Microsoft's acquisition of Activison Blizzard

[Darth Vader]

Their board has hired union busters. So... I don't really agree with this.

Is this a largely USA based forum? Union seems like a dirty word there. (And it's one of the few countries where hiring to prevent a union is an industry?)

When Acti hired the "enhanced interrogation technique" lady herself, Frances F. Townsend, I knew they were serious about controlling shit (and replacing Blizzard leadership with Activision goons. $10 says same thing happens to Bungie at Sony)

I'm not sure if Union is a dirty word here, but I've never seen anyone here being anti-union. I think what all are pointing out is that MS is not a shining example of unionisation, and that if it wasn't for this acquisition, their whole "union" thing recently would have not occurred.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

www.bloomberg.com

Btw, Microsoft only said they were "playing nice" with unions mid last year. They also flooded google search with good news about that, if you care to read, and their shenanigans with union busting are well within several pages of google search except for that example above.

Edit - Here's the little charm operation they set up. This is so obvious.

Tech is notoriously anti-union. Microsoft is taking a different approach — neutrality

Microsoft announced Monday that it’s entering a ‘labor neutrality agreement’ with CWA

www.polygon.com

 

[anonpuffs]

I'm very pro-union, I'm just extremely (and I mean extremely) skeptical of any large corporation embracing unions, especially in the US, without being forced to at gunpoint. Wall Street has done its best to absolute crush the power of unions and has largely succeeded in doing so since the 1970s and 80s. You see it time and again, from Starbucks to Amazon to Walmart to Google to Tesla to Apple. Actiblizz and Microsoft are not unique snowflakes. They are publicly traded companies responsive to shareholders, all of which align against unionization. This public-facing union friendliness is 100% a facade designed only to last as long as it takes to get past regulatory scrutiny.

 

[Darth Vader]

I'm very pro-union, I'm just extremely (and I mean extremely) skeptical of any large corporation embracing unions, especially in the US, without being forced to at gunpoint. Wall Street has done its best to absolute crush the power of unions and has largely succeeded in doing so since the 1970s and 80s. You see it time and again, from Starbucks to Amazon to Walmart to Google to Tesla to Apple. Actiblizz and Microsoft are not unique snowflakes. They are publicly traded companies responsive to shareholders, all of which align against unionization. This public-facing union friendliness is 100% a facade designed only to last as long as it takes to get past regulatory scrutiny.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Everyone's talking about MS, ABK & unions but I hope they're remembering this is exactly what the FTC (specifically Lisa Khan) called out as NOT something they are considering in this investigation, nor are other regulators. Anything involving unions, bringing games "cheaper" to gamers via Game Pass etc. fall into ESG territory.

ESG stands or Environment, Social, & Governance ratings. LOTS of companies have been making various changes (some good, some bad) to get higher ESG ratings so that they can not only look better in the eyes of the public (by appearing more progressive on social & environmental issues for example), but also because massive investment firms (i.e Black Rock, Vanguard Group etc.) and banks are willing to invest in & fund companies with higher ESG ratings.

Which in turn means more money for companies with higher ESGs, in one way or another. However, nothing about ESG actually factors in a company's financial performance in an open market. It is something used by investors who want to lead with non-financial metrics as determining factors for what companies to invest into, and many (actually, almost all) of Microsoft's appeals to regulators so far have been based on ESG metrics.

For regulators, whose main job are to determine financial impacts of a M&A in a market due to what amounts of resources may be accrued, and whether the accruement of those resources by said company can create (or have already created) a market environment that prevents competitors from being able to fairly compete with their own products as a direct result (i.e price dumping, price fixing, predatory pricing, etc.), these ESG appeals are of little pertinence.

Also, I found this interesting on the FTC's website regarding exclusivity deals. They generally do NOT consider these as in violation of antitrust, except in instances (for example) where a manufacturer with a contract locks a provider from being able to deal with a competitor on the same or similar terms. In the case of the 3P exclusives that some blame Sony for in forcing Microsoft to buy publishers, Microsoft would have to prove in court that Sony have clauses that shut Microsoft out completely from being able to bid on 3P exclusivity deals, meaning they would have to force 3P publishers into those deals and prevent them even being able to go to Microsoft to see if they can get a better exclusivity deal from them.

