Considering how big the monthly sales gap has been lately some reduction there will still be nice to see. As long as the Xbox Series does at least respectably this holiday season my concern for Xbox this generation will pretty much be over assuming they do have Activision Blizzard soon.

I don't see this particular deal as bringing about any sort of seismic shift in the industry. The industry is going to change big time over the next decade because of streaming. Streaming is going to be very popular among consumers, but it's a relatively costly business to enter. That means the big businesses that control traditional gaming hardware (Sony and Nintendo.  MS is already there)right now will likely have to become even bigger, or will be swallowed up by the existing tech giants. That's going to be true whether this deal closes or not.  

With this in mind, I suppose it is possible that this deal will come to symbolize the start of the merger mania.  However, unless interest rates drop pretty soon, I'm not sure that any other giant mergers are likely, in the near term. They're too expensive to finance right now. 

If streaming is the future of the business, then Microsoft has probably already beaten Sony, because in effect it will become a pissing match on who can spend more, and in that match, Sony can't win. Microsoft averages 16-18 billion in net profit every 3 months (each quarter). The market cap (net worth) of a company like Capcom is $8 billion. That's like 7 weeks of profit for Microsoft, lol. 

But I think the problem now for Sony is there is turning back now for MS. They've invested too much into the Bethesda + Acti-Blizzard purchases that they cannot just stop at that and not make Game Pass the Netflix of gaming. They have to go all in now, so I would expect more things like timed exclusives from MS (more than you saw in the past) if they don't necessarily want to go through the regulatory trouble, or they may just say "well if we can have this deal go through, there's no reason like a Capcom buy out wouldn't go through". 

This has been true for the last few years already. 

Interesting hearing today.

It seems the CMA yet to receive the finalised proposals by MS, and while the CMA sees a way forward being the most likely scenario, they won't commit to it publicly. The deal will go through for sure, but it was an interesting back and forth.

The judge granted conditional adjournment providing that the CMA writes up the evidence that there has been a material change of circumstances to the deal that allowed them to reconsider their decision. MS lawyers will provide the CMA with the details of the 10-year CoD deal with SONY as part of that evidence that there has been a material change of circumstances, the CMA will pass the details of the deal on to the judge along with other the changes that prove they have met conditions set out by the judge for his conditional adjournment to be granted.

The judge was "troubled" by the CMA announcement timing in relation to the FTC losses, the lawyers from both parties denied that what happened in the USA had anything to do with this change of course in the UK process. I don't know if I believe that to be honest, literally within minutes we got tweets from both sides following the FTC drama

It seems MS preferred to settle with the CMA rather than to go ahead with the CAT appeal process because it is a) shorter b) a more certain path forward, the word "certainty" was uttered a million times. I believe "certainty" is important to reassure ABK and get them to stick to the deal beyond the deadline (18th of July).

I wasn't sure where where else to post this but there you go. I wondered previously what does the CMA get out of the "pause" they asked for along with MS, and listening to today's hearing, it really looks like they wanted to use MS desire for a) a shorter process b) a certain path forward to their advantage, which I think is going to be a very small one, but an advantage nonetheless? Will find out soon. 

Interesting indeed

The judge was clearly astounded by the development, He even told the CMA the sole fact this development occurred put the CMA decision into quash territory.

And this is not without logic, if they can get an adequate concession from MS now that means they could have gotten as much during phase 2 and they do have a duty to make sure a block is a last resort. This means somewhere in phase 2 the CMA failed to give MS due process. Could be not arguing in good faith, not giving the proper signal upon proposed remedies so that MS can propose a stronger one or any others.

This is also evidenced by the fact there's simply no way MS values the cloud gaming scene in the UK more than this transaction (not even worldwide IMO), so simply put, if push came to shove, MS would have proposed anything up to dropping their cloud venture in the UK and it's in fact exactly what's they are proposing now. The fact that they did not propose such before points to the CMA not giving a proper signal to MS during negotiation IMO.

