View: https://youtu.be/2SORT6-Fv8s?t=212
In this interview, when asked about the possibility of not selling their products in UK, instead of promptly denying it, Satya said "Let's wait for it all to play out" 👀
View: https://youtu.be/2SORT6-Fv8s?t=212
In this interview, when asked about the possibility of not selling their products in UK, instead of promptly denying it, Satya said "Let's wait for it all to play out" 👀
I mean. There is a reason why the CEO cannot exclude any option at this point of time. Doesn't mean we should hold the same standard if it really is so far stretched.
That in SOME scenario it might happen isn't the point and why it is banned
That in SOME scenario it might happen isn't the point and why it is banned
Seems like that would have been the place for an emphatic, "We would never not do business in the UK."
I mean what did they expect him to say?
It's the saavy answer by a CEO
Something along the lines of "We will never stop supporting the UK with our products"?
The US FTC is suing to prevent it. The UK CMA had blocked it. So, the odds are still heavily stacked against MS.
Good for him.
As the CEO of MS, I do not expect him not to use all the tools in his box to get this deal through.
We might not like it, but he is doing his job.
If MS did that (which they won't), they'd never be viewed favorably by a regulator again. It's empty rhetoric.
Why exactly would he do that now? They aren't going to pull out of the uk but no company is going to throw away their last ditch card they can threaten with to get a deal passed before a final decision is even made. It makes literally no sense for him to do that when there is not a single thing to gain from saying it, especially when everyone with common sense understands it isn't a possibility they would ever go with. It doesn't need to be said at all.
For those who are interested, here is the opinion of the former head of Xbox France on the takeover:(This is a long thread)
View: https://twitter.com/HuguesOuvrard/status/1658413199996121088
View: https://twitter.com/HuguesOuvrard/status/1658413199996121088
The mods reviewed their policy and are allowing that discussion, when done in good faith!
Yeah, it's quite suss IMO that he's happy to even let it linger in the air.
Although maybe he thinks the guy was referring to just games or just ABK games or whatever when talking about 'not selling the product' in the UK, not MS biz in general. But per earlier discussion, I dunno how a game specific solution works here. Unless they're going to say we're not going to have any MS or ABK game services at all in the UK, hence there's no nexus of jurisdiction here for the CMA in this deal - although I think it's probably too late for that now that the ball is in process and orders have been made? Is there any way to interrupt the process now short of an appeal?
But Activision would be part of Microsoft, and the CMA has prohibited that no?
Yes. If MS purchased any amount of ABK they would be in violation.
Yeah, unless that order is revoked. I'm just wondering if there's a way to get it revoked outside of the appeals process at this point. By saying 'ok, we're not doing any gaming business in the UK anymore, neither ABK or MS, so you have to concede this no longer comes under your purview'. I'm not at all saying this can happen - just genuinely wondering what possible game specific withdrawal he could be thinking of there that could overcome the process that's in play now (giving him the benefit of the doubt that he's not alluding to an entire pullout of MS from the UK).
It was very clear the conversation was in regards to the Activision-Blizzard acquisition. Having to even mention that non-game related products are obviously unaffected at all would bring up even more questions and is quite obvious to any reasonable person that they would never be affected in the UK.
Oh so Activision isn't exploiting established franchises and maximizing their profits by releasing CoD every year and letting a lot of their IP sit in idle? Good to know
(This comes after I think Phil was the one to say that he wanted Starcraft back)
Regarding the FPS part, I still see a world where even if there's CoD coming on Game Pass, a new Quake or a new Doom will be major hits. Or any other FPS if they can make a compelling new game.
What would they gain from that?
And why do so many people think that this deal would be good for the industry? Let us just be glad that someone voted against it. If not, even more mega fusions and buyout will happen.
It's interesting but pretty shallow and very heavy on the conjecture. Especially the argument that it leads to a degradation to the shooter/fps genre... which ignores the many successful free to play shooters. Like, do we even live in the same world?
And it's probably just a language thing, but he continually talks about FPS specifically but he is probably meaning to talk about shooters since gear is not a FPS.
Lets just remind ourselves that fortnite is a thing. CSGO, apex legends, entire shooter genres that have nothing to do with COD and likely face zero impact as he is suggesting.
Overall, very interesting. But to me, that fear of upsetting MS he describes sounds a lot more like what we have today with Sony.
This bit was funny:
One aspect that has received less attention is the potential impact on innovation and diversity in game development. Activision Blizzard King, with its diverse portfolio of studios and franchises, has been a major player in the industry, contributing to the variety of gaming experiences available to players. However, with the acquisition, there is a real risk that the focus will shift towards maximizing profits and exploiting established franchises, potentially stifling creativity and the emergence of new IPs.
Watching the parliamentary cma stuff its really interesting and informative. I think Sarah is really well spoken and get their points across and fully agree with a lot of things and also gives some pretty interesting examples of other remedies, communications etc. Levers fully with parliament and it is parliament empowering cma and how protected the process is.
