• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?

  • Yes, will be approved without changes.

    Votes: 221 24.9%

  • Yes, will be approved but with structural changes to ABK.

    Votes: 102 11.5%

  • Yes, will be approved but only with behavioral concessions.

    Votes: 262 29.6%

  • No, will not be approved.

    Votes: 301 34.0%
  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Stardust_Dragon

Stardust_Dragon

Banned
So reading this blog post from Ubisoft, it sure seems like they're going to do something with ABK titles being streamed as a cloud version on PlayStation in some kind of capacity (unsure if someone on here already posted this link to the blog post):

The agreement includes the complete slate of current Activision Blizzard games, as well as all their new titles launching in the 15 years after the closing of Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard. The games will land on Ubisoft+, while also allowing Ubisoft to license them to cloud gaming companies, service providers, and console makers.

With a single subscription to Ubisoft+ Multi Access, players will soon be able to play their favorite Ubisoft games and stream their favorite Activision Blizzard games across multiple platforms including PC, Xbox consoles and Amazon Luna, and on the PlayStation platform through Ubisoft+ Classics. The agreement will offer players even greater access to a large library of beloved and classic titles as well as the newest releases, all through cloud streaming.

Ubisoft will announce more about how and when Activision Blizzard titles will be added to Ubisoft+ and other cloud gaming platforms in the future.

Source
Click to expand...

This is just me, but I don't think Ubisoft would have name-dropped 'PlayStation platform' in their own blog post here unless they've already been in some kind of communication with SIE about this topic. Of course I doubt we'd hear much about this subject from Sony unless/until the merger itself is completed in October presumably. Otherwise, we're just going to be in a wait and see mode until Ubisoft discloses more information about their plans for these ABK titles on the cloud.
 
Bernardougf

Bernardougf

Member
Peolple are really trying to spin this as a WIN for MS after all the trials, and concessions, and 3 5 10 15 years no exclusive deals, and still the deal is back to stage 01 of pre approval by the CMA after what ? 2 years? and the EU is going to revision their case again probably .. I think anyone here can pretty much guarantee that none of this shit was in Phil's plans for this acquisition when he decided to go for COD and the other content ... at this point is not a spin is a fucking twister trying to make this a WIN for MS
 
POKEYCLYDE

POKEYCLYDE

Member
Bernardougf said:
Peolple are really trying to spin this as a WIN for MS after all the trials, and concessions, and 3 5 10 15 years no exclusive deals, and still the deal is back to stage 01 of pre approval by the CMA after what ? 2 years? and the EU is going to revision their case again probably .. I think anyone here can pretty much guarantee that none of this shit was in Phil's plans for this acquisition when he decided to go for COD and the other content ... at this point is not a spin is a fucking twister trying to make this a WIN for MS
Click to expand...
If it closes, it'll be a win for Gamepass users. That's how I'm looking at it anyway.
 
C

C2brixx

Member
Bernardougf said:
Peolple are really trying to spin this as a WIN for MS after all the trials, and concessions, and 3 5 10 15 years no exclusive deals, and still the deal is back to stage 01 of pre approval by the CMA after what ? 2 years? and the EU is going to revision their case again probably .. I think anyone here can pretty much guarantee that none of this shit was in Phil's plans for this acquisition when he decided to go for COD and the other content ... at this point is not a spin is a fucking twister trying to make this a WIN for MS
Click to expand...
This is all about money at the end of the day. MS will still get paid for the content whether it's exclusive, licensed, or whatever. All these deal MS had to do to appease regulators have actually had the affect of broadening the appeal of Activision/Blizzard content. It may end up be a better deal in the long run for MS that those games end up all these different platforms.
 
Bernoulli

Bernoulli

M2 slut
havoc00 said:
www.resetera.com

The Microsoft / Activision Blizzard acquisition |OT| Antitrust Simulator (completed; discussing post-merger issues) OT

https://twitter.com/JezCorden/status/1693885261610971475?t=ogAp26NQVA_63nm6_VQDKw&s=19 WTF? Is that correct? Or another Jez shit posting?
www.resetera.com www.resetera.com

Although the original article has been updated since then, MS knew since day one after the pause (July 12th) that this was a #TeamOctober play:

One person familiar with the negotiations suggested that the CMA and the companies would now enter a three-month period of talks. The person said there was a period of time "to discuss what the CMA really wants", adding that it was "way too early to speculate what's on the table".
The Financial Times also knew about it but maybe MS wasn't happy about the info been shared so soon and that's why the article was changed.

