
It was reported recently that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was likely to file a lawsuit against Microsoft's attempt acquisition of Activision Blizzard, but there's now "hope" that the merger will be approved by the FTC instead.
A new report from the New York Post says that the acquisition has caused a rift at the FTC, with FTC Chair Lina Khan supposedly pushing to block the deal, but others leaning towards Microsoft including the FTC’s sole Republican commissioner, Christine Wilson, as well as "at least one of the four-member panel’s three Democratic commissioners".
It's suggested by "DC Insiders" that a potential 2-2 tie in a four-person vote isn't something that the FTC Chair is likely to risk, as it would "throw Khan’s authority over the agency into question" and "effectively OK the deal" anyway.
William Kovacic, a former FTC Chairman, told the New York Post that if Microsoft's was willing to provide remedies for the acquisition (potentially including a 10-year Call of Duty commitment on PlayStation), that would definitely help:
"What makes it difficult is when Microsoft goes to their friends in blue and says, 'We have provided a package of solutions for all the perceived problems, and the folks at the FTC are being very unreasonable if they don’t take it'..."
So, things seem to be looking a bit more positive for Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard in the United States right now, although we won't know for sure until at least later this month - probably more likely in January.
If a lawsuit does end up going ahead, Bloomberg is reporting that Microsoft is "ready to fight" for the deal.
What do you make of this? Tell us down in the comments section below.
[source nypost.com]
Comments 39
I cannot wait for all this to be over. All it has done is delayed Xbox gamers having access to more games on Game Pass when we know it should have gone through a long time ago.
I know this topic gets clicks for this site, but can we stop with the constant articles on it please? I can't wait until this deal goes through, which it will.
Edit: Maybe make a dedicated section for the Activision/Blizzard situation, similar to how on the side of the homepage there are sections for "Features" and "Forum Topics". That way there can still be an article on every little report and rumour that has to do with the deal, but it won't take over the homepage.
Throw a carrot ( Call of Duty) in front of the mule ( PlayStation ) and bag everything else. Nice job Microsoft.
@uptownsoul I guess the idea is to negotiate new terms every 10 years or something
@bpomber As much as I understand the frustration (I just want the deal to go through as well!), we're obliged to cover the news and go where the demand is - we see a lot of engagement on these ActiBlizz posts, so we feel the need to continually provide updates.
That also means highlighting these articles on the front page, because that's what our audience wants to see. All I can suggest is avoiding them until the reports calm down... hopefully we won't still be talking about this in six months' time!
@TheAshCohen09 10 years actually makes it the longest ever games commitment for a distribution deal ever. Typically they run game to game or for a set number of releases etc. The reason is that as a developer you don't want to risk any hardware issues meaning you are tied contractually to support.
@Lumpaywk I might be mistaken, but I think the Star Wars/EA deal was for 10 years.
@FraserG That's fair. I understand the desire to have all these posts, from the site's perspective. It's just tiring for me to come to this site and have to see it posted front and centre day after day.
You're right, I'll just have to learn to live with these posts and avoid them until the deal (most likely and hopefully) goes through in the next few months.
Microsoft is in a really good spot for this deal. Worse case scenario they are "forced" to make the "concession" of putting call of duty on playstation which has been their desire since day 1.
@Hypnotoad107 That is a licensing deal to use an IP not a distribution deal for games onto specific hardware.
@bpomber Yeah, I understand.
@fraserG Could you create a complete timeline article that goes through all of the highs and lows of the Activision Blizzard deal? Update it whenever news like this drops.
I'm always first in line to read these articles, but there have been so many bumps in the road that its hard to keep track of it all
@uptownsoul Because they want something in writing signed by both parties. Not just verbally by one guy in an interview.
@Kienda they could have gotten Activision games on GP without buying the company. I'm playing Farcry 5 on Game Pass now, but they didn't buy out Ubisoft.
Licencing deals exist for this very reason so companies can work together, but not have to all merge into one.
Just push this one through, then i can finally learn about Playstations plan moving forward. Xbox gets this, Playstation can have SQUARE, Sega and Cd Project
@Boogaloo_Jenkins Good shout, we'll see what we can do - might not be this week as we've got The Game Awards coming up, but we'll try and squeeze something in before Christmas / New Year.
