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

[iroboto]

Kotick is being honest here. He obviously has much to gain personally from the merger taking place but he doesn't agree with this. The only shocking thing here is a glimmer is dissenting honesty, but he likely has to say this because he's probably said it in writing and if he says something contrary that can be provided in evidence, that is perjury.

Nothing new is being revealed here. In fact, I think this tweeter could be reading the room incorrectly.

During the CMA investigation, ABK stated the exact same thing, they cited, that Call of Duty or their games be could not be found on a subscription service today or in the future unless they were acquired. This is a stark difference from EU recognizing their point here:

Even without this transaction, Activision would not have made its games available for multi-game subscription services, as this would cannibalize sales of individual games. Therefore, the situation for third-party providers of multi-game subscription services would not change after the acquisition of Activision by Microsoft.

Vs the CMA

“The CMA recognizes that ABK's newest games are not currently available on any subscription service on the day of release but considers that this may change as subscription services continue to grow,” representatives of the CMA wrote. “After the Merger, Microsoft would gain control of this important input and could use it to harm the competitiveness of its rivals.”

While the commentary here in the FTC PI trial is to show that Game Pass will harm consumers (good luck in trying to paint that picture - we have more varied content from a large variety of international sources now than ever), it's contradictory with what the CMA has leveraged here when coming to their decision. This could be a contention point as MS and ABK will go back to fight the decision in the UK later this year.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Nothing new is being revealed here. In fact, I think this tweeter could be reading the room incorrectly.

It's' new because we're hearing this directly from Bobby Kotick at Activision.

Every other time we've heard this viewpoint - which you quoted - was an opinion by presented by a third party, like a competitor or the investigating regulator. It's new because Activision have explained why they wouldn't allow certain IP on subscription services, which was not something disclosed or speculated on previously.

 

[iroboto]

It's' new because we're hearing this directly from Bobby Kotick at Activision.

Every other time we've heard this viewpoint - which you quoted - was an opinion by presented by a third party, like a competitor or the investigating regulator. It's new because Activision have explained why they wouldn't allow certain IP on subscription services, which was not something disclosed or speculated on previously.

Sure, I suppose from that perspective, it may be new to us as the readers.

But this tweeter is implying Kotick is trying to "Astonishing admission right here from Kotick. Is he trying to sabotage the merger?"
Which makes no sense to me. The evidence has been submitted precisely as to why they don't want to do it. EU indicates it "as this would cannibalize sales of individual games". I see no reason that the FTC, CMA, Or EU didn't already know this.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

But this tweeter is implying Kotick is trying to "Astonishing admission right here from Kotick. Is he trying to sabotage the merger?"

I don't think you read my post, I literally explained this why he wrote this. Here it is again:

Kotick is being honest here. He obviously has much to gain personally from the merger taking place but he doesn't agree with this [putting valuable IP into subscription services]. The only shocking thing here is a glimmer is dissenting honesty, but he likely has to say this because he's probably said it in writing and if he says something contrary that can be provided in evidence, that is perjury.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Isn't paying to block someone anticompetitive behaviour? It's not like paying to create an exclusive, or helping fund a timed exclusive with money-hatting. It's downright using money to undermine competition. From the sounds of it everyone needs a massive slap on the wrists.

 

[iroboto]

I don't think you read my post, I literally explained this why he wrote this. Here it is again:

Kotick is being honest here. He obviously has much to gain personally from the merger taking place but he doesn't agree with this [putting valuable IP into subscription services]. The only shocking thing here is a glimmer is dissenting honesty, but he likely has to say this because he's probably said it in writing and if he says something contrary that can be provided in evidence, that is perjury.

I have no problem with your post. You are correct, it's consistent messaging in line with the evidence they have already brought forward.
I just leveraged it because you did the formatting work to separate out that particular tweet.
I had an issue with the tweet in saying that Kotick is trying to sabotage the merger here with his response; when in reality he's been honest and consistent with this since the start.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Isn't paying to block someone anticompetitive behaviour?

