Just making sure, because there are certainly some people that feel that way.  

Not saying I've seen people express that exact view, but I've seen people complain that a game was bad just because it didn't get a 90 or something on Metacritic. 

Part of me want to believe one regulator need to act tuff to get the most concession possible but I hate beliefs so I have to rely on fact only and here fact tell me CMA is British and British being British it does not bode well.

Jk. Fuck UK.

I wanna say Jez should stay off social media but considering that’s his entire personality I don’t think that’s possible. These leakers tho, they either live long enough to one day find themselves putting on the clown makup or go down in a blaze of disgrace like Jez.

Reuters Article

BRUSSELS, March 2 (Reuters) - Microsoft's (MSFT.O) readiness to offer licensing deals to rivals is likely to address EU antitrust concerns over its $69 billion acquisition of Activision (ATVI.O) without the need for asset sales, three people familiar with the matter said.

The European Commission is not expected to demand that Microsoft sell assets to win its approval, the people said.

-

This is what they did to get Linkedin through.

So now this should settle one of CMA's concerns with behavioural remedies, Microsoft is doing a lot to get this deal through.

Interesting developments. CMA is looking now like the odd one out, with the other approvals and EU/China expected to approve which will also cause others to fall in line. The FTC is irrelevant, they have zero case to block the deal and FTC doesn't even technically "approve" deals by the law.

If EC is happy with the exact same contractual remedies being offered to the CMA and others will do the work for the CMA then that may sway CMA a little towards behavioural remedies being offered. 

Divestment isn't really a viable option either, there would be too few who would be willing to and even have the money to acquire Activision who also won't run into regulatory issues and the negatives would likely outweigh the positives at this stage.

Actually it's a viable options as there does not really need to be a buyer to divest. I confirmed this with chatGPT so take it with a grain of salt but it looks reasonable and accurate.

My question "Is there a form of company divestment where the divested part is made public and share of the new entity is distributed among shareholder of the prior whole company?".

Answer : 

Yes, there is a form of company divestment where the divested part is made public and shares of the new entity are distributed among the shareholders of the prior whole company. This type of divestment is called a spin-off, and it involves a parent company creating a new, independent company by separating a division or business unit and distributing its shares to the parent company's shareholders.

In a spin-off, the new company is usually structured as a separate legal entity with its own board of directors and management team, and it operates independently from the parent company. Shareholders of the parent company receive shares of the new company in proportion to their ownership in the parent company, allowing them to participate in the growth and profits of both companies. Spin-offs are often used by companies to unlock value and improve their overall performance by allowing each company to focus on its core strengths and business operations.

I knew the term spin-off but assumed it was just synonym to selling part of a company rather than being it's own separate process (we learn every day). But that said if CMA want divestment in this case it is possible they won't accept spin-off because with the same pool of shareholders it is likely that it act as a strong 2nd party to MS.

Does that mean Activision-Blizzard shareholders? So basically Bobby would remain as CEO?

Interesting but what would that mean for the contracts that Microsoft has negotiated with Nvidia and Nintendo? Will they now be void?

Well...That does sound like a viable option but depending on the answer to my above questions, there could be a few negatives to it still. I'd also wonder if that would even be acceptable for the CMA if they're set on structural remedies. Wouldn't Microsoft still have some sort of notable influence over Activision even if they "operate independently"

As you said, sharing shareholders would in effect likely make Activision act like a 2nd party for Microsoft even if they operate independently, it could allow Microsoft to express influence over them for certain benefits in relation to CoD.

I warned y'all. 

He should shave his beard and then MS can shadow-drop the game