The tag team is back. The toothless FTC gives political cover to the CMA, which has powerful enforcement options and limited oversight.
Indeed. As if they didn't collaborate on the acti merger either. Fucking blatant
An investigation into the OpenAI situation was inevitable, it's one of the most chaotic and unusual incidents in the history of corporate leadership. Given that Microsoft offered to poach every OpenAI employee they would obviously be required to participate.
A company having a seat on a corporate board is very common. What happened at OpenAI was not a standard agreement. Of course it, a surprising deal between two of the world's leading tech companies which occurred under highly unusual circumstances, would be investigated.
I don't think they have ever had the same situation occur. The CEO strongarming the board to for a reorg to overpower certain members is a pretty hard to do tactic without a major investor backing you. Probably these folks want to make sure MS doesn't control OpenAI indirectly as a way to avoid regulator scrutiny.
I really don't see what there is to investigate. Clearly one non-voting Board seat is not remotely control of the company, even with 49% ownership. And as someone said above, how is it different from Tencent? As a single example, they bought 40% of Epic Games and have 2 of 5 Board seats. I expect their many other nearly 50% ownership stakes in X, Y and Z are similar.
Again, how do they control Open AI with a single non-voting Board seat?
Weren't there reports of hundreds of staffers threating to follow the CEO?
Again, how do they control Open AI with a single non-voting Board seat?
There are no Tencent companies, or really any large companies, whose corporate leadership structures have imploded under such mysterious circumstances. Microsoft acquired their OpenAI board seat because of a highly unusual incident. It is to be expected that regulators would want to ensure that Microsoft was not in some way involved in OpenAI's implosion and not simply fortunate enough to pick up the pieces. If Microsoft did nothing wrong, as is to be expected, then any regulator investigations are simply a more or less standard precaution.
a) Of course MS would want to snap the guy up, and anyone else willing to come, before Google or whomever got them. Duh (that one to the regulators, not to you).
b) Is it unusual that a company with 49% ownership sits on the Board, either directly (Tencent) or as an observer (MS)? It seems normal to me.
No high shareholders usually have a presence on the board. Though I should say shares are not always equal so there could be an investment company that has high ownership but no voting rights that wouldn't have any board reps. I think it was just such an unusual event that they want to investigate the structure of the company and see what is involved in their agreements with MS.
In normal circumstances those would both be true. What happened with OpenAI was very very abnormal so regulators need to ensure that there was no foul play involved. There is still, weeks later, no plausible, clear explanation for why OpenAI's leadership exploded as it did and thus it should be expected that regulators would be inclined to ensure that everything happened by the books. Being required to take the time to demonstrate to regulators that you are not engaging in any illegal or otherwise questionable activity is just part of the cost of doing business for corporations as large as Microsoft.
Wow that was an entertaining watch. Here I am on a Friday night watching something recorded two days ago, instead of going out. But that was how interesting it was.
I know some here have stated a different opinion, but I felt (watching the FTC lawyer and the judges)... that the FTC lawyer did fine. Seemed to have an answer for all the judges questions. Although I don't think it was a good idea to go down that path again regarding Minecraft. Felt everything else was going fine for him... again this is going off the reactions of the judges.
Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in... so interesting to follow.
They did horribly. You are on the west coast, it's 9:30. Go out.
View: https://twitter.com/MActon93/status/1734372983240839193?t=PKQGDUM41Wrt76kCuuLb9w&s=19
View: https://twitter.com/tomwarren/status/1734370311993172150?t=vBJnQQyw22r0_86Ee-acrg&s=19
View: https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1734370774830797210?t=wliWR6BYbj5LvSw4evgzlQ&s=19
Could be relevant to Xbox mobile store plans.
If Epic really means it, then they should be suing the big three console makers to allow for third party game stores on their platforms as all three are slightly customized hardware akin to PCs and in the Switch's case, a phone. Since Sony and Nintendo have a monopoly on their devices and Xbox only allows a walled garden for third party apps that can't reach the retail side of the device.
They'd first have to argue that consoles are necessary devices comparable to phones and not luxury devices which....good luck.
Google got caught destroying evidence. So y'know, that didn't help.
The Xbox and PlayStation are used for more than just gaming. I don't think Epic would really win, but I think part of their plan is opening an Epic Game Store on every platform that has an internet connection. Their case gets much easier when they finalize their win against Android and Apple.
