By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Ryuu96 on 08 February 2023
aTokenYeti said:

If you take what the CMA is saying at absolute face value, I see no reason why a remedy couldn’t be worked out.

If you look at their historical track record, that’s where the doubts come in.

But I am not at all sure which to believe

Yeah.

Think I might be a bit negative because I'm down on practically everything to do with UK lately, Lol.

So I have my doubt they're being serious about accepting behavioural remedies but maybe they are and I'm wrong.

If I'm right and they will only accept structural, well, that will be a very very hard decision for Microsoft to make.

Maybe not impossible but extremely unlikely.

I may have jumped the gun a little but even the lawyers I follow seem a bit unsure too.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 08 February 2023

Around the Network
Ryuu96 on 08 February 2023
shikamaru317 said:

CMA are an absolute joke just as I expected they would be. There report is filled with factual errors and absolute nonsense.

No matter what happens, this is true, the report clearly shows they still have a lack of understanding of the gaming market, it's full with errors and weird ass statements like that Cloud one.

And no matter what happens, I still believe that the CMA needs more oversight, they have a crazy amount of power, I've seen the America and EU lawyers absolutely baffled at how much power the CMA has, Lol.



shikamaru317 on 08 February 2023

Structural remedies seem unacceptable unless Xbox can get back a big chunk of that $67b by selling off either CoD, Activision, or Blizzard. They are not worth anywhere near that much unless they are completely whole.

Hopefully CMA will actually accept behavioral remedies such as extending the CoD deal to 15 or 20 years, or offering similar 10 year deals for other key ABK IP like Diablo, Overwatch, Crash, Spyro, or Tony Hawk.

Last edited by shikamaru317 - on 08 February 2023

Ryuu96 on 08 February 2023
shikamaru317 said:

Structural remedies seem unacceptable unless Xbox can get back a big chunk of that $67b by selling off either CoD, Activision, or Blizzard. They are not worth anywhere near that much unless they are completely whole.

Hopefully CMA will actually accept behavioral remedies such as extending the CoD deal to 15 or 20 years, or offering similar 10 year deals for other key ABK IP like Diablo, Overwatch, Crash, Spyro, and Tony Hawk.

All CMA's acceptable structural remedies seem to require the sale of CoD + Activision together.

Though if we say Activision was deemed to be worth say, $30bn when Microsoft acquired them, or W/E...Random number, I doubt Microsoft gets $30bn for Activision today, not in this market and not when they're being forced to sell so they are on the backfoot in negotiations.

However...

Apparently CMA has accepted divestitures in the past which only meant selling 51% of a company.

That actually sounds very reasonable, if Microsoft doesn't have to sell the entire thing, maybe a 40-60 split? It'd be more affordable for the other person and keep Microsoft having a significant (but not controlling) interest over Activision, which is revenue and influence, likely parity in marketing and content, never multiplatform.

I'd love if Microsoft somehow split with EA...At least EA doesn't treat their employees like shit, CoD being under Vince again would be funny and CoD would eventually hit EA Access, therefore Game Pass...Perfect, Lol.

But that's a dream scenario and it isn't happening. Doubt EA could even afford 60%.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 08 February 2023

kirby007 on 08 February 2023

Jim : here fellas have a few million to increase your shitty paid government funded job



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

Around the Network
the-pi-guy on 08 February 2023

If one was expecting the deal to be outright blocked, then this is great news.

If one was expecting the deal to go through with no concessions, this is bad news. 

If one was undecided about what to expect, then this doesn't really mean much. Not much has actually changed. The deal could still go through with CoD (provided that MS/Activision can convince the CMA probably with access remedies even greater than what they were promising before). The biggest thing that has changed is the greater chances that the deal might go without CoD.  

This is probably completely crazy, but it'd be interesting if CoD got spun off on it's own, and got partially owned by a couple different parties.  



Ryuu96 on 08 February 2023
the-pi-guy said:

If one was expecting the deal to be outright blocked, then this is great news.

If one was expecting the deal to go through with no concessions, this is bad news. 

If one was undecided about what to expect, then this doesn't really mean much. Not much has actually changed. The deal could still go through with CoD (provided that MS/Activision can convince the CMA probably with access remedies even greater than what they were promising before). The biggest thing that has changed is the greater chances that the deal might go without CoD.  

This is probably completely crazy, but it'd be interesting if CoD got spun off on it's own, and got partially owned by a couple different parties.  

I would say that if CMA wanted to block it, then they would, and they'd be little that Microsoft could do about it, the fact that they are giving Microsoft a little chance is better than a block but structural remedies are an extreme ask and they basically leave the decision on Microsoft.

I definitely expected concessions but not structural ones.