So this stay in proceeding was both important for MS obviously to speed things up but also very important for the CMA. A quash can have severe consequences for the CMA and can impact its power, low oversight status, and overall procedure they using now.

I don't think it's particularly good or bad. It might be good in a personal sense for me if Microsoft lets 'Toys for Bob' make a new Banjo Kazooie game, but overall the action is morally neutral.

However, 'is it legal' is the far more important question for the courts. Microsoft is a very large company, but despite this has very little foothold in gaming. They've finished third in every generation despite previous acquisitions and even with the two companies combined their shared revenue is nowhere close to 50% of the gaming market. It falls well short of any anti-monopoly statute and Activision-Blizzard wanted to be bought, they were not coerced into the deal. You'd have to show real and present harm to consumers, not the mere possibility of harm at some unknown point in the future, to block the deal legally.

Just to be clear, the quash route offered by the judge is because he believes the new developments (including the CoD SOONY deal) means he could justify the process starting all over, which means a new investigation by the CMA all together. The quash wasn't meant to nullify the CMA report or deem it as "illegitimate", only to restart it because it could be viewed as "historical" in the context of the new developments, but both parties almost begged the judge not to do that lol. 

The CMA could've accepted to start over but preferred not to because the process is costly, they're after all, an underfunded and an understaffed public sector. MS is after a) quickest path forward b) certainty, so the quash wasn't in their interest either, they made that clear. 

A quash wouldn't have severe consequences on the CMA like you're outlining here, I am not sure why you are jumping to that conclusion. The quash wouldn't have been granted because the CMA findings were inadequate, it would've been granted because they are new developments and a new transaction all together is on the table right now, interestingly, the new developments that could've led to a quash includes the SONY CoD deal. You're smart enough to know this, why do you always resort to speculation and hyperbole? You are clearly very involved in this which makes the context you're providing for the "quash" disingenuous. 

As for the consequences for the CMA, they've already happened. A right wing government that holds all the power right now has publicly come out and called them a woke working-from-home bunch who value diversity, the horror! Sunak has publicly admitted that he would steer the CMA, their independence has been clearly jeopardised in the stinkiest way possible, who knows what else has Hunt told the CMA when they met privately, I don't imagine it's "nicer" or "milder" that what has been said in public.

MS could've simply followed the process by appealing to the CAT and stopped there, but nope, they have used their connections with the government to pressure the CMA despite the fact that there is a legitimate path for appealing the CMA decision which remains an option, MS chose to play dirty, and it worked. Next time Amazon, Facebook or Apple has a problem with the CMA, they know what to do, and it's clearly not just going to CAT. 

I don't care about most of Activision games except for Crash and Spyro. If Microsoft lets Toys for Bob or Beenox make new entries on these franchises then it's already a win in my book, even if I have to buy a Xbox to play these games.

A quash is exactly to nullify the previous report

"A motion to quash is a request to a court or other tribunal to render a previous decision or proceeding null or invalid."

The judge did not 'offer' a quash, it's not up to the parties to decide/accept a quash.  He was basically saying the context might warrant a summary judgement and quash (most likely) the phase 2 investigations.

Here is the proceedings document highlighting the quash procedure for the UK CAT :

where it quashes the whole or part of that decision, remit the matter back to the CMA with a direction to reconsider and make a new decision in accordance with the ruling of the Tribunal: Schedule 8, paragraph 3A of the 1998 Act.

What you suggest is a simple remittal not a quash, it is also highlighted in the same document section 2.17

Under paragraph 3(2) the power of the Tribunal on such an appeal includes the power to:
- confirm or set aside the decision in question;
- remit the matter to the CMA;
- impose or revoke or vary the amount of any penalty;
- give such directions, or take such other steps, as the CMA itself could have given or taken; and
- make any other decision which the CMA could itself have made.

Those are certainly valid reasons but not the only ones for the CMA, the judges having to identify mistakes done by the CMA that resulted in the quash was bad optics. This could result in binding new procedures/limitations for the CMA. There are already many cases where the CMA was given procedural restrictions while some others resulted simply in a rebuke of a findings/a procedure employed. But, that would be left entirely for the CAT to determine.