Anyway, very interesting development. And lots of complexity to manage the cloud gaming rights for MS and ABK in the future.

If I got all the info right, this would the situation in October (if the deal is approved):

- Xbox Studios (XGS) and Bethesda games can be on PC, console (they can be exclusive) and Xcloud (they can be exclusive too, excluding the agreements that MS has signed with Nvidia, Boosteroid, Ubitus, Nware and EE).

- ABK games can be on PC and console (they could be exclusive to Xbox). The cloud gaming rights are sold to Ubisoft worldwide, who would be the exclusive owner but excluding the EEA countries, where MS/ABK would be the owner.

- In the EEA countries, and for 10 years, MS/ABK would license the cloud gaming rights to Nvidia, Boosteroid, Ubitus, Nware and EE and now Ubisoft+ too. As well as any other cloud gaming provider requesting it (if they comply with the EC commitments).

- In the rest of the world (that would include countries like Australia, Canada or even the US, where regulators still have concerns about the deal), Ubisoft would commercialise the cloud gaming rights of ABK games for 15 years. MS, Sony, Nintendo or whoever would have to negotiate with them. The games could be on xCloud but MS would have to pay Ubisoft. I guess that Nvidia, Boosteroid, Ubitus, Nware and maybe EE could be excluded from this due to the previous commercial agreements with MS, that I guess were worldwide (maybe the one with EE was for UK only).

- MS has to develop special versions of the ABK games (for example, a Linux version) if Ubisoft wants to license the games to non-Windows cloud gaming providers. That special version should also have to be provided to the EEA cloud gaming providers, according to the commitments with the EC.

- MS would get money from Ubisoft through the usage of the games + the initial payment.

- By 2033, MS/ABK would regain the cloud gaming rights in the EEA countries. By 2038, MS/ABK would regain the cloud gaming rights worlwide. Ubisoft would keep the cloud gaming rights of all the games managed during those 15 years.

- By 2033 in the EEA countries and 2038 in the rest of the world, any cloud gaming agreements would have to be renegotiated and MS/ABK could decide to terminate them.
Click to expand...
Let's hope CMA finds all the loopholes and the complexity and blocks it again

EC is mad because they didn't push enough seeing now that MS wants divestiture but it will not be applied in EU
 
D

Deleted member 848825

Unconfirmed Member
C2brixx said:
This is all about money at the end of the day. MS will still get paid for the content whether it's exclusive, licensed, or whatever. All these deal MS had to do to appease regulators have actually had the affect of broadening the appeal of Activision/Blizzard content. It may end up be a better deal in the long run for MS that those games end up all these different platforms.
Click to expand...
This is how the monetary side of things will work with the new deal:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Banjo64

Banjo64

cumsessed
rOE4f54.jpg


Michael Jordan Lol GIF
 
D

Deleted member 848825

Unconfirmed Member
To be remembered as the classic Financial Terrorist meltdown. Its a funny ole world.
 
J

jroc74

Phone reception is more important to me than human rights
Bernardougf said:
Peolple are really trying to spin this as a WIN for MS after all the trials, and concessions, and 3 5 10 15 years no exclusive deals, and still the deal is back to stage 01 of pre approval by the CMA after what ? 2 years? and the EU is going to revision their case again probably .. I think anyone here can pretty much guarantee that none of this shit was in Phil's plans for this acquisition when he decided to go for COD and the other content ... at this point is not a spin is a fucking twister trying to make this a WIN for MS
Click to expand...
We can look at how they had to to jack shit for the Bethesda deal to get approved.

MS are throwing damn near everything at the wall to get this to go thru.

Banjo64 said:
rOE4f54.jpg


Michael Jordan Lol GIF
Click to expand...
Yeah....its been a wild few weeks.
 
Last edited:
U

Unknown Soldier

Member
havoc00 said:
www.resetera.com

The Microsoft / Activision Blizzard acquisition |OT| Antitrust Simulator (completed; discussing post-merger issues) OT

https://twitter.com/JezCorden/status/1693885261610971475?t=ogAp26NQVA_63nm6_VQDKw&s=19 WTF? Is that correct? Or another Jez shit posting?
www.resetera.com www.resetera.com

Although the original article has been updated since then, MS knew since day one after the pause (July 12th) that this was a #TeamOctober play:

One person familiar with the negotiations suggested that the CMA and the companies would now enter a three-month period of talks. The person said there was a period of time "to discuss what the CMA really wants", adding that it was "way too early to speculate what's on the table".
The Financial Times also knew about it but maybe MS wasn't happy about the info been shared so soon and that's why the article was changed.

