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

[see colon]

I'm not following you. You used Microsoft selling games on other stores in response to me saying that Microsoft are only signing deals with rivals under regulator scrutiny. It's not, when consumers refuse to use the Microsoft Store then Microsoft have to sell in stores that consumers happily use. What does PlayStation's market share have to do with any of that?

Specifically, I was responding to

If the only time you make overt gestures to work with competitors is when the spotlight is on you, what message is that sending,

Steam is a competitor to Microsoft Store. Steam has a streaming option via remote play as well, so it's a competitor in both storefront and streaming. Steam has a 70%+ market share, less than Playstation's market share in the EU. Microsoft started putting games on Steam because it was motivated to because of Steam's market share, not because it's under any regulatory scrutiny.

Steam doesn't have a history of signing exclusive deals. I'm not aware of any game on Steam that is exclusive to Steam because there is a deal with Steam preventing it's release on other platforms.

 

[SmooTh]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1637683565633712134

Microsoft is preparing to launch a new app store for games on iPhones and Android smartphones as soon as next year if its $75bn acquisition of Activision Blizzard is cleared by regulators, according to the head of its Xbox business. New rules requiring Apple and Google to open up their mobile platforms to app stores owned and operated by other companies are expected to come into force from March 2024 under the EU's Digital Markets Act.

"We want to be in a position to offer Xbox and content from both us and our third-party partners across any screen where somebody would want to play," said Phil Spencer, chief executive of Microsoft Gaming, in an interview ahead of this week's annual Game Developers Conference in San Francisco. "Today, we can't do that on mobile devices but we want to build towards a world that we think will be coming where those devices are opened up." Microsoft is fighting with regulators in the US, Europe and UK, which have all raised concerns about the potential impact on competition from the owner of the Xbox console buying the developer of Call of Duty, one of the world's most popular games franchises. PlayStation maker Sony has been a vocal opponent of the deal. However, Spencer argues the deal can boost competition in what he called the "largest platform people play on" — smartphones — where Apple and Google currently operate what some antitrust authorities have called a "duopoly" over distribution of games and other apps.

Microsoft and Apple have tussled for years over how the software giant's cloud-based gaming service, which is part of Xbox Game Pass, operates on iPhones. Microsoft has argued Apple's App Store rules restrict its ability to offer cloud gaming through a single app that runs natively on the iPhone, forcing users to access the service via a web browser, resulting in lower performance. Apple has denied it blocks cloud gaming apps, but App Store rules require providers to list each game on the App Store individually. Similar to restrictions on Amazon's Kindle ereader app, Apple does not allow individual games to be purchased from a storefront within native apps. The UK's Competition and Markets Authority announced in November that it was investigating Apple's stance on cloud games, following its Mobile Ecosystem Market Study. But the CMA is also proving a significant hurdle to Microsoft completing its acquisition of Activision Blizzard, after the agency last month said the deal raised multiple competition concerns that could only be resolved by a spin-off of its blockbuster Call of Duty franchise. Microsoft has argued that divesting Call of Duty would undermine its rationale for the deal, which was first announced in January last year. It is trying to persuade the CMA that proposed behavioural remedies, such as commitments to license Call of Duty to rival consoles and cloud services, such as its recent deals with Nintendo and Nvidia, would satisfy its concerns.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Specifics of this case aside, I think that oversight, not just in moments like this, but continual oversight is the only way to ensure corporations don't engage in anticompetitive practices.

The proportionate way most territories manage this is through anti-competition law, which commonly means 1) acquisitions requires approval where the two parties are established in the territory, and 2) where there is an abuse by a monopoly. Even after Microsoft acquire Activision, Microsoft would not be a monopoly in video games and would therefore be outside the scope of the regulators authority. The alternative is you dispense wit the provisions that only apply to monopolies and give regulators a free hand.

In that context, the ongoing process to review Microsoft's proposed acquisition has required assessment by two dozen regulators around the world, has already taken over a year and necessitated the creation of hundreds of thousands of pages of evidence, assessments and reports where the dynamic between the two companies under investigation is static and where are parties are incentivised to share evidence.

To continue to monitor this this on an ongoing basis, along with all other companies operating in various industries, would require genuinely near-unrestricted regulatory powers, the kind of you in fiction in some future dystopian hell. All of these regulators would need the legal powers to investigate any company and force its break-up. What would happen if one regulator felt there were transgressions and others did not? How many people would be required to effectively police all corporate activity?

The current system isn't perfect but it is practical. It encourages good behaviour because past bad behaviour is a factor in these processes. That's not to say companies will not do stupid things down the line, but it carries with it consequences.

You don't dismiss the known, but you can't treat the unknown as if it has no weight when making your decisions either. You have to factor in what might be true and, when making choices for the future, what might become true.

The EU and UK CMA processes are predicated on evidence, and you cannot evidence the absolute unknown. This is why there is there is iterative process where concerns are published and the acquirer gets opportunities to propose mitigations to those concerns.

 

[mrcorbo]

The proportionate way most territories manage this is through anti-competition law, which commonly means 1) acquisitions requires approval where the two parties are established in the territory, and 2) where there is an abuse by a monopoly. Even after Microsoft acquire Activision, Microsoft would not be a monopoly in video games and would therefore be outside the scope of the regulators authority. The alternative is you dispense wit the provisions that only apply to monopolies and give regulators a free hand.

In that context, the ongoing process to review Microsoft's proposed acquisition has required assessment by two dozen regulators around the world, has already taken over a year and necessitated the creation of hundreds of thousands of pages of evidence, assessments and reports where the dynamic between the two companies under investigation is static and where are parties are incentivised to share evidence.