In terms of the law, no. Anti-competitive behaviour is clearly defined in most territories and covers specific acts like price-rigging, bid-rigging, choosing deliberately to not compete, and abusing a dominant position where in anti-competition law that equates to exerting more capital than competition whereas in the console market, the 'underdog' (Microsoft) has vastly more capital to expend with the ability to outbid competitors.

Seeking some form of exclusivity on content, in a market where there is a lot of content available, or simply restricting it (preventing it from being made available on rival subscription services or whole platforms), is largely the basis on which all exclusive marketing deals are made in all sorts of markets, not least literature, music, TV and movies. Videogames are no different, except that in the AA/AAA space, the number of independent content providers is much smaller than other content markets.

edit: fundamentally, it is only the most serious acts which are deemed to harm consumer interests that are subject to regulation. I can see why some might argue that the bar should be lowered, but can you imagine how big regulators would need to become to potentially handle a massive increase in grievance cases because company A stuck a marketing deal that company B could not? It would quickly become unworkable, and advantage larger companies who could afford to litigate and bring complaints whereas smaller companies may not.

I had an issue with the tweet in saying that Kotick is trying to sabotage the merger here with his response; when in reality he's been honest and consistent with this since the start.

That was what my first post was addressing. Kotick wasn't saying this to be consistent, because this is the first time this view has been expressed. You need to least two occurrences to measure consistency. Either being consistent, or not.

 

[see colon]

To users, because GamePass is tremendous value for money for consumers. Microsoft have yet balance the tremendous value to consumers with commensurate profitability for themselves. They're not actually a charity, but you could be forgiven for almost believing that!

Is it weird that I don't care? Adding in the Activision and Blizzard content, Gamepass could be double the price and still be the cheapest way to play games.

 

[SmooTh]

CAT denied CMA's request to delay the hearing to October

We consider that the CMA has not paid sufficient heed to the true public interest in this case – which is the swift resolution of Microsoft's Notice. The CMA has chosen to re-visit a matter already decided (namely, an end July/early August hearing and not an October hearing) when there has been no material change of circumstance. Furthermore, the CMA has made this application indefensiblya late, with no explanation. Finally, there has been no attempt by the CMA to explore – either with Microsoft or with the Tribunal – ways in which the burden might be eased. In speedy processes like this, the Tribunal stands ready to assist
– where it can – to ensure that inappropriate burdens are lifted. It is disappointing that such dialogue has not taken place in this case.

The application is refused. This ruling is unanimous

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I don't think you read my post, I literally explained this why he wrote this. Here it is again:

Kotick is being honest here. He obviously has much to gain personally from the merger taking place but he doesn't agree with this [putting valuable IP into subscription services]. The only shocking thing here is a glimmer is dissenting honesty, but he likely has to say this because he's probably said it in writing and if he says something contrary that can be provided in evidence, that is perjury.

The whole thing is a mess of slight misunderstandings. Iroboto was originally commenting on the sensationalist tweet via a response to your post.

Nothing new is being revealed here. In fact, I think this tweeter could be reading the room incorrectly.

But the clarification of his post that you made was clarifying that you weren't implying that this information is new to the various regulatory bodies (FTC, CMA, EU, rest of world) but that it's new to non-regulatory body people. So, of course, Kotick would say the same thing under oath as he has said to all of the regulatory bodies around the world. In that sense, it's nothing new except to the general public.

Back to Iroboto's point. Kotick has said the exact same things to the FTC, CMA, EU, rest of world regulatory bodies and so far only the CMA has interpreted Bobby Kotick saying he doesn't believe subscription (and by extension cloud) gaming services are good for Activision (IE - Activision will never volunatarily put their games on a subscription service, cloud gaming included), as meaning that sometime in the future Activision will probably put their games on a subscription service (like cloud gaming). I say "will probably" because that's the part of basis of the CMAs decision even if they used the world "may".

Iroboto is then pointing out that the EU and the rest of the world took Kotick at his word that subscription gaming (cloud included) is basically anathema (bad ju ju, no can do, stay away, etc.) to ABK and thus the acquisition is likely the only way that ABK games will appear on subscription gaming services (including cloud).

