• 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.
PaintTinJr

PaintTinJr

Member
mckmas8808 said:
WOW!!!! This is bad.

Edited: Oh, I see this is for the original deal. Nothing to see here.
Click to expand...
No, I think your first reaction was correct. The points raised in the document seem like the CMA inquiry group are using language to explain to a Judicial review appeal judge (at the CAT) the nature of the deal.

The document highlighting the standard process in the "case law" to not reargue the CMA decision in the period between draft and final was a clear example of the inquiry group's displeasure at the way Microsoft have handled the situation. That, along with them concluding that the "special reasons/materially different market" means to reargue with the CMA with a proposal that was the same as before, feels like the inquiry group don't need much more messing around to take this 50:50 situation and just close the door on the wiggle room and block it for the anti competitive market play that it is.

Smith in the CNBC interview looks like he understands it is a split decision, now and I think the question about the split fee ramping up was placed there by Microsoft as a means of them walking away early - if they get the nod of a fail from the CMA - and claiming it was a money saver decision.
 
Last edited:
Bernoulli

Bernoulli

M2 slut
PaintTinJr said:
No, I think your first reaction was correct. The points raised in the document seem like the CMA inquiry group are using language to explain to a Judicial review appeal judge (at the CAT) the nature of the deal.

The document highlighting the standard process in the "case law" to not reargue the CMA decision in the period between draft and final was a clear example of the inquiry group's displeasure at the way Microsoft have handled the situation. That, along with them concluding that the "special reasons/materially different market" means to reargue with the CMA with a proposal that was the same as before, feels like the inquiry group don't need much more messing around to take this 50:50 situation and just close the door on the wiggle room and block it for the anti competitive market play that it is.

Smith in the CNBC interview looks like he understands it is a split decision, now and I think the question about the split fee ramping up was placed there by Microsoft as a means of them walking away early - if they get the nod of a fail from the CMA - and claiming it was a money saver decision.
Click to expand...
But they have until 15 September until it goes to 4,5 B
 
MasterCornholio

MasterCornholio

Member
PaintTinJr said:
Yeah, that's what I mean. The question is so that they can exit before that date, if the CMA give them an early, but firm indication they are blocking again and just writing it up formally.

Microsoft could sell the early exit to shareholders as them saving money.
Click to expand...

I guess that is true. If there was any indication the CMA would block this or ask for further concessions it would make sense for them to drop it earlier than later.

All we can do is wait and see what will happen. With the way this has gone I don't know what to expect anymore.
 
The Pleasure

The Pleasure

Gold Member
Bernoulli said:
He says he thinks about the breakup fee everyday
Click to expand...
He's waiting for his breakup
Ir0Ok3g.jpg
 
U

Unknown Soldier

Member
PaintTinJr said:
Yeah, that's what I mean. The question is so that they can exit before that date, if the CMA give them an early, but firm indication they are blocking again and just writing it up formally.

Microsoft could sell the early exit to shareholders as them saving money.
Click to expand...
Microsoft shareholders have never been in favor of this acquisition from day 1. Just look at MSFT stock performance whenever there was news of another obstacle, the stock would go up on those days.

Source: I'm a longtime MSFT shareholder
 
PaintTinJr

PaintTinJr

Member
Bernoulli said:
It makes sense because i expected a bigger increase than just 500M since july
Click to expand...
My suspicion is that the deal extension with ATVI was only automatic because the CMA were no longer being sued and were considering a proposal to approve, and the extra $500M was to bridge the extra days it took for the appeal to be adjourned beyond the date and a sweetener to offer the ATVI shareholder extra $1 bonus.

I think if ATVI had wanted to walk on the actual date it would have been to the contract, but at risk of legal challenge by Microsoft when the adjournment decision and continued assessment of a proposal by the CMA was already rendered by the CAT judge, just conditionally.

The time lines matching the other ramping up fees look like ATVI added terms anticipating extra time, leftover for Microsoft, after the original deal would be refused for "special reasons" and knowing they would try for a restructure with a new phase 1, which they'd automatically be bound to, as it seems like the ramp up fees and dates are set to vaguely align with furthest dates for new proposal phase 1 and phase 2 continuation, which if true make this whole thing being decided by an appeal unlikely, now IMO, as extensions across active appeals look like they are a exit points for ATVI to cash out.

It was interesting that Brad Smith in the last interview acknowledged, more than once, that the regulators(the CMA) decide if the deal passes, which also makes me think that a new phase 1 is part admission by Microsoft to the first report findings and limits what they'd be credibly argue against in a new appeal, and have been outplayed by the CMA.
 
The Pleasure

The Pleasure

Gold Member
PaintTinJr said:
My suspicion is that the deal extension with ATVI was only automatic because the CMA were no longer being sued and were considering a proposal to approve, and the extra $500M was to bridge the extra days it took for the appeal to be adjourned beyond the date and a sweetener to offer the ATVI shareholder extra $1 bonus.

