The British CAT hosted a conference to indicate the calendar of Microsoft's appeal against the CMA's decision to block the acquisition of Activision Blizzard. Microsoft has been pressing for a quick process, while the CMA has tried to stall.
Looks like Microsoft lawyers were putting in work. https://twitter.com/FOSSpat... Microsoft might be eating well before the summers over.
Having watched the whole 3+ hours, I gotta say, it was actually (and surprisingly) fairly enjoyable. I expected to be bored out of my mind. The Britishness of it all and the dry humor added to the experience. It certainly felt like a bit of a beatdown by Microsoft and Activision's lawyers, who were extremely confident and felt extremely competent. On the other hand, the CMA's attorney was a bumbling mess, boring, much less competent, and definitely much less confident.
Of course Microsoft great CMA bad lawyers bad. Another victory for Microsoft...
@darkerider So even the lawyers are not immune to this console war nonsense it seems.
@King_Noctis Right? The difference is they're fanboys of horizontal monopolies
I'm always shocked how much people support a ~$2.5 trillion dollar company buying up the #1 independent publisher in the industry. Takes some good brainwashing to make that happen. Good job MS
Indeed. It’s the very definition of nose cutting. Even if it hurts their own interests, as long as their team gets a “win”, they’re okay with it. Then again, that’s many humans in general, but it’s particularly easy to see with fans of industry consolidation.
KingKionic and Abriael be dick-ridin Microsoft! Yes, it is one of the world’s biggest companies against what are basically public employees. What a surprise that they made them look bad.
Watching the fans of this deal is the same as turkeys voting for Christmas, cheering for a CEO's and shareholders payday and more industry consolidation. Industry consolidation, that's always worked out well for the consumer and workforce... oh wait!!!
What I'm personally cheering for is not to have politicians with absolutely zero knowledge of the gaming industry (of which the CMA is a rather prominent representative.) interfere with the gaming industry more than they already do. Reading the CMA's documents is a *nightmare* for anyone who wants a relatively independent gaming industry free from the undue influence of complete incompetents and anti-tech activists with a chip on their shoulders. Politicians grabbing more power on gaming is literally the last thing gaming needs, and it's funny to see people becoming literal fanboys of *regulators* (IE: politicians who have no expertise on this specific industry and flounder around doing more damage than good) just because they indirectly defend the interests of their favorite piece of plastic. A very visible defeat of the FTC and CMA in this matter would weaken this attempt at an agenda-driven power grab by politics on gaming. It's definitely a desirable outcome regardless of who is specifically involved in the deal. Fanboys are short-sightedly taking the side that best fits their short-term console war interests, without understanding that a win for regulators will absolutely bite them (and gaming in general) in the backside in the future. I've seen fanboys of consoles, fanboys of games, but fanboys of a regulator... that I did not expect to see in my lifetime. What a world we live in.
So you support the CMA!?! that's good so do I. Your right "Politicians grabbing more power on gaming is literally the last thing gaming needs" thats why I support the CMA, a Non-ministerial government department free from political interference... you get politicians involved you end up with a result like the EU, who MS has spent a lot of money lobbying to weaken the Digital Markets Act so that deals like Activision Blizzard can go through with very little oversight. I mean how do you think Qatar got the world cup?
@MrDead: You don't seem to have a very clear of what you're talking about. Regulators are *literally* politicians with a very explicit political agenda. It's hilarious to see how you define the CMA "free from political interference." They have *their own* political agenda exactly like the FTC does, and it's one extremely tainted with partisan activism. They're pretty literally the worst kind of politicians there is. As I said, it's really funny to see people "supporting" the CMA. Seeing fanboys of a highly-politicized (and highly incompetent) regulator is an extreme incarnation of irrational fanboyism I did not expect to ever see in my life. 😂
The CMA is a Non-ministerial government department. "Members must not occupy paid political posts or hold particularly sensitive or high profile unpaid roles in a political party" Also the CMA is constantly fighting the UK government, hence why MS when straight to the PM and the Tory party (who they lobby) when the CMA blocked the deal. "The CMA has issued a paper warning the Government about any moves to broaden its powers to intervene in mergers on public interest grounds." So if this deal passes it will be through political interference from a lobbied party to overrule the CMA, the very thing that you've been prattling on about. "tainted with partisan activism."... wow chill out fox news Geez kid almost everything you said is wrong, even I feel embarrassed for you.
Imagine being either so naive or so disingenuous to argue that an organization "fighting the government" isn't a political entity. That's the literal definition of politicians. You may have missed the memo but being in favor of the government isn't the only incarnation of politics. Being against it is not one bit less political. Don't worry about me, MrDead. I have 22 years of experience in the industry to back my position, and I've seen politicians trying to make grabby hands on it throughout that whole time. You can worry about your own embarrassment. You obviously don't know what you're talking about and you're defending a dreadfully incompetent regulator only because it suits your immediate console war interests without so much as taking a glimpse at the bigger picture 😂 PS: calling people "kid" immediately shows your level of maturity, which really isn't very impressive.