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Is it weird that I don't care? Adding in the Activision and Blizzard content, Gamepass could be double the price and still be the cheapest way to play games.

That is weird because if you value a product or service you presumably want it to stick around so that you can continue to enjoy the benefits, whereas if it's not generation as much profit as the operator likes, that increases the risk the product or service might change drastically to something less appealing.

But the clarification of his post that you made was clarifying that you weren't implying that this information is new to the various regulatory bodies (FTC, CMA, EU, rest of world) but that it's new to non-regulatory body people. So, of course, Kotick would say the same thing under oath as he has said to all of the regulatory bodies around the world. In that sense, it's nothing new except to the general public.

To te best of my knowledge, Bobby Kotick hasn't said this before. That's why it's now getting attention, because it's new. Activision's motives for previously refusing to allow some of their IP to appear on GamePass at launch has been speculated at, bit Activision's CEO has been clear it's because they feel making something available in such a service devalues the IP.

If he said it before, why's is getting so much attention now? Nothing else being repeated is.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

If he said it before, why's is getting so much attention now? Nothing else being repeated is.

Because unlike the processes of regulatory bodies (closed door investigations) the court procedings are public and testimonies are made before an audience. There are rare situations where court proceedings are sealed, but those require an exceptional reason that this case would not qualify for.

For the closed door regulatory bodies investigations, the public only gets to hear either what the regulatory bodies wants them to hear or what gets leaked. For court procedings (at least in the US), reporters or even the general public that attend can report on anything that is said in court or divulged in court.

Are you saying that the CMA failed to question Kotick or that Kotick deliberately lied to the CMA? But that the EU did question Kotick and that Kotick didn't lie to the EU?

The EU came to the conclusion that ABK games were unlikely to ever be put onto a streaming service why? Because MS said so? It's not like the EU would take Microsoft's word that ABK would likely never put their games on a streaming service unless Microsoft acquired them. And it's not like the EU wouldn't be a little confused if they went to ABK and ABK were like, "Naw, we're fine with streaming services we just need to be acquired first." So, the only reason they'd know that ABK would not want to ever put their games onto a streaming service is because ABK told them. IE - Bobby Kotick or one of his representatives if for some reason the EU decided not to question him.

Are we to assume that the FTC questioned Kotick but the CMA didn't question Kotick? I mean the FTC weren't going to ask Kotick that question in court unless they knew what the answer would be. And we know that the FTC, CMA, and EU have been in communications with each other over this acquisition. So is the implication that everyone (in various regulatory bodies around the world) except the CMA knew about ABKs stance regarding any subscription game service?

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Isn't paying to block someone anticompetitive behaviour? It's not like paying to create an exclusive, or helping fund a timed exclusive with money-hatting. It's downright using money to undermine competition. From the sounds of it everyone needs a massive slap on the wrists.

Probably. In the US this might fall under something similar to price fixing or collusion. Apple got dinged (convicted in court) in the US for deals with publishers that prevented those book publishers from allowing Amazon to sell their books.

The problem is that someone would have to bring a case to court. So, how likely is it for either MS or Sony to bring a case to court if both of them are guilty of doing it? In the above case, Amazon brought Apple to court and Amazon wasn't engaging in that practice.

Well, now that it's in public, it'll be interesting if there's a class action lawsuit brought against both Sony and MS WRT that. No idea if it'll happen, but it'd be break out the popcorn time.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Because unlike the processes of regulatory bodies (closed door investigations) the court procedings are public and testimonies are made before an audience. There are rare situations where court proceedings are sealed, but those require an exceptional reason that this case would not qualify for.

Whilst true, the UK CMA have published literally thousands of - admittedly redacted - documentation. The EU have also published a wealth of documentation. I've not read that Activision have stated this previously. If you've seen it stated previously and link it up, I'll acknowledge that as a bad in my part.

For the closed door regulatory bodies investigations, the public only gets to hear either what the regulatory bodies wants them to hear or what gets leaked.

