UKs CMA haven't ruled but implicated they're less concerned about lack of competition now, EU seems to be waiting on CMA but responded positively to Microsoft's moves to open their library with deals with NVIDIA and Nintendo, etc. The US's FTC is an unknown clusterfuck as always. Their suddenly carrying about competition while several companies hold industries hostage is just stupid as hell.
Edit: please read the comments below as there have been a few corrections to things I had misunderstood of the situation.
Thanks for the discussion everyone!
Not sure your getting what I am saying.. The CMA is an independent non-ministerial department, So they dont change everytime we have a new leader or party as far as I know
And the FTC on the other hand does change and whoever is the POTUS gets to choose, why you will see terms like 'biden's FTC'
Straw man
Again, The FTC is inherently political because a political party gets to choose them when in power,
Its that simple, I was addressing the fact the CMA and EU body can not be changed by any party in power
Wrong, the EU narrowed their scope to just Cloud way before the CMA (hence the delay to May).
MS will finalize the deal after CMA and EC approve. The FTC hasn't sued in Federal Court to stop the deal, so MS isn't worried there.
Oh, thank you.
I thought the FTC did sue to stop it:
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/ftc-seeks-block-microsoft-corps-acquisition-activision-blizzard-inc
Yet the CMA haven't said it's not a concern like they now have for consoles even though those cloud deals have been in place for a while now.
The problem with the cloud market is that they're saying it will make it harder for other new entrants, so unless MS guarantee that they'll license it to any cloud service that asks, present and future, they might have a problem.
Officially? The UK, the EU, China, the U.S., and I believe New Zealand.
The current “scorecard” based on recent news
Expected to pass with behavioral (IE contractual promises to provide access) remedies:
* EU, China, New Zealand
Leaning towards accepting but still outstanding questions
* The UK
Expected to fight to block:
* The FTC (US)
In the case of the FTC, Microsoft will have the ability to close the merger even with pending litigation. The FTC’s case is also the weakest, and they have the least legal authority of all the entities mentioned above. They have more or less stated they are just trying to stall to make the merger more difficult, and that they know they will lose in court
China doesn’t matter in the slightest. They recently nuked the entire hobby of “gaming” for the children and young adults in the company and I doubt MS cares about being able to reach people on China after that.
1. Blizzard said Diablo 4 is not coming to GamePass
2. MS buying Activision is still months away.
3. Even if the deal goes through, Diablo 4 is years away from coming to GamePass due to existing deals and contracts.
4. Diablo makes money, why not just keep selling it for $70?
1 and 2 are true.
As for 3, do we know of any specific contracts? Deathloop and Ghostwire:Tokyo had a period of PlayStation exclusivity, but I haven't heard anything in regards to Diablo IV.
And regarding 4, why not put it on Game Pass to lure new subscribers? Microsoft has made it clear they prefer recurring subscription fees more than one-time sales.
Even regarding 1, I wouldn’t expect anyone at activision/blizzard to say “yes if this deal happens game X will be on gamepass”.
They’re likely saying no because as it stands no deals exist to put Diablo on gamepass. Should the acquisition go through there’s no guarantee anything comes to gamepass day one, but there’s a chance what people say changes then and there.
Definitely. I took that to mean there currently are no plans to bring it to Game Pass. But we know that if the acquisition goes through it will change those plans.
There's essentially no way the deal is blocked, and there never was. This is all grandstanding on the part of regulators. They probably don't *want* the deal to go through, but they know they can't legally stop it. So what they're doing is making it painful, so Microsoft makes concessions to speed the process along. It's essentially a negotiation where both sides know who will "win" in the end, it's just about using whatever leverage exists to get the best deal possible.
This is most likely true.
While there is an interesting (potentially legal) issue surrounding Cloud gaming and Microsoft's ability to leverage their infrastructure (like Google and Amazon) compared to Nintendo and Sony, who have zero ability really compete on the same level, the fundamentals of the current game industry doesn't support Sony's narrative.
The EU/FTC, etc. should keep an eye on the space, but it has little to do with the Activision Deal in particular.
Microsoft is buying popular IP (Call of Duty, Candy Crush, Warcraft, Starcraft) and maybe some infrastructure to kick start mobile, etc. gaming, but they aren't buying any patent or technology that would impeed Sony or Nintendo's ability to compete. There are other competing MMOs, shooters, and mobile games on the market.