"A very visible defeat of the FTC and CMA in this matter would weaken this attempt at an agenda-driven power grab by politics on gaming. It's definitely a desirable outcome regardless of who is specifically involved in the deal." This isn't a deal between small time developer and local publisher. It's a $70B deal between the world's 2nd largest company and the 4th largest gaming company. It's exactly the sort of deal regulators should be scrutinising. "Fanboys are short-sightedly taking the side that best fits their short-term console war interests, without understanding that a win for regulators will absolutely bite them (and gaming in general) in the backside in the future." Similarly, other fanboys are short-sightedly cheering further, significant market consolidation because it best first *their* console war interests.
Rikuide: consolidation is coming, whether you like it or not, and whether regulators like it or not. It's already largely happening and it'll continue to happen. But it's the industry that needs to decide its terms, not incompetent politicians. Incidentally, regulators *are* scrutinizing, but scrutinizing doesn't mean try to block in principle with frankly puerile arguments that shows a dreadful level of incompetence. You obviously haven't read the CMA's arguments, because they're obviously concocted by someone who has zero expertise on the gaming industry. Regulators are scrutinizing, and it isn't at all random that the overwhelming majority of them have ruled in favor of the deal. vcqgvbqnvzjjuqfqkf: Unlike you, I'm not a throwaway sockpuppet account with 1 post and an incomprehensible nickname, spewing falsehoods. Do you feel like your posts with your main account aren't enough to pretend people agree with you? Why don't you tell us who you really are? 😂
If they had this deal on never move forward any gamers with half a brain and it's not blind follower knows what Microsoft is doing and what is done.Huge 3rd party games shouldn't be under a company with a track record of Microsoft. Of course not with sony and Nintendo. Leave 3rd party games available for all. Create your own games.
"Imagine being either so naive or so disingenuous to argue that an organization "fighting the government" isn't a political entity. That's the literal definition of politicians. You may have missed the memo but being in favor of the government isn't the only incarnation of politics. Being against it is not one bit less political." ... just say you have no idea what a Non-ministerial government department is. Are you a politician, as you seem to have the reasoning of one. You have a problem with politicians in deciding the future of gaming yet you support the heavily lobbied political bodies that have passed the MS buyout of the industry and are calling one of the only independent body's that's free from politicians, political interference!?! "I have 22 years of experience in the industry to back my position" ... oh dear, and now you're on N4G making stuff up. Well kid what can I say, sorry for your life choices I guess. "only because it suits your immediate console war interests without so much as taking a glimpse at the bigger picture" You mean bigger picture of industry consolidation, the one thing that has been a disaster for the consumer and the workforce in every industry it's happened/happing too but a massive boon for CEO's and shareholders? No, I see the picture very clearly, take off your fanboy specs and you might see it too.
@Abriael: Similarly, regulators will scrutinise huge deals whether you like it or not precisely because allowing individual firms within an industry to define their own terms can end poorly for consumers as well as other firms within the same market. Of course the CMA, FTC and EC - representing crucial ABK markets - each outlined concerns over the deal. The CMA has blocked the deal at present, whilst the FTC seeks to do the same. The EC conditionally approved the deal, but only after MS offered significant remedies. The EC believes the EU can enforce said remedies in the short-medium term; the CMA does not believe the UK can. Time will tell if the EC is right.
Rikuide: if the CMA is so insecure, then they have absolutely no business deciding over global-level deals. Mind you, they already don't because they lack something even more important, and it's called expertise. I invite you to read their documents and challenge you not to roll your eyes several times per paragraph. It's the translation into legalese of a level of expertise comparable to an infant. MrDead: your idea that a "Non-ministerial government department" isn't a bunch of politicians is hilariously naive, or simply disingenuous, your pick. Again, don't worry about me and my "life choices." I'm perfectly fine and secure in my life position. I'm actually remarkably fortunate. Have a well-paid job that I love, I'm about to move permanently to Japan to enhance that job even further, and everything is going fantastic. Industry consolidation is happening, and the whole industry knows. The CMA won't stop it, nor will any other regulator. The only distinguishing factor is if it'll be on the industry's terms or on the politicians' and bureaucrats' terms. This deal going through represents the former. It being blocked (but it likely won't as the CMA has made several mistakes in its ruling that will bite them in the back) represents the latter.