To continue to monitor this this on an ongoing basis, along with all other companies operating in various industries, would require genuinely near-unrestricted regulatory powers, the kind of you in fiction in some future dystopian hell. All of these regulators would need the legal powers to investigate any company and force its break-up. What would happen if one regulator felt there were transgressions and others did not? How many people would be required to effectively police all corporate activity?

The current system isn't perfect but it is practical. It encourages good behaviour because past bad behaviour is a factor in these processes. That's not to say companies will not do stupid things down the line, but it carries with it consequences.


The EU and UK CMA processes are predicated on evidence, and you cannot evidence the absolute unknown. This is why there is there is iterative process where concerns are published and the acquirer gets opportunities to propose mitigations to those concerns.

I have zero issue with the time, effort and money these reviews have taken. There is a significant consumer interest here to protect. I also have no problem with societies and business entities expending similar capital whenever a similarly significant consumer interest is (potentially) threatened. As for continual monitoring, other players in the industry the subject is threatening should be empowered to seek remedies when one party has enough influence to stifle competition in a market, with the caveat that should any claims be brought that are found to have no merit, the reporting party would be on the hook for all of the costs incurred by all of the other parties and the regulatory body reviewing the claim.

 

[orangpelupa]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1637683565633712134

8 don't understand. Android already supports 3rd party app store

 

[iroboto]

8 don't understand. Android already supports 3rd party app store

Only through side loading.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I have zero issue with the time, effort and money these reviews have taken. There is a significant consumer interest here to protect. I also have no problem with societies and business entities expending similar capital whenever a similarly significant consumer interest is (potentially) threatened.

Again - and I feel we are going around in circles - your objectives are noble but the actual implementation is utterly unworkable. This is why anti-competitive law is focussed on specifics like mergers and acquisitions and very specific activities by monopoly powers. Microsoft would not be a videogame monopoly once this acquisition is approved.

Microsoft are effectively in last place in console industry, ergo you would need to massively lower the bar for who can be investigated and for what purposes. Already I've seen so many posts that there is FTC political overarch in this sphere and your move would provide more of that - ad the cost would be passed on to business and consumers through taxation. And it's not just FTC, the EU or the UK CMA. You want to give power to China to investigation and freeze trading as well? Do you you honestly feel like all of the regulators can be trusted and none would use this for industrial and economic gain? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[AlphaWolf]

Only through side loading.

Samsung phones come loaded with the Samsung store.

 

[fehu]

I think that they mean that other stores don't appear in the play store, you have to sideload them or include them in the system's image in the factory.

 

[BRiT]

The #Microsoft filing that the #CMA released today shows that the agency spent A LOT OF TIME discussing access remedies with Microsoft, established certain criteria and raised specific concerns, and allows Microsoft to satisfactorily address them. This is good news for the deal.

#Microsoft's remedy proposal to the #CMA even envisions this: "In serious cases of non-compliance, the Adjudicator will have the power to delay the release of the CoD title until appropriate steps have been taken to ensure compliance." => thus no release without parity, period.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1638159252786143232

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1638158682763542531

 

[BRiT]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6418811b8fa8f547c1112371/Microsoft_s_supplemental_response_to_the_notice_of_possible_remedies.pdf

MS Supplemental Response to Notice of Possible Remedies

#CMA released new #Microsoft filing on remedies. Quote: "the [console] remedy would equalize the CoD content available across #PlayStation and #Xbox (i.e., PlayStation gamers will no longer receive content advantages that Xbox and PC gamers do not receive)".
#Sony is anti-parity

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1638155096625225728

 

[iceberg187]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1638159252786143232

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1638158682763542531

Looks like Microsoft will be triumphant in this.

 

[fehu]

They are forcing MS to not ship a new CoD if their version is not on par with PS5's?
Then what? Earn double the money on friday? Stay up christmas' night and get the neighbor's son's gifts too?

 

[troyan]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6418811b8fa8f547c1112371/Microsoft_s_supplemental_response_to_the_notice_of_possible_remedies.pdf

MS Supplemental Response to Notice of Possible Remedies

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1638155096625225728

Not Sony, Activision. They have taken the money.

 

[BRiT]

Not Sony, Activision. They have taken the money.

They're talking about the future, where Sony does not want parity. Sony wants to continue the existing PS Exclusive Advantages.

 

[see colon]

Would this mean that Activision's current deal with Sony would be void in EU if the deal goes through? Meaning that EU Xbox gamers would get DLC and features day and date but everywhere else in the world where the deal isn't void Xbox gamers would have to wait?

 

[BRiT]

Would this mean that Activision's current deal with Sony would be void in EU if the deal goes through? Meaning that EU Xbox gamers would get DLC and features day and date but everywhere else in the world where the deal isn't void Xbox gamers would have to wait?

I doubt it would void it, perhaps going forward after the current contract runs its course. I think it was said to expire in 2024.

 

[tuna]

They are forcing MS to not ship a new CoD if their version is not on par with PS5's?
Then what? Earn double the money on friday? Stay up christmas' night and get the neighbor's son's gifts too?

The DF guys will have a new source of income as expert consultants!

 

[vjPiedPiper]

The DF guys will have a new source of income as expert consultants!

Actually i think it will be interesting just how technical they get regarding supplying an equivalent product, to multiple platforms.
I imagine we're all thinking of pixel counting, and fps graphs, but in reality it's much more likely to be considered at a much higher level.

Would streaming to a PS5, be considered equivalent to the local XSX experience?
i mean, if you put the controller in somones hands, and let that be the only judge it might be a hard call to make.

 

[fehu]

Probably more about maps, modality, etc, just make it work, and don't add any perk to your own platform if it's not a technical necessity