@Rmg0731
Just push this one through, then i can finally learn about Playstations plan moving forward. Xbox gets this, Playstation can have SQUARE, Sega and Cd Project
Yeah absolutely. And then shortly after, Microsoft can aquire Capcom, Ubisoft and Koei Tecmo, oh I almost forgot they should get Kadokawa Future Publishing while they are at it. That will teach all of us a lesson, huh🙄?
@Rmg0731 Sony don't have much cash and have huge debts, they can have garbage irrelevant square, cd projekt is crap as well but Sega should never join such a trash company, the one that caused their downfall. Not to worry though, Microsoft only got started buying studios, Japanese ones are coming and they have almost $400 billion available in the bank for that, enough to buy Sony 5 times over
@Kaloudz
Question: if the FTC approves... How will the other two big regulators respond? Will it sway them at all?
What the FTC does will likely have little impact on how the EU Regulators decide on the takeover (not sure about the CMA) .There will still be a rigorous investigation and if they deem the deal to be against consumers protection and anti-competitive, Microsoft will have to make concessions to assuage these concerns. Otherwise they won't approve the takeover.
@uptownsoul
So Phil Spencer's statements are meaningless
No. They are as meaningful as any of Jim Ryan's statements are( would be), without a business written contract and all that it entails.
@uptownsoul
if Microsoft did get Activision, Japanese regulators would likely stop them from getting any Japanese publishers
Well that's the purpose of regulators, to investigate and scrutinise. Now, how and what they decide is an entirely different matter.....but we live and hope😁
@PhileasFragg
Activision-Blizzard have not been fans of services like GamePass and PSNow. Only once games are completely void of marketability do they throw games on GamePass / PSNow.
@uptownsoul
so you agree that both Jim Ryan & Phil Spencer's words in interviews are worthless?
Not quite -what I'm saying is: Their words carry as much worth as one place's on them, there is of course a case of past history to consider as well. And, as always there are exceptions, one can't just walk back on statements if the repercussions are serious, but hey this is just my take.
@Kaloudz each regulatory body acts entirely independently, the only way they will affect each other is indirectly: one body demands concesionarios that happen to address the other body concerns, so those concerns fade away.
That said: it is almost never the default for a regulatory body like this to just block a deal. They will always first suggest what they see as a solution to their concerns, and there is some window for negotiations. It’s only when those negotiations come to an halt that a deal is actually blocked.
Even once blocked, the parties involved can take the decision to courts, and the courts are not always going to agree with the regulatory body’s conclusions.
This is why I have no doubt this will to through. Microsoft wants this deal to go through, and anything short of “sell off CoD” will result in Microsoft simply agreeing to any reasonable terms to get things through. They will not need to go to courts (my opinion/prediction).
@FraserG For whatever it is worth, Reddit notwithstanding, this is my only source of info on this matter.
And while I'm constantly rolling my eyes at development, the updates on the situation itself are greatly appreciated.
@uptownsoul I'm just confused why Microsoft has to make any kind of deal with Sony at all. I mean, neary $70 billion!!!!! I figured that would make them the boss of something, anything. Lol.
I think a lot of people are asking why the FTC is so concerned about foreign companies and trying to help them dominate an entire industry over the sole American company with a major presence.
I'm sure everyone has an 'opinion' on this deal - whether it should go through or not, whether MS should even offer to keep CoD multi-platform beyond any Sony deals expiring, and I doubt any of these articles will change those gamers opinions.
From my perspective, when this was first announced, it was NOT expected to close before mid 2023 anyway - by the 'end' of this current Financial year for MS - so if it does close 'sooner' (before E3 2023), that's a 'bonus' to me. As we know, its a case for 'lawyers' to sort out. It always seemed from the 'outside' that MS is not 'competing' with Sony prior to this deal, Activision was in a 'bad' place and MS buying A/B will NOT monopolise Gaming - not with Sony and especially Nintendo who 'compete' without CoD anyway, not with all the other Publishers and Studio's making games etc but lawyers will sort it out. It always seemed like a 'spanner' to negotiate a 'better' deal for Sony (even if MS were not planning to make CoD exclusive, getting a guarantee in writing makes it worth it to them)
Anyway, the sooner it does get resolved the better. I'm getting sick and tired of hearing about all the pettiness and childish behaviour. I still expect it to go through as I have not heard or seen a 'valid' reason that any 'monopoly' can be achieved by MS with this deal. It will make MS stronger and perhaps overtake Sony but not enough to have a Monopoly. People will still buy Playstation to play Uncharted, God of War, Ghost of Tsushima, Last of Us, Horizon, Ratchet & Clank etc etc even Destiny too...