If I remember correctly Tim even mentioned in court that game console stores weren't his concern.
He wouldn't outright say that right now, that way he can get Microsoft onboard against Apple and Google for right now. That 12% bit that he throws around for Steam is a little bit of a lie, Tim just wants control of the PC market and steal it away from Valve.
No you wouldn't? This keeps being brought up, but to my knowledge, none of these lawsuits have hinged on the necessity of smartphones. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen it ever.
You would have to in some jurisdictions like the EU.
Game consoles are a completely different ballgame and, like I said, closer to Apple than Google in the walled garden scenario since they manufacture the console, manage the store, marketing placement, print discs, etc and it's easier for them to justify their cut. Two of the consoles are also not owned by megacorportations currently under investigation for various issues either, where Google and Apple offer their products an unfair advantage within their own ecosystems.
Like it's possible for them to push the ball uphill and go after consoles, but it's a much, much steeper climb especially since they haven't really gotten through Apple yet.
Google (especially) and Apple are much easier targets, comparatively.
Tim has said multiple times that he doesn't consider devices like consoles as a problem here because companies like Sony/Nintendo/MS aren't selling the devices for huge profits on top of owning the store + payment processing. The idea of subsidized hardware is his differentiator.
Last edited:
The DMA doesn't really defined different type of computing devices, the consoles and steam could be investigated under the current regulation if those platforms hit the required numbers.
Sony's concerns about MS ABK acquisition. From the leak.
Post in thread 'Xbox Game Studios + Bethesda + ABK | OTXVIII | Some Marketers Are Always Trying To Ice Skate Uphill' https://www.resetera.com/threads/xb...ing-to-ice-skate-uphill.794361/post-116524260
Thread 'Sony expresses concern about competition from Microsoft in internal communication, admits its current pillars are outdated, needs to expand' https://www.resetera.com/threads/so...-pillars-are-outdated-needs-to-expand.796935/
Last edited:
I feel like that's the first time I have seen the year 2027 thrown out there as the year when things are changing related to COD
Before the CoD on PS agreement, Sony was starting to plan around the idea of losing CoD on PS starting in 2027.
Wasn't the first proposed deal with Sony for 5 years? Like, from the day/week Microsoft first announced the deal.
3 years post the current deal expiring, which is why it'd be 2027 and not 2025.
I said all along Kotick would be gone quickly. From day one, they never specified a position for him.
Lulu made about $4.64M in a year.
www.resetera.com
Lulu made about $4.64M in a year.
The Microsoft / Activision Blizzard acquisition |OT| Antitrust Simulator (completed; discussing post-merger issues) OT
LuLu took the position in October. She gets $850K salary, 100% target bonus (paid in full for 2022, prorated), $500K signing bonus, and $2M of RSU's which were granted at about $78. Those vest in 1/8th tranches every three months, starting October 2022. I assume hers, Kotick's, everyone's, will...
www.resetera.com
Hey, everyone!
I was wondering: With the recent challenges Sony is facing (cancellation of Factions 2, budget cuts across all their studios, and discussions about shutting one down), do you believe it's connected to Microsoft's acquisition of Activision? Has anyone heard whether Sony is facing real financial losses from the sale of Call of Duty, now that Microsoft holds the IP?
I was wondering: With the recent challenges Sony is facing (cancellation of Factions 2, budget cuts across all their studios, and discussions about shutting one down), do you believe it's connected to Microsoft's acquisition of Activision? Has anyone heard whether Sony is facing real financial losses from the sale of Call of Duty, now that Microsoft holds the IP?
Imo not related, primarily because the ABK deal won't have any real impact to Sony revenue or profits for a while. This just seems to be a case of increasing margins during a period where HW costs is hurting overall margins.
OP
OP
Before the end of a very fun year :) one more round of next key dates.
NEXT KEY DATES
- Spring 2024 (February - March): decision from Ninth Circuit.
- Spring 2024 (21 days after the decision from the 9th Circuit): the FTC will resume the administrative process (specially if they win).
- February 5th 2024: placeholder trial date for the gamers' lawsuit.
- March 31st 2024: first report from the CMA about the compliance with the remedies.
