Microsoft's acquisition of Activison Blizzard

[Doncortez77]

It seems like it just more delusional people on that forum writing fan fiction with the hopes that it comes true. Sony has nothing to gain by having these meetings in Seattle to smooth things out. If we can go back to when this acquisition attempt started, it was Microsoft who went public about the private discussions they was having with Sony in the background in the beginning. In return it made Sony come out and bring some of the dirty laundry to the public in response. So Why would Sony trust them this time when they can now just voice their concerns legally in court?

 

[KiryuRealty]

It seems like it just more delusional people on that forum writing fan fiction with the hopes that it comes true. Sony has nothing to gain by having these meetings in Seattle to smooth things out. If we can go back to when this acquisition attempt started, it was Microsoft who went public about the private discussions they was having with Sony in the background in the beginning. In return it made Sony come out and bring some of the dirty laundry to the public in response. So Why would Sony trust them this time when they can now just voice their concerns legally in court?

The thing is, the issues are between MS and the FTC. Sony has no standing other than providing proof of how the Activision merger would cause damage to consumers on their platform.

The FTC decides what the remedies will be, in the cases where they conditionally approve a merger. In this case, they are fully opposed, hence the lawsuit.

 

[Doncortez77]

The thing is, the issues are between MS and the FTC. Sony has no standing other than providing proof of how the Activision merger would cause damage to consumers on their platform.

The FTC decides what the remedies will be, in the cases where they conditionally approve a merger. In this case, they are fully opposed, hence the lawsuit.

I understand that but now that FTC is moving forward with the lawsuit what benefit would Sony have to have a meeting with Microsoft unless they feel that deal would possibly pass without any concessions?

 

[AshHunter216]

I understand that but now that FTC is moving forward with the lawsuit what benefit would Sony have to have a meeting with Microsoft unless they feel that deal would possibly pass without any concessions?

It's looking questionable that they actually are having those types of meetings with Microsoft.

 

[Dabaus]

The only way i could see sony meeting with MS in Seatttle is if Microsoft said they are leaving the console industry and want to discuss a potential cod contract. I could see sony at least hearing them out for THAT. Kotick said they wont return calls, but i already said i thought he was lying. Its most likely they had other business there and the source is speculating.

 

[AshHunter216]

 

[AshHunter216]

This was posted today, but it may be based on an older article of theirs.

 

[KiryuRealty]

I understand that but now that FTC is moving forward with the lawsuit what benefit would Sony have to have a meeting with Microsoft unless they feel that deal would possibly pass without any concessions?

Dude, when the FTC files a suit to block a merger or acquisition, that means that the deal is not being passed without concessions, at the very least.

If the deal was going to pass without concessions, there wouldn’t be a lawsuit filed. Pretty self-evident.

 

[Doncortez77]

Dude, when the FTC files a suit to block a merger or acquisition, that means that the deal is not being passed without concessions, at the very least.

If the deal was going to pass without concessions, there wouldn’t be a lawsuit filed. Pretty self-evident.

Ok got it. Thanks for your insightful and level headed responses

 

[adamsapple]

 

[KiryuRealty]

The only way i could see sony meeting with MS in Seatttle is if Microsoft said they are leaving the console industry and want to discuss a potential cod contract. I could see sony at least hearing them out for THAT. Kotick said they wont return calls, but i already said i thought he was lying. It’s most likely they had other business there and the source is speculating.

But that would be a Sony-Activision meeting, as MS doesn’t own Activision and has no legal standing to negotiated anything on Activision’s behalf until and unless the merger gets approval.

That would be like me negotiating with your boss for your lunch. It isn’t his to make any deals for.

 

[daniel5043]

Do you just never check your sources

 

[KiryuRealty]

Do you just never check your sources

He never challenges anything that supports his diseased worldview.

 

[AshHunter216]

Someone looked at the CMA document again. It looks like the wording around behavioral remedies suggests that they would only be considered as an addition to some kind of structural remedy.

Someone also found that out of 41 cases the cma took, there was only one where they considered behavioral remedies to be good enough on their own to let the deal through.

 

[Gediminas]

But that would be a Sony-Activision meeting, as MA doesn’t own Activision and has no legal standing to negotiated anything on Activision’s behalf until and unless the merger gets approval.

That would be like me negotiating with your boss for your lunch. It isn’t his to make any deals for.

i still don't get it, how xbots and shill don't get it. m$ is nowhere to be found when acti and sony meets. m$ don't own shit, and those meetings are confidential.
but these xbots and shill still inject m$ into all this. it is crazy.

 

[KiryuRealty]

Someone looked at the CMA document again. It looks like the wording around behavioral remedies suggests that they would only be considered as an addition to some kind of structural remedy.

Someone also found that out of 41 cases the cma took, there was only one where they considered behavioral remedies to be good enough on their own to let the deal through.

View attachment 567

It was very clear from the language used by the CMA in the paragraph addressing behavioural remedies that they weren’t pursuing them in this case due to enforcement being a huge burden and MS being pretty much guaranteed to violate any terms they might impose.

 

[Deleted member 417]

Could Sony be meeting Activision to discuss the future when/if the deal doesn't go through? Because if/when the deal tanks, Activision need to sweeten Sony up to keep COD on PS5. Come on baby, give me a VR mode.

 

[KiryuRealty]

Could Sony be meeting Activision to discuss the future when/if the deal doesn't go through? Because if/when the deal tanks, Activision need to sweeten Sony up to keep COD on PS5. Come on baby, give me a VR mode.

They already have years left on the deal, so there’s no real point to any talks regarding COD.

It could be related to an upcoming title, or maybe Acti is going to give Sony Crash and Spyro as a gesture of goodwill.

 

[Cool hand luke]

Someone looked at the CMA document again. It looks like the wording around behavioral remedies suggests that they would only be considered as an addition to some kind of structural remedy.

Someone also found that out of 41 cases the cma took, there was only one where they considered behavioral remedies to be good enough on their own to let the deal through.

View attachment 567

Yep. That was clear at the beginning and even called out at that point, but it got lost in the wailing and grieving that followed in that thread.

There's no point in MS offering additional behavioural remedies if the only potentially suitable ones that see them get anything out of this deal are divestiture.

 

[KiryuRealty]

Yep. That was clear at the beginning and even called out at that point, but it got lost in the wailing and grieving that followed in that thread.

There's no point in MS offering additional behavioural remedies if the only potentially suitable ones that see them get anything out of this deal are divestiture.

Divestiture is a structural remedy, not behavioural.