User banned (1 month): Antagonizing another member. Multiple prior bans for hostility.
Matt.
When I look at some of my bookmarks, it is amazing how much he got wrong. Got some right, but goodness gracious, a tonne wrong. Including this deal.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
When I look at some of my bookmarks, it is amazing how much he got wrong. Got some right, but goodness gracious, a tonne wrong. Including this deal.
Ah. That was a silly prediction.
I'm glad that I mostly keep myself engaged with a few topics of interest. More focused and more informed that way.
Regulators look at the current market to inform their decisions. The current market includes last gen consoles due to cross-gen games still releasing on them two years into the "new" gen.
Big tech especially the software side are well paid. Unions will push wage up, but that does a lot, not just for Microsoft.
It initially makes Microsoft a good destination in an industry that has had issues staffing up, puts pressure on others to make similar commitments or lose out.
But after that, then what? Allowing unions is one thing, but there is only so far, only so much value unions can leverage when employees are well paid.
The only risk I see them wanting might be better protections as we can see with tech gutting jobs currently. Money still rules, bottom line still matters.
Cross-gen is still very important, as it still account for a very large portion of the revenue being used to determine marketshare. People playing Fornite, warzone, and GTA on old consoles are still in the drivers seat. This is especially especially important since next gen hardware demand continues to exceed supply .
Then you've got regulators pointing to MS potential Subscription service "dominance", but the majority of customers are on old hardware- so clearly the current market is being considered.
It could be brought up, of course. Anything can if someone wants to make a point. It wouldn't be a very strong point per se, since no one is making the argument that Microsoft is going to have a hardware advantage, let alone a monopoly. And the one thing everyone largely agrees on is that this purchase isn't likely to result in a lot of console switchers, so hardware isn't really the problem.
If the CMA wants to make the case, they will 100000% use this fact. But any regulator could easily, without batting an eye, dismiss it as noise in the signal.
If the CMA wants to make the case, they will 100000% use this fact. But any regulator could easily, without batting an eye, dismiss it as noise in the signal.
Does "everyone"? MS is investing more money than the whole gaming console market size 2022 just to get a few percent market share?
They don't need people to switch. They only need them to subscribe to gamepass.
PS5 sold through 30millions.
Higher than install base of Xbox Series X|S.
Higher than total game pass subscribers across all devices.
I really hope regulators see the market facts and no longer think MS/Xbox is going to dominant by acquiring ABK.
Only common sense is needed here.
Higher than install base of Xbox Series X|S.
Higher than total game pass subscribers across all devices.
I really hope regulators see the market facts and no longer think MS/Xbox is going to dominant by acquiring ABK.
Only common sense is needed here.
The only thing giving me pause is that, just before FTC decided to stand against the move, there was, as now, a number of very big moves/statements that gave the impression that there is no way this could not go through:
Nintendo signing a 10 year deal for COD
Steam confirming that they were offered a contract but didn't sign it because MS as so trustworthy
Unions coming out fighting in support of the deal
etc.
I feel like we're getting these again.
CMA stating 75% of the consulted public supports the move
CMSA publishing very supportive statements from prominent market participants
MS waves through first union within it's staffing team in Zenimax
The sheer weight of statements from prominent gaming marketplace participants supporting this deal is overwhelming, really.
The only people not wanting it are Sony themselves and those who knee jerk into "big tech/company = bad".
Nintendo signing a 10 year deal for COD
Steam confirming that they were offered a contract but didn't sign it because MS as so trustworthy
Unions coming out fighting in support of the deal
etc.
I feel like we're getting these again.
CMA stating 75% of the consulted public supports the move
CMSA publishing very supportive statements from prominent market participants
MS waves through first union within it's staffing team in Zenimax
The sheer weight of statements from prominent gaming marketplace participants supporting this deal is overwhelming, really.
The only people not wanting it are Sony themselves and those who knee jerk into "big tech/company = bad".
It's weird how the narrative changes with every new piece of news. Before Microsoft's PR blitz with the unionization and 10 year deals, we all thought that the FTC was going to block. But that PR blitz gave us pause.
Now this news about FTC willing to accept concessions is giving us reason to believe that the FTC might accept if the other regulatory bodies accept.
I sincerely doubt it. Everything we know about the FTC and it's current strategies/ideological leanings leads me to believe that they're going to want to take this to court.
Lina Khan is okay with losing, because it will feed into the narrative she is trying to build. The narrative that the FTC doesn't have enough power to do what it believes to be right.