If the FTC wins (unlikely but not impossible) I think that MS will try to reach a settlement and end this once and for all. If they can't, then we could have an extra year of news and info thanks to the administrative process.
If the FTC loses (more likely but not guaranteed), I guess that they will abandon the administrative process and that should be the end of this merger.
So, in early 2024 we'll still be talking about MS/ABK :p xD
First week of 2024 I'll create the Gaming Industry OT to start analysing and following other topics like:
- Mergers & acquisitions: small, medium and big ones. Very big ones could have an exclusive thread if required.
- Legal issues: lawsuits (Epic vs Google, for example), unions, class actions, competition law beyond M&A (third party app stores, for example), privacy, loot boxes, intellectual and industrial property, etc.
- Money and corporations: quarterly results from game companies, studios closing new rounds of funding, board changes (CEO, CFO, COO, etc), the creation of new studios (NetEase), etc.
- Business trends: minigames (Tencent), super games (SEGA), subscriptions (Game Pass), GaaS, digital vs retail, mobile gaming, cloud gaming, VR/AR, data-driven marketing, AI, web3, new hardware/software developments, etc. Not from the perspective of specific games or publishers but as reports, stats, movements, currents, directions or even fads.
I wish you a peaceful end of the year and a hopeful beginning!
NEXT KEY DATES
- Spring 2024 (February - March): decision from Ninth Circuit.
- Spring 2024 (21 days after the decision from the 9th Circuit): the FTC will resume the administrative process (specially if they win).
- February 5th 2024: placeholder trial date for the gamers' lawsuit.
- March 31st 2024: first report from the CMA about the compliance with the remedies.
If the FTC wins (unlikely but not impossible) I think that MS will try to reach a settlement and end this once and for all. If they can't, then we could have an extra year of news and info thanks to the administrative process.
If the FTC loses (more likely but not guaranteed), I guess that they will abandon the administrative process and that should be the end of this merger.
So, in early 2024 we'll still be talking about MS/ABK :p xD
First week of 2024 I'll create the Gaming Industry OT to start analysing and following other topics like:
- Mergers & acquisitions: small, medium and big ones. Very big ones could have an exclusive thread if required.
- Legal issues: lawsuits (Epic vs Google, for example), unions, class actions, competition law beyond M&A (third party app stores, for example), privacy, loot boxes, intellectual and industrial property, etc.
- Money and corporations: quarterly results from game companies, studios closing new rounds of funding, board changes (CEO, CFO, COO, etc), the creation of new studios (NetEase), etc.
- Business trends: minigames (Tencent), super games (SEGA), subscriptions (Game Pass), GaaS, digital vs retail, mobile gaming, cloud gaming, VR/AR, data-driven marketing, AI, web3, new hardware/software developments, etc. Not from the perspective of specific games or publishers but as reports, stats, movements, currents, directions or even fads.
I wish you a peaceful end of the year and a hopeful beginning!
Thanks again for all the work and effort you have put into this thread over the past 2 years! I can't wait for the Industry OT and look forward to all the discussions with fellow members and participants.
Happy holidays to you and yours!
RE: Sweeney: He absolutely has console stores in his sights. He said during the Apple trial that Epic's long-term desire for a Fortnite "metaverse" that is a platform unto itself cannot happen if it is required to pay a cut to platform holders, and since Fortnite brings in far more revenue on consoles than PC and mobile combined, well, the dots practically connect themselves.
However, whether he actually goes that far will depend on how the Apple and Google lawsuits ultimately pan out. He's not going to say the quite part out loud unless he feels it's safe to do so.
However, whether he actually goes that far will depend on how the Apple and Google lawsuits ultimately pan out. He's not going to say the quite part out loud unless he feels it's safe to do so.
Last edited:
If the FTC wins the appeal to the 9th circuit, I was under the impression that Microsoft would appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. One should also keep in mind that if there's a change in presidency in January 2025, the FTC will probably look very different, and be much more big-tech friendly.
In the unlikely event that the FTC wins what Microsoft can offer to the FTC? Because I mean, my understanding is that the FTC prefers divestitures to behavioral remedies, and given how hard they fought in this case, I think they will at least demand the sale of Cod IP and relative business assets or the divestiture of the Activision business branch (leaving Blizzard and King to Microsoft), to consider themselves satisfied.
I don't think Microsoft can accept this
Last edited:
