a much bigger concession than I imagined possible. I was thinking they'd just be forced to have a few formal contracts restricting what they can do with COD and other games in the future.

kitler53

would Activision agree to a partial acquisition?


Featured Artist: Vanessa Hudgens

kitler53

I'd still be mad.  Diablo would be certain to be pulled from playstation in this scenario. and crash bandicoot exclusivity would be a just disrespectful. 

  Xbox would probably get warcraft 1-3 exclusively too. 



Featured Artist: Vanessa Hudgens

the-pi-guy

I was thinking they'd just be forced to have a few formal contracts restricting what they can do with COD and other games in the future.
Apparently the CMA rarely does behavioral remedies like that.

These are likely remedies that would happen, assuming that remedies are required:

Quote
- Divesting all or part of the business acquired to a suitable purchaser (for example, MS sells Activision Publishing to Take2 and keeps King and Blizzard).

- Carving a divestiture package out of the two merging businesses, with the purchaser keeping some of both businesses and selling some of them too (for example, Take2 buys Activision Publishing and some studios from MS, keeps COD and all the studios working on it but sells everything else to EA and Ubisoft).

- Keeping the acquired business and divesting the business already owned (for example, MS sells almost all the Xbox game studios but keeps ABK complete).

- The sale of key assets (for example, MS keeps ABK complete but sells all the studios working on COD excluding Treyarch, Infinity Ward and Raven).

On the other hand, as far as I know every video game acquisition so far has been approved without remedies.

Era lawyer

nnodley

But this is the single largest deal ever in the history of gaming so it should absolutely be met with the most scrutiny ever

BananaKing

But this is the single largest deal ever in the history of gaming so it should absolutely be met with the most scrutiny ever
And its by far and wide the most massive deal too. Nothing even comes close

the-pi-guy

Quote
Sony's market cap is $93 billion.

Between their indie purchases, Bethesda and Act Blizzard MS will have spent more than Sony's ENTIRE MARKET CAP on buying up developers, publishers and IP.

Let that fact sink in for a minute.

People on this thread can play the "poor little MS" world's tiniest violin all they want, but that isn't "competition". That's a multi-trillion dollar corp succeeding by default because they can massively outspend the competition - to the order of dropping Sony's entire market cap without breaking a sweat. There's nothing "fair" about one player in an industry being so vastly wealthy that they can spend the entire market cap of their main competitor to "compete fairly".

In fact if they have to do that to compete all that shows is that they've failed to compete on anything even remotely resembling a level playing field.

MS have had every opportunity in the world to compete. They've been in the console market for over 20 years (only something like 5 years less than Sony actually). They had developers and were making games on PC before Sony ever entered the gaming market. They had the hugely successful 360 to capitalise off. They had Lionhead, Rare and Bungie. They pioneered console online gaming and subscription gaming services. They were the first console maker to embrace DLC and micro transactions where they now make most of their money.

MS haven't failed to beat Sony because of Sony's "unfair advantage".

They've failed to beat them because of their mismanagement of their studios and first party portfolio, their choice to focus on and invest in Kinect, and the damage they did to their own brand with the One.

Those are the main factors that have contributed to MS's relative failure compared to Nintendo and Sony, and they're all MS's own doing - nothing to do with big mean Nintendo and Sony.

The industry is perfectly healthy and fairly competitive - Nintendo, Sony, Steam/PC and mobile are all doing better than ever. Xbox is profitable. Xbox is growing. Xbox already has more developers and IP than Sony without Act Blizz. Any argument that they need a 70 billion purchase of Act Blizzard to "fairly compete with Sony" is obviously nonsense.

Apparently the only way the world is fair is if MS are equaling or beating Sony. Anything else, even if it's MS failing through their own decisions, is unfair. Who knew?


kitler53



Featured Artist: Vanessa Hudgens

the-pi-guy

There might be some news this week.  CMA is putting out a provisional report. It sounds like a non-final decision.

And would include whether or not they would accept any specific remedies.

the-pi-guy

CMA says they're willing to take remedies including divesture of CoD or divesture of Activision, divesture of Activision and Blizzard.

They don't believe behavioral remedies would work, but they're inviting the parties to show them otherwise.

So it's the perfect answer that doesn't actually answer anything.

Deal might still be on the table, but it is looking like an uphill battle.

kitler53

so basically they'd let them aquire king only?

wow.   I have no particular opinion on king,.. I'm not that up to speed on the mobile landscape.  I'd be happy with that. 


Featured Artist: Vanessa Hudgens

Go Up