However, Microsoft have not proven this, nor can they because such contracts are bound by NDAs between Sony and 3P partners. The only way Microsoft could prove anything like that is if a 3P publisher were willing to risk ruining a working relationship with Sony to do so on Microsoft's behalf. However, Microsoft already have one such publisher in Zenimax, yet have not provided proof to regulators. Most likely because said proof does not exist. Since ABK want to be acquired, that would be a 2nd publisher who could provide this proof, if it even existed, which given Microsoft have thrown the claims out there (at least in terms of Game Pass, not necessarily sure about Xbox itself), would make some think they have it either via those means or means where a 3P publisher has breached an NDA with Sony.

While it is probably true Sony have clauses preventing games from going into Game Pass, that is because they view Game Pass as an extension of the Xbox platform, and the Game Pass business model undercuts Sony's own business model with those same 3P games they get co-marketing deals on (which are the ones that probably have the Game Pass exclusion clauses in their contracts). That is not a good point for Microsoft to lean on for the reasons already outlined, and regulators would agree that Sony have the right to such clauses if a competitor product would benefit otherwise in ways completely nullifying the financial investments they make in the 3P games for co-marketing deals (on the expectation the sunk costs are recouped through revenue from direct sales, which rely on providing the product at fair prices to customers in the open market). So again, Microsoft would have to prove Sony stipulate those clauses for games they DON'T have any involvement in when it comes to funding, development or marketing, and if they do, they would THEN have to prove Sony somehow stipulates clauses shutting out Game Pass anyway simply for any random 3P publisher or developer with a PlayStation license making games for Sony consoles.

Which I strongly doubt Sony have, because they would know that is obviously within antitrust territory, and is something Nintendo were already guilty of back in the '80s AND were successfully sued by the U.S government for in 1991 for antitrust violations. Unless these companies just don't keep up with precedents in gaming history, I doubt they would repeat mistakes that monumentally obvious.

 

[KiryuRealty]

I'm curious as to why they would do that.

Most likely to assist the FTC in killing the merger

There’s no way the findings will be in MS’ favour, so holding them until the trial is underway helps strengthen the FTC case against the merger, making it clear that the key market authorities are on the same page in wanting the deal stopped.

 

[Bort]

Everyone's talking about MS, ABK & unions but I hope they're remembering this is exactly what the FTC (specifically Lisa Khan) called out as NOT something they are considering in this investigation, nor are other regulators. Anything involving unions, bringing games "cheaper" to gamers via Game Pass etc. fall into ESG territory.

ESG stands or Environment, Social, & Governance ratings. LOTS of companies have been making various changes (some good, some bad) to get higher ESG ratings so that they can not only look better in the eyes of the public (by appearing more progressive on social & environmental issues for example), but also because massive investment firms (i.e Black Rock, Vanguard Group etc.) and banks are willing to invest in & fund companies with higher ESG ratings.

Which in turn means more money for companies with higher ESGs, in one way or another. However, nothing about ESG actually factors in a company's financial performance in an open market. It is something used by investors who want to lead with non-financial metrics as determining factors for what companies to invest into, and many (actually, almost all) of Microsoft's appeals to regulators so far have been based on ESG metrics.

For regulators, whose main job are to determine financial impacts of a M&A in a market due to what amounts of resources may be accrued, and whether the accruement of those resources by said company can create (or have already created) a market environment that prevents competitors from being able to fairly compete with their own products as a direct result (i.e price dumping, price fixing, predatory pricing, etc.), these ESG appeals are of little pertinence.

Also, I found this interesting on the FTC's website regarding exclusivity deals. They generally do NOT consider these as in violation of antitrust, except in instances (for example) where a manufacturer with a contract locks a provider from being able to deal with a competitor on the same or similar terms. In the case of the 3P exclusives that some blame Sony for in forcing Microsoft to buy publishers, Microsoft would have to prove in court that Sony have clauses that shut Microsoft out completely from being able to bid on 3P exclusivity deals, meaning they would have to force 3P publishers into those deals and prevent them even being able to go to Microsoft to see if they can get a better exclusivity deal from them.

