Microsoft-Activision-Blizzard Discussion Thread |OT2| The NeverEnding Acquisition

[Vivir]

@TheLegendaryGamer

WTF does that even mean? Care to actually post about the topic at hand instead of saying we are the same as Sony cult? The hell?

Look at the post above me.

I think some folks need a break from all of this.

[TheBrightestSun]

@Jorge_Alexander_Acos

…t jez said but… How do you probe this deal is ilegal? (Seeing this is the reason the FTC challenged the deal) theres no:

Quantitave/qualitative analysis telling us how it will negatively affect the market. Statements both from third party nor from consumers to even begin to grasp what the video game market think about the deal in the US. Not a single mention of consumers welfare nor workers. Heck, not even a single chart to help us understand their (made up from nowhere) "high end console market) and why this would negatively affect said market (and if it does, how? With data and analysis thank you).

backing their lawsuit and its not preventing innovation, on the contrary, its promoting it. Im in the opinion of those saying the FTC decided to challenge the deal as soon as it was announced.

“Illegal merger” is just a blanket term, something to rally the masses. “big tech”, “illegal”, “monopoly” and so on.

Before trying to regulate mergers, they should codify things like “mind share” for example aka “the competitor X has the advantage due to mind share”. It is always ignored. I would call it “phantom market share” or something.

[EldenDarkwraith]

@BRiT

Perhaps not, but there are better ways of conveying that in discussions, by addressing the persons actions and avoiding the person entirely. Thats the clearest way a poster can convey their actual intentions.

Lmao Pinocchio is the classic fairy tale story of a liar, no one mentioned physical attributes, you are unconsciously projecting your thoughts here

[No-1HoloLens-Fan]

@AllianceOfficer

Lina Khan is supposed to be out on maternity leave in January for the birth of her baby. She has said she will return to work quickly.

So from January she will take leave ?

Or is she joining back after birth in January?

Either way, it will have major impact on the proceedings of the FTC

[TheBrightestSun]

@No-1HoloLens-Fan

Either way, it will have major impact on the proceedings of the FTC

Not really. Though during this period a lot of people have vacations.

[No-1HoloLens-Fan]

@TheBrightestSun

Not really. Though during this period a lot of people have vacations.

Not talking about the year end holidays… But about her paternity leave…

[Astrakan]

Lina Khan

You know, in a way I can see where she’s coming from in terms of a general approach to what the FTC should be doing. Where I don’t follow is how this deal fits with what she’s talking about.

Obviously the “unrelated benefit” she’s referring to is the improvement to the working conditions of ABK employees. But I just don’t see how this deal would result in “reduced competition” - if anything it would result in increased competition.

In other words, a win-win as far both unrelated benefits and competition is concerned.

[TheBrightestSun]

@Astrakan

You know, in a way I can see where she’s coming from in terms of a general approach to what the FTC should be doing

The very idea of “a competition for competition sake” - the one she is trying to push - is absurd and stupid and denies the very logic of doing business.

@Astrakan

Obviously the “unrelated benefit” she’s referring to is the improvement to the working conditions of ABK employees

Nah, she is talking about for example “better prices for the customers” (I think even in her Amazon document she was arguing that consumer benefits should not be the only thing looked at by the regulators or something). Basically she tries to “fix” the market configuration to a certain degree - just like those senators that defined ceiling on mergers - where it is not allowed to grow beyond a certain point even if consumer might benefit from that, because it makes it difficult for others to compete.

Of course such approach leads to a lot of unforeseen consequences but who cares about them after all?

@Astrakan

But I just don’t see how this deal would result in “reduced competition” - if anything it would result in increased competition.

“Big tech grows stronger and that means that it is more difficult for smaller companies to compete”.

It is basically a religious zealotry at this point.

[TheBrightestSun]

From Idas

The Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) announced today a new global M&A division for effective merger control of foreign deals to review local and international acquisitions involving foreign companies.

They said that the MS/ABK deal is one of those acquisitions, recently requiring in-depth economic analysis and legal review.

