Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13

DSoup said:
Sony is concerned about one game on one platform. It's clearly not the main reason for scrutiny as both the EU and UK regulators have provided a list of four markets in which competitors have expressed concerns. Please stop listening only to Microsoft's PR statements. If you wish to enlighten yourself, read what the regulators have actually said. :yep2:
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to imply. If everyone is happy with concessions EU and UK will still go forward with blocking the deal even if concerns are addressed with the competition?
 
iroboto said:
If everyone is happy with concessions EU and UK will still go forward with blocking the deal even if concerns are addressed with the competition?
Click to expand...
No, the UK regulators has said that they are minded to approve the deal if Call of Duty isn't part of it, i.e. Activision-Blizzard or Microsoft would need to spin it off as independent. What this suggests is that although Sony have been the only vocal party, other with stores and services, may also been wary of Microsoft gating certain content to their own platforms. It takes more than one part of a market to demonstrate potential harm for such remedies to be proposed.

If you look at the recent CMA provisional findings report (warning: it's long at 275 pages), it calls out Sony on it's entitled bullshit, but also calls out Microsoft on making the same argument about there being no commercial incentive to making content unavailable to rival platforms, which is what it reassured the EU, then not doing that for key titles like Starfield, Redfall and Elder Scrolls - and seemingly a fourth title that isn't disclosed, see para 7.288 - 7.289.

The long version, is the CMA are not convinced Microsoft would not have a commercial reason to pull Call of Duty off rival platforms (consoles stores and services), nor are they convinced by Microsoft using Minecraft as an example given the markets and revenue differences between Minecraft and Call of Duty are considerable.

I know nobody here is going to read this in full, but for those that do, my take is the CMA are unimpressed with both Microsoft and Sony's claims.
 
So make the same deal with Sony they did for Nvidia and the deal would have already gone through

I am against major mergers in general of large scale as a matter of principle, but the main issue I have a problem with of course as a consumer, is the incentive for MS to keep an entire publishers worth of games away from the "competition". Make acti like Bungie and no one will have a problem
 
Last edited:
DSoup said:
Because only Sony has made their concerns public. Everybody else is putting their concerns forward in private. That is generally how these things play out.


The UK CMA suggestion to Microsoft was broadly that the UK would approve the deal if Call of Duty was spun out of the deal. Microsoft have yet to accept that, which does call into question their position on Call of Duty not being very important. If it's not important, and the only think standing in the way of UK approval, why wouldn't Microsoft leap at this?

For what it's worth, I also don't get the Call of Duty hysteria either. I'm clearly not the target market, which may be angry, racist homophobic teens. :???:
Click to expand...
Not that important, but it prints money, of course Microsoft wants it. I also doubt Activision would be willing to let it go. Activision might as well change it's name to Call of Duty studios... they will do a Crash Bandicoot once in a blue moon though.
 
Last edited:
troyan said:
AB is producing content for Sony, too. Call of Duty and Blizzard are huge names and these games and their software are selling in millions.
Click to expand...
Well of course they do, but how would Microsoft owning more studios create a vertical monopoly, given that they already own a hardware platform with a locked in storefront that they produce game on. Just like every other hardware/storefront company in the business.
DSoup said:
but also calls out Microsoft on making the same argument about there being no commercial incentive to making content unavailable to rival platforms, which is what it reassured the EU, then not doing that for key titles like Starfield, Redfall and Elder Scrolls - and seemingly a fourth title that isn't disclosed, see para 7.288 - 7.289.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't todays announced deals with Nintendo and nVidia make Bethesda games available on rival platforms since the deal applies to current "Xbox" games (of which Bethesda is part of) and future Activision games if the deal goes through? This is with the understanding that Microsoft have offered a similar deal to Sony. Does Microsoft get punished for not keeping it's word if Sony says it doesn't want Xbox games on it's platform?
 
see colon said:
Well of course they do, but how would Microsoft owning more studios create a vertical monopoly, given that they already own a hardware platform with a locked in storefront that they produce game on. Just like every other hardware/storefront company in the business.
Click to expand...
This is the summation of the concerns. Microsoft control the most popular desktop operating system (Windows), along with the most prolific set of APIs used for games (DirectX), as well as the third largest server infrastructure (Azure), their own AppStore for Windows and Xbox, their own game subscription service (GamePass) and streaming service (xCloud).

