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

[iroboto]

That would be interesting, have we ever seen something like this before? Where regulators step in to protect marked leader?

As speculated earlier, MS gains nothing from keeping COD exclusive. The regulators did not ask for a 10 year term, they just offered one which is as longest any sane term should be. Once you forget to write an expiry some really awkward things happen that can be exploited decades later.

But as I see it; it’s just legal comfort for those looking in; I’m sure MS would have preferred not to extend the offers and just proceeded like they did Minecraft, but this document ensures to gamers that cod isn’t leaving their platform. After 10 years they will likely continue to honour it because $$$ reasons, but they won’t sign a contract as it is no longer necessary.

 

[iroboto]

Microsoft agrees 10-year deal to bring Call of Duty to Nintendo if Activision Blizzard buyout goes through

Microsoft has agreed a 10-year deal to bring Call of Duty to Nintendo if its buyout of Activision Blizzard goes through.

www.eurogamer.net

There is a detail in the messaging. MS says they are commited to bring the game to Nintendo for 10 years if the acquisition goes through. With Sony, they are not communicating commitment but are asking from Sony to agree to a 10 year old deal.
That detail may be important.
Also Sony's argument isnt only COD but that they will limit options to gamers. Thats also what the regulators are concerned about
This is what CMA said in the past:

"“Third parties told the CMA that Microsoft would benefit from making Activision’s content exclusive to Game Pass, and that this would be consistent with Microsoft’s behaviour in relation to past acquisitions, including that of ZeniMax Media, where Microsoft did not uphold its promise to continue making Bethesda content available on multiple stores and platforms.”

It is likely that the regulators after they approved the previous acquisition, saw MS's true intentions and thats why they are more strict with this one.

That is a far stretch because as it stands all content is still available. New content that has not been released is not a promise and purely from a gaming level the types of games Bethesda makes are single player titles and those are typically exclusive. Whereas COD and other MP titles need a player base (massive) to keep the game alive due to the pressure from f2p titles.

We understand why Sony would use that statement, but here as players we should note the difference. MS put Halo MP as free to play for instance; I wouldn’t be surprised that somewhere down the line that makes it to other platforms. These games really live and die on populations and you can’t really succeed if you don’t spread.

 

[mr magoo]

Interesting quote from Gaben

"Microsoft offered and even sent us a draft agreement for a long-term Call of Duty commitment but it wasn’t necessary for us because a) we’re not believers in requiring any partner to have an agreement that locks them to shipping games on Steam into the distant future b) Phil and the games team at Microsoft have always followed through on what they told us they would do so we trust their intentions and c) we think Microsoft has all the motivation they need to be on the platforms and devices where Call of Duty customers want to be."

Microsoft Promises To Release Call of Duty On Nintendo, Steam (kotaku.com)

 

[iroboto]

This verifies for me that the only corporations to protest the acquisition was indeed just Sony and Google. The other major platform holders didn’t give AF. And stadia is closed before the merger had the chance to occur, but not before they couldn’t put in a jab.

 

[Nesh]

That is a far stretch because as it stands all content is still available. New content that has not been released is not a promise and purely from a gaming level the types of games Bethesda makes are single player titles and those are typically exclusive. Whereas COD and other MP titles need a player base (massive) to keep the game alive due to the pressure from f2p titles.

We understand why Sony would use that statement, but here as players we should note the difference. MS put Halo MP as free to play for instance; I wouldn’t be surprised that somewhere down the line that makes it to other platforms. These games really live and die on populations and you can’t really succeed if you don’t spread.

The regulators care whats going to happen after a company is purchased. If Bethesda keeps old content available (pre-acquisition) and the rest not, it is not something regulators ignore. The impact is exactly that which regulators are concerned and checking. CMA noticed that they did not upheld their promise. I suspect its becayse Bethesda's new titles are exclusive. Not sure if something else happened I do not know

The last statement I do not follow. Its a big assumption. Historically consoles relied on exclusivity to diverisify themselves. We never saw a Mario, Zelda, Halo, Gears, GoW, Forza, GT, Uncharted on other console platforms for a reason.
There is a reason why companies had a "only on XBOX" or "Playstation Exclusive" on the box. Because console makers make most of their money on royalties and accessories and for that they need to convince players to choose their console instead of another. For whatever reason you ignore that. They are not third party software companies.

