So new info is coming out.
Jim Ryan apparently had said in private he never expected CoD to stop releasing on PS. That is not surprising to me.
What is surprising to me is that MS has offered ALL ABK games to release on PS for 10 years and that Steam has declined the offer. Happy to be corrected.
You mean Steam or Sony ? Because Valve themselves said they didnât need an agreement because they trust Microsoft.
I remember Gabe said they trust MS, so maybe that is why they declined? Cause they dont need a formal agreement?
Yep I was just writing the above post 
That and he also said he doesnât want to force publishers to release on their platform with legal contracts, at least something along those lines.
The fact that this is the same judge from that stupid âgamerâs suitâ who had some common sense observations when not granting that injunction really seems like a positive sign when the Microsoft lawyers are bringing the facts and the heat to this level on the inept FTC.
The tweet about Jim ryan got posted to the leaks reddit and good gravy the sony trolls are running the show there
The fact the FTC is applying for a PI so close to the expiry date of the merger agreement I imagine means they have an even more of an uphill task because the judge is more than likely deciding whether the merger goes ahead or not.
Wow. That i some read. Itâs really hard to imagine the PI being granted, but crazier things have happened. Iâm optimistic the judge will follow the law and be reasonable - but definitely not celebrating quite yet.
Looks like things are looking good for MS. However we should never underestimate the judicial system capacity of dropping a turd. Im cautiously optimistic as well.
I do wonder how this is going to play out if/when Xbox owns activision . So can other studios make an Xbox exclusive Crash Bandicoot game? Is tony hawk a forever PlayStation title like call of duty?Can Xbox make dozens of Activision games from og Xbox and Xbox 360 backwards compatible for Xbox and exclude PlayStation from those âexclusiveâ games? If Xbox makes a new StarCraft for PC and Xbox do they also have to make a PlayStation version? Maybe Microsoft feels all these questions are too much of a âgrey areaâ so they donât bother with any of it and keep things very status quo segmented. Just food for thought I guess. The government regulators could approve the deal âŚbut through their broad and vague meddling theyâve basically cemented into place the call of duty saltmine meme, dormant ip will remain so, and traditional PC titles will stay on PC instead of branching out to Xbox.
One interesting thing about this merger is that it appears, from the outside at least, that Sony are not as opposed to it as they once were. They have gone radio silent on it since the CMA decision. They even sort of agreed with MS about cloud gaming.
Thoughts? 
This isnt anything different from any other Microsoft subsidary, its basically the exact same as Zenimax and LinkedIn, ABK would operate separately but still answer to Phil. In fact this was said when the deal was originally announced
As far as divest, subsidaries are nigh impossible to force a divesture when theyâre so entwined in the business,. Regulators have been trying to force Meta to divest Whatsapp and IG for years but its never going to happen because no judge is going to order it, while theyâre not subsidiaries both are heavy entwined into Meta business. The longer a company owns an asset or a subsidiary the harder it becomes to break them up. The same thing will happen to ABK and Xbox. After a few years theyâll be joined by the hip permanently. Thereâs a greater risk of regulators going after Disney and Fox but even that has less than a 1% chance as its been 4 years since that deal finalized
Right now the FTC are trying to force Illumina to divest Grail which is a fairly fresh merger but that has less than a 5% chance of happening, in the very worst case scenario it would go to the SCOTUS who would shoot down the FTC
I wouldnt take that too seriously. Right now the only game that MS offered a guarantee for is COD. Weâve been hearing over the past year and a half about Activision content in general but we know that MS specifically offered Nintendo COD only in the contract and this likely is the same offer they made for Sony
Also Sony hasnt made a fuss about any game aside COD so MS wouldnt offer other ABK games to Sony unless Sony specifically whined about them.
Most important, Sony hasnt agreed to any commitment, all regulators including the CMA tossed the console concern out the window so Sony has been a non factor,
So this makes it even less likely than any new ABK game minus COD would be multiplat
Theory: even Sony realizes regulators like the CMA and especially the FTC are a bigger problem than Microsoft owning ABK. Sony themselves are going to want to acquire in the future and what happens of regulators have too much power? What happens if Sony gets targeted for having a monopoly in the anime streaming market?
My just thoughts
No one knows what is going on and the deal is 50-50 depending on what judge and the actual law has to say
Its clear what the law says, the judge, yeah its unknown.
The question is what is Microsofts and Activision wherewithawl on the deal. Are they willing to appeal if the judge sides with the FTC because then they likely have an even greater chance.