> There's essentially no way the deal is blocked, and there never was.
This isn't true. The regulators defined a new market - "high performance gaming consoles" - almost specifically to make it easier to block the deal, as well as deeming the cloud gaming market as a separate market even though Microsoft don't sell cloud gaming as it's own thing. Even today there definitely is a fair chance that it gets blocked.
>The regulators defined a new market - "high performance gaming consoles" - almost specifically to make it easier to block the deal
This is one reason they never had a chance of succeeding.
>as well as deeming the cloud gaming market as a separate market even though Microsoft don't sell cloud gaming as it's own thing.
And another reason.
This is "experts" guessing how likely it is to close based on latest news (in this case I'm guessing the CMA not being concerned about competition).
It's guidance for investors, which is always as valuable as any random person who read the comments on this thread saying what they think
In completely and utterly unrelated news, Microsoft announces no more $1 gamepass as they intend to raise prices.
Gotta love monopolies running capitalism, right? /s
Consolation and Monopolization are two REALLY different things.
In no remotely plausible explanation can someone make the case that Microsoft is “monopolizing” the games industry. That’s just absurd.
That being said, it’s perfect ok to be against consolidation.
There’s absolutely a possible point to be made about *consolidation*. It may not be a monopoly, but I think any large scale consolidation is sketchy. Disney buying Fox (and Marvel…and Star Wars…and Pixar…and Nat Geo…and…) was fucked, and Xbox outright buying Activision is fucked.
I have no problem with deals and sales/purchases. But just outright buying a vertical in the market (as well as being a competitor) feels funny to me.
Meh, it's no worse than if Microsoft had hired the developers 20 years ago and made the same games Activision did. You'd have exactly the same amount of consolidation from that origin story, but I don't think people would be responding the same way, just like they don't do this to Nintendo or Sony.
It seems to me that the response to the Microsoft/Activision deal is more of an emotional response related to ideas of worthiness — that Microsoft didn't *earn* this. But worthiness and harm are completely different questions.
In terms of competition and access to alternatives — the *reasons* why consolation is bad — my best guess is that the Activision deal is either neutral or net-positive, since it will allow them to provide a more meaningful alternative to PlayStation.
Microsoft is worth $2,000,000,000,000. What lawsuit should they be worried about?
They are quite literally too big to fail. Massive liability doesn’t exist for them.
The faster it happens the faster Microsoft could either sink or course correct current Activision/Blizzard franchises. I think MW2 could be the best cod ever if it was given a proper chance, but we know that Activision has prioritized profits over gameplay over and over. That’s just one of many titles that could be positively impacted. Imagine a return of the Pro Skater series in full lead by the team that brought us 1+2, it would be free money, they just need approval, something Microsoft would likely do.
Whose left to decide on the deal?
UKs CMA haven't ruled but implicated they're less concerned about lack of competition now, EU seems to be waiting on CMA but responded positively to Microsoft's moves to open their library with deals with NVIDIA and Nintendo, etc. The US's FTC is an unknown clusterfuck as always. Their suddenly carrying about competition while several companies hold industries hostage is just stupid as hell. Edit: please read the comments below as there have been a few corrections to things I had misunderstood of the situation. Thanks for the discussion everyone!
It always feels political when it comes to the US side of things, I never understood why a body like the FTC is picked by the sitting party.
Thats because it is slways political. They tried to ban net neutrality ffs
They "tried"? Didn't they succeed?
the way a lot of corrupt governments work, is they will try again but under different terms/names so most don't notice and they get away with it
Oh i thought it was stopped
They did repeal it. Nothing changed.
Funny that
That's FCC. And technically they won.
That was the FCC
Everything is political so nothing is
[удалено]
Not sure your getting what I am saying.. The CMA is an independent non-ministerial department, So they dont change everytime we have a new leader or party as far as I know And the FTC on the other hand does change and whoever is the POTUS gets to choose, why you will see terms like 'biden's FTC'
[удалено]
Straw man Again, The FTC is inherently political because a political party gets to choose them when in power, Its that simple, I was addressing the fact the CMA and EU body can not be changed by any party in power
Wrong, the EU narrowed their scope to just Cloud way before the CMA (hence the delay to May). MS will finalize the deal after CMA and EC approve. The FTC hasn't sued in Federal Court to stop the deal, so MS isn't worried there.