Anyway, very interesting development. And lots of complexity to manage the cloud gaming rights for MS and ABK in the future.

If I got all the info right, this would the situation in October (if the deal is approved):

- Xbox Studios (XGS) and Bethesda games can be on PC, console (they can be exclusive) and Xcloud (they can be exclusive too, excluding the agreements that MS has signed with Nvidia, Boosteroid, Ubitus, Nware and EE).

- ABK games can be on PC and console (they could be exclusive to Xbox). The cloud gaming rights are sold to Ubisoft worldwide, who would be the exclusive owner but excluding the EEA countries, where MS/ABK would be the owner.

- In the EEA countries, and for 10 years, MS/ABK would license the cloud gaming rights to Nvidia, Boosteroid, Ubitus, Nware and EE and now Ubisoft+ too. As well as any other cloud gaming provider requesting it (if they comply with the EC commitments).

- In the rest of the world (that would include countries like Australia, Canada or even the US, where regulators still have concerns about the deal), Ubisoft would commercialise the cloud gaming rights of ABK games for 15 years. MS, Sony, Nintendo or whoever would have to negotiate with them. The games could be on xCloud but MS would have to pay Ubisoft. I guess that Nvidia, Boosteroid, Ubitus, Nware and maybe EE could be excluded from this due to the previous commercial agreements with MS, that I guess were worldwide (maybe the one with EE was for UK only).

- MS has to develop special versions of the ABK games (for example, a Linux version) if Ubisoft wants to license the games to non-Windows cloud gaming providers. That special version should also have to be provided to the EEA cloud gaming providers, according to the commitments with the EC.

- MS would get money from Ubisoft through the usage of the games + the initial payment.

- By 2033, MS/ABK would regain the cloud gaming rights in the EEA countries. By 2038, MS/ABK would regain the cloud gaming rights worlwide. Ubisoft would keep the cloud gaming rights of all the games managed during those 15 years.

- By 2033 in the EEA countries and 2038 in the rest of the world, any cloud gaming agreements would have to be renegotiated and MS/ABK could decide to terminate them.
Click to expand...
CMA literally told MS they don't want to sit there and babysit timed deals, what makes MS think this is a good idea that will pass through their scrutiny this time?
 
Solidus_T

Solidus_T

Banned
VAVA Mk2 said:
So in the end...$69 billion so Microsoft can license CoD from Ubisoft (WTF?!) to add to GamePass. This is fucking stupid.
Click to expand...
I know right? Imagine if they had just founded new studios with all of that money.
Banjo64 said:
rOE4f54.jpg


Michael Jordan Lol GIF
Click to expand...
This thread is getting good again! :messenger_tears_of_joy: Just the type of entertainment I need.
I didn't get a chance to post this yesterday, but more weeks of this with a likely similar ending has me like this:
 
PaintTinJr

PaintTinJr

Member
Going by CMA front of house Cardell's TV interview I would assume this new merger is going to pass - despite being no better to stop an SLC than the last deal - and she's wants to cash-in on the win of blocking the original deal.

In contrast if I was guessing what the CMA phase 1 Inquiry group - assuming they aren't politically neutered - looking at this new merger will do, I would assume they would block it.

The easy to see problem with this new offer, is that for it to truly represent a competitive market, the rights that Microsoft would be divesting would need to be sold off for the full valuation of ATVI ($75).

The obvious reason for that valuation would be because for Ubisoft to indeed be a full independent actor with those license rights, they would have to retain the potential to kill off the entire B2P sales of all ATVI games (that Microsoft would hold the rights to) because this is the current scenario for ATVI and the very reason they don't do day and date streaming like gamepass, because it kills sales and is a loss leader to gain subscriptions.

Just the suggestion that Ubisoft could afford these rights - while being worth a fraction of ATVI - is in itself a major red herring for the CMA, and illustrates that this is just a continuation of Microsoft distorting and damaging competition by using money to buy off consumers and kill competition, which is semantically no different to offering more money to buy ATVI and just waiting longer to get what they want.

