Microsoft-Activision-Blizzard Discussion Thread |OT4| - Dawn of the Final Day, Deal is done!

[hexbacon]

@Zappy5

Unnamed sources. We’ve seen a bunch of these reports I’m not sure that I’d invest too much stock in them.

Leaks for the EU side have almost always been accurate

[Sparda3g]

@Zappy5

Unnamed sources. We’ve seen a bunch of these reports I’m not sure that I’d invest too much stock in them.

Isn’t Bloomberg the one that breaks many news related here and being right? I think Seekingalpha is the one that’s hit and miss.

[Hue]

@Sparda3g

Isn’t Bloomberg the one that breaks many news related here and being right? I think Seekingalpha is the one that’s hit and miss.

Yep I remember Bloomberg getting one part of this whole debacle wrong, but they are mostly always correct.

If I remember correctly they originally hinted that the original CMA deal was a done deal and within 24 hours it clearly wasn’t!

[Sparda3g]

@Hue

Yep I remember Bloomberg getting one part of this whole debacle wrong, but they are mostly always correct.

If I remember correctly they originally hinted that the original CMA deal was a done deal and within 24 hours it clearly wasn’t!

Can’t blame them. CMA is Vince Russo of Government. Swerve to say “You thought so but wrong!”

[Zappy5]

@hexbacon

Leaks for the EU side have almost always been accurate

There was a similar leak the other week and then EU said ‘nope’….it’s probably right but still just a report.

[TheAshCohen09 (Ash Cohen)]

@Hue

Yep I remember Bloomberg getting one part of this whole debacle wrong, but they are mostly always correct.

If I remember correctly they originally hinted that the original CMA deal was a done deal and within 24 hours it clearly wasn’t!

That was the Financial Times that hinted the CMA deal was done

[Sparda3g]

@TheAshCohen09

That was the Financial Times that hinted the CMA deal was done

Oh it was them. Still, swerve was made by CMA.

[Hue]

@TheAshCohen09

That was the Financial Times that hinted the CMA deal was done

Oops my bad.

[Jorge_Alexander_Acos (Jorge Alexander Acosta Duarte)]

@Sparda3g

Oh it was them. Still, swerve was made by CMA.

Yeah I remember I was the one who found that article but didnt realize it was the opinion of one of their writers

[biglo25]

seeking alpha only good thing is that it transcribes the subscriber only material like bloomberg or one of the law stuff that idas and other lawyers use

[DixieDean82]

@Jorge_Alexander_Acos

Yeah I remember I was the one who found that article but didnt realize it was the opinion of one of their writers

I actually remember this well. Anyone who says ‘CMA were expected to pass’ was misinformed. There were no sources saying they would pass. Zero. It was just that one writers opinion.

And then to add to the madness, people then started saying they expected the EU to block, despite the fact legit sources said they would approve the merger!

[biglo25]

Thanks to TheDiscoManDances on Resetera for the find

don’t know why the FTC just doesn’t give up

608713.2023.10.10_ccs_motion_to_reopen_discovery_public_final.pdf

This time, they want to re-open discovery in order to gain info on Microsoft’s deals with Ubisoft and Sony. Apparently they were caught off-guard by the Ubisoft agreement and found out about it the same time we did.

Microsoft gave them the terms of the agreement, but the FTC wants to more about the rationale behind it. They say that the payment structure of the Ubisoft agreement “raises doubts about whether it could ever be profitable for Ubisoft to license these games to multi-game content subscription service providers that offer streaming”. They want more info from Microsoft and Ubisoft about it. Specifically, they say “Ubisoft’s ability, incentives, and plans to market cloud streaming rights for Activision games are now highly relevant”.

The FTC also wants to know about the Microsoft-Sony deal execution. They are aware of the early negotiations and Sony’s initial thinking of the deal but now they want to know about “the circumstances surrounding Sony’s decision in July 2023 to accept the offer”, which occurred after discovery deadline.