OP
OP
The CMA needs more time: final report delayed to 26 April 2023.
Provisional findings delayed to late January / early February 2023.
There are special reasons why the final report cannot be prepared and published within the reference period:
- The scope and complexity of the investigation
- The need to consider a large volume of evidence as well as main party and third party submissions
- The necessity to allow sufficient time to take full and proper account of comments that will be received in response to the Inquiry Group's provisional findings in due course and to reach a fully reasoned final decision in the statutory timeframe
Now the EC, CMA and even SAMR in China are very much aligned in timing for the final decision: April 11th for the EC / April 26th for the CMA / April-May 2023 for SAMR.
Provisional findings delayed to late January / early February 2023.
There are special reasons why the final report cannot be prepared and published within the reference period:
- The scope and complexity of the investigation
- The need to consider a large volume of evidence as well as main party and third party submissions
- The necessity to allow sufficient time to take full and proper account of comments that will be received in response to the Inquiry Group's provisional findings in due course and to reach a fully reasoned final decision in the statutory timeframe
Now the EC, CMA and even SAMR in China are very much aligned in timing for the final decision: April 11th for the EC / April 26th for the CMA / April-May 2023 for SAMR.
Last edited:
This!!!
Always better to temper the expectations. The ruling from CMA and EC can go any direction and perhaps not what many fans in this thread would like to see.
Well MS and ABK have lots of supporters for the deal, don't think holding out tactic will success for this case.
The narrative could end up "FTC just keep wasting people's taxes"
Well this delay sucks for us who are hungry for news ahahaha.
It's interesting how this changes things. The assumption was that depending on the CMA's provisional findings, Microsoft could abandon the deal and save $500 million. This delay kind of takes that strategy away from Microsoft. Looks like they'll be on the line for $2.5b until the next increase right?
The delay also speaks to the CMA doing their due diligence, which is great.
OP
OP
Well, this changes the timeline quite a bit.
Now the EC, CMA and even SAMR in China could be aligned in timing for the final decision.
New Zealand should be the next regulator to publish a decision, but I'm already expecting a fourth delay xD
NEXT IMPORTANT DATES
- January 18th 2023: original outside date (when the parties expected the merger to be done). If MS quits before that date they have to pay a termination fee of $2,000,000,000; if they don't, the outside date gets extended until April 18th 2023.
- Late January 2023: Statement of objections from the EC (unless MS can offer a convincing remedy package to avoid it).
- Late January /Early February 2023: provisional findings and remedies (if required) from the CMA.
- February 3rd 2023: decision from New Zealand.
- April 11th 2023: final decision from the EC (if MS didn't close the deal sooner).
- April 18th 2023: second extension of the original outside date. If MS quits before that date they have to pay a termination fee of $2,500,000,000; if they don't, the outside date gets extended until July 18th 2023.
- April 26th 2023: final report and remedies (if required) from the CMA.
- April - May 2023: decision from the SAMR in China.
- July 18th 2023: The end of the second extension and final outside date in the merger agreement. If MS quits before that date they have to pay a termination fee of $3,000,000,000; if they don't, they'll have to renegotiate the outside date with ABK.
- August 2nd 2023: beginning of the FTC in-house trial.
- Early 2024: decision from the FTC administrative law judge.
- Anything beyond that: unknown
Now the EC, CMA and even SAMR in China could be aligned in timing for the final decision.
New Zealand should be the next regulator to publish a decision, but I'm already expecting a fourth delay xD
NEXT IMPORTANT DATES
- January 18th 2023: original outside date (when the parties expected the merger to be done). If MS quits before that date they have to pay a termination fee of $2,000,000,000; if they don't, the outside date gets extended until April 18th 2023.
- Late January 2023: Statement of objections from the EC (unless MS can offer a convincing remedy package to avoid it).
- Late January /Early February 2023: provisional findings and remedies (if required) from the CMA.
- February 3rd 2023: decision from New Zealand.
- April 11th 2023: final decision from the EC (if MS didn't close the deal sooner).
- April 18th 2023: second extension of the original outside date. If MS quits before that date they have to pay a termination fee of $2,500,000,000; if they don't, the outside date gets extended until July 18th 2023.
- April 26th 2023: final report and remedies (if required) from the CMA.
- April - May 2023: decision from the SAMR in China.
- July 18th 2023: The end of the second extension and final outside date in the merger agreement. If MS quits before that date they have to pay a termination fee of $3,000,000,000; if they don't, they'll have to renegotiate the outside date with ABK.
- August 2nd 2023: beginning of the FTC in-house trial.