However, Microsoft have not proven this, nor can they because such contracts are bound by NDAs between Sony and 3P partners. The only way Microsoft could prove anything like that is if a 3P publisher were willing to risk ruining a working relationship with Sony to do so on Microsoft's behalf. However, Microsoft already have one such publisher in Zenimax, yet have not provided proof to regulators. Most likely because said proof does not exist. Since ABK want to be acquired, that would be a 2nd publisher who could provide this proof, if it even existed, which given Microsoft have thrown the claims out there (at least in terms of Game Pass, not necessarily sure about Xbox itself), would make some think they have it either via those means or means where a 3P publisher has breached an NDA with Sony.

While it is probably true Sony have clauses preventing games from going into Game Pass, that is because they view Game Pass as an extension of the Xbox platform, and the Game Pass business model undercuts Sony's own business model with those same 3P games they get co-marketing deals on (which are the ones that probably have the Game Pass exclusion clauses in their contracts). That is not a good point for Microsoft to lean on for the reasons already outlined, and regulators would agree that Sony have the right to such clauses if a competitor product would benefit otherwise in ways completely nullifying the financial investments they make in the 3P games for co-marketing deals (on the expectation the sunk costs are recouped through revenue from direct sales, which rely on providing the product at fair prices to customers in the open market). So again, Microsoft would have to prove Sony stipulate those clauses for games they DON'T have any involvement in when it comes to funding, development or marketing, and if they do, they would THEN have to prove Sony somehow stipulates clauses shutting out Game Pass anyway simply for any random 3P publisher or developer with a PlayStation license making games for Sony consoles.

Which I strongly doubt Sony have, because they would know that is obviously within antitrust territory, and is something Nintendo were already guilty of back in the '80s AND were successfully sued by the U.S government for in 1991 for antitrust violations. Unless these companies just don't keep up with precedents in gaming history, I doubt they would repeat mistakes that monumentally obvious.

*cough* Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200 (1994)

 

[Dabaus]

To add upon the above.

The big law firm's and the very high paid lawyers recommended MS to play the part of the bullied underdog with a rags to riches story. When they saw that that failed, they moved on to being what they actually are, they adopted the bully strategy. Now we're on the hail Mary, where they have nothing else and are just praying this passes.

There's a reason why specific news have been released and public discourse has been shaped both via select magazines and their minion army of influencers. They have been changing their tune publicly before any of the "damaging" news of delays, sometimes just a few hours before. They know before us, as they should, of what's happening.

The problem is that by doing this they are running a very risky strategy. If the CMA, FTC or Euro Comission want to actually pay attention, they will see that the grassroots movement goes way deeper and not only they'll ask Microsoft for more information if a court battle ensues, but they will also information about their marketing affairs. This could unravel all their astroturfing efforts and it's something XBOX can't afford.

Brilliant point. If I may add to it, remember when satay said, “even if this deal doesn’t go through, Xbox will still exist?” Or something to that effect. That was a few months ago, but if the ceo of the company is publicly suggesting the deal may not go through, then in my opinion they’ve already been told it’s a no go.

Maybe all these delays are regulators giving Microsoft a chance to abandon the deal instead of embarrassing themselves even more before it gets blocked? Probably just a tin foil hat theory though.

 

[Old Gamer]

they would THEN have to prove Sony somehow stipulates clauses shutting out Game Pass anyway simply for any random 3P publisher or developer with a PlayStation license making games for Sony consoles.

If Sony were doing that, there would be no overlap between games releasing on PS and on game pass. But there is.

 

[Bort]

If Sony were doing that, there would be no overlap between games releasing on PS and on game pass. But there is.

That's assuming all contracts are equal.

We know they aren't. We know there are a few exclusionary clauses (thanks to Capcom at the earliest)

I have no idea why you would assume ALL deals ban gamepass. It's illogical.

 

[Old Gamer]

That's assuming all contracts are equal.

We know they aren't. We know there are a few exclusionary clauses (thanks to Capcom at the earliest)

I have no idea why you would assume ALL deals ban gamepass. It's illogical.