[peter42O]

The Ubisoft deal was done in August, wasn’t it? So even Microsoft wasn’t fully set with it until then since the CMA approved that deal. Why would FTC know this in June? LMAO

FTC is such a fucking joke and wasting my tax dollars in the process. In all honesty, I wish the U.S. Government would just shut down the FTC because I don’t see them as being beneficial to anyone in the U.S what so fucking ever. Have they even looked into the Albertsons/Kroger supermarket merger? Or that airline someone else previously mentioned? Seriously, shut them down and refund me my tax money!!!

[nursegamer20]

@biglo25

…agreement, but the FTC wants to more about the rationale behind it. They say that the payment structure of the Ubisoft agreement “raises doubts about whether it could ever be profitable for Ubisoft to license these games to multi-game content subscription service providers that offer streaming”. They want more info from Microsoft and Ubisoft about it. Specifically, they say “Ubisoft’s ability, incentives, and plans to market cloud streaming rights for Activision games are now highly relevant”. The FTC also wants to know about the Microsoft-Sony deal execution. They are aware of the early negotiations and Sony’s initial thinking of the deal but now they want to know about “the circumstances surrounding Sony’s decision in July 2023 to accept the offer”, which occurred after discovery deadline.

Lina Khan really wants that win, even if it’s probably impossible nowadays lol. Sucks for her as she might not even be the head of FTC if/when their appeal goes anywhere(if at all). She got to let it go.

[BRiT]

@biglo25

This time, they want to re-open discovery in order to gain info on Microsoft’s deals with Ubisoft and Sony. Apparently they were caught off-guard by the Ubisoft agreement and found out about it the same time we did.

I believe this is a filing in the FTC internal court, which doesn’t matter at all.

[Jorge_Alexander_Acos (Jorge Alexander Acosta Duarte)]

@biglo25

Microsoft gave them the terms of the agreement, but the FTC wants to more about the rationale behind it. They say that the payment structure of the Ubisoft agreement “raises doubts about whether it could ever be profitable for Ubisoft to license these games to multi-game content subscription service providers that offer streaming”. They want more info from Microsoft and Ubisoft about it. Specifically, they say “Ubisoft’s ability, incentives, and plans to market cloud streaming rights for Activision games are now highly relevant”.

Surely this comes from the loser who asked Phil “Is CoD GoINg tO BE eScluSif? Is DIAbLo gOing TO bE EscLUsif? Is wARcRaft goINg to BE eScLUSig?” or maybe they just don’t know how companies operate which seems possible considering the same losers literally asked Phil why where they acquiring ABK if they could just fund games.

Oh and jut to prevent the same annoying questions that appears here after every insignificant development in recent months I’m going yo give you a quick answer…no, this has not any impact in the deal closing the following days and this is the FTC fighting who knows who as I seriously doubt MS will take them seriously this time.

[commanderbuck]

We’re almost done here folks

[MJ_INC]

@biglo25

…agreement, but the FTC wants to more about the rationale behind it. They say that the payment structure of the Ubisoft agreement “raises doubts about whether it could ever be profitable for Ubisoft to license these games to multi-game content subscription service providers that offer streaming”. They want more info from Microsoft and Ubisoft about it. Specifically, they say “Ubisoft’s ability, incentives, and plans to market cloud streaming rights for Activision games are now highly relevant”. The FTC also wants to know about the Microsoft-Sony deal execution. They are aware of the early negotiations and Sony’s initial thinking of the deal but now they want to know about “the circumstances surrounding Sony’s decision in July 2023 to accept the offer”, which occurred after discovery deadline.

I have no idea what the FTC’s concerns with both agreements could be? Do they think Ubisoft did a deal that would financially hurt themselves over the terms of the deal? And do they think that Microsoft somehow strong armed Sony into signing the deal? The FTC reek of desperation

[Biggzy (Hassan)]

@BRiT

I believe this is a filing in the FTC internal court, which doesn’t matter at all.

The whole system is truly bizarre.

Even if this whole thing goes the distance and orders the merger illegal, the FTC then needs to get a federal judge to order it… where one has already made her decision.

It really is a waste of time.

[Daniel]