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

That is definitely a bad outcome but there’s only one body to blame for this, and that’s the FTC.

As a Canadian I look at the US as horrendously underregulated, but we’re not too far behind. The reality is that our elected left-wing parties in both nations are quite neoliberal, not as much as the right wing but enough to do a poor job of preventing anti-consumer markets.

In Canada we let two massive telecommunication companies merge earlier in the year. When it came to cell phone plans we had slim pickings to begin with. For the past 3 years I’ve been paying $75 for a 2 GB plan on a prepaid phone. I was getting charged $0.50 each time friends sent me texted images. Half of that is on me for not looking for a deal (which I recently did and I’m paying $45 for 20 GB now, thankfully), but I shouldn’t have to hunt for a deal just so that I’m not ripped off. Anyways, our government allowed that but then had the gall to claim that this deal was anti-competitive.

If a person like me, who is as pro-regulation as they come, is pointing out how poorly the FTC handle this it says a lot about how they dropped the ball here.

The EU, in where they squeezed out concessions from Microsoft, did exactly what should be done.

This situation also open my eyes to why the FTC is so ineffectual: They’re a little too concerned about mergers and acquisitions over business practices. We’re talking about a console industry that was trending towards only having one home console machine. That is, until Spencer convinced Nadella that consoles were still worth pursuing. We have companies like Home Depot and Walmart that have eradicated small businesses. This wasn’t through any M&A.

Vertical mergers often help consumers at the end of the day because they can result in cheaper prices. The worst case scenario are status quo prices with higher profit margins. The only time it’s a problem is when all suppliers are purchased, something that wasn’t the case here.

The FTC lost sight of their purpose. They don’t seem to realize that Microsoft serves various markets and their entrance into those markets is a good thing for competition in those markets. The Zune died, along with many other great mp3 players, and the iPod completely dominated the market. Windows Phone died, along with Blackberry, and the phone market is lesser for it. The Xbox wasn’t too far behind. The FTC seems keen to have fewer competitors in the market if it’s a big tech company trying to get in that market (a market full of other big tech companies).

It just doesn’t make sense at all.

14 Likes

You are right. They ring a bell whenever two companies want to merge, but the system give free reign to any companies for dominating its market by any means.

The fact that we all know how Sony bought its dominance (and any other company in the same place would have done same thing) and politics allowed to do it freely means more to the failure of the system.

1 Like

Ok, hypothetically speaking, if it was someone that purchased it, how would the atmosphere be instead? Like I imagine this thread would still be in first one.

While they’re not the leader in console gaming MS was kind of the perfect cross section of “markets”. Game Publisher, platform holder, cloud gaming and cloud provider and I think that’s why it raised so much concern, on top of just the sheer size of the acquisition. I feel like the only large company that could have come out of the acquisition unscathed would have been Apple. Maybe Amazon, but their game publishing and Luna would probably throw a bit of a wrench in that even if they’re basically irrelevant at the moment.

In my opinion content and distribution should always remain separate, but it’s not the world we live in.

Just realized we’re close to August. The “fun” is about to resume.

1 Like

This is all moving too slow, I just want stuff to happen almost daily, keeps things interesting and makes me feel we are actually getting closer to the deal closing!

This month was certainly chaotic. Next month should be series finale.

Thank you! That’s why I say there’s no actual regulation happening. Harm to competition and consumers can be achieved without mergers. MS is willing to spend $80b in gaming, but if their thought was harming competition they could spend quite literally a small amount of that and target specific games to acquire exclusivity (GTA, COD, maybe FF and other big console IP) without acquisition, they could only have spent like $5-7b on those and literally starve Sony off their market, but they didn’t, and those moves wouldn’t have even been looked at by regulators as anticompetitive/consumers when they are tremendously more so than just the ABK merger.

3 Likes

Look at like this, no news is good news. They’re working.

I don’t expect to hear anything until a resolution has been had between MS & the CMA, followed shortly by the closing of the deal.

10 Likes

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

That’s so weird, I would have sworn it was a licence issue with all that stuff

I have faith Xbox will get it back though, Activision obviously just don’t care, not enough of a money maker right now for them to bother

I only played the first game but I had a blast with it multiplayer, it was actually one of the last Activision games I ever purchased

From Idas

The CMA published new documents:

Highlights from the notice:

In response to that notice, Microsoft has made a series of submissions to the CMA about developments since the publication of the Report, including the acceptance by the European Commission of commitments offered by Microsoft and the agreement recently entered into between Microsoft and Sony. These submissions state that there has been a material change of circumstances since the Report or that there are otherwise special reasons for reaching a different decision on the remedies question. Microsoft provided its final and consolidated submission on these matters on 25 July 2023. A non- confidential version of this submission has been published on our website today.

Submissions under section 41(3) of the Act regarding material change of circumstance or special reasons are very rare. It is not a usual part of the CMA’s process during a remedies implementation period to consult on submissions received in response to a consultation on a proposed undertaking or order. However, in light of the guidance provided by the Competition Appeal Tribunal on this specific case, the Inquiry Group has decided it is appropriate to do so in this case.

Any person wishing to comment on Microsoft’s submissions is now invited to do so. In particular, the CMA welcomes submissions on whether or not there has been a material change of circumstances since the preparation of the Report and/or that there is a special reason for the CMA to take remedial action other than as proposed in the Report (and as set out in the proposed Order previously consulted upon), on the bases set out in Microsoft’s submission.

Representations made in response to this Notice should reach the CMA by the end of 4 August 2023. Representations should be made in writing and should be sent by email to: Microsoft.Activision@cma.gov.uk.

The Inquiry Group will have regard to any such representations received by the deadline stated above in making its final decision on remedial action. The statutory period for the CMA either to accept final Undertakings or make a final Order ends on 29 August 2023.

10 Likes

So there is the option to accept EU remedy as being sufficient or another option to accept a divestiture offer?

1 Like

https://twitter.com/charlieINTEL/status/1685989624307396609

1 Like

So much for Microsoft bending knee. It’s basically return to battlefield with reinforcement.

3 Likes

not too sure about that

the special divesture is mentioned

In addition, as the CMA is aware from its confidential discussions with the Parties, Microsoft is in the advanced stages of putting forward a proposal to modify the relevant merger situation (RMS) that the FR addressed. The modified RMS would be different such that it would amount to a new RMS within the meaning of section 33 of the Act. In circumstances where a new RMS supersedes the RMS in relation to which the FR was produced, and can deal with the concerns identified in the FR, a Final Order which had the effect of prohibiting or qualifying the completion of the RMS would be plainly unjustified.

5 Likes

MS just need to closed over them already.

1 Like

Yeah that tweet is very misleading, it does state in the report they are putting a modified proposal forward

4 Likes

yeah people might get the wrong idea and that there is no divestment but that is not true and will be submitted because that was the CMA solution and that is what MS is exploring during the CMC conference

1 Like

https://twitter.com/fosspatents/status/1685992968904171520?s=46&t=t7dDVKaP__8VXQdcGMQghA

That thread is full of gems but this one in particular is kinda funny.

4 Likes