Gaming Microsoft buying Activision | CMA blocks deal over concerns for the cloud gaming market, decision to be appealed, Blizzard EVP threatens UK

[DixieDean]

Are you deliberately being this obtuse?




Again:

Then you have no idea about this subject at all. Sure they were and are always playing catch up in the gaming sense, but you fundamentally fail to understand what this takeover is about, who is doing it and the consequences. You simply do not understand who is buying what here and for why.

It's all rather ironic considering that word you mentioned in your first post about this. It's almost as if you have an unhealthy attachment to a brand and just won't let yourself see the bigger picture. Fear not though my friend, we've all been there at some stage

This is getting sill now, we're talking in circles, somewhat.

You're a good poster and knowledgeable about gaming, but you strike me as someone who never admits to being wrong!

I've read a shit ton about this takeover, so I feel I have a decent grasp of it. I've always been of the opinion that it was about King and MS wanting to make moves in the mobile market, COD being a nice bonus. Do you disagree? Would like to hear your viewpoint if different.

Which brand do I have attachment too, btw I own both so I would like to know.

 

[DixieDean]

Microsoft, the world's largest software company and one of its two most valuable companies for the last three decades, the underdogs

Well, with all due respect, you're posts in gaming on this forum come of a tad one sided and biased

For people in the back, PlayStation is gaming for most major console markets. MS checkbook does not change that.

This is not a controversial take.

Except in here, apparently.

 

[Massive Spanner]

Well, with all due respect, you're posts in gaming on this forum come of a tad one sided and biased

For people in the back, PlayStation is gaming for most major console markets. MS checkbook does not change that.

This is not a controversial take.

Except in here, apparently.

I own both consoles, and a PC, I have zero bias. If I had my way, exclusivity wouldn't be a thing at all. All I care about is shitty deals like this not being allowed to happen.

Sony as a company as nothing compared to Microsoft, that's why calling them underdogs is so funny. Sony don't have the money to buy these companies, or fund something like Gamepass for years and years to build up subscription numbers.

 

[DixieDean]

I own both consoles, and a PC, I have zero bias. If I had my way, exclusivity wouldn't be a thing at all. All I care about is shitty deals like this not being allowed to happen.

Sony as a company as nothing compared to Microsoft, that's why calling them underdogs is so funny. Sony don't have the money to buy these companies, or fund something like Gamepass for years and years to build up subscription numbers.

I'm not sure I agree on your last point. They could not afford Activison. However, they could afford Gamepass. It would just be silly for them to throw their £70 games in there day one when they sell so well.

 

[Redlambs]

This is getting sill now, we're talking in circles, somewhat.

You're a good poster and knowledgeable about gaming, but you strike me as someone who never admits to being wrong!

I've read a shit ton about this takeover, so I feel I have a decent grasp of it. I've always been of the opinion that it was about King and MS wanting to make moves in the mobile market, COD being a nice bonus. Do you disagree? Would like to hear your viewpoint if different.

Which brand do I have attachment too, btw I own both so I would like to know.

Oh thank you so much for the compliments! I really needed the validation from you

Wrong about what exactly? You continue to confuse MS and the Xbox division, you one minute talk about them interchangeably and then the next separately depending on what kind of point you think you are making. Worse still, YOU are the one who brought up fanboys, whilst clearly being the only one with an opinion set in stone. One which you claim is backed up by how much you read, yet you continually misunderstand the situation and continued to dodge around a simple question that you know damn well the answer too all because it would have shown up exactly how little you know about this. The very fact you are so adamant that this deal is dead shows what little you understand.

But please, do continue to lecture everyone on how they are "fanboys" or "biased" whilst still failing to answer actual questions put to you. But first, explain what it is I should say I'm wrong about? Because I gladly would if you care to point it out.

Erm, I meant xbox might have one more console gen in them. Not Sony, sorry if that wasn't clear. Sony will ride consoles for as long as possible. It's such a huge part of their business. They would be crazy to go cloud only. Whereas, Xbox for a long time was a fart in the wind to MS.

Well then my question still applies.

Why only "maybe". Please do tell us all with your knowledge of these things as to your thoughts on this.

 

[Bosws87]

I'd suggest reading up on Microsoft practices on how a number of their very successful products came to be where they are and the practices used.