Of course. But it isn't my assumption either. It's an easily disproven notion that has been pushed recently as part of the MS viral marketing social media engineering efforts.

If you believe some twitter posts, you'd think that Sony actively blocks gp as a prerequesite to publish on PS, and that's obviously not true.

 

[Bort]

Of course. But it isn't my assumption either. It's an easily disproven notion that has been pushed recently as part of the MS viral marketing social media engineering efforts.

If you believe some twitter posts, you'd think that Sony actively blocks gp as a prerequesite to publish on PS, and that's obviously not true.

But that is true. They just don't mandate it for all.

MS stated that Sony uses the clause in some games (and listed a few). I don't get why you are conflating their statement to mean ALL games? You'd have to be reading it with an intention of hyperbole to reach that outcome.

 

[laynelane]

Everyone's talking about MS, ABK & unions but I hope they're remembering this is exactly what the FTC (specifically Lisa Khan) called out as NOT something they are considering in this investigation, nor are other regulators. Anything involving unions, bringing games "cheaper" to gamers via Game Pass etc. fall into ESG territory.

I think Unions are coming up more simply because MS has chosen to make them part of the conversation surrounding the acquisition. I do recall Lina Khan addressing this type of strategy, as well. This goes a little more into what she said (and the predictable response given the web site), but despite this MS has chosen to bring it into their strategy. So, if it will not impact the FTC, then why are they doing it? It's certainly not for altruistic reasons. For me, I believe a lot of their moves have to do with shaping public opinion. From the beginning, it seems like they've focused more on that than on convincing regulators.

As well, there's been a lot of talk surrounding the FTC as being more focused on ideology over rule of law. I wondered if this sudden Union support from MS sprung up from this misconception. Maybe a 'fight fire with fire' sort of thing.

I enjoyed reading your post, learned a lot too. Thank you.

 

[Old Gamer]

But that is true. They just don't mandate it for all.

MS stated that Sony uses the clause in some games (and listed a few). I don't get why you are conflating their statement to mean ALL games? You'd have to be reading it with an intention of hyperbole to reach that outcome.

The hyperbole has been spread out into social media.

First of all, let's talk about assumptions.

Why would one assume all third party publishers are eager to put their games into gamepass? Most large publishers are not, certainly not with new releases. Independent developers are far more likely to use the exposure of subscription services to their advantage, and so they do.

Secondly, the deceptive list that Microsoft officials provided contained titles for which Sony has secured explicit full exclusivity (not even a Switch port is planned for those), games with marketing deals (which we already expect to contain a no GP clause for obvious reasons - see the post from @thicc_girls_are_teh_best above), and even a first party game - Bloodborne - let's not even indulge how ridiculous it is calling a first party game as something "blocked from gamepass".

Unlike what the propaganda campaign is trying to imply online, there is no foul play from Sony in question.
Consider the following: how many games have you heard of with co-marketing by Microsoft that simultaneously appeared on PS+ on release?

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

*cough* Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200 (1994)

I had to look this up xD. I...guess this would serve as an analogy to the FTC and Microsoft? It's possible to some extent, I suppose, that the FTC are just running down the clock to obfuscate the process through bureaucratic yellow tape, to just whittle Microsoft's interest in the deal away. Funnily enough, if that were the case, it would just be (IMO) the FTC doing to Microsoft, what Microsoft have done to quite a few tech competitors in the past through the infamous EEE strategy. You could almost envision smaller divisions within Microsoft as equivalent to the different courts, and Microsoft themselves as the Supreme Court in that comparison .

But I think that's a myopic viewpoint to have on the proceedings. For example in order for that analogy to work we have to agree that corporations are people, or individual citizens. Personally I don't see them that way; corporations are legalized entities representative of a workforce featuring many resources which include (but are definitely not limited to) individual citizens who function as employees of the corporation. So I think there are layers of abstraction here to where corporations can't claim they are people therefore cannot claim they are citizens, therefore cannot claim a court is violating their civil right.

Maybe that is just one way to perceive though, and not the only viewpoint to have.

That's assuming all contracts are equal.