The Microsoft's SLC axe falling -possibly as late as - 15years later doesn't fix the CMA's Cloud SLC IMO, because from an investment perspective, what investors want to spend big in a cloud startup and do well for x years only to be displaced when Microsoft regain full control of new game streaming rights? The nascent market competition is still massively harmed if innovators and investors are still facing the same prebuilt massive competitor, now or in 15years.

Although the 15years thing is all a bit of misdirection IMO because sales of license rights fall way below the CMA purview AFAIK, say one record label sells and transfers the license rights to the Beatles music to another company wouldn't be an M&A issue. So Microsoft reacquiring ATVIs cloud license rights from Ubisoft could in theory happen any time before the 15years - or in the event Ubisoft goes bust - and if the ownership is a remedy, it once again appears to be behavioural and not structural to control whom would hold those rights, which the CMA are opposed to such babysitting.

Equally, the part about making non Windows streaming versions of games, in reality is another behavioural remedy, because Microsoft control all the studios making the games, so if they just don't bother, Ubisoft having "rights" doesn't mean much when the leverage Microsoft have over them could be substantial enough to ensure they never enforced that right. So a forced divestment of the studios should be required to make that structural.

IMO the CMA have been very short sight in the deal they killed by not having a console SLC present because much of what is wrong with this new offer is part overlapping with a console slc of trying to take away a console competitors income through give away funding as is the gamepass cloud streaming model Microsoft want to use to corner the market in a 10-15year period.

Let's say for arguments sake the complexity of this offer - despite being no better - ties the CMA in legal nots trying to defend a determination in a Judicial review appeal, the lack of console slc from the CMA would then mean Microsoft could just repeat this process to buy TakeTwo, giving their streaming rights to Ubisoft, and then buy EA, rinse and repeat.


Hopefully with this going all the way back to phase one, the CMA inquiry group can get their act together and see all the other issues like DirectX in Cloud OS - when both physical console and physical PCs get replaced by cloud gaming - and the console SLC from the Booty email gets reintroduced.
 
Last edited:
Ozzy Onya A2Z

Ozzy Onya A2Z

Member
Bernardougf said:
Peolple are really trying to spin this as a WIN for MS after all the trials, and concessions, and 3 5 10 15 years no exclusive deals, and still the deal is back to stage 01 of pre approval by the CMA after what ? 2 years? and the EU is going to revision their case again probably .. I think anyone here can pretty much guarantee that none of this shit was in Phil's plans for this acquisition when he decided to go for COD and the other content ... at this point is not a spin is a fucking twister trying to make this a WIN for MS
Click to expand...

Seems to me the deal is beyond what you describe as a loss for MS here.

It's more instead of spending money on taxes MS reduced their tax bill enough to add in less than half the value of an asset like ABK themselves while locking down some of the biggest IPs/talent and a major entrance/sustain into mobile/cloud.

Yeah I'm sure MS are going to feel terrible over the next decade about this deal /S. You're stuck in Sony/Ninty/old console way of thinking, I'm glad MS doesn't subscribe to your takes, nor do I.
 
Last edited:
BlueLyria

BlueLyria

Member
Heisenberg007 said:
He shits on GAF in every tweet, while also creates alts to circumvent his ban and hang out with us here 😄

Click to expand...
Sorry for the meta posting, but I vividly remember Senjutsu denouncing GAF and how this forum was horrible, shit, toxic and other things a bit before his perma ban (I got recollections of that because it happened a bit before the FTC vs MS trial and that was fun to listen on the background), so if he hates gaf that much why would he make an alt to come back here? Just give it a rest lmao, there hasn't happened anything in this deal for like almost 2 months now lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Microsoft has Closed the Activision Blizzard King Deal
22 23 24 25 26
1K
94K
MasterCornholio replied
Microsoft now says the CMA was ‘tough and fair’ over Activision Blizzard deal
Opinion Business Game Dev
17
3K
SportsFan581 replied
FTC appeals to block already-completed Microsoft-Activision deal
2
63
7K
Mythoclast replied
  • Locked
UK minister defends CMA's decision to block MS/ABK
News
0
1K
Daniel_Mallorca1985 replied
  • Locked
Microsoft to sell off Activision cloud gaming rights to Ubisoft in bid for UK approval
News Business 2 3 4
154
17K
Spyxos replied
Top Bottom