 

[iroboto]

The regulators care whats going to happen after a company is purchased. If Bethesda keeps old content available and the rest not, it is not something regulators ignore. The impact is exactly that which regulators are concerned and checking. CMA noticed that they did not upheld their promise. Bethesda's new titles are exclusive

To begin with, It’s not relevant that Bethesda titles are exclusive because they didn’t say that they wouldn’t be. They promised COD that it would stay on Sony. People didn’t trust them so they extended a 10 year contract.

No where was it promised that unannounced titles were coming to PS5 and then pulled to Xbox for exclusivity. And secondly, that doesn’t stop MS from putting these titles onto other platforms. We see this today with many MS first party titles finding their way to Steam and likely soon to all be day 1.

Starfield may yet find its way to Sony’s consoles, but MS isn’t forced to on terms they don’t want to.

You would be very wrong to think MS hasn’t been paying attention to the way streaming TV has gone. Eventually their exclusive content needs to find its way to other platforms as their user base is not sufficient enough to pay for it all. There is money on the table which is why we see Sony moving their first party titles to PC.

MS did that 7 years ago.

 

[Nesh]

To begin with, It’s not relevant that Bethesda titles are exclusive because they didn’t say that they wouldn’t be. They promised COD that it would stay on Sony. People didn’t trust them so they extended a 10 year contract.

No where was it promised that unannounced titles were coming to PS5 and then pulled to Xbox for exclusivity. And secondly, that doesn’t stop MS from putting these titles onto other platforms. We see this today with many MS first party titles finding their way to Steam and likely soon to all be day 1.

Starfield may yet find its way to Sony’s consoles, but MS isn’t forced to on terms they don’t want to.

You would be very wrong to think MS hasn’t been paying attention to the way streaming TV has gone. Eventually their exclusive content needs to find its way to other platforms as their user base is not sufficient enough to pay for it all. There is money on the table which is why we see Sony moving their first party titles to PC.

MS did that 7 years ago.

I am talking about CMA and what happens post acquisition. CMA noticed that Microsoft did not hold their promise with Bethesda. Which means they are concerned with the company in general, not just COD since that statement shows they had concerns with Zenimax as well. And they had no COD equivalent.
Assuming "maybes" have no place. If MS decides not to release Zenimax's or ABK's titles for their own benefit at the cost of competition and available options on other platforms to increase their market share, they will do exactly that.
Thats what regulators are concerned with. COD is just one of the many titles. We dont know details of what the "agreement" has in store or whats going to happen with the other existing and future titles or whats going to happen with COD after 10 years. If MS decides, these can be exclusive in accordance to their strategy to gain domination. This is always an open and likely scenario.

 

[see colon]

You can just as well make the arguement that MS will put COD and all that stuff on the amazon fire store

Except that there is an existing agreement between Activision and Google to keep their games "exclusive-ish" to the Android app store. As in, their games would not be released on Android stores that aren't the play store. This was revealed in the Apple/Epic suit. There is no COD on Amazon's app store, but there are some King games. But not all of them. I don't know enough about King's release schedule, but it looks to me that the newer releases from King aren't there. Notably, the Crash Bandicoot game isn't on Amazon. So perhaps the newer games are prohibited from alternative app store releases, or maybe it's the Activision IP (like Crash and COD).

Maybe when the agreement ends they will release more stuff on Amazon App Store. But I would think that it's less of a priority for Microsoft, because the advantage of having the Android games available on Windows via the Amazon App Store can be easily circumvented by just releasing those games as apps on the Windows Store.

CMA noticed that Microsoft did not hold their promise with Bethesda.

What promise and to whom? Microsoft purchased Bethesda in March 2021 and has released Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo since then. 2 PS5 exclusives. Other than that, I think the Doom Eternal Ancient Gods 2 DLC came out just after the deal closed.

 

[iroboto]

I am talking about CMA and what happens post acquisition. CMA noticed that Microsoft did not hold their promise with Bethesda. Which means they are concerned with the company in general, not just COD since that statement shows they had concerns with Zenimax as well. And they had no COD equivalent.
Assuming "maybes" have no place. If MS decides not to release Zenimax's or ABK's titles for their own benefit at the cost of competition and available options on other platforms to increase their market share, they will do exactly that.
Thats what regulators are concerned with. COD is just one of the many titles. We dont know details of what the "agreement" has in store or whats going to happen with the other existing and future titles or whats going to happen with COD after 10 years. If MS decides, these can be exclusive in accordance to their strategy to gain domination. This is always an open and likely scenario.

