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

CWA Union statement about FTC:



By moving to file a lawsuit in administrative court to block Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard, the Federal Trade Commission has missed an opportunity to demonstrate that it takes the labor impact of mergers seriously. Instead, the FTC has once again focused its analysis solely on consumer harms and, in this case, console-market leader Sony’s concerns about increased competition.

CWA has for years raised concerns about the effect of mergers on workers and the labor market and we have worked with economists to assess the real risk of monopsony to workers, including in this transaction. Union representation and collective bargaining agreements are the most powerful tools we have to balance power between workers and companies. Collective bargaining is a bulwark against downward pressure on wages from merged employers with increased market power. Contractual protections mean that union workers are more empowered to blow the whistle on dangerous or unethical behavior, which benefits both employees and consumers.

Activision Blizzard is using its already-significant power to resist workers' organizing efforts and clearly does not wish to respect its workers' right to freely and fairly organize a union. That's why CWA sought a remedy that would rein in these tech giants' labor market power – a labor neutrality agreement that enables workers to counteract the increased monopsony inherent in the merger through collective bargaining. After CWA brought our concerns to light, Microsoft agreed to enter into negotiations to show regulators their good faith efforts to address monopsony harms, resulting in a legally binding agreement with CWA.

Workers across the country, including in the video game industry, understand that one of the most effective ways to fight consolidated corporate power is to consolidate their own power by joining together in unions. The status quo for American corporations – particularly the tech sector – is to aggressively resist these efforts, including illegally firing workers and interfering with union elections.

Approving this merger with the labor agreement that we fashioned with Microsoft to protect collective bargaining rights would have sent a game-changing message to corporate America that workers do indeed have a seat at the table and their concerns matter and must be addressed. We believe the FTC’s case is not likely to convince a federal judge, particularly as the European Commission may move to approve the deal, and that workers at Activision Blizzard will finally have the opportunity to improve their wages, benefits and working conditions through their union.

About CWA: The Communications Workers of America represents working people in telecommunications, customer service, media, airlines, health care, public service and education, manufacturing, tech, and other fields.
 
Here's another thing to consider. Sony might be really afraid of Nintendo getting access to COD again now that the audience for their consoles is maturing and they represent more of a threat to Sony. They've already lost most of their relevance in Japan to their competition (Nintendo) and are likely afraid to lose more share to Nintendo in other markets if COD became available on Nintendo platforms.

It's entirely possible that Sony are more afraid of Nintendo getting access to COD than anything else, especially considering that they likely know that MS never had any intention of removing COD from PlayStation and the only thing they'd lose in the MS-ABK deal is their exclusive rights to some DLC (timed or permanent).

IMO, that's far more of a threat to Sony than MS moving exclusive DLC back to Xbox as it was during the PS3/X360 gen.

Looking back, in hindsight you could even potentially see some of their Board of Directors associating PS3's relative lack of success as being due to Wii's runaway success and the PS4's resurgence due to Nintendo's inability to compete due to the horrible Wii-U.

MS putting more titles on Nintendo consoles would just make them even more competitive.

Regards,
SB
 
Last edited:
Doesn't matter what consumers knew, or fact that games get dropped from platforms right up to release.

If FTC this time around asked MS was there PS versions in development, and answer was yes then MS took what would've been a multi plat game that was going to PS also and made it exclusive.
Which that single statement could easily be read as they wouldn't do.

I think they should've just left it as meeting current contractual obligations.
But then I think they should have no problems not releasing games wherever they want, regardless of the title including COD. As none would cause a competitor to close.

But this makes it seem like I'm defending the FTC and making me feel dirty.

Would we a PS version in development actually be ? starfield started development in 2015. The ps5 wouldn't even be released for another 5 years. I'd assume that the majority of development would be on pc until closer to release . If they are basing it on a ps4 version the simple answer from MS would be the game suffered performance issues on the ps4 and it was going to be impossible or to recourse intensive to bring it up to adequate performance levels. They can then point to there being no xbox one release either. They could also point out all the claims of poor performance from media and outlets that went over the Starfield showcase and point out other companies that have canceled previous gen versions of games like Gotham knights as I said.

If there were contracts in place for starfield or redfall on playstation then Sony would have sued ms for breaching them.

Will microsoft be in trouble if bethesda had an unannounced game that was in development for all systems but was canceled due to whatever reason ? It's an odd requirement. Microsoft never said anything about in development games only contracted.