- Early 2024: decision from the FTC administrative law judge.
- Anything beyond that: unknown
Since I find the thread and the ongoing conversation quite appealing, I welcome the delay. There will be a time this thread is no longer relevant and Era won't be the same :p delay it more!
OP
OP
Yes, but now that the final report from the CMA comes after the second extension (April 18th), or this goes through or they'll have to pay the 3 billion (unless the provisional findings in late January/early February are very negative and they pull out by then).
That's a risk. But it feels like the FTC isn't concerned about how their current strategies affect them in the future.
It's really weird how they're meant to look at the harm these deals could do to consumers and the market in the future, but can't see what harm their current strategies could do to them in the future. Like, delaying deals in their administrative court in hopes that deals are abandoned. They didn't forsee someone suing them over that practice and the possibility of them losing that ability?
So basically if Microsoft doesn't want to pay the $3b, they'll have to judge the likelihood of the deal passing based on CMA's provisional findings. Which is what I thought they would do, but before January 18th (before the next increase). To save even more (If CMA's provisional findings were looking like a deal killer).
Oh god not another delay
Constant delays just demonstrate that the regulators truly do understand the modern games industry.
Last edited:
MS is investing mainly to get a real foothold in the $100B+ mobile games market. Forest for the trees with consoles.
Is it bad news for Microsoft these delays? Or is something normal considering how big is this acquisition?
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
OP
OP
I think that the delay is a good sign for MS. The CMA could have followed the FTC but they are taking their time and not rushing the process.
xDD
Seems like the kind of update that both sides will be able to twist to feed their narrative.
As long as Xcloud isn't working flawlessly many people will have to switch to use GP, since most people don't invest in multiple substitutional ecosystems.
Well, would it be Xbox if everything weren't geting delayed? XD I consider this consistent brand management.
Like I said.. not a fruitful exercise to read too much into this hahaha. But. Oh well. Muh brain is muh brain.
Again, hardware is really not the dimension that anti-deal regulators want to be fighting this on. And they know that.
Hm. I'm trying not to read too much into this (but, of course, I am), but this puts me in two minds. This could just be CMA doing their due diligence and really vetting everything as they are wont to do on a thing of this size (which is good regardless). But part of me thinks that this bodes poorly for the idea that CMA would be approving without concessions - delay would seem to suggest they were not close to that point, which is pretty far. BUT... on the other hand, it IS a pretty far point to get to. So, it only makes sense that they would make sure to dot their j's and cross their x's to make sure that they address as many potential complaints and criticisms against them as possible if they WERE going to approve without concessions.
Like I said.. not a fruitful exercise to read too much into this hahaha. But. Oh well. Muh brain is muh brain.
In the sense that EC being negative bodes poorly for CMA, yea. (And who knows, maybe CMA just wants the EC to go first anyway - which is funny, since MS was hoping that EC would go first all along by kinda jumping the gun. And we're kinda circling back there again haha.) But I still think it comes down to the CMA at the end of the day, regardless.
Yea, surprising right? We do get a little bit from the CMA that basically goes "well, there COULD be more switchers than MS says". But that's about as far as it goes. And it's a roundabout way of arguing that Sony stands to actually suffer some harm from this (and again, is why people were criticizing them for protecting Sony, rather than the industry). But importantly, it was NOT used as a springboard to argue that MS would get a dominant market share or even try to significantly increase its market share. The only argument was that enough people might switch that PlayStation would feel it, which is a fundamentally different argument from "MS is banking on a ton of console switchers to make this acquisition make sense".
Again, hardware is really not the dimension that anti-deal regulators want to be fighting this on. And they know that.
Too funny LOL.
Exactly, due diligence is great for Microsoft.
Most games of note see extremely long tails on PC, and that's something we'll see more on consoles given that the MO now is to not reset every generation (assuming in these examples that the games could release on Xbox or the next Switch). Horizon: Zero Dawn has over 10% of its sales on PC (>2.3m sold on PC, >20m sold overall). Another solid example is Persona 5: Royal, which sold >1m units with the new releases (Xbox, Switch, PC, PS5) which is almost 30% of the overall >3.3m sales. Granted we don't know how much of that was on PS5, but I think it shows that even after years of exclusivity games of note will sell significant amounts of units when ported.
Has there been a public confirmation that Nintendo has signed? The only public comment from Nintendo I know is "yes, a contract was presented [to us]".
Haven't they sold like half what PlayStation has sold?
Nintendo is affirming the contract to press in that link. You're mistranslating.