The agency’s M&A division is formed by only 8 officials Grimacing face (the FTC had more than 10 people only for the MS/ABK case).

[Vonterribad (Matt)]

@TheBrightestSun

From Idas

Im rather sleep deprived from a newborne, is Idas throwing shade at size of FTC here, or that the Korean regulation committee is understaffed?

[TheLegendaryGamer]

@Vivir

Look at the post above me.

I think some folks need a break from all of this.

(post deleted by author)

What did it say?

[TheBrightestSun]

@Vonterribad

Im rather sleep deprived from a newborne, is Idas throwing shade at size of FTC here, or that the Korean regulation committee is understaffed?

Basically it is small (korean one)

[Andodalf]

@Daniel

Heads up it actually cannot close fully until 2024+, unless the FTC folds or the judge blocks their request. The FTC has booked in their case internally in August 2023 and then we’ll know if they want to fight it or not and if they choose yes then it’ll be like mid 2024 when the case actually starts and that could take months or years.

Microsoft could close the deal over the FTC but the FTC can still sue them and wind it back, so I wouldn’t be expecting 2023 unless CMA + EC approve and FTC drops the case.

Nah, The FTC would have to win its federal case to case the deal to be walked back. Seeing how shit their case is as of now, i doubt we see that hold up the deal closing in 2023, if the CMA and EC approve

[BadNews]

I agree with others that this thread is a shitshow and we need to refrain from posting about physical appearances . I know the Pinocchio tale but still shouldn’t be said, and mixing that with Pocahontas just doesn’t sit right with me. Also I feel there’s too many statements that others feel are absolute which is not true because there are many times many were wrong

Anyways, just want to get that out of my system because I feel many need to cool down because this thread is giving these boards a bad name imo. It’s really getting into fanboyism territory that many here dislike when talking about other platforms

[Infamy]

I mean, I agree, but it’s mainly 1-2 people out of 138 topic posters, one of which who constantly has his posts flagged. It’s not like its an echo chamber of behavior.

[Daniel]

@Andodalf

Nah, The FTC would have to win its federal case to case the deal to be walked back. Seeing how shit their case is as of now, i doubt we see that hold up the deal closing in 2023, if the CMA and EC approve

Wall of text heh

The FTC’s case isn’t until August 2023 internally, they can still use an injunction to block the deal in the tracks and take it to the federal court. The reason why they haven’t done it yet is because CMA/EC hasn’t spoke on the deal yet and they’re just crossing their fingers that they both block because then Microsoft will probably walk away.

Even if CMA/EC approve the deal, the FTC can still go ahead even if it is a weak case and this is my point. FTC can still pull the injunction card to block the deal in it’s tracks then Microsoft can’t just complete the deal like they could mid next year if CMA/EC approve and there is no injunction.

An injunction is a smash glass in case of emergency and the FTC know they don’t need to do that right now and they know they would probably lose in court so they want to drag it out as long as they can as of right now before CMA/EC.

Microsoft wants the FTC to pull that card because it speeds everything up and the FTC can’t screw around anymore, so if CMA/EC approve we might even see Microsoft close the deal without the FTC to try and force them into the injunction (the only way to quickly stop it) which is bad for the FTC.

I might have been a bit strong about the case can’t fully close until 2024, like I just said here Microsoft can pull the rug out of underneath the FTC, but as of right now the case for FTC internally is August 2023 so I was technically going off that.

Here’s how I think it will go down at the end of the day + some other options.

CMA will come out in the next 3 weeks with the first draft of their phase 2 findings, it will find that Microsoft could use COD and other titles to do anticompetitive things in cloud and multi-game subscriptions

• Outcome 1: However we do not see Microsoft’s position in the market strong enough to cause monopoly or anti-competitive behaviour that could severely impact the cloud, console and multi-game subscriptions. We approve the deal without any remedies.

- Outcome 2: We have beyond reasonable doubt that this deal will cause harm to multi-game subscriptions, console and cloud markets. Parties will have X time to submit any remedies that could ease these concerns.