This is just the FTC trying to find a reason to stop this. If they actually had a real reason they would file an injunction. They scheduled their internal kangaroo court after the closing date in hopes that Ms will just want this to end and will make further concessions so that the FTC will claim that they are reigning in big tech. All the democrats get their tweet moments like warren , the admin can claim its doing something important while actually harming unions and that is that.

if anyone is going to be able to stop the merger it will be the UK or EU. But if they are going to base it on Ms not releasing Starfield or Redfall they are going to have a hard time if there weren't any contracts to do so and I doubt MS would be dumb enough to break a contract. I also think we would have seen lawsuits by sony if they had a contract for starfield to be released.
 
MLex emailed the European Commission about the FTC accusation
Microsoft didn't mislead EU over ZeniMax deal, watchdog says in response to US concerns

Microsoft didn't make any "commitments" to EU regulators not to release Xbox-exclusive content following its takeover of ZeniMax Media, the European Commission has said.

US enforcers yesterday suggested that the US tech giant had misled the regulator in 2021 and cited that as a reason to challenge its proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard.

"The commission cleared the Microsoft/ZeniMax transaction unconditionally as it concluded that the transaction would not raise competition concerns," the EU watchdog said in an emailed statement.

The absence of competition concerns "did not rely on any statements made by Microsoft about the future distribution strategy concerning ZeniMax's games," said the commission, which itself has opened an in-depth probe into the Activision Blizzard deal and appears keen to clarify what happened in the previous acquisition.

The EU agency found that even if Microsoft were to restrict access to ZeniMax titles, it wouldn't have a significant impact on competition because rivals wouldn't be denied access to an "essential input," and other consoles would still have a "large array" of attractive content.
 
Last edited:
Here's another thing to consider. Sony might be really afraid of Nintendo getting access to COD again now that the audience for their consoles is maturing and they represent more of a threat to Sony. They've already lost most of their relevance in Japan to their competition (Nintendo) and are likely afraid to lose more share to Nintendo in other markets if COD became available on Nintendo platforms.

It's entirely possible that Sony are more afraid of Nintendo getting access to COD than anything else, especially considering that they likely know that MS never had any intention of removing COD from PlayStation and the only thing they'd lose in the MS-ABK deal is their exclusive rights to some DLC (timed or permanent).

IMO, that's far more of a threat to Sony than MS moving exclusive DLC back to Xbox as it was during the PS3/X360 gen.

Looking back, in hindsight you could even potentially see some of their Board of Directors associating PS3's relative lack of success as being due to Wii's runaway success and the PS4's resurgence due to Nintendo's inability to compete due to the horrible Wii-U.

MS putting more titles on Nintendo consoles would just make them even more competitive.

Regards,
SB

I think they are both threats. You have nintendo readying a more powerful console which should be able to pull off raytracing and likely play all the ps4/xbox one era games just fine along with a lot of the new gen games at lower settings and resolutons and of course that scares sony because sony wont have time to prepare a dominate postion this time. Remember last generation the ps4 launched in 2013 and the switch launched in 2017. So Sony had almost 4 years of install base growth and nintendo was coming off the failed wii u.

So you have Nintendo releasing the follow up of a very successful console. Then you have microsoft who is starting to find success with the two prong console approach and the subscription approach with cloud gaming. All this while heading into a global recession. This black friday in the United states at least xbox series s consoles were almost half the price if not half the price of the digital version of the ps5. It's also capable of playing all games sans exclusives.

What's more is that I wonder about game pass on the switch itself. MS and Nintendo can come to an agreement to have an agreement for xcloud on the switch that would be limited to just games not on the switch but on game pass. Would be an interesting way of bringing call of duty to the current switch with no issues.
 
Via Idas from ResetEra

"MLex emailed the European Commission about the FTC accusation"

I wondered about this, because I didn't recall any commitment by Microsoft when the EU approved the Zenimax acquisition. I'm barely following the thread because it's just a stream of tweets now. I am baffled why people think the FTC not seeking an interim injunction means anything. You seek a injunction to prevent something imminent happening.

The timeframes of the UK and EU processes negate the need for a preliminary injunction. What next? It's full moon, which is a good omen for companies acquiring other companies? :runaway:
 
MLex emailed the European Commission about the FTC accusation
Agree with them and I also put COD in that category.
MS should only make commitment for COD due to playing the good guy role. (even if they plan to put it everywhere anyway)

After all this be funny if went through with no decrees apart from the contract with Nintendo.
 
I wondered about this, because I didn't recall any commitment by Microsoft when the EU approved the Zenimax acquisition. I'm barely following the thread because it's just a stream of tweets now. I am baffled why people think the FTC not seeking an interim injunction means anything. You seek a injunction to prevent something imminent happening.

The timeframes of the UK and EU processes negate the need for a preliminary injunction. What next? It's full moon, which is a good omen for companies acquiring other companies? :runaway:

The close date is less than 6 months away and the FTC has their internal court case for after the close date. So the merger will be approved before the FTC has their kangero court to prove something that the EU claims didn't happen which is just hilarous.