So we both can agree that the system is corruptible if Microsoft and Sony or any corporation is lobbying regulators for their sides of political agenda just so they can get what they want? Call people short sighted but you are also blind to an even larger problem lol
@TOTSUKO: the industry SHOULD get what it wants. The gaming industry should be governed by the gaming industry, not by external politicians and bureaucrats who know *nothing* about the gaming industry. People wanting politicians and bureaucrats to have even more agency on what happens in the gaming industry is absolutely mindboggling.
Abreil I recommend more emojis when you tell people what a professional you are. It really lets people know you're as smart are you think you are.
@Abri "your idea that a "Non-ministerial government department" isn't a bunch of politicians is hilariously naive, or simply disingenuous, your pick" ...why pick one of them when they don't reflect reality, or is it to make your very obvious damaged feel ego better? "Again, don't worry about me and my "life choices." I'm perfectly fine and secure in my life position. I'm actually remarkably fortunate. Have a well-paid job that I love, I'm about to move permanently to Japan to enhance that job even further, and everything is going fantastic." Yes my life as an rocket engineer is great too and I'm about to move to New Japan+, but what makes you come onto a gaming site and start spouting nonsense about "tainted with partisan activism.", then talk about how you don't want politicians deciding the future of gaming but side with the lobbied politicians that are deciding the future of gaming against an independent body where "Members must not occupy paid political posts or hold particularly sensitive or high profile unpaid roles in a political party" and then you accuse the non-political body as being political... your arguments make no sense! Then you say "Industry consolidation is happening, and the whole industry knows." like it's a good thing!?!.. and by the way, we all know its happening that's why so many of us are against it . The very reason why countries like the UK and the US have high profit economies and low income workers is because of industry consolidation, the only ones to benefit are CEO's and shareholders and you want this on an even bigger scale than what's already in gaming. So what you want is less choice, more expensive games, a lower pay for the game makers but higher payouts for CEO's and shareholders and a poorer quality end product... that's what you get when you have large industrial consolidation on one market, just look at every industry this has happened to if you want proof. The short-sightedness of fanboys never fails to amaze, like I said in my first comment "turkeys voting for Christmas".
Abriael You been in the industry for many years as a journalist yet you are arguing with kids on N4G Industry should get what they want. These are people working hard to make a living. You have convinced me you don’t care about the people who makes the video games. You have not even made a stance for the developers who have no governing control of where their future lies. It actually boggles my mind you somehow speak for the industry like you worked countless hours away from family just to make a video game. You act like you deserve a job at Bloomberg You don’t you are a hack. An overpaid keyboard warrior where your opinions should stay on your websites editorial
Sorry Abriael, but it's obvious you ain't understand what's happening. 1. They specifically outline their issue and it's based on the past actions if Microsoft to ensure anti -competitive power within other tech arenas (software, networking, cloud, etc.). 2. CMA isn't political. It's the opposite of political and politics are actually being used against it to get it to overturn their decision. 3. The decision the CMA made didn't give anyone political power, it still leaves the entirety of the industry within the industry. It just prevents one entity from acquiring another. For all intents and purposes as consumers, we will see no difference at all. 4. Without regulators do you know how little competition there would be? How much companies would do to pass costs into consumers and limit there right to repair? How trillion dollar companies would ensure smaller ones would have to pay them a premium just for existing in the same arena? ***highly-politicized (and highly incompetent) *** Can't respect your opinion on this one.
Sorry Christopher, but you're the one who doesn't know what they're talking about here. The CMA and the FTC have *absolutely* a political agenda, and it's a militant political agenda against big tech that has been happening among some of the most politicized regulators for a while. They're also highly incompetent, and anyone who has actually read their documentation would agree. They have *no* idea of how the industry works. They decided to block the deal first for ideological reasons, and then they scrambled to concoct a somewhat plausible (but extremely weak) excuse to support it. And their incompetence will make them lose on appeal almost surely. Again, it is not random that the overwhelming majority of regulators around the world ruled in favor of the deal, simply because there's absolutely nothing wrong with it from a competition point of view, and preserving competition should be the *only* duty of antitrust regulators. That's what antitrust means. It's also not random that multiple regulators mentioned explicitly that the deal has the potential to *boost* competition, because it will.
***The CMA and the FTC have *absolutely* a political agenda, and it's a militant political agenda against big tech that has been happening among some of the most politicized regulators for a while. *** You're getting lied to by big tech. The mass majority of regulation findings allow sales to go through. It's over 95% showed transitions but you're so hyper fixed on the less than 5%, like big tech wants you to be, that you don't see they're leading you to think of the regulators as some sort of gestapo. But, hey, you keep supporting those most valuable companies out there because without your support they won't be able to reach the next trillion dollars in value as they continue their market dominance upon which the smaller tech companies rely. And know, EU aren't regulators. That's political. Reach country has their own regulation board. EU is not a regulation board per se.
FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!