Hmm? OMI literally hold no power here, they aren't a regulator or associated with any government.
@BlackTar Why not both? They have studios making games, that doesn't meant they can't acquire entities. Similarly, Sony are making games, but they still buy things 🤷
@darkrider Right... but Satya isn't head of the gaming division, Phil Spencer is...
Yes, Satya is wrong on this Japanese statement, but to state that he doesn't know what he's doing or that he shouldn't be CEO while he has delivered trillions of dollars in grow...
I mean, are we surprised by that statement? the OMI literally exists to oppose these mergers.
What they want and what happens are typically two different things though.
E.g. they were opposed to Facebooks new VR acquisition, and were supportive of the FTC blocking it. The FTC just lost in court and have said they will not appeal the decision. That also speaks volumes about the kind of cases the FTC is bringing...
"So you're still part of the problem then and fund the CCP."
Yes, it's like recycling. Will I singlehandedly save the planet by recycling? No. Does that mean I should just give up and burn all my trash? Nope.
So now disliking Tencent and the CCP, and their grip on gaming, means you agree with Bobby and his sexual misconduct?
I think it's clear who the kid is here 🤷
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Microsoft has gained trillions of dollars in value, are bigger than they ever were under Bill Gates, and are now the 2nd biggest US corporation under his watch.
I think we can safely say he is a highly qualified tech CEO...
I do indeed avoid buying "Made in China" when possible yes, I actively look at the country of manufacture when shopping in a store. Obviously it's not feasible to completely avoid it, but the less I give to the CCP, the better.
And yes, Tencent are in bed with the CCP, so the less money they get the better.
I am a grown up, that's why I'm concerned about the CCP's human rights violations and not funding it more than necessary ...
They specifically state "the CMA will also consider a behavioural access remedy as a possible
remedy"
And then go on to say that that remedy would be: "an access remedy would look to ensure third party access to Activision Blizzard, Inc’s content"
It's clear to anyone that's where this is going, there's no hope in hell of Activision or COD being divested. They lined it up for MS, MS just needs to take the shot.
The reason isn't GamePass. The reason is business.
It doesn't make sense to push into a market that is flailing and has so little of a TAM.
Acquisitions going through don't cancel lawsuits or criminal proceedings.
Well, he's not wrong in a way. China isn't playing by the same rules as the western world and refuses to hobble itself.
No, but instead it'll be heavily censored and proceeds will go towards imprisoning Uyghurs based on their religion and other severe human rights violations.
Their statements appear to suggest otherwise. They suggest behavioral remedies, in fact, they even specifically list what Microsoft would have to do to have a behavioral remedy accepted.
I'd say the first time studio part depends on how experienced the staff they hired are.
AAA dev is definitely difficult and expensive, but UE at least makes it easier (relatively) and more affordable.
They're able to pull it off (so far) because of the investment they have - they've got investors in the form of Gaijin & Tencent - and have deal money from Nvidia and Microsoft.
I'm not sure on length to be honest - the...
I've been saying for ages it will pass - but with concessions.
The regulators want this, and Microsoft is probably fine with that:
"In this case, an access remedy would look to ensure third party access to Activision Blizzard, Inc’s content that is necessary to remedy the provisional SLCs"
I'm expecting it to land in the 80's on Meta, for me that's good enough to warrant the time investment.
Atomic Heart ❤️
Yep, I can see them ultimately agreeing to 'third party access to Activision Blizzard' but trying to negotiate it down to COD only first - and the CMA might accept that.
Sony isn't the one reviewing the terms/Microsofts proposition - the CMA are. If they think it's fair/addresses their concerns around competition, they will approve it. They're here to make sure consumers don't get screwed, not to make sure Jim Ryan and Sony are happy.
The CMA actually outlines in their press release what they consider appropriate:
"In this case, an access remedy would look to ensure third party access to Activision Bl...
With Call of Duty? Because the Japanese are renowned for their love of "America great, Russia bad" high testosterone shooter games.
Not Activision in particular, but the US markets overall. How do we remain competitive with China when we are so restrictive and they run free?
It might not have any immediate impact, but over the longer term, China is likely going to overtake the US on that front.