Then come back to this thread.

 

[DixieDean]

Oh thank you so much for the compliments! I really needed the validation from you

Wrong about what exactly? You continue to confuse MS and the Xbox division, you one minute talk about them interchangeably and then the next separately depending on what kind of point you think you are making. Worse still, YOU are the one who brought up fanboys, whilst clearly being the only one with an opinion set in stone. One which you claim is backed up by how much you read, yet you continually misunderstand the situation and continued to dodge around a simple question that you know damn well the answer too all because it would have shown up exactly how little you know about this. The very fact you are so adamant that this deal is dead shows what little you understand.

But please, do continue to lecture everyone on how they are "fanboys" or "biased" whilst still failing to answer actual questions put to you. But first, explain what it is I should say I'm wrong about? Because I gladly would if you care to point it out.
Well then my question still applies.

Why only "maybe". Please do tell us all with your knowledge of these things as to your thoughts on this.

The 'wrong' comment was due to the kinect point earlier. It was said partly in jest.

Why only "maybe". Please do tell us all with your knowledge of these things as to your thoughts on this.

A 'maybe' for Xbox because as I explained in a previous post, they got outsold by over 2:1 last gen and are heading for the same result this gen. I don't think Xbox will ever be able to sell 85million consoles again. I believe that the PlaySation brand in too entrenched in the minds of consumers. I think the moment has passed and 55-65 million is their limit. This is why I think they *might* pull the plug on making consoles after next gen. I'm not sure that they want to keep making consoles only to be outsold so badly. It's just a theory and I could well be talking out of my arse and they could well make consoles for as long as Sony does.

The very fact you are so adamant that this deal is dead shows what little you understand.

I said I don't think it will happen now. My reasoning for this is that even I if CAT throw it back to the CMA then the odds of the CMA overturning the decision is slim. There have been precedents and they don't often overturn. It's not like in the US were the FTC can be challenged in court and a judge makes the decision. MS are fighting a huge uphill battle here.

I've given my opinion of why the deal was happening in a previous post (king). I don't claim that to be a fact. Just my best reading on it from the outside. This is the second time you've said I don't understand why the deal was happening, so what's your opinion on it?

My fanboy comment was not aimed at anyone in particular. If you had spent anytime reading about the deal on the forum I had then you would see that fanboyism about this deal is rife.

 

[Redlambs]

Why only "maybe". Please do tell us all with your knowledge of these things as to your thoughts on this.
The wrong comment was due to the kinect point earlier. It was said partly in jest.

You need to reformat that post mate, I hate when I let the quote tags get away from me like that too

A 'maybe' for Xbox because as I explained in a previous post, they got outsold by over 2:1 last gen and are heading for the same result this gen. I don't think Xbox will ever be able to sell 85million consoles again. I believe that the PlaySation brand in too entrenched in the minds of consumers. I think the moment has passed and 55-65 million is their limit. This is why I think they *might* pull the plug on making consoles after next gen. I'm not sure that they want to keep making consoles only to be outsold so badly. It's just a theory and I could well be talking out of my arse and they could well make consoles for as long as Sony does.

That doesn't actually answer my question, but you are correct in that their goal isn't hardware. They tried to sell the division and came very close when EA nearly signed off on it, but one of the key factors was how much control MS retained in the software side including a subscription. Even EA weren't daft enough to fall for that one.

Still, the question was why you think the move to cloud gaming will come that soon anyway?

I said I don't think it will happen now. My reasoning for this is that even I if CAT throw it back to the CMA then the odds of the CMA overturning the decision is slim. There have been precedents and they don't often overturn. It's not like in the US were the FTC can be challenged in court and a judge makes the decision. MS are fighting a huge uphill battle here.

I've given my opinion of why the deal was happening in a previous post (king). I don't claim that to be a fact. Just my best reading on it from the outside. This is the second time you've said I don't understand why the deal was happening, so what's your opinion on it?

As Bosws said, look into how MS got to where they are. This is the whole crux, you are picking and mixing your application or Microsoft/Xbox in this thread which is where your confusion is.

They will get this deal through, and even if they don't, do you honestly think they won't just make a deal that gives the exact same outcome? Ask yourself this, why do they want them so badly and to spend all that money if it was simply about restricting their games on competitors systems? This is bigger than that, it always is with MS. And they always win one way or another.