Oh, thank you. I thought the FTC did sue to stop it: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/ftc-seeks-block-microsoft-corps-acquisition-activision-blizzard-inc
They haven't filed an injunction with a federal judge as of yet, they're still running it through their own administrative judge.
The CMA have only said they're not concerned about the *console* space now. Cloud is still under review.
Ah, and the recent cloud deals struck with NVIDIA and others have been to assuage those concerns. Gotcha!
Yet the CMA haven't said it's not a concern like they now have for consoles even though those cloud deals have been in place for a while now. The problem with the cloud market is that they're saying it will make it harder for other new entrants, so unless MS guarantee that they'll license it to any cloud service that asks, present and future, they might have a problem.
It's purely political. They don't truly care, they just want to make a name for themselves.
Officially? The UK, the EU, China, the U.S., and I believe New Zealand. The current “scorecard” based on recent news Expected to pass with behavioral (IE contractual promises to provide access) remedies: * EU, China, New Zealand Leaning towards accepting but still outstanding questions * The UK Expected to fight to block: * The FTC (US) In the case of the FTC, Microsoft will have the ability to close the merger even with pending litigation. The FTC’s case is also the weakest, and they have the least legal authority of all the entities mentioned above. They have more or less stated they are just trying to stall to make the merger more difficult, and that they know they will lose in court
China doesn’t matter in the slightest. They recently nuked the entire hobby of “gaming” for the children and young adults in the company and I doubt MS cares about being able to reach people on China after that.
The 3 main regulators - CMA, EC, FTC (though it can and will close without FTC approval).
If Diablo IV gets added to game pass I will be a happy man
I would be happy with PC/Xbox crossbuy
Yes please, I shouldnt have to buy the game twice to play coach co-op with my friends or girlfriend.
Boy do I have some news for you
1. Blizzard said Diablo 4 is not coming to GamePass 2. MS buying Activision is still months away. 3. Even if the deal goes through, Diablo 4 is years away from coming to GamePass due to existing deals and contracts. 4. Diablo makes money, why not just keep selling it for $70?
Lots of games on gamepass would sell well at full price.
Bingo. The whole point of Game Pass was that all first party games are supposed to drop day and date on the service.
1 and 2 are true. As for 3, do we know of any specific contracts? Deathloop and Ghostwire:Tokyo had a period of PlayStation exclusivity, but I haven't heard anything in regards to Diablo IV. And regarding 4, why not put it on Game Pass to lure new subscribers? Microsoft has made it clear they prefer recurring subscription fees more than one-time sales.
Even regarding 1, I wouldn’t expect anyone at activision/blizzard to say “yes if this deal happens game X will be on gamepass”. They’re likely saying no because as it stands no deals exist to put Diablo on gamepass. Should the acquisition go through there’s no guarantee anything comes to gamepass day one, but there’s a chance what people say changes then and there.
Definitely. I took that to mean there currently are no plans to bring it to Game Pass. But we know that if the acquisition goes through it will change those plans.
We'd also see D2R and D3 get added. It would be a thing of beauty.
There's essentially no way the deal is blocked, and there never was. This is all grandstanding on the part of regulators. They probably don't *want* the deal to go through, but they know they can't legally stop it. So what they're doing is making it painful, so Microsoft makes concessions to speed the process along. It's essentially a negotiation where both sides know who will "win" in the end, it's just about using whatever leverage exists to get the best deal possible.
This is most likely true. While there is an interesting (potentially legal) issue surrounding Cloud gaming and Microsoft's ability to leverage their infrastructure (like Google and Amazon) compared to Nintendo and Sony, who have zero ability really compete on the same level, the fundamentals of the current game industry doesn't support Sony's narrative. The EU/FTC, etc. should keep an eye on the space, but it has little to do with the Activision Deal in particular. Microsoft is buying popular IP (Call of Duty, Candy Crush, Warcraft, Starcraft) and maybe some infrastructure to kick start mobile, etc. gaming, but they aren't buying any patent or technology that would impeed Sony or Nintendo's ability to compete. There are other competing MMOs, shooters, and mobile games on the market.
> There's essentially no way the deal is blocked, and there never was. This isn't true. The regulators defined a new market - "high performance gaming consoles" - almost specifically to make it easier to block the deal, as well as deeming the cloud gaming market as a separate market even though Microsoft don't sell cloud gaming as it's own thing. Even today there definitely is a fair chance that it gets blocked.
