Yes.
Dont accept their decision, go ahead with the merger and pay any fines.
Dont accept their decision, go ahead with the merger, and relocate all ABK points of pressence outside of the UK and not be subjected to any fines. Maybe ABK relocation comes before the merger closure. The Bungie acquisition did not have CMA review because Bungie had no points of pressence in the UK, or so I was told. They can still sell products to the UK market afterwards.
Not sure, they can ignore the CMA and get fined continuously, but its 5% of global company revenue. So it would be about 10 billion annually. Not worth it.
Theyd pull out.
Or, you know, just negotiate undertakings where they agree to do the things they say they are going to do and get the deal approved. The revenue provided by the deal is too significant to jeopardize. People donât seem to want to accept that this deal is worth completing no matter what. It will assuredly fund further acquisitions that lead to more exclusive content.
This has always been the worst case scenario for this deal. Putting their words into writing.
Yes there is that, but⌠That wasnât the question. The question was any way to circumvent, not any way to negotiate.
Im just saying circumventing it is internet nonsense. MS has too many other business considerations beyond gaming to make those types of ludicrous moves.
They arenât going to torpedo business relations with an entire nation over Call of Duty.
The current situation can basically be summed up as all sides, oddly, declaring their positions publicly.
In the end most of the stuff that was outlined will be dismissed in the second phase, things will land somewhere in the middle, and it eventually passes.
Much more likely they can just offer to avoid the issue entirely by licensing the CoD publishing rights to someone else (maybe even Sony) for the UK market only. Lots of levers for MS to pull to make concessions here, which is good since it lets them be flexible to push this thru.
Yes. They wonât even consider pulling out of either the deal nor sales in the country imho. They will instead find ways around the issues thru consent decrees/UILâs. That could very well mean licensing the publishing to another independent publisher for CoD in the UK only. MS could then bid against Sony to get it on Game Pass.
It doesnt have to be that extensive. The farthest reaching would be just having to relocate ABK outside of the UK. That likely isnât that difficult seeing how the EU countries would probably be tripping over themselves to offer additional incentives to relocate.
Microsoft wonât agree to concessions that Sony is asking for. At best what Sony will be achieve is somehow prevent COD in UK. And thatâs it, which wonât happen either.
It goes both ways, you know? It is not like UK will suddenly switch to alternatives with Microsoft.
Possible option. Though I donât think any of it happen. The deal will be approved with no concessions attached because any concession is either in realm of tea leaves reading (what is gonna happen in the future) or just angry sony noises.
The fundamental argument there is that by having ABK games in Game Pass, it somehow makes difficult for other entrant to join the streaming market which is nonsense as in gaming any game can become extremely popular anytime and any game might be in any subscription service. Basically some tea leaves reading âin 5 years COD in Game Pass will make impossible for other people to enter the marketâ. It is like jailing a person in advance under the idea that he might commit a crime.
I donât even think weâll get anywhere near as far as torpedoing business relations in the UK, because by the time Microsoft even starts to consider that, the UK will probably be scared shitless and negotiate a compromise.
I imagine the UK government, like the U.S. government, is a major customer of Microsoftâs services be it azure, or office.
Im not sure what you are getting at here as that argument was never made.
" negotiate undertakings where they agree to do the things they say they are going to do "
I am clearly referring to MS in this case. MS has already made statements of intent:
Among others.
The agreements can be a simple as putting those words on paper and making it legally binding.
No company will agree to any legally binding document regarding any IP.
And regarding cloudâŚThey need to prove first that Microsoft will harm the rivals.
They assuredly are. They are also a massive employer in those regions as well.
Except, you know, MS already tried and Sony rejected it. So you are wrong from the jump.
Microsoft offered a contract themselves. It was not anything legally binding at all. There is a difference between you willingly offering something and something enforced by a third party.
The difference is like between you giving an apple to another person, and a police officer telling you to give an apple. Even if you are willing to do that, the power dynamics are completely differennt.
con¡tract
noun
/Ëkäntrakt/
They offered a contract themselves. They have a position of power there. As in the first place they have no obligation to do at all.
Sony rejected it because they want it in perpetuity and they are trying to get a better deal with the help of regulators. I, under no circumstances think they will ever force them to do it forever. But MS is claiming, in statements to the regulatory body, that they want to keep the game on PS. The regulatory body is now well within their right to force their hand on it and it is exceedingly unlikely that MS goes âLOL, we were just kiddingâ
MS literally offered to Sony, in writing and signed by MS execs a priori, an agreement that would align with Sonyâs âdemandsâ. Among them, CoD stays on PSX, launches day and date w/o any extra content and with tech feature parity. That stuff right there already covers nearly all elements of what Sony demanded.
Aside perpetuity Sony clearly stated what the want by âthe best COD experience on Playstationâ
Microsoft offered them COD with a feature parity for a couple of years and d Sony was discontent with that.
Microsoft is trying to avoid any legally binding statement because they would leverage over the IP. The whole point is the projection of power - Microsoft has no desire for any legal obligation towards COD on Playstation where they have no control over IP.
They literally imply in each their statement that âthere is no business reason not to keep COD on PS due to PS market shareâ. What happens if subscription services take over or if Xbox market share becomes enormous?
Yeah that covers the concerns by Sony except gamepass. However I also noticed that the CMA dismissed the relevance of these contracts. I didnt quite understand that portion of the CMAs views. Thoughts?