@uptownsoul Yes I am.
@Kaloudz I’m not familiar with every regulatory body but there are interviews and time allocated for affected parties to voice concerns among a lot of bureaucracy. There is also a lot of back and forth between all parties, and the most boring part for all of us: all books, accounting, lawyer stuff, absolutely everything legal document, existing deals and what not are meticulously examined, among a bunch of other things. So yea, things like this take a LOT of time even if no one came forth to voice concerns.
@JayJ aren't Amazon Google & apple all American company's aswell
@uptownsoul Not as meaningful as a full contract written approved by lawyers, and signed by both parties. Which is how it should be as all these "assurances" should have some teeth and consequences not just a promise not to act uncompetitively.
@uptownsoul Phil Spencer's words in interviews are worthless. If Microsoft decides that they won't provide CoD on PlayStation anymore, and Sony tried to take them to court based solely on a statement Phil Spencer made in an interview, the ruling would be that the statement is worthless and it has no legal binding.
This is why only legally defined agreements, such as contracts, has any worth. If there is a signed contract between Microsoft and Sony that states that Microsoft is obliged to provide CoD on PlayStation for 10 years and Microsoft pulls CoD from PlayStation before those 10 years, Microsoft can be taken to court and will lose.
However, if you as an individual care about what Phil Spencer claims he wants to achieve at the time of the interview (after all, he might change his mind later), then his words in interviews might have some worth to you (but not in some objective sense).
@Would_you_kindly Well yeah but what kind of major presence do they have in the gaming industry? They are hardly comparable with Playstation or Nintendo, and nothing like Xbox. All they got is some basic streaming services that hardly account for anything, heck Google's just recently shut down. Apple has macs but they have never had much of a presence. I guess you could make some arguments for the mobile market but it's a completely different part of the industry.
Fact is Xbox is the only American brand with any real AAA gaming console industry presence. Before that it was maybe just Atari. AAA gaming and consoles would be completely dominated by the Japanese without it.
In any case I don't see why the FTC should be concerned about helping Japanese companies succeed, that isn't their job.
@uptownsoul I proved no such thing. I never said they were trash. I said in a context of what is legally binding, which is what matters to corporations and agencies overseeing the market, his statements are worthless. You are obviously not able to comprehend what others are saying or just want to twist others words to fit your agenda. So I just want to clarify that my statement was in no way a support of whatever opinions you have.
@uptownsoul It's just worthless in a given context, in a different context it's useful.
It's useful to know that's the intention he is announcing to the public. If he announces one thing to the public and then doubles back on it, the public will not act kindly to it. It will cost the goodwill of the customers. So it has a meaning even if it's not a legal guarantee for anything.
Calling something trash implies it's not useful in any context, and in that I wholeheartedly disagree with you for the reasons I stated above. If your intention was not to imply such things, then I suggest you word yourself better in the future as there are a lot of better words you could have picked in that case.
@uptownsoul You are taking part of my comment. You have to read all the way to the end if you want the full meaning of what I am saying. And I am commenting on your word 'trash'. That means something else than saying it's worthless in a given context. My FULL comment gave a pretty specific context.
And I am done talking to you. I'll ignore further comments.
@Kaloudz it is a possibility (the deal falling through due to the deadline) but such contracts can be extended.
Still, the deadline is only relevant if they have to go to court. I bet all regulatory body deadlines fall within the acquisition close deadline.
@Kaloudz No, they are not being "mindful". The regulatory agencies are not, anyways. The date was set because the lawyers know their stuff and knew the deadlines the regulatory agencies face once things hit their desks.
Regulatory agencies don't give a two [bleeps] about how much it would cost MS for the deal to fall through.
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...