We know they aren't. We know there are a few exclusionary clauses (thanks to Capcom at the earliest)

But that's exactly it; the contract in question was with RE Village, a game Sony had comarketing rights on. So it makes perfect sense that they would have an anti-Game Pass clause in their contract in return for comarketing (which if Capcom didn't want to agree to, they could have walked away from but, going by sales data they themselves provided (or was it leaked?), they saw financial reasons to their benefit to take the deal).

Look at it this way. Microsoft do the same thing with Game Pass/Xbox console exclusives, where publishers cannot mention anything about PlayStation or Switch versions, even if PlayStation and/or Switch versions of the games are currently in development. We're kind of seeing that now with Stalker 2. When that game was first revealed, they announced a 3-month exclusivity period in Game Pass. The assumption being, after those three months, it'd come to PS5.

Currently, we don't know if that 3-month exclusivity period is still there, or if it's been extended, but the point remains...since Microsoft has that deal with the team, even though the chance there is (or was) a PS5 version in development, they are not allowed to mention or advertise that version in any way whatsoever while Microsoft still has exclusivity.

Which is 100% fair. After all, Microsoft are the ones with a comarketing deal on the game, they have been helping with funding and providing resources for development too. Why should PlayStation get free advertising off of Microsoft's investment? Well it goes both ways, so I don't see why people who take issue with Sony having exclusionary clauses towards Game Pass for 3P games they have comarketing or exclusivity deals on, actually have issue with those at all.

I think Unions are coming up more simply because MS has chosen to make them part of the conversation surrounding the acquisition. I do recall Lina Khan addressing this type of strategy, as well. This goes a little more into what she said (and the predictable response given the web site), but despite this MS has chosen to bring it into their strategy. So, if it will not impact the FTC, then why are they doing it? It's certainly not for altruistic reasons. For me, I believe a lot of their moves have to do with shaping public opinion. From the beginning, it seems like they've focused more on that than on convincing regulators.

As well, there's been a lot of talk surrounding the FTC as being more focused on ideology over rule of law. I wondered if this sudden Union support from MS sprung up from this misconception. Maybe a 'fight fire with fire' sort of thing.

I enjoyed reading your post, learned a lot too. Thank you.

Yeah, if there's one thing we've learned about Microsoft the past few years, it's that they LOVE good optics among the public. In fact, good optics mean more to them than most things IMO. Even if it's at the expense of actual results often times, when it comes to Xbox at least.

I don't know where the interpretation the FTC are focused on ideology over the law comes from, but you're right it is ironic it's a thought some have considering a lot of Microsoft's moves to gain favor with regulators & the public for the past several months are in things that can arguably be tied to being ideological at their foundation. Apparently it's okay for a corporation that should solely be focused on providing a competitive product and improving their revenue streams to appeal to ideals that have no bearing on that, but it's not for a regulatory body to do so (and that's even assuming they are)?

That plus, in a way aren't laws meant to be derived from ideology to an extent anyway? The laws that exist are based on ideals societies have formed over many years, or may be extensions of cultural traditions, or a mix of both. No one makes laws simply based on formulas and numbers; something has to inspire them to exist and those things are ideals based on beliefs. Even the application of those laws, while mostly based on a system with rhyme & reason, has some room for ideological perspectives to weigh into that process.

So the whole thing with people trying to defame regulatory bodies for being "focused" on ideology was always a bad faith argument IMO.

 

[Playstation Sucka]

I had to look this up xD. I...guess this would serve as an analogy to the FTC and Microsoft? It's possible to some extent, I suppose, that the FTC are just running down the clock to obfuscate the process through bureaucratic yellow tape, to just whittle Microsoft's interest in the deal away. Funnily enough, if that were the case, it would just be (IMO) the FTC doing to Microsoft, what Microsoft have done to quite a few tech competitors in the past through the infamous EEE strategy. You could almost envision smaller divisions within Microsoft as equivalent to the different courts, and Microsoft themselves as the Supreme Court in that comparison .

But I think that's a myopic viewpoint to have on the proceedings. For example in order for that analogy to work we have to agree that corporations are people, or individual citizens. Personally I don't see them that way; corporations are legalized entities representative of a workforce featuring many resources which include (but are definitely not limited to) individual citizens who function as employees of the corporation. So I think there are layers of abstraction here to where corporations can't claim they are people therefore cannot claim they are citizens, therefore cannot claim a court is violating their civil right.