UK, EU and US processes have all had closed proceedings. The CAT element is live-streaming, but any part of the proceedings that hinge on commercially confidential information, need to be discussed in closed proceedings and not disclosed.

Are you saying that the CMA failed to question Kotick or that Kotick deliberately lied to the CMA? But that the EU did question Kotick and that Kotick didn't lie to the EU?

That's a gross distortion of what I posted, and a nonsense premise. Please don't fuel the conspiracy theories that are already rampant, the forum is at a fucking low in terms of rationality and quality as it is.

There has plenty of evidence provided by Activision to both the UK and EU processes. What this particular point, i.e. direct clarification from Activision that they felt releasing IP onto subscriptions services devalued their IP, disclosed previously? I don't recall this, and based on the coverage I'm reading - Reuters, BBC, The Verge - it all seems new to them as well.

Are you certain that this was disclosed before, and you're not recalling speculation?

 

[Silent_Buddha]

You can't make this shit up. It's like fanboys / console warriors are running both these companies.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1674173368646483969

Is it though? Usually I'm skeptical of statements by companies, but MS under Nadella has shown a willingness, desire even, to embrace spreading MS products to as many platforms as possible.

Just to name a few, embracing releasing apps on iOS and Android and ditching all plans for a MS powered phone. Keep in mind that MS greatly expanded their efforts on iOS and Android even as they were attempting to compete with Windows Phone. That's sort of shooting yourself in the foot in try to get your platform established unless you really do fundamentally believe that exclusivity hurts everyone.

Brought Linux support into Windows and prior to that expanded support for Linux within Microsoft's software ecosystem. For example, Edge is fully supported in Linux. Consider that prior to Nadella taking over, Microsoft were actively hostile towards Linux viewing it as a competitor to Windows. It's still a competitor to Windows, but Nadella insisted that Microsoft support it instead of excluding it.

Prior to this acquisition, MS started to allow additional game releases on NSW. Tentatively seeing how it would affect sales, etc. Sort of like how they initially tested the waters with bringing their console games to PC.

And, here's the thing. If you are a smaller market player (much smaller) and you want to compete with the larger more dominant market player, you either play by their rules or accept that you'll never be anything more than a small bit player in the market.

Everyone is assuming that just because Microsoft itself is large, that it's automatically a big player in any market it goes into. But that just isn't reflective of reality. A large corporation that's a small player in X market is still just a small player in X market. Sure they "can" just try to buy their way into a larger share of that market, but that rarely works. Sure it works sometimes, but it's the exception rather than the rule. And it's entirely possible to spend yourself into bankruptcy attempting to do that. After all you still have to convince consumers that they want your product.

That means you have to be careful how you go about it that you don't alienate the very consumers you're attempting to convert. And as we've seen, that makes it even harder since it's "OK" for Sony to engage in exclusivity deals with 3rd parties (just look at all the uproar over Sony exclusivity deals, oh wait...) but not for Microsoft (see Tomb Raider exclusivity deal and the ensuing uproar that basically ended Microsoft's attempts at competing via securing 3rd party exclusivity deals). IE - Sony securing exclusivity deals isn't alienating consumers whereas Microsoft securing exclusivity deals has to be done extremely carefully or they'll alienate consumers.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

There has plenty of evidence provided by Activision to both the UK and EU processes. What this particular point, i.e. direct clarification from Activision that they felt releasing IP onto subscriptions services devalued their IP, disclosed previously? I don't recall this, and based on the coverage I'm reading - Reuters, BBC, The Verge - it all seems new to them as well.

Are you certain that this was disclosed before, and you're not recalling speculation?

However, by your own premise you stated that, of course, Kotick said that because the FTC likely had documented proof that Kotick has said this in the past. That means either he told them that under questioning or they had documents from the acquisition investigation process that showed he'd made those statements.

So let's assume that Kotick had been sandbagging the FTC, CMA and EU. And that they all simultaneously came to the conclusions that ABK did not want their games on subscription services absent any evidence other than MS saying so with the CMA being the only ones that assumed that meant that ABK would likely at some point in the future put their games on a streaming service despite ABK not wanting their games on a subscription service absent any evidence other than MS saying so.

