Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
I've not looked into what the CMA has said, but they specifically mention console. Therefore their not talking about steam, their talking about PS or a new console entrant.
And MS has already said they intend to keep it fully multi plat anyway, infact they want to add more platforms like mobile (via xcloud).
So this would just be about putting it in writing.
cheapchips
Veteran
Xbox is hardly an underdog in the UK, and MS itself always deserves competition scrutiny.
'think' they may have said in context of removing it, and it's not currently on switch only PS.
I do agree the tweets are a bit odd and seem to want to protect Sony/Nintendo. I'm going to try go over the actual document if I get the chance.
Strange perspective from tweets themselves though. Like, lets protect the bigger players.
Cloud and subscription stuff made bit more sense.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
It doesn't cost anything to get a CMA decision. I assume Microsoft will not try to bribe UK officials, but I defer to any experience or prior knowledge you have on how they would act in this situation.
For any Americans, this is going to sound absolutely crazy, but the CMA process is completely open and isn't about protecting companies but preserving consumer choice. This is why the UK - and much of Europe - has genuine open competition in so many business sectors.
This is what happens when you remove politicians from decisions, and have a accountable and transparent assessment process.
You see... it sounds crazy.
Because nobody has seemingly read (or understood) what has happened today, the CMA have given Microsoft the opportunity to provide a legal undertaking to the CMA by 8 September that may stay the need for a further (phase 2) investigation. If Microsoft are acting in good faith - i.e. their claims that games like Call of Duty will continue to be multi-platform - this will likely all go away very quickly. Whilst the specific details of the concerns are not yet fully published, they will be later on, so Microsoft have an opportunity to assure the CMA that everything is super cool and chill regarding those concerns.
In part this has happened because the Xbox very popular in the UK, rather than it being a very small market like some wacky European or Asian markets. Sometimes success bites you in the arse unexpectedly!
European companies always want blood money. They went back to the MS well many times in the past
As for protecting consumers , consumers are free to purchase what ever systems they want. I wonder how many studios sony has purchased in recent years that needed UK approval and why those would be approved and this would face hurdles.
As for what MS would do? I am sure moving forward they would limit their employee foot print in the UK. This isn't a small company that they are looking to purchase .
Here is the Summary of the CMA Phase 1 decision content in PDF form. It's a short read as it's only 8 pages.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I assume you mean when the EU found Microsoft abusing it's market position, staying the fine because Microsoft agreed not to bundle Internet Explorer in any versions of Windows sold in the EU for several years, then Microsoft breaking the agreement by selling versions of Windows bundled with Internet Explorer in the EU. Microsoft agreed to something, then broke that agreement, for which they were fined.
Microsoft's history of agreeing things, then now doing that, may well be a consideration for how some regulators are acting here. The bottom line is done' agree to do something, then not do it. That's just stupid.
Consumers often don't know what is good for them and few understand a free market. Not allowing consumers to pile into one company so that it can create an effective uncompetitive market is part of monopoly regulation. Remember IE6 and how once Microsoft had an effective browser monopoly that they basically didn't update it for years on end? Good times.. When a market is not competitive, it reduces competition. Cultivating competition and a free market is actually sometimes requires not letting companies grow too powerful through acquisitions.
Sure, Microsoft will limit their UK employee footprint. I mean, they make billions from server and services in the UK but they'll definitely throw a hissy fit over a merger. I credit Microsoft UK to take a more adult approach should this decision go sideways. Which is unlikely. They simply need to reassure the regulator, and they will because they want this merger to happen.
Yes that is the problem. Apple ships their Mac OS computers with their own browser. They do the same on iphone . Google does the same with chromebook and andriod . It is common functionality on a modern device to have a way to access the internet. Microsoft was strong armed into accepting the sanctions and fines. If anyone wanted to download another browser at