I think if ATVI had wanted to walk on the actual date it would have been to the contract, but at risk of legal challenge by Microsoft when the adjournment decision and continued assessment of a proposal by the CMA was already rendered by the CAT judge, just conditionally.

The time lines matching the other ramping up fees look like ATVI added terms anticipating extra time, leftover for Microsoft, after the original deal would be refused for "special reasons" and knowing they would try for a restructure with a new phase 1, which they'd automatically be bound to, as it seems like the ramp up fees and dates are set to vaguely align with furthest dates for new proposal phase 1 and phase 2 continuation, which if true make this whole thing being decided by an appeal unlikely, now IMO, as extensions across active appeals look like they are a exit points for ATVI to cash out.

It was interesting that Brad Smith in the last interview acknowledged, more than once, that the regulators(the CMA) decide if the deal passes, which also makes me think that a new phase 1 is part admission by Microsoft to the first report findings and limits what they'd be credibly argue against in a new appeal, and have been outplayed by the CMA.
Click to expand...
EMOTIONAL TERRORISM! SenjutsuSage SenjutsuSage
 
PaintTinJr

PaintTinJr

Member
Negotiator101 said:
Yeah, but Microsoft really want this to go through. I suppose if the CMA block again (unlikely as it is) Microsoft may give up at that point, maybe 🤷
Click to expand...
I'd disagree that it is unlikely. It is a coin toss currently IMO- because the inquiry group just applying the same process as they have throughout they'd block it for it being semantically no different to behavioural remedies and does nothing for innovative start-ups to have long-term global success or does nothing to encourage venture capitalists to invest in UK cloud start-ups, as they would absent the merger. If Microsoft were confident they'd have sent out Bobby and Satya for interviews IMO, not - maybe losing - Brad, but at least they didn't send out - definitely losing - Phil.
 
Last edited:
DJ12

DJ12

Member
PaintTinJr said:
I'd disagree that it is unlikely. It is a coin toss currently IMO- because the inquiry group just applying the same process as they have throughout they'd block it for it being semantically no different to behavioural remedies and does nothing for innovative start-ups to have long-term global success or does nothing to encourage venture capitalists to invest in UK cloud start-ups, as they would absent the merger. If Microsoft were confident they'd have sent out Bobby and Satya for interviews IMO, not - maybe losing - Brad, but at least they didn't send out - definitely losing - Phil.
Click to expand...
Besides, we've all heard about the other deals. I wouldnt be surprised if even though ubi would control the cloud aspect. It would have to be through azure, which they'd still have to pay for, with ms still taking 80 to 90% of the revenue for from any 'sales'.

There will be very little in this for ubisoft in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
PaintTinJr

PaintTinJr

Member
DJ12 said:
Besides, we've all heard about the other deals. I wouldnt be surprised if even though ubi would control the cloud aspect. It would have to be through azure, which they'd still have to pay for, with ms still taking 80 to 90% of the revenue for from any 'sales'.

There will be very little in this for ubisoft in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure, Sony and Ubisoft haven't seemed close since the original AC first launched on PS3, which resulted in a better/parity clause on 360 and X1 that resulted in the 900p debacle.

Ubisoft having sided with Microsoft over this deal to help make it happen makes me think they have a grudge about the blcok of EA Play, Ubisoft+ originally on PSN, and games like Death Stranding and Ghost of Tsushima eating into AC open world hype or over Sony funding Jade Raymond's studio. Ubisoft now look firmly positioned to be a fallback purchase for Microsoft if the ATVI deal fail, and I doubt Sony would complain and would just compete harder with more first party games in AC genres.

I agree that the mobile carve out, and the EU rights carve out mean it isn't really merger ex-cloud, especially when control of the important MTX assets will probably be fully controlled by Microsoft, just like the studios are, effectively giving Ubisoft no influence.
 
U

Unknown Soldier

Member
I'm telling you guys, we ain't gonna hear new shit about this the whole month of September.

Summer has come and passed
The innocent can never last
Wake me up when September ends​
Like my fathers come to pass
Seven years has gone so fast
Wake me up when September ends​
Here comes the rain again
Falling from the stars
Drenched in my pain again
Becoming who we are​
As my memory rests
But never forgets what I lost
Wake me up when September ends​
 
feynoob

feynoob

Banned
Topher said:
Welcome back! Yeah.....when CMA finally approves this thing I guess. Ain't much to talk about. Besides.......Starfield.
Click to expand...
I am going to be busy playing that once it drops.
As for this deal, I don't see it getting approved.
CMA has made their mind by completing the full block.
At this point, MS needs to accept their loss instead of wasting 4.5b.
If it's gets approved, then all of us will be free from this thread.
 
KungFucius

KungFucius

King Snowflake
Unknown Soldier said:
Microsoft shareholders have never been in favor of this acquisition from day 1. Just look at MSFT stock performance whenever there was news of another obstacle, the stock would go up on those days.

Source: I'm a longtime MSFT shareholder
Click to expand...
Shareholders don't make the price go up, it is new shareholders & speculators. That said, shareholders want it to go up so they will be happy with anything that does that.
 
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