However, the FTC for some reason has documentation or Kotick's words that explicitly states ABKs opposition to any kind of subscription service (they wouldn't question him in court about that unless they knew for certain he would answer how they expected). But they decide to not share it with the CMA?

Keep in mind, this is a case brought before the court by the FTC, so they would have had all the documentation they felt they needed prior to bringing the case to court. IE - all the material from the acquisition investigation process.

Alternatively the FTC are incompetent (hmmm, possible? ) and asked Bobby Kotick that question blindly hoping that he would answer the way he did.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Is it though? Usually I'm skeptical of statements by companies, but MS under Nadella has shown a willingness, desire even, to embrace spreading MS products to as many platforms as possible.

I would be more accepting of these platitudes if more than just the Minecraft IP was released on PlayStation. Everything else released, which is certainly better than nothing, is remasters of older software, e.g. Skyrim and current gen native Fallout 4 is also still due this year.

Why not experiement with releasing Gears 4 on PS4, or Gears 5 on PS5? That would show a genuine commitment that Sony have ruled out.

Just to name a few, embracing releasing apps on iOS and Android and ditching all plans for a MS powered phone. Keep in mind that MS greatly expanded their efforts on iOS and Android even as they were attempting to compete with Windows Phone. That's sort of shooting yourself in the foot in try to get your platform established unless you really do fundamentally believe that exclusivity hurts everyone.

I think you're mis-remembering that Micosoft did try to compete with iOS and Android, they even held a mock funeral for the iPhone!, but couldn't get inertia on third party developers in terms of app support so killed it. So their mobile customers are now on iOS and Android, and if you want them you need to go where they are. This is a little different to what you claim.

And Android and iOS are not in direct competition with Microsoft's PC and Xbox platforms, they are more complimentary.

You know Sony are arseholes and will likely never drop exclusives, and they have never claimed otehriwise. So expectations of them are zero. But with Microsoft it's a narrative without conviction. We hate exclusives, games should be available to all, oh great we've acquired Zenimax, Starfield and Elders Scrolls VI are now Xbox exclusives. Don't eat the marketing dude, the last few days have shown that's all it is. None of what these companies say reflect what they really think or what they do.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

However, by your own premise you stated that, of course, Kotick said that because the FTC likely had documented proof that Kotick has said this in the past.

Atrocious language by me but I wrote "said it in writing", i.e. there may be emails stating the same sentiment.

To be clear, this sentiment was news to me. It was news to the BBC, Reuters, The Verge and many others. Again, if it's been previously stated then it should be easy enough to find and source.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I think you're mis-remembering that Micosoft did try to compete with iOS and Android, they even held a mock funeral for the iPhone!, but couldn't get inertia on third party developers in terms of app support so killed it. So their mobile customers are now on iOS and Android, and if you want them you need to go where they are. This is a little different to what you claim.

No, I pointed that out because while MS were attempting to establish Windows Phone, Microsoft were simultaneously (actually they started before the Windows Phone initiative) expanding their footprint on iOS and Andoid with mobile versions of their software ecosystem. IE - they weren't restricting those apps to Windows Phone, Microsoft apps on Windows Phone were generally also released on iOS and Android while MS were attempting to compete with iOS and Android phones.

So, yes, iPhones and Android phones were very much competition. Under Nadella, Microsoft apps were released on them regardless of them being competition.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Atrocious language by me but I wrote "said it in writing", i.e. there may be emails stating the same sentient.

To be clear, this sentiment was news to me. It was news to the BBC, Reuters, The Verge and many others. Again, if it's been previously stated then it should be easy enough to find and source.

I'm not sure why it should be easy? Is every single thing said to the CMA disclosed to the public? Do we, for example, have a complete list of all companies that objected to or did not object to the acquisition? I seem to remember there being lots of questions as to which competitors were objecting to the acquisition and thus it came as a "surprise" to many when the EU mentioned that most cloud gaming providers were actually in support of the acquisition.

I suppose it should be easy to pull up a list of companies that objected to or did not object to the acquisition?

Regards,
SB