By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian on 27 January 2022
Edit Thread
DonFerrari said:
Machiavellian said:

You know there are 2 parts to the sell right.  First there is the sell and the price for the sale that goes to regulation to for approval, then there is the contracts on the sale that goes to the board for approval.  One is public, the other is not.  Once approval is given, then they start hashing out all the terms of the sell.  Some parts can be done before approval, others will not happen until after approval.  Its not a straight up simple process, there are multiple layers.

Also you seem to equate internet outrage to business deals as if the 2 are equal.  Just because you may believe Bobby is an ass does not mean the board does or higher ups in MS.  Believing that MS is going to have Bobby retire because of some HR blunders does not always pan out that way.  I am sure someone will take the fall but who knows if its going to be Bobby.  Speculating what will happen until this deal is done is probably a waste of time, none of it is going to be known until it actually happens since it will be C level and board type discussions which rarely leaks.

You do know that it was claimed and accepted that Bobby and other high level execs were the core of the problem, and also aware that MS said they would approach Acti in a different manner right?

And sure I do know that there are documents that aren't released. It isn't even uncommon for a deal of this size to have had a NDA signed several months or even year in advance with a MOU and action plan.

Also not questioning the internet outrage. My question is, do you believe that if MS wanted Bobby and other high level execs fired right away the moment the deal was made public (or even before) could they demand it? And do you you believe that they could have demanded that games released before the deal was approved be released only on Xbox and PC?

If you believe they could, then why didn't MS demand the solution of the first problem?

Really does not matter what was claimed.  Who claimed it, was it the board which governs the CEO or was it a bunch of people.  Did MS make any claims concerning top C level execs. PR statements are just that, PR.  They are used to say we are doing something but the specifics well that can be anything or nothing.

As to your question, not sure why you asking it, I already stated MS could demand whatever they want, its Activision who has the right to agree to the terms or not. So yes, MS can demand whatever they want for this deal as to what is made public or not that is also up to their discretion. 

As to the solution to your first problem, why do you believe they would make it public.  They would only make it public if it benefited them and even if it did, trying to smear C level execs rarely if ever happens.  Instead as I continue to tell you, they just retire.  So if you believe MS is going to make some big public statements about getting rid of Activision management I ask you when has that ever happen.