What promises did they hold with Bethesda that they broke? I need a source of context since I feel like I’m chasing a ghost.
Ghost wire Tokyo and Deathloop were committed to Sony the contracts were held.
All the MMO titles are still on PS5.

I’m confused as to what promises were made and broken.

EU passed the merger with no concessions:

EU approves Microsoft’s $7.5 billion Bethesda acquisition

The approval clears the way for Microsoft’s Xbox Game Pass plans.

www.theverge.com

MS never promised to make all future titles be available on PS5. So I'm struggling to find out where they broke commitments or concessions stipulated by the regulators.

Microsoft wants Bethesda games to be "either first or better or best" on its platforms

Following Microsoft's $7.5bn acquisition of ZeniMax Media - the parent company of Bethesda, id Software, Arkane Studios…

www.eurogamer.net

"But I'll also say in the model," he continued, "when I think about where people are going to be playing and the number of devices that we had, and we have xCloud and PC and Game Pass and our console base, I don't have to go ship those games on any other platform other than the platforms that we support in order to kind of make the deal work for us. Whatever that means."

Microsoft will not make Bethesda games exclusive to Xbox (yet), but wants to offer the best version of them

"We want that content to be either first or better or best on our platforms."

www.pcgamer.com

"When we think about Bethesda, it's going to be the continuing to allow—I'll say allow, but continue to sell their games on the platforms that they exist today, and we'll determine what that looks over time and will change over time. I'm not making any announcements about exclusivity or something like that. But that model will change."

I've not seen a promise made here.

 

[Nesh]

What promises did they hold with Bethesda that they broke? I need a source of context since I feel like I’m chasing a ghost.
Ghost wire Tokyo and Deathloop were committed to Sony the contracts were held.
All the MMO titles are still on PS5.

I’m confused as to what promises were made and broken.

EU passed the merger with no concessions:

EU approves Microsoft’s $7.5 billion Bethesda acquisition

The approval clears the way for Microsoft’s Xbox Game Pass plans.

www.theverge.com

MS never promised to make all future titles be available on PS5. So I'm struggling to find out where they broke commitments or concessions stipulated by the regulators.

Microsoft wants Bethesda games to be "either first or better or best" on its platforms

Following Microsoft's $7.5bn acquisition of ZeniMax Media - the parent company of Bethesda, id Software, Arkane Studios…

www.eurogamer.net

"But I'll also say in the model," he continued, "when I think about where people are going to be playing and the number of devices that we had, and we have xCloud and PC and Game Pass and our console base, I don't have to go ship those games on any other platform other than the platforms that we support in order to kind of make the deal work for us. Whatever that means."

Microsoft will not make Bethesda games exclusive to Xbox (yet), but wants to offer the best version of them

"We want that content to be either first or better or best on our platforms."

www.pcgamer.com

"When we think about Bethesda, it's going to be the continuing to allow—I'll say allow, but continue to sell their games on the platforms that they exist today, and we'll determine what that looks over time and will change over time. I'm not making any announcements about exclusivity or something like that. But that model will change."

I've not seen a promise made here.

Its from the CMA. We don't know the details. I just went from what the CMA said. The games you mentioned were before the acquisition. New games are exclusive.

 

[Lurkmass]

What promises did they hold with Bethesda that they broke? I need a source of context since I feel like I’m chasing a ghost.
Ghost wire Tokyo and Deathloop were committed to Sony the contracts were held.
All the MMO titles are still on PS5.

I’m confused as to what promises were made and broken.

They didn't make any "promises" per se or enter into new binding commitments but regulators are concerned with Microsoft's negative behaviour towards their competitor(s) after the acquisition of an upstream party (Bethesda, Activision, etc) which provides vital resources to downstream parties (Sony, Google, etc) and desires to know exactly what will happen to them ...

Regulators aren't too fond of the idea where a downstream party (Microsoft) is able to build a monopoly by acquiring the resources of former upstream parties and then continue denying their downstream competitor(s) of those same resources that would be available to them ...

If regulators think that is indeed what the downstream party intends to do then they'll probably block the acquisition if they can prevent this anti-competitive outcome ...