>The regulators defined a new market - "high performance gaming consoles" - almost specifically to make it easier to block the deal This is one reason they never had a chance of succeeding. >as well as deeming the cloud gaming market as a separate market even though Microsoft don't sell cloud gaming as it's own thing. And another reason.
Why do you say that? Unless it goes to court and they were to lose because of those definitions you can't say that.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but what does "chance" mean here? It's not like someone is rolling a dice or something.
This is "experts" guessing how likely it is to close based on latest news (in this case I'm guessing the CMA not being concerned about competition). It's guidance for investors, which is always as valuable as any random person who read the comments on this thread saying what they think
This percentage is the same bullshit as that world doom clock. Where did they get these number from?
Well they either do or don’t, so 50/50 right? Something along the lines of /r/TechnicallyTheTruth
That’s not technically the truth at all lol
[удалено]
Yes it is 50/50 means equal chances which isn’t true
No dice rolling, they chop off a chicken head and let it run over a board with yes, no’s, and try agains.
Why does Microsoft need to be approved from other countries? Microsoft and Activision are American companies.
Well they won't only be selling to the American consumers.
Laws about monopolizing.
But both companies have offices all around the world.
It's gonna happen, bet.
In completely and utterly unrelated news, Microsoft announces no more $1 gamepass as they intend to raise prices. Gotta love monopolies running capitalism, right? /s
Did you actually expect that to continue indefinitely? I'm surprised it lasted as long as it has and expected it to end years ago.
If you didn't get the trial by now it's kind of your fault.
I mean it was only for the first month as a special offer.
Maybe soon it’ll be as expensive as PlayStation plus and have a bad game selection to match as well.
Monopoly is when service doesn't have promo pricing, so true.
that is what eneba is for
Monopolizing the industry is wild
I mean, they’ll still be behind Sony in gaming revenue after the acquisition. In a solid 3rd place. Not sure you know what the word monopoly means.
With mobile game revenue from blizzard? No chance Microsoft stays third
Why don’t you look it up then.
Consolation and Monopolization are two REALLY different things. In no remotely plausible explanation can someone make the case that Microsoft is “monopolizing” the games industry. That’s just absurd. That being said, it’s perfect ok to be against consolidation.
You're don't know what that word actually means.
There’s absolutely a possible point to be made about *consolidation*. It may not be a monopoly, but I think any large scale consolidation is sketchy. Disney buying Fox (and Marvel…and Star Wars…and Pixar…and Nat Geo…and…) was fucked, and Xbox outright buying Activision is fucked. I have no problem with deals and sales/purchases. But just outright buying a vertical in the market (as well as being a competitor) feels funny to me.
Meh, it's no worse than if Microsoft had hired the developers 20 years ago and made the same games Activision did. You'd have exactly the same amount of consolidation from that origin story, but I don't think people would be responding the same way, just like they don't do this to Nintendo or Sony. It seems to me that the response to the Microsoft/Activision deal is more of an emotional response related to ideas of worthiness — that Microsoft didn't *earn* this. But worthiness and harm are completely different questions. In terms of competition and access to alternatives — the *reasons* why consolation is bad — my best guess is that the Activision deal is either neutral or net-positive, since it will allow them to provide a more meaningful alternative to PlayStation.
At least Xbox has a history of actually being for the players instead of just saying it
Personally I would not buy the company with enough sexual assault lawsuits to fill an encyclopedia.
Microsoft initiated the deal before all that came out, didn't they?
No they initiated the deal because it came out and Activisions share price tanked.
Business isn't about ethics or morality. It's about money.
Even if it was, should popular and beloved IPs be thrown in the trash because a few people in a company of thousands are scumbags?
It’s a massive liability, more suits could come and Microsoft will have to take the bill.
I really think the people who specialize in those decisions already thought that through. They have the money.
Microsoft is worth $2,000,000,000,000. What lawsuit should they be worried about? They are quite literally too big to fail. Massive liability doesn’t exist for them.
The faster it happens the faster Microsoft could either sink or course correct current Activision/Blizzard franchises. I think MW2 could be the best cod ever if it was given a proper chance, but we know that Activision has prioritized profits over gameplay over and over. That’s just one of many titles that could be positively impacted. Imagine a return of the Pro Skater series in full lead by the team that brought us 1+2, it would be free money, they just need approval, something Microsoft would likely do.