Not to mention in such a high-profile case it may decrease public trust in the regulatory body. We saw last week what can happen to such bodies when public trust is waiving. 

I'm not jumping to a conclusion and I not saying it absolutely would but it could have that effect, previous cases including nonmerger ones already acted to restrict the CMA in the procedures it can use and how they use those. 

The quash wouldn't have been granted because the CMA findings were inadequate

There is only 2 basis to quash CMA findings, either an unlawful practice or highly unreasonable findings. Here it would most likely have been quashed for the unlawfulness of one of its practice. The judge strongly hinted at the quash not because of the new development with Sony but because CMA was engaging in negotiation with MS the judge even asked the CMA "Why didn’t you listen to these new proposals before?". That's because the CMA has a duty to use block only as a last resort which they obviously didn't reach here.

it would've been granted because they are new developments and a new transaction all together is on the table right now.

Again no, as far as the CAT is concerned there is no new evidence allowed plus CMA interim order prevents MS from doing a new deal with ABK. The "new deal" is only being employed loosely by the CMA to justify extending the currently pending final decision. MS did not reopen the contract with ABK so there's no new deal to date. Normally the CMA does not even have the right to do that, that's why the judge said the CAT won't rule on the lawfulness of how the CMA wants to go forward, but he needs to get an idea of what the legal basis is.

interestingly, the new developments that could've led to a quash include the SONY CoD deal.

He did not mention Sony prior or at the time he mentioned the quash but he did mention the new deal with Sony kind of blows apart the CMA’s whole argument later on. However, I think the judge was being informal with this mention because the CMA findings are a cloud SLC and Sony is not part of that meaning it should have been of no consequence here. But maybe the judge would then have found that the CMA overlooked the benefits in the console market and failed to properly weigh them to the cons of the Cloud Market IDK.

You're smart enough to know this, why do you always resort to speculation and hyperbole? You are clearly very involved in this which makes the context you're providing for the "quash" disingenuous. 

And again you resort to using ad hominem attacking the one arguing instead of the arguments, you resort to this a lot. It prevents us to have an enjoyable conversation as your simply looking to discredit the ones you do not agree with. The context I provide for the quash is actually supported by the proceedings of the CATs, what have you as a source to prove it as trivial as you suggested?

That's not the kind of consequences I was referring to, but yes those suck. The thing is the CMA enjoys quite large power in the UK way more so than any other jurisdiction, but it comes with a warning not to abuse it. Here the CMA is responsible to have fueled their detractors' arguments against themselves IMO. There's no way that when you have findings that baffle the vast majority of industry experts and have been obtained while making regular phone calls with the highly politically motivated FTC would not make others ask questions. 

None of the paths employed by MS here was illegitimate, MS as the right to voice its concerns to the government like anybody else. The only connection that speeds up the process here is simply the fact MS is important to the UK. Also, the CAT appeal path is extremely difficult as it requires finding the CMA either unlawful or so unreasonable literally no one else would conclude the same Which is the highest standard possible.

In the end, it looks like the CMA could have been quashed on with both as evidenced by the Judge's comments and the fact they're now pretty much alone (not alone in their findings but alone in rejecting remedies which if judged adequate could have breached the threshold to say the CMA acted too unreasonably).

Even then, the CMA would have been tasked with the same review anyway, and to date, they never changed their decision after being quashed. Meaning even if MS was to be 100% right and have been wronged by the CMA, the CMA would only have to reach the same conclusion over and over again to eventually kill the deal. This exact behavior is so prevalent with the CMA that many companies abandon mergers instead of appealing to the CAT even though they might have a legitimate and strong case. This is not an example of a body with proper checks and balances that separation of power requires.

Next time Amazon, Facebook or Apple has a problem with the CMA, they know what to do, and it's clearly not just going to CAT. 

Next time the CMA may use a block truly as a last resort, as they should, providing a proper path for companies to address all concerns beforehand.