 

[iroboto]

They didn't make any "promises" per se or enter into new binding commitments but regulators are concerned with Microsoft's negative behaviour towards their competitor(s) after the acquisition of an upstream party (Bethesda, Activision, etc) which provides vital resources to downstream parties (Sony, Google, etc) and desires to know exactly what will happen to them ...

Regulators aren't too fond of the idea where a downstream party (Microsoft) is able to build a monopoly by acquiring the resources of former upstream parties and then continue denying their downstream competitor(s) of those same resources that would be available to them ...

If regulators think that is indeed what the downstream party intends to do then they'll probably block the acquisition if they can prevent this anti-competitive outcome ...

That’s a stupid argument. You own them and all the products that they make. If Bethesda is making all new IPs under Microsoft; they are not forced to sell them to a competitor.

This isn’t anti-competitive. They are making content that doesn’t exist anywhere out there exclusive for their own platform. Existing franchises are fair game for the term anti competitive, but new IPs that have never been released? We have yet to see any evidence at all that an existing franchise new release has gone exclusive. Not saying it can’t, but it hasn’t.

 

[Lurkmass]

That’s a stupid argument. You own them and all the products that they make. If Bethesda is making all new IPs under Microsoft; they are not forced to sell them to a competitor.

This isn’t anti-competitive. They are making content that doesn’t exist anywhere out there exclusive for their own platform. Existing franchises are fair game for the term anti competitive, but new IPs that have never been released? We have yet to see any evidence at all that an existing franchise new release has gone exclusive. Not saying it can’t, but it hasn’t.

Any resources that would've been formerly produced by an upstream party in their own capacity is now out of availability for other downstream parties and that includes potential new IPs ...

Bethesda announcing that they were already developing a new IP such as Starfield for example before Microsoft's involvement in making it exclusive might be constituted as an anti-competitive move ...

You could try making the argument that new content wouldn't be possible with the upstream parties on their own but others may find it hard to buy into that argument since Microsoft aren't exactly buying upstream parties with bad balance sheets ...

 

[iroboto]

Any resources that would've been formerly produced by an upstream party in their own capacity is now out of availability for other downstream parties and that includes potential new IPs ...

Bethesda announcing that they were already developing a new IP such as Starfield for example before Microsoft's involvement in making it exclusive might be constituted as an anti-competitive move ...

You could try making the argument that new content wouldn't be possible with the upstream parties on their own but others may find it hard to buy into that argument since Microsoft aren't exactly buying upstream parties with bad balance sheets ...

I don’t make those arguments. There’s too much hypocrisy here since there’s been tons of studio consolidation and foreclosure across the industry over decades spanning. The idea that it’s bad only when MS does it is the hypocrisy. No one wanted Blizzard to merge with activision and it happened, and under their control blizzard had fallen like a rock and all their resources dedicated to a single franchise. Where were the gamers then to discuss blocking that deal.

And since those consolidations we’ve had more games and more IPs and more developers stepping up since. The fact that Sony is trying to shore up Chinese games after GI is fact that an entire new market of IPs and developers have opened up.

 

[Lurkmass]

I don’t make those arguments. There’s too much hypocrisy here since there’s been tons of studio consolidation and foreclosure across the industry over decades spanning. The idea that it’s bad only when MS does it is the hypocrisy. No one wanted Blizzard to merge with activision and it happened, and under their control blizzard had fallen like a rock and all their resources dedicated to a single franchise. Where were the gamers then to discuss blocking that deal.

And since those consolidations we’ve had more games and more IPs and more developers stepping up since. The fact that Sony is trying to shore up Chinese games after GI is fact that an entire new market of IPs and developers have opened up.

Nobody really has a problem with industry consolidation but regulators take issue with it when it's done with anti-competitive intent and means so corporations should find another way to do it that doesn't anger them ...

And it's not like Blizzard itself had anything to say about it's merger with Activision since that was Vivendi's call. Sony also isn't outright buying up Chinese developers themselves unlike their competitor with major game publishers. If they truly wanted to avoid facing the wrath of regulators then maybe they should take more notes from their competitors and opt-in to make "publishing deals" with independent parties ?

 

[iroboto]

Nobody really has a problem with industry consolidation but regulators take issue with it when it's done with anti-competitive intent and means so corporations should find another way to do it that doesn't anger them ...