If CMA does accept behavioural then lets just go with 15-20 years, Lol. I don't really care, I never expected CoD to be exclusive.

The spinoff idea is interesting, actually now that you say it, I've been thinking about only one party but I didn't consider multiple taking a stake in it.



EpicRandy on 08 February 2023
Ryuu96 said:
Idas Said:

OK, with the info that we have so far, this would be the summary (looking forward to the long version of the PF during the day or tomorrow):

Provisional findings from the CMA:

- Short version
- Summary
- Long version not available yet
- Press release

The merger may be expected to result in a substantial lessening of competition in:

A) console gaming in the UK due to vertical effects resulting from input foreclosure; and

B) cloud gaming services in the UK due to vertical effects resulting from input foreclosure.

Possible remedies:

1) Requiring a partial divestiture of Activision Blizzard:

a) Divestiture of the business associated with Call of Duty;

b) Divestiture of the Activision segment of Activision Blizzard, which would include the business associated with Call of Duty;

c) Divestiture of the Activision segment and the Blizzard segment (the Blizzard segment) of Activision Blizzard, Inc., which would include the business associated with Call of Duty and World of Warcraft, among other titles.

2) Prohibition of the merger.

3) Access remedies will be considered:

18. Microsoft has, however, informed us of existing and potential contractual arrangements with third-party platforms relating to access to Call of Duty. Accordingly, while none of the circumstances in which the CMA would select a behavioural remedy as the primary source of remedial action in a merger investigation (as summarised in paragraph 15 above) appear to be present, the CMA will also consider a behavioural access remedy as a possible remedy.

19. Access remedies are a form of behavioural remedy which seek to maintain or restore competition by enabling competitors to have access on appropriate terms to the products and facilities of a merger entity that they require to remain competitive. Access remedies normally require an access commitment which is set out in significant detail so that both customers and monitoring agencies can enforce compliance effectively. In this case, an access remedy would look to ensure third party access to Activision Blizzard, Inc's content that is necessary to remedy the provisional SLCs.

44. As noted above, the circumstances in which the CMA might select a behavioural remedy as the primary source of remedial action are not present in this case. The two markets in which the CMA has provisionally found SLCs are multi-faceted and continue to develop. This is particularly the case in cloud gaming, where the customer offerings and business models of market participants are evolving rapidly. We are of the initial view that any behavioural remedy in this case is likely to present material effectiveness risks. We invite the Parties to provide evidence on how these risks could be appropriately managed to ensure that any behavioural remedy is effective.

Next steps

MS/ABK and interested parties have until 17:00 UK time on 22 February to respond to the remedies notice.

---

I still feel this is just a formality and they'll only accept structural remedies, I don't buy that they have any serious intention of considering behavioural remedies, I suppose we'll see. If CMA is serious about accepting a behavioural remedy (again, I doubt it) but if they are, maybe Microsoft just increases it to 20 years or something.

We'll also see how much Microsoft wants Blizzard/King vs CoD/Activision and if Microsoft can even find a buyer for CoD + Activision and not only find one who can afford it but one that won't also run into regulatory scrutiny. If Microsoft can find a buyer for Activision/CoD then there is at least a chance they'd accept a structural remedy (or at least, I hope) but I think there's like 5% chance of Microsoft accepting a structural remedy.

Tbh I'm not sure if it's hopium but a lot seem more positive than I am on the basis that it isn't an outright block and they leave the door open for remedies (structural and behavioural) but again, I feel like the behavioural comment could just be a formality. Either way, it seems like Microsoft isn't backing down since it isn't an outright block so we have a while to go yet, Lol.

Couldn't Microsoft simply use a trickery of it's own and use structural remedy of "Divestiture of the business associated with Call of Duty;"

IMO MS would only need to create a company ex: The CoD Company and make them the 50%+1 owner of the call of duty franchise. then make this company "buy" their independence. This deal could be done through contractual agreement that MS still develop and support CoD as a third party to them for x years. This company could then use CoD revenue to build new studio and eventually obtain complete independence for the development/support of CoD games.

 

Last edited by EpicRandy - on 08 February 2023

WoodenPints on 08 February 2023

What's funny is the deal could fall through and Activision could decide (not going to happen) they only want to publish the next CoD game on PC, Switch and Xbox or a deal struck by Xbox or Sony worth a fortune for a 10-15 years of console exclusivity on CoD and the CMA wouldn't be able to do a thing about it and the consumers would be hurt much more by that instead of 10+ years of consumer friendly CoD access agreed by Microsoft which is way better than the current CoD environment in which competition has been hurt for the past 10 years by backroom deals limiting all other platforms apart from one.



Ryuu96 on 08 February 2023

Oh baby, apparently 12 months of content just leaked and Microsoft is going on a rampage taking it down.