Typically you would seek an injunction on an event from happening before a court case.
 
MS should only make commitment for COD due to playing the good guy role. (even if they plan to put it everywhere anyway)
Microsoft shouldn't be making any concessions or deals while this process is going on. It won't impact the stage 2 assessments. The opportunity to avert stage 2 assessments was before they began.

I'm really interested to see what comes of the commitment to put Call of Duty on Switch. I guess the platform will either get a proof the mobile game, or it'll get stream-only option for those with an active GamePass subscription.
 
I'm really interested to see what comes of the commitment to put Call of Duty on Switch. I guess the platform will either get a proof the mobile game, or it'll get stream-only option for those with an active GamePass subscription.
It was commitment to put it on a Nintendo platform, not explicitly on Switch. It probably won't see light of day until Switch 2. If it had to be on Switch 1, I assume it would be streaming for the quicker port.
 
The point is declaring a single franchise as being the most critical franchise to a whole industry is complete hogwash; and to suggest Nintendo due to its low performance nature competes in a different market is alongside that hogwash. It’s a bad faith argument from the FTC.

If you want to block the merger just block it. But it’s clear they don’t understand the gaming industry when you declare a console low performance and therefore irrelevant. Games success all comes down to execution of a particular experience that players are looking for. Ultimately games are and often behave like a winner takes all market. The only thing cod wins at is Mil Sim. And Mil Sim alone does not dictate whether you will succeed or fail in the industry as per Nintendo’s success, as we can now see had surpassed ps4. COD represents a significant chunk of money for platform holders, but not enough to kill your platform if you lose it. And certainly others are more willing to enter the Mil Sim market if COD left it.

Whether COD will have a big blow by itself on Sony or not is a different subject altogether from categorizing PS5 and XBOX Series as high performance consoles that compete each other directly with particular experience in mind as their main focus
 
Whether COD will have a big blow by itself on Sony or not is a different subject altogether from categorizing PS5 and XBOX Series as high performance consoles that compete each other directly with particular experience in mind as their main focus
its all related. All game consoles compete with each other. You are only a single person, and each person has 24 hours in a day. Your game consoles, compete with your cell phone, that compete with your social media, that compete with your game consoles. You spend 2-4 hours on Nintendo switch that isn't 2-4 hours you can spend on PS5.

It's all competition for a person's time, if it doesn't take your time, you don't spend money on it.
 
Microsoft shouldn't be making any concessions or deals while this process is going on. It won't impact the stage 2 assessments. The opportunity to avert stage 2 assessments was before they began.
Don't mean at any particular point. They've been trying to do the COD deal from the start with Sony.
I don't think it should be necessary and they are doing it as good guys, even though its their plan to put it on there anyway.
Without that deal they can easily do exclusive skins and do beta demos etc.
With deal right now Sony would want full parity on everything, and MS would probably give it, apart from GP.
stream-only option for those with an active GamePass subscription.
They never specified switch, by time a port is done probably be switch 2.

Anyway could do it without putting GP on switch.
They could extend xcloud to support switch through Nintendo store. Same way some switch games are currently streamed.
I think it's something they should even be looking at for Xbox at some point.
 
It was commitment to put it on a Nintendo platform, not explicitly on Switch. It probably won't see light of day until Switch 2. If it had to be on Switch 1, I assume it would be streaming for the quicker port.

Yup this is why we are in this weird mess. People read what they want into things. MS will put cod on a Nintendo platform. If we presume this is MS's directive and wasn't already being pursued by Activision then 2023 is the year of purchase so no cod then. 2024 would give them a year and a half or less to create a cod on a nintendo platform so perhaps but likely not. so 2025 is the most logical release of a nintendo platform cod. Switch came out March 2017 so you are looking year 7-8 of the switch. There will likely be a new nintendo system by the time COD for Nintendo is ready. If we assume any of these years there is a good chance that the new nintendo console could be similar in power to an xbox series s which will make porting the game much easier

It's just like what they are saying about COD. MS has said their intent is to have call of duty on the playstation as long as it exists. But that doesn't mean they will always have it on the PlayStation. Their intent may not change but Sony may have demands in a future contract that MS doesn't want to fufill and thus there is no cod on PlayStation. The intent is still there but the circumstances don't allow for it
 
I mean i am still on 1660GTX am i High performance or low performance PC? Wich market i belong? Do i care? Can i play new games?
Weird argument ...
I feel you. RX 580 here and since I still game at 1080 it's just starting to get old. I keep wondering when that transition point is from new, shiny gaming god box to a year or two behind but still can run all the games pretty well. I keep missing the exact point and it's only noticeable in hindsight.
 
Back
Top