Maybe that is just one way to perceive though, and not the only viewpoint to have.

The hyperbole has been spread out into social media.

First of all, let's talk about assumptions.

Why would one assume all third party publishers are eager to put their games into gamepass? Most large publishers are not, certainly not with new releases. Independent developers are far more likely to use the exposure of subscription services to their advantage, and so they do.

Secondly, the deceptive list that Microsoft officials provided contained titles for which Sony has secured explicit full exclusivity (not even a Switch port is planned for those), games with marketing deals (which we already expect to contain a no GP clause for obvious reasons - see the post from @thicc_girls_are_teh_best above), and even a first party game - Bloodborne - let's not even indulge how ridiculous it is calling a first party game as something "blocked from gamepass".

Unlike what the propaganda campaign is trying to imply online, there is no foul play from Sony in question.
Consider the following: how many games have you heard of with co-marketing by Microsoft that simultaneously appeared on PS+ on release?

Gta remastered

 

[Old Gamer]

Gta remastered

GTA remastered was heavily featured by both xbox and ps, but I don't recall any co-marketing deal between Take 2 and either platform holder. I think one of the remastered games even featured in gamepass before another appeared in PS+, but memory fails me on that, I admit.

 

[Playstation Sucka]

I had to look this up xD. I...guess this would serve as an analogy to the FTC and Microsoft? It's possible to some extent, I suppose, that the FTC are just running down the clock to obfuscate the process through bureaucratic yellow tape, to just whittle Microsoft's interest in the deal away. Funnily enough, if that were the case, it would just be (IMO) the FTC doing to Microsoft, what Microsoft have done to quite a few tech competitors in the past through the infamous EEE strategy. You could almost envision smaller divisions within Microsoft as equivalent to the different courts, and Microsoft themselves as the Supreme Court in that comparison .

But I think that's a myopic viewpoint to have on the proceedings. For example in order for that analogy to work we have to agree that corporations are people, or individual citizens. Personally I don't see them that way; corporations are legalized entities representative of a workforce featuring many resources which include (but are definitely not limited to) individual citizens who function as employees of the corporation. So I think there are layers of abstraction here to where corporations can't claim they are people therefore cannot claim they are citizens, therefore cannot claim a court is violating their civil right.

Maybe that is just one way to perceive though, and not the only viewpoint to have.

It's likely that it will not go through but FTC is posturing and being biased in the process for who in MS thought it would be a good idea to get ABK
I was always hoping they would buy Sega or Capcom

 

[Playstation Sucka]

GTA remastered was heavily featured by both xbox and ps, but I don't recall any co-marketing deal between Take 2 and either platform holder. I think one of the remastered games even featured in gamepass before another appeared in PS+, but memory fails me on that, I admit.

Yeah I guess there's was no co marketing with either but they released the same time on both subscription

 

[Playstation Sucka]

I'm very pro-union, I'm just extremely (and I mean extremely) skeptical of any large corporation embracing unions, especially in the US, without being forced to at gunpoint. Wall Street has done its best to absolute crush the power of unions and has largely succeeded in doing so since the 1970s and 80s. You see it time and again, from Starbucks to Amazon to Walmart to Google to Tesla to Apple. Actiblizz and Microsoft are not unique snowflakes. They are publicly traded companies responsive to shareholders, all of which align against unionization. This public-facing union friendliness is 100% a facade designed only to last as long as it takes to get past regulatory scrutiny.

I don't know how would they go back on something which they are legally binded too ?
It may be a facade but not something you can go back on

 

[Playstation Sucka]

Remember If ABK goes through Microsoft will not be allowed to buy other publishers that's logical and given
But if it doesn't goes through MS can shop around for Japanese stuff
For Sony they can buy Square ENIX and Xbox would not care but if they buy something else they are going to get resistance and while FTC is segregating markets to only Xbox and Playstation it may backfire in the future due to playstation being the top console maker
Well that argument doesn't holds true but playstation has put forth that argument which MS can use in the future
Just my 10 dollars