- Outcome 2.2: Microsoft will offer remedies that please the CMA and the deal will be approved after a few months of back and forth.

EU will come out end of Jan with their statements of the deal, it will find that Microsoft could use COD and other titles to do anticompetitive things in cloud and multi-game subscriptions

- Outcome 1: However we do not see Microsoft’s position in the market strong enough to cause monopoly or anti-competitive behaviour that could severely impact the cloud, console and multi-game subscriptions. We approve the deal without any remedies.

• Outcome 2: We have beyond reasonable doubt that this deal will cause harm to multi-game subscriptions, console and cloud markets. Parties will have X time to submit any remedies that could ease these concerns.
• Outcome 2.2: Microsoft will offer remedies that please the EU and the deal will be approved after a few months of back and forth.

[Paxton]

@Daniel

… of back and forth.

EU will come out end of Jan with their statements of the deal, it will find that Microsoft could use COD and other titles to do anticompetitive things in cloud and multi-game subscriptions

• Outcome 1: However we do not see Microsoft’s position in the market strong enough to cause monopoly or anti-competitive behaviour that could severely impact the cloud, console and multi-game subscriptions. We approve the deal without any remedies.

Outcome 2: We have beyond reasonable doubt that this deal will cause harm to multi-game subscriptions, console and cloud markets. Parties will have X time to submit any remedies that could ease these concerns. Outcome 2.2: Microsoft will offer remedies that please the EU and the deal will be approved after a few months of back and forth.

No matter what happens, the FTC is walking towards a nightmare if SCOTUS judges in favor of Facebook, they’re probably banking too in the republicans insatisfaction with big tech that would make an upset decision, but Microsoft is a very neutral one and would have a better reception with them.

It will get even worse if CMA and EU rules in favor of the acquisition because FTC who’s trying to make an example out of Microsoft will be made out of an example instead.

[Daniel]

@Paxton

No matter what happens, the FTC is walking towards a nightmare if SCOTUS judges in favor of Facebook, they’re probably banking too in the republicans insatisfaction with big tech that would make an upset decision, but Microsoft is a very neutral one and would have a better reception with them.

It will get even worse if CMA and EU rules in favor of the acquisition because FTC who’s trying to make an example out of Microsoft will be made out of an example instead.

Yeah if the judge votes in favor of FB, that’s a big yikes and awkward moment for FTC lol, they’d be lucky if Microsoft wants to even sign remedies at that point.

[AllianceOfficer]

@Daniel

… of back and forth.

EU will come out end of Jan with their statements of the deal, it will find that Microsoft could use COD and other titles to do anticompetitive things in cloud and multi-game subscriptions

• Outcome 1: However we do not see Microsoft’s position in the market strong enough to cause monopoly or anti-competitive behaviour that could severely impact the cloud, console and multi-game subscriptions. We approve the deal without any remedies.

Outcome 2: We have beyond reasonable doubt that this deal will cause harm to multi-game subscriptions, console and cloud markets. Parties will have X time to submit any remedies that could ease these concerns. Outcome 2.2: Microsoft will offer remedies that please the EU and the deal will be approved after a few months of back and forth.

That’s a fair assessment. I will not be surprised if we do not get to the point of the EU making their statements. The EC has rules where if all of the theories of harm are removed by remedies then they have to vote on whether on not to approve the deal (even if ahead of outcomes. Microsoft could hear the CMA rulinga an make initial concessions to the EC to try to avoid their late January statements.

[Daniel]

@AllianceOfficer

That’s a fair assessment. I will not be surprised if we do not get to the point of the EU making their statements. The EC has rules where if all of the theories of harm are removed by remedies then they have to vote on whether on not to approve the deal (even if ahead of outcomes. Microsoft could hear the CMA rulinga an make initial concessions to the EC to try to avoid their late January statements.

Yeah the EU could approve the deal with remedies or not next month, if Microsoft tries to fast track it. Let’s put it this way, if you thought the last couple of months were spicy, the real shit is about to go down in the next 4 weeks so buckle in.