But like I say, the confusing thing from my personal perspective is why so many people back this kind of thing. I mean we've seen Activision themselves gut and destroy teams, MS are the kings of it, so how does this go in any good way?

 

[DixieDean]

You need to reformat that post mate, I hate when I let the quote tags get away from me like that too
Done!

Still, the question was why you think the move to cloud gaming will come that soon anyway?

Bear in mind, even if I'm right and next gen is their last, then it's still 15 years away!

I suspect selling 55 million consoles means MS is losing money on consoles sold, so they'll dump it and go all in on cloud gaming. Heck, even if MS sold 150 million console's, I don't think it would move the needle in the way they want. And Azure is such a huge part of their business that I can see that becoming the focus of their gaming side and leaving the traditional model to Sony.

Now, I say this knowing that the tech in 15 years will still not be good enough to replace the box under the telly, but it still might be MS's best option.

 

[Redlambs]

Bear in mind, even if I'm right and next gen is their last, then it's still 15 years away!

I suspect selling 55 million consoles means MS is losing money on consoles sold, so they'll dump it and go all in on cloud gaming. Heck, even if MS sold 150 million console's, I don't think it would move the needle in the way they want. And Azure is such a huge part of their business that I can see that becoming the focus of their gaming side and leaving the traditional model to Sony.

Now, I say this knowing that the tech in 15 years will still not be good enough to replace the box under the telly, but it still might be MS's best option.

To be fair, this has been said for the past 20 years too. Eventually it will be right!

But of course they want to move away, they have since they tried to cheap out on the boner generation. There will be a next gen though (no maybe about it) and probably one after that. The infrastructure just isn't there at the moment and if anything has slowed down progress on that front. And it's just not about internet connections to homes, it's about the whole system and capacity. We are a long way off that and also what subscription services will look like by that point too, but it's inevitable.


In the mean time, we can just keep worrying about the lack of games for the current gen. And whilst this acquisition won't necessarily affect that side over the next couple of years, it definitely will mean a whole load of teams with unclear futures moving forward. And that's always a sad thing for all gamers.

 

[Bosws87]

Bear in mind, even if I'm right and next gen is their last, then it's still 15 years away!

I suspect selling 55 million consoles means MS is losing money on consoles sold, so they'll dump it and go all in on cloud gaming. Heck, even if MS sold 150 million console's, I don't think it would move the needle in the way they want. And Azure is such a huge part of their business that I can see that becoming the focus of their gaming side and leaving the traditional model to Sony.

Now, I say this knowing that the tech in 15 years will still not be good enough to replace the box under the telly, but it still might be MS's best option.

No, the appeal is they can create another monopoly and everyone who wants to play the games will in some way be increasing Microsoft’s bank account.

Nothing to do with they believe in cloud gaming. They keep trying to force this through over and over again.

Xbox one, always have to be online to play games can’t sell or trade physically owned games, failed.

Use gamepass as an appealing Trojan horse, in progress.

Buy massive publishers promise to support competitors then slowly phase out their games on other consoles, in progress.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

I too have knowledge of the compewtorz therefore my biased opinion on gaming must be treated as factual.

 

[DixieDean]

I've been reading and listening to some more of this morning and yeah this deal is dead as far as the CMA goes. No greasy palms will fix it.

And CMA blocking it means it won't go through. Now whether or not that's good thing is debatable, but it's where we're at.

Anyone here still think it will go through?

 

[esmufc07]

I've been reading and listening to some more of this morning and yeah this deal is dead as far as the CMA goes. No greasy palms will fix it.

And CMA blocking it means it won't go through. Now whether or not that's good thing is debatable, but it's where we're at.

Anyone here still think it will go through?

@Redlambs does but he’s best ignored.

 

[afrocentricity]

To those that think it still goes through, what changes? Why do you think CMA change their minds?

 

[Redlambs]

I've been reading and listening to some more of this morning and yeah this deal is dead as far as the CMA goes. No greasy palms will fix it.

And CMA blocking it means it won't go through. Now whether or not that's good thing is debatable, but it's where we're at.

Anyone here still think it will go through?

One of those situations where I'd be happy to be wrong. But I wouldn't be so quick to celebrate just yet. There is more than one way for MS to get what they want out of this.