You guys and gals need to read the filing, because holy shit, Microsoft are evicerating the FTC. I strongly recommend reading through in your free time or following Idasâ and Fosspatentsâ summary. The following is only a small taste:
Third, the FTC has failed to identify relevant antitrust markets, dooming their entire case. Why does the FTC contradict REDACTED in this respect? Because recognizing Nintendo and PCs as part of the market would destroy the FTCâs flimsy foreclosure theory: Nintendo has been successful for years without COD, as was the dominant PC game store Valveâs Steam. COD cannot be essential to competition if market participants thrive without it.*
The only evidence the FTC cites to support its position that PCs âare not commercially reasonable alternativesâ is testimony from one Microsoft executive in an unrelated case that "she does not âview the Xbox console as a replacement or substitute for the iPhone or iPad.â FTC. But the iPhone and iPad are both mobile devices, not gaming PCs.
Likewise, Sony Groupâs CEO has admitted that cloud gaming faces substantial âtechnical difficultiesâ and is âvery trickyâ from both a financial and technological standpoint."
The FTC cannot make those showings. As noted, Sony Groupâs CEO recently acknowledged the financial and technical difficulties cloud gaming faces. And even if the FTC had evidence of what this segment would look like in the future, it is wholly speculative that Xbox would participate in it in a meaningful way, REDACTED.
The myriad options available to Sony are fatal to the FTCâs case. Sony could lower prices or improve the quality of its console. It could invest in other first-party or third-party games, as it recently did with Bungie in a deal the FTC quickly cleared. Or, as Sonyâs CEO told investors in the wake of news of Microsoftâs acquisition of Activision, it could âgrow [Sonyâs] own studios organicallyâ to increase Sonyâs own value proposition to consumers.
oRgAnIc gRoWtH lmao, shots fired
The only plausible reason why Sony has declined to sign is not because it fears âforeclosureâ (which it could prevent with the stroke of a pen), but because it believes this transaction will make third-place Xbox a more effective competitor. Sony is presumably worried that putting Activision games in Game Pass âday and dateâ will increase consumer interest in subscription servicesâa business model Sony believes is less profitable than making consumers pay $70 for each new release. But that belief is a reason to approve this deal because the antitrust laws âwere enacted for the protection of competition not competitors.â The antitrust laws do not protect a dominant firmâs profit margin.
Microsoftâs acquisition of Mojangâs Minecraft franchise in 2014 illustrates why all of these incentives cut against withholding. Like COD, Minecraft is a popular franchise with substantial cross-platform play. Under the reasoning advanced by the FTC, Xbox would have had incentives to make Minecraft exclusive to its Xbox. It did not, and has not since. On the contrary, Xbox has expanded access to the game, and continues to release new editions available on PlayStation. Indeed, Defendants are not aware of any situation where a publisher has chosen to take exclusive an existing game franchise that is multi-player and offers cross-platform play. There is no reason to believe this would be the first.
The FTCâs strained analogy to Microsoftâs acquisition of ZeniMax, a fundamentally different game developer, likewise fails to establish that COD would become exclusive. The first two ZeniMax games Xbox released post-acquisition (Deathloop and Ghostwire) were exclusives for Sony, REDACTED.The ZeniMax story thus says nothing about what Xbox would do with an existing, multi-player, cross-platform franchise like CODâthe relevant analogy there is Minecraft.
In drawing its analogy to Zenimax, the FTC wrongly implies that Xbox misled the European Commission about its intent regarding future Zenimax titles. The European Commission took the extraordinary step of responding directly when the FTC made this claim in its administrative complaint, by stating publicly that Microsoft did not make any âcommitmentsâ to the European Commission, nor did the European Commission ârely on any statements made by Microsoft about the future distribution strategy concerning ZeniMaxâs games.â Instead, the European Commission cleared the transaction âunconditionally as it concluded that the transaction would not raise competition concerns.â
Also, what happened to all the fanboys and pundits that claimed Yoshidaâs (Sony CEO) statement about cloud gaming is a nothingburger and would not affect the ABK deal? Microsoft has mentioned his statement no less than 3 times and this is against the FTC, whos main argument is the console theory of harm (and not cloud) which was dropped by every other regulator in the world to include the CMA of all things. This means they will definitely use it in the CAT hearing since the whole crux of the block is related to the cloud SLC.
Iâm starting to feel bad for the lawyer whoâs going to argue for the FTC, poor guy/gal is going to get eaten alive
Im also starting to seen why Corley gave MS everything they wanted. 5 days of non stop beatings
Yeah, I couldnât sleep for a bit last night & read through it - for legal filings itâs pretty riveting.
The upside potential is atleast as big as as the downside potential. Even in the worst case the stock would fall in the short term, but I think would be back into the 80 range in no time. I also guess thereâs a 75% chance the deal does go through.
Iâm a seasoned investor so I can handle my own decisions.