The potential for abuse is immense. Now potential is a shit determination on what companies might actually do which is why a lot of stock is put on past behaviour. Unfortunately, it's Microsoft and their from is not great. Microsoft cite Minecraft a lot, and the regulators cite Zenimax, Starfield and Redfall as more recent and relevant examples, along with Microsoft's statement that Elder Scrolls VI being an Xbox exclusive as more recent examples of what happens when Microsoft acquire IP.

How do you counter that? Immediately reverse your platform exclusivity strategy? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
see colon said:
Wouldn't todays announced deals with Nintendo and nVidia make Bethesda games available on rival platforms since the deal applies to current "Xbox" games (of which Bethesda is part of) and future Activision games if the deal goes through? This is with the understanding that Microsoft have offered a similar deal to Sony. Does Microsoft get punished for not keeping it's word if Sony says it doesn't want Xbox games on it's platform?
Click to expand...
Brad Smiths tweet has created a lot of discussion (like a 30+ page era thread). His tweet said "Xbox Games", the released text from Microsoft and Nintendo says "Call of Duty", and "games like Call of Duty"?. Does that include Starfield, Redfall and Elder Scrolls VI? Nobody is certain and hours later Microsoft are yet to provide clarification.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627926790172811264
 
DSoup said:
Brad Smiths tweet has created a lot of discussion (like a 30+ page era thread). His tweet said "Xbox Games", the released text from Microsoft and Nintendo says "Call of Duty", and "games like Call of Duty"?. Does that include Starfield, Redfall and Elder Scrolls VI? Nobody is certain and hours later Microsoft are yet to provide clarification.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627926790172811264
Click to expand...
Brad Smith has been saying stuff like this since at least March of last year. I still don't know if things will pan out that way. The official statement is the one to go by, not the words in the Tweet though I expect you to see more things like Ori and maybe Hi-Fi Rush make to Nintendo's Next-Gen console if it is not streamed.
 
You are mistaken, Brad Smith did an interview which I'm sure is buried somewhere in this thread. They did not outright say papers were signed but he expressed these intentions in that interview. Can't find a YouTube video but the first overtures were made during this interview
 
Last edited:
see colon said:
Well of course they do, but how would Microsoft owning more studios create a vertical monopoly, given that they already own a hardware platform with a locked in storefront that they produce game on. Just like every other hardware/storefront company in the business.
Click to expand...
You dont need a XBox to play AB content. AB is a multi plattform publisher, Microsoft is the competitor of Sony. Taking software worth of $69 billions away will hurt Sony and gives Microsoft an unfair advantages.
 
troyan said:
You dont need a XBox to play AB content. AB is a multi plattform publisher, Microsoft is the competitor of Sony. Taking software worth of $69 billions away will hurt Sony and gives Microsoft an unfair advantages.
Click to expand...
I understand that. What I'm asking is, how is this more of a vertical monopoly than any other example in the entertainment industry. Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony, Netflix, Disney, Paramount and Amazon have studios that they own to produce content exclusive to their hardware or services. To my knowledge, none of them have offered an extended contract to produce content on competing services when they acquired a studio or library.
 
troyan said:
You dont need a XBox to play AB content. AB is a multi plattform publisher, Microsoft is the competitor of Sony. Taking software worth of $69 billions away will hurt Sony and gives Microsoft an unfair advantages.
Click to expand...
Technically just the COD stuff and Diablo and possibly over watch.

Wow, Crafts, King have never been on Sony’s platform.

The bottom 2 represent more than 50%
Of the value.
 
see colon said:
I understand that. What I'm asking is, how is this more of a vertical monopoly than any other example in the entertainment industry. Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony, Netflix, Disney, Paramount and Amazon have studios that they own to produce content exclusive to their hardware or services. To my knowledge, none of them have offered an extended contract to produce content on competing services when they acquired a studio or library.
Click to expand...
Precisely. Games are an art form, until they aren’t. Lol. Now they are a commodity, that cannot be replaced apparently, or have no substitutions.

Never seen it before.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Activision is making more money on PC than consoles for the first time
Replies
6
Views
830
Johnny Awesome
J
Cyan
Maybe Microsoft should create a Windows console a la Steam Deck but with many more options, when mobility gaming is one of their priorities-Activision
Replies
15
Views
1K
eastmen
E
BRiT
Activision closes some Blizzard offices [2020-10-08]
Replies
2
Views
1K
Pressure
P
iroboto
PC Game Pass, now includes EA Play! [PCGP, XGP:PC]
20 21 22
Replies
439
Views
77K
see colon
S
D
  • Locked
Microsoft spending $1 Billion Dollars to stop PS3 Developers!!
2 3
Replies
45
Views
8K
Farid
F
Back
Top