Maybe me being cynical, but MS have had setbacks like this before.

@Redlambs does but he’s best ignored.

I didn't get an alert from this, even the forum software knows just how little you add.

To those that think it still goes through, what changes? Why do you think CMA change their minds?

Whether they do or not, the deal changes. Plus the objection is based on the cloud side despite it being about the monopoly in general, and that situation with lack of competition obviously won't stay.


The interesting thing for me is how weak and arrogant the case made was in the first place. They didn't even bother to subject tech demos to show they were serious about supporting the Switch for example

 

[b82REZ]

I was really surprised MS didn't try and strengthen their case by saying the legacy Bethesda titles will appear on other consoles.

It makes sense for them to keep Starfield exclusive as it's a new IP, but I think them announcing Elder Scrolls will be cross platform would have gone a long way in helping their case with the Activision deal.

 

[DixieDean]

I was really surprised MS didn't try and strengthen their case by saying the legacy Bethesda titles will appear on other consoles.

It makes sense for them to keep Starfield exclusive as it's a new IP, but I think them announcing Elder Scrolls will be cross platform would have gone a long way in helping their case with the Activision deal.

Think the deal was doomed from the start with the way CMA views things. They were not intreseted in what's called 'behavioral remedies'.

 

[b82REZ]

Think the deal was doomed from the start with the way CMA views things. They were not intreseted in what's called 'behavioral remedies'.

I completely understand their decision, and Ms response has been very childish. They're threatening to pull out of UK and focus on developing businesses in the EU. Proper scummy move.

 

[Redlambs]

Think the deal was doomed from the start with the way CMA views things. They were not intreseted in what's called 'behavioral remedies'.

But Phil said so!

I completely understand their decision, and Ms response has been very childish. They're threatening to pull out of UK and focus on developing businesses in the EU. Proper scummy move.

 

[b82REZ]

 

[Hal9000]

I was really surprised MS didn't try and strengthen their case by saying the legacy Bethesda titles will appear on other consoles.

It makes sense for them to keep Starfield exclusive as it's a new IP, but I think them announcing Elder Scrolls will be cross platform would have gone a long way in helping their case with the Activision deal.

Because the ruling is not about cross platform or effect on current or future consoles. The ruling is solely about the future of cloud gaming.

The CMA are worried that with microsoft buying up all these publishers, studios and games that when the shift happens from hardware to cloud base gaming (which may take 10/15 years) no other company will want to touch the market because Microsoft will have all these games tied down to their platform. Thus because of the lack of competition there will be a lack of innovation, growth in technology within the market and competative pricing for gamers.

Some people in this thread clearly did not read or understand the ruling..

 

[Redlambs]

Because the ruling is not about cross platform or effect on current or future consoles. The ruling is solely about the future of cloud gaming.

The CMA are worried that with microsoft buying up all these publishers, studios and games that when the shift happens from hardware to cloud base gaming (which may take 10/15 years) no other company will want to touch the market because Microsoft will have all these games tied down to their platform. Thus because of the lack of competition there will be a lack of innovation, growth in technology within the market and competative pricing for gamers.

Some people in this thread clearly did not read or understand the ruling..

Microsoft tried (badly) to show willing to support current platforms as a basis to suggest they would support rival cloud services. That's where the confusion lies around it all I guess.

But because there's no real alternative right now, and not real idea about what the future scape will look like, this decision is definitely the correct one.

 

[b82REZ]

Because the ruling is not about cross platform or effect on current or future consoles. The ruling is solely about the future of cloud gaming.

The CMA are worried that with microsoft buying up all these publishers, studios and games that when the shift happens from hardware to cloud base gaming (which may take 10/15 years) no other company will want to touch the market because Microsoft will have all these games tied down to their platform. Thus because of the lack of competition there will be a lack of innovation, growth in technology within the market and competative pricing for gamers.

Some people in this thread clearly did not read or understand the ruling..

Fully understood it, thanks.

Seems nuance isn't a strong suit of yours. If CMA are suspecting a potential monopoly, what better way for MS to show that won't be the case by showing how they've allowed their IP to appear on different consoles. They can then say that flexibility will extend to their future ventures.

CMA are absolutely correct to block this move as MS have not shown any evidence that they're not trying to create a monopoly. The only reason they've focused on cloud gaming is MS are nowhere near a monopoly in the gaming industry currently. These attempted acquisitions are them trying to create one.

 

[Revan]

Can someone explain to me how the UK can block an American company from buying another American company?

Can any country where Microsoft operates (every country in the world except North Korea) block this deal from happening?

 

[Balljy]

Can someone explain to me how the UK can block an American company from buying another American company?

Can any country where Microsoft operates (every country in the world except North Korea) block this deal from happening?

They're not really blocking the sale, but blocking them from trading in the UK as a merged company.

 

[Redlambs]

Can someone explain to me how the UK can block an American company from buying another American company?

Can any country where Microsoft operates (every country in the world except North Korea) block this deal from happening?

They are blocking them from trading. The EU and America itself (the federal trade I believe?) are yet to decide, but I believe they are against it too.

 

[Revan]

Ah, clear. That makes much more sense.

In either case, it is good news for the gaming. I don't like Activision games, but I understand how many gamers play them, so those games going Xbox/PC only will harm Sony a lot, and can cause a monopoly in long term.

 

[Hal9000]

Fully understood it, thanks.

Seems nuance isn't a strong suit of yours. If CMA are suspecting a potential monopoly, what better way for MS to show that won't be the case by showing how they've allowed their IP to appear on different consoles. They can then say that flexibility will extend to their future ventures.

CMA are absolutely correct to block this move as MS have not shown any evidence that they're not trying to create a monopoly. The only reason they've focused on cloud gaming is MS are nowhere near a monopoly in the gaming industry currently. These attempted acquisitions are them trying to create one.

The thing is though, MS havent shown that. They pretty much said Bethesda games will be exclusives to MS systems in the future, the Activision offering was only for 10 years, what will happen after those 10 years?. Again though this is not really to do with current or future consoles.

They focused on the cloud gaming market is because Microsoft is already dominate and that is the future of gaming, just like Netflix and co killed physical movie sales and rentals and Spotify/Apple Music have killed physical music sales.

It's not even really cloud gaming, it's also the technology behind it. Azure is the leading cloud platform, even PS Now runs on Azure and a lot of innovations and technology that enables cloud gaming will eventually trickle into other markets. So it has wider implications.

 

[Redlambs]

Ah, clear. That makes much more sense.

In either case, it is good news for the gaming. I don't like Activision games, but I understand how many gamers play them, so those games going Xbox/PC only will harm Sony a lot, and can cause a monopoly in long term.

And that's why it's based on cloud, not current markets. The decision based on current and next gen wouldn't be the same, as MS don't have a strangle hold and as big as Activision are, it wouldn't change that. But with cloud, and the tech behind it, MS have a jump start and could strangle that.

Coupled with this ridiculous pledge for 10 years, it's a no brainer what they are trying to do.

 

[Revan]

The thing is though, MS havent shown that. They pretty much said Bethesda games will be exclusives to MS systems in the future, the Activision offering was only for 10 years, what will happen after those 10 years?. Again though this is not really to do with current or future consoles.

They focused on the cloud gaming market is because Microsoft is already dominate and that is the future of gaming, just like Netflix and co killed physical movie sales and rentals and Spotify/Apple Music have killed physical music sales.

It's not even really cloud gaming, it's also the technology behind it. Azure is the leading cloud platform, even PS Now runs on Azure and a lot of innovations and technology that enables cloud gaming will eventually trickle into other markets. So it has wider implications.

Agree on this. Except Azure being the leading cloud platform (AWS is the leading one, Azure second).

 

[DixieDean]

Microsoft tried (badly) to show willing to support current platforms as a basis to suggest they would support rival cloud services. That's where the confusion lies around it all I guess.

But because there's no real alternative right now, and not real idea about what the future scape will look like, this decision is definitely the correct one.

Like I said, it was doomed from the start, because I'm convinced the CMA were going to block no matter what. Everyone laughed at the console response they came up with so they dropped it and fcoused on cloud.

MS are big tech, so more eyes are on them. And the way the ruling was framed made it seem like any future purchase would get the same blow back. So, I'm not sure were they go from here on that front.

 

[tenpoless]

I have never seen Microsoft as the pinnacle of gaming. And yet people seem to find a hope that this merger will restore the old "Blizzard" back. Will never happen, even the business model has changed now. It's all micro transactions in mobile games, that's where the money lies and not in the games you spent 3 years developing and 20 years maintaining that requires subscription.

 

[Redlambs]

Like I said, it was doomed from the start, because I'm convinced the CMA were going to block no matter what. Everyone laughed at the console response they came up with so they dropped it and fcoused on cloud.

MS are big tech, so more eyes are on them. And the way the ruling was framed made it seem like any future purchase would get the same blow back. So, I'm not sure were they go from here on that front.

Didn't they say a while ago they aren't going after the consoles? And it's not because "people laughed" it's because they wouldn't be able to justify it. They can with future tech. Which makes it even more weird just how little MS/Activision seemed to prepare for this, for some reason they thought it would be easy.

And this isn't the only avenue available. This doesn't stop the purchase, it's a big roadblock for sure, but the will still be pushing ahead to convince everyone else to go with it and put pressure back on the CMA. Or, of course, come up with alternatives to get around it.

MS aren't just "big tech" they are the biggest. Eyes are always on them and what they do when it comes to future and monopolies. As someone else suggested, it's an interesting read to see all the tactics they've used over the years and what they've done to get into this position.


Anyway, we now need the FTC and other equivalents to continue to push back. It'll be interesting both the case presented by MS from here on out and also the blowback from their threats to pull out of the UK.

 

[DixieDean]

Didn't they say a while ago they aren't going after the consoles? And it's not because "people laughed" it's because they wouldn't be able to justify it. They can with future tech. Which makes it even more weird just how little MS/Activision seemed to prepare for this, for some reason they thought it would be easy.

And this isn't the only avenue available. This doesn't stop the purchase, it's a big roadblock for sure, but the will still be pushing ahead to convince everyone else to go with it and put pressure back on the CMA. Or, of course, come up with alternatives to get around it.

MS aren't just "big tech" they are the biggest. Eyes are always on them and what they do when it comes to future and monopolies. As someone else suggested, it's an interesting read to see all the tactics they've used over the years and what they've done to get into this position.


Anyway, we now need the FTC and other equivalents to continue to push back. It'll be interesting both the case presented by MS from here on out and also the blowback from their threats to pull out of the UK.

I don't think MS seriously threatened to pull out of the UK. That would be absurd. People were running with and spinning quotes from Brad Smith who never said any such thing when you look at the quote.

 

[Hal9000]

I have never seen Microsoft as the pinnacle of gaming. And yet people seem to find a hope that this merger will restore the old "Blizzard" back. Will never happen, even the business model has changed now. It's all micro transactions in mobile games, that's where the money lies and not in the games you spent 3 years developing and 20 years maintaining that requires subscription.

This is the equivilent of Disney buying up Marvel, LucasFilm and Fox to enter and compete in the streaming space. The big difference is that Disney was late to the party and Netflix and Prime were in play. What do you think happens if Disney + launches first with all that content.

 

[Traub]

That's their problem for committing to releasing all first party games day one on GP and turning their acquired publishers from multiplatform into (mostly) one platform and PC.

Despite what some say, day one GP does affect game sales.

Yip especially when it comes to exclusives - literally cheaper to get GP for one month and finish the game than actually buy the game.

Long-term, I see them going the same way as D+: exclusive AAA titles will only hit GP a few months after official release.

 

[Redlambs]

I don't think MS seriously threatened to pull out of the UK. That would be absurd. People were running with and spinning quotes from Brad Smith who never said any such thing when you look at the quote.

Of course they won't, and though Smith's quote was a lighter way of saying it, Activision's response was more on the nose. It's posturing for both the appeal and the regulators to come.

 

[DixieDean]

Of course they won't, and though Smith's quote was a lighter way of saying it, Activision's response was more on the nose. It's posturing for both the appeal and the regulators to come.

Well, that bobby kotick for you.

 

[Redlambs]

Well, that bobby kotick for you.

Always has been an odious twat!

Still, will be interesting to see how it develops. I've always been against publishers buying up dev teams, especially since what happened to Rare all those years ago. But MS have a way of doing business that has always been horrible, and publishers themselves getting hoovered up is just bad for everyone who loves gaming.