His arguments explaining thy the acquisition is required for the betterment of consumers and competition is not convincing at all to me.WSJ piece from Mr Smith, a Vice Chair and President at Microsoft, about the acquisition:
Opinion | Microsoft’s Activision-Blizzard Acquisition Is Good for Gamers
Far from harming competition, it’ll allow us to compete against more powerful companies through innovation.www.wsj.com
Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I'm commenting on the UK nd EU processes as I am familiar with those. But to address your point, Call of Duty doesn't get a mention in the CMA's summary. In the CMA document, when the document is referring to multiplayer concerns Call of Duty is always mentioned alongside Candy Crush and World of Warcraft, it's only used in a few isolated places where the points are specific to consoles platforms.
Can it backfire? Worst case, Sony* get nothing, which is what'll they'll get if they don't put up a stink. They aren't going to make their case worse by protesting? *(Plus all the other companies voicing complaints)
Not exactly. The uncertainty will always be there as long as ABK is owned by MS. Sony prefers to keep things safe and as is. Two opposing countries with one acquiring full control of weaponry originally used to be purchased by both from a third party, will always keep one in a state of uncertainty and less security.
This is what is happening here.
MS admitted to the FTC that they need it to compete with Sony, That alone outspokenly tells Sony, that they are acquiring large studios to displace it not to share some rainbow and butterfly relationship where MS wants to support Playstation. Sony sees through MS's contract to convince regulators, and put Sony in a position where they appear to be at the wrong no matter what they chose. They dont sign? It's Sony's fault. They are just irrationally trying to make MS's life harder. They do sign? They are allowing the acquisition and potential future acquisitions where they will never be able to object against MS's future strategies. They were basically signing that they are ok with it.
Yes absolutely it can. In fact I'd argue that it already has. This not only would make MS and their competitors more vigilant in hitting Sony where it hurts, but yes it can also worsen their own case for future acquisition prospects. What would apply to MS now would set a precedent for the future. If Sony successfully argues for unreasonable concessions... those same arguements can be made towards them. Where does it end?
I dont know about that. It seems like they have burned several bridges with Activision. That's making things worse. If deal doesn't go through, will Activision even want to strike deals with the company that prevented their large plans?
Sure they will, Sony just needs to throw more 100's of millions their way and they'll do anything.
So.... it made things worse for them.....
Unless there have been rumours about concessions around CC and WoW, I've not heard anything there. My statement still stands, that if the concession is CoD goes to anyone for the next 10 years in that space, and the merger goes through, that is what was holding the acquisition. We will know in 6 months. But logic would dictate that the other titles aren't mentioned because exclusivity would kill the title off. WoW is pay to play, and CC is free 2 play and needs as many users as possible to monetize. Ownership of these titles should not harm consumers since MS doesn't have a horse in either of those platforms. Not so much the case if Google or Apple bought CC however.
The only companies that made a stink about the merger are reportedly:
Sony and Google.
Google listed here - http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/11/google-paid-activision-blizzard-king.html
They don't want ABK to have their own store on android, they don't' want another store competitor on android. Before all this merger talk, they paid ABK 360 million for a 3-year contract to not compete.
Both Apple and Google removed fortnite from their stores. Fortnite is streamed to phones via xcloud browsing through webkit, which is super inefficient. Basically, Google and Apple want MS to pay 30% per title streamed on xcloud. And webkit lets them skirt around this. Not exactly a real complaint in my opinion, Google put forward that COD would risk their Chrome OS market according to politico. No one is taking that complaint seriously enough to investigate.
I also don't think they are particularly happy about another store coming into the mobile space.
Worth a read why possibly the EU wants the merger to happen, but for obvious reasons cannot let the merger through without proper investigation and looking for some security measures. Also why MS talks up mobile and has offered 10 years to Sony.
European Commission orders in-depth review of Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard King: unsurprising in light of sheer deal size (and acquirer's size)
The European Commission's Directorate General for Competition (DG COMP) has obviously been aware of Microsoft's proposed acquisition of Acti...
Last edited:
Curious but how does World of Warcraft impact this? The game(s) are afaik only available for PC.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Apple don't want this at all. They want each game to be packaged individually so it can be subject to the App Store review process. And 30% of any micro transactions from IAPs. I understand why Aple's policies mandate this, and I understand why Microsoft don't want to do it.
Yea on paper this is the reason provided. Not sure how they could allow Netflix but deny xcloud wrt App Store policies. I understand that there will likely be no concession here though.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Apple and Google have very different policies for video delivery apps compared to games. This is probably because video streaming predated both mobile OS ecosystems and the policies were created around the need to accommodate the different types of content available in video streaming apps. Games, being interactive, get a completely different review process. Neither company seem keen to help Microsoft because - I presume - both are concerned abut losing games sales from their own stores.
I think if Microsoft were seriously considering their own storefront on Android they would have leveraged Office or Minecraft to do that years ago. The only thing having COD on the Android store exclusively for android devices is make it a pain for people trying to install it on non-google certified Android devices. Like Amazon's Kindles.
eh its really easy to put the play store on fire tablets. I think even with Activision , MS doesn't have enough mobile content to have their own store. If anything it would make more sense for MS to add in all the activision stuff into the xbox /xcloud app to drive people into that eccosystem
Yeah how can he claim benefits for others when he personally stands to profit a lot if the merger goes through?
Easy? Yes. For me, for you. Maybe even a 10 year old could do it. But that's besides the point. It's a barrier to entry that effectively neuters the market. Amazon makes the most popular Android based tablet. I doubt they have a single digit market share in the COD Mobile market.
And remember that Microsoft already had their own mobile storefront with Windows Phone. That means they already had the connections with 3rd parties, and they have a slew of Android apps that they had concurrently with their own OS. They have a launcher, a search app, the Office suite, Teams, the Xbox apps, Outlook, an authenticator app, translator, solitaire, and more. Sure that's not enough for an app store by itself, but it isn't like the majority of apps on any app stores are first party. What I'm saying is that if Microsoft was going to try to launch a rival app store on Android, it would have tried it already. Buying Activision isn't going to give them the leverage to do that. And they have little to no motivation to do that, assuming the cut from selling Office subs is an acceptable deal.
Direct link to the Bloomberg article (if the Tweet doesn't show for anyone):
www.bnnbloomberg.ca
Microsoft to Meet with FTC Chair Lina Khan on Activision Deal - BNN Bloomberg
(Bloomberg) -- Microsoft Corp. executives are set to meet with US Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan and other commissioners Wednesday to make its final case in favor of its deal to buy gaming studio Activision Blizzard Inc., a person familiar with the meetings said.
www.bnnbloomberg.ca
Similar threads