And it's not like Blizzard itself had anything to say about it's merger with Activision since that was Vivendi's call. Sony also isn't outright buying up Chinese developers themselves unlike their competitor with major game publishers. If they truly wanted to avoid facing the wrath of regulators then maybe they should take more notes from their competitors and opt-in to make "publishing deals" with independent parties ?

Ok, so is MS making anti competitive moves that are angering regulatory bodies? I’m not following here. None of the protests against the merger brought up any of those points that you did so that would suggest these aren’t large concerns for them.

 

[iroboto]

There is a reason why companies had a "only on XBOX" or "Playstation Exclusive" on the box. Because console makers make most of their money on royalties and accessories and for that they need to convince players to choose their console instead of another. For whatever reason you ignore that. They are not third party software companies.

Because it’s clear that the model is changing and exclusivity and walled garden strategies don’t generate as much profits as it once has in comparison to newer models.

I’m not sure if you’ve seen it yet MS future goals yet, (and I don’t mean seeing, but seeing where they truly want to go) but you don’t need a console to be on Xbox platform. I could literally go to a house that had nothing but wifi and everyone could order up game pass on their mobile and start an in house game. Provided the experience would indeed be better with controllers, but MS doesn’t care which controllers you use.

Most games going forward will not have couch co-op. And not many people are keen on buying multiple consoles. There will be a future where a daughter will play COD on switch and their parent will join his son on their laptop or mobile device and play it with him streaming. That’s MS vision. They don’t need to force people to buy Xbox consoles, They will find away to get the games to you.

2 children don’t need to fight over the console when they had a myriad of other electronic devices. A family gamepass fsub will allow them all to play streaming.

Parents don’t need to keep buying hardware repeatedly. Android, IOS, laptops, etc. all can play.

 

[Lurkmass]

Ok, so is MS making anti competitive moves that are angering regulatory bodies? I’m not following here. None of the protests against the merger brought up any of those points that you did so that would suggest these aren’t large concerns for them.

Who knows ? We have yet to get any conclusion from regulators so that's for them to choose. Some of us are just raising the possible sticking points behind regulators ...

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Any resources that would've been formerly produced by an upstream party in their own capacity is now out of availability for other downstream parties and that includes potential new IPs ...

You mean like Sony did with Deathloop? Sure, it was only timed but then we also have Sony with FFVII remake which so far appears to be a permanent console exclusive as it still hasn't appeared on Xbox. If was timed for Xbox like it was for PC then Square-Enix would have released it on Xbox as it would likely sell better on Xbox than it would on PC. Not only that it's easier to develop a title for Xbox than it is for PC since it's basically one hardware platform (XBS-S is just fewer resources with the same capabilities) versus PC where you have to make your code run on hundreds of thousands of different hardware configurations. Anyway, it was probably because it was cheaper for them to negotiate a long term exclusivity for a game with Square-Enix than it was to do the same with Bethesda.

You don't have to purchase a developer to make their games exclusive. You can also just outright purchase exclusivity. And Sony aren't the only ones that have done that. Blue Dragon on X360?

Hell, MS acquiring ABK is actually making titles available to MORE downstream parties. COD will exist on NIntendo systems where it currently does not.

I mean if you think about it in the context of the cost of the acquisition, MS making big titles available on more platforms to more downstream parties is the only thing that really makes that acquisition make sense from a purely business standpoint. And the last time I checked, MS is a business.

Regards,
SB

 

[Dr. Nick]

""Third parties told the CMA that Microsoft would benefit from making Activision's content exclusive to Game Pass, and that this would be consistent with Microsoft's behaviour in relation to past acquisitions, including that of ZeniMax Media, where Microsoft did not uphold its promise to continue making Bethesda content available on multiple stores and platforms."

My first question is, promises made to who and where is it in writing?
The way things are worded is very important and as of now Bethesda content is everywhere.
Bethesda already added their games to Steam, so that already takes care of multiple storefronts. Maybe Epic and Gog are mad that they weren't included. They have been releasing content on Sony and Nintendo platforms since the merger. Bethesda content is still available on the storefronts they were on before the merger and then some. Nothing that has been announced for particular platforms has been removed.

Starfield and Elder Scrolls VI were announced, but the platforms they would be on were not. Once again, the only indication that they could have been on Sony's platform outside of assumptions was the rumor that Sony was trying to get at least Starfield as a likely timed exclusive.