OP
OP
EU commentary on Microsoft-Activision deal should help appeal, Wells Fargo says
The commentary from the European Union on its approval of Microsoft's (MSFT) proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard (ATVI) is an incremental positive. Read for more.seekingalpha.com
I agree with the idea of MS/ABK requiring more than 18 months to revert this whole situation (if everything goes perfectly fine). If both parties are interested in extending the merger agreement, that would lead us to January 2025. We know (from the final report) that COD wasn't coming to Gamepass until 2025 (when the marketing agreement with Sony ends). So maybe January 2025 could be used as a new outside date for the extension (if it happens).
I also believe that the decision from the EC will be used in the appeal to CAT. It's not critical for it, but it can help to reinforce more than a few arguments.
PS: I know that I have plenty of questions to answer from at least 3 weeks ago. :p I'll get back to them. I'm also working on two big posts, one about the always controversial issue of carving-out UK as a last resort and another one about all the times that an appeal to CAT has been successful and the reasons.
So 33% were over-turned and to over-turn you need to show the CMA was irrational?
Should any dept have 33% of it's decisions over-turned as irrational!?
Excited! You are just an amazing person for dealing with this. I will need to buy you some chocolate or something XD
If I said the CMA seemingly stands for "Can't Math Appropriately", would I get a ban?
You think he's going to say that at this point?
It's a non-spoken (but IMHO empty) threat
They want this to go through so will have a hard stance without burning bridges….just like he didn't say "well if they don't pass we are pulling out of the UK"
It's a good business saavy response
Not threatening a government you're currently appealing to is also a savvy move.
So the deal is basically hanging on by a thin thread after the EU approval? And there's still a chance of it not passing thru?
No I think a ton of those were over procedural errors. Which generally the CMA correct and resubmit with the exact same ruling. Irrationality is just one of the things they can look at on appeal.
Percentage wise it's still more likely to fail the pass at this point.
Idas, related to your discussion on the carving out, could you discuss the potential of granting 10yr publisher/distribution rights to an indepedent 3rd Party (such as Take-Two or EA) for COD in the UK for a % revenue fee? In China, we know that non-Chinese companies need a publishing partner. This feels like a structural remedy and Microsoft would still have to to convince the CMA that it would be sufficient. In essence, if Microsoft wanted to put COD on gamepass in the UK, they would have to pay the wholesale price. Obviously most of it would flow back to themselves but TT or EA would have to evaluate what was in their best interest and could offer similar terms freely to PS+ for the UK.
I know that Microsoft does not want this as the UK is a high growth target marget for gaming. But this feels less extreme than actually leaving the UK all together. And feels materially different from Pachter's maligned PLC suggestion.
They also could keep FTC "approval" in the agreement with this timeline as it most likely will be finalized in Court by then. Though who knows, they may still amend the FTC out to make a statement...
This entire purchase is so unpredictable rn. No way they're really entertaining this idea. They would look evil as hell.
This going to 2025 is insane. This deal is holding up other stuff
The tweet is very much the contribution and they may not have seen it posted already, the content of the tweet itself is quite important as so many here prior to the EU ruling were trying to convince the thread CMA numbers were correct and it's MS that are hiding something. Obviously, another senior regulatory body disagrees, posting it a few times is perfectly acceptable I'd say.
Now Satya isnt ruling out UK being circumvented. I too thought the idea of reducing investment was barmy but he doesn't say unequivocally that it's not going to happen. Even the presenter scoffed, Nadella knew exactly what may be inferred and allowed it to continue. Hmmm
I don't understand this take. If all but one regulator approves the deal. Then it should stand to differ that their out come was irrational considering both the first time they miscalculated something and even after they do the same thing again with cloud. The EU has gone against twice on their findings from the bethesda situation to the notion that Activision was going to put their games on subscription services
Interesting question. Maybe they just don't sell COD in the UK? Or maybe any ABK games?
Of course the CMA is concerned about the global market and not just UK. And in the CMA's framing, it would be less costly to prohibit then the loss of value to UK consumers.
I guess it's subjective really, but from watching parliament all the time it was a fairly standard exchange for what they're there for, no gotcha's, grilling or big wins.
Just a standard back and forth imo
Hilarious how anyone was attacked for even bringing up this possibility, once again no one knows shit 😅
I'm still a bit lost as to why people want this deal to go through other than 'I want abk games on game pass'
Anyway, Microsoft will not carve out the uk. So much money to be lost and the government could take other measures to further hurt Microsofts profits such as stop using azure, transition away from windows, office etc. at the end of the day money rules supreme so Microsoft aren't going to ditch all the money and goodwill over this acquisition.
Anyway, Microsoft will not carve out the uk. So much money to be lost and the government could take other measures to further hurt Microsofts profits such as stop using azure, transition away from windows, office etc. at the end of the day money rules supreme so Microsoft aren't going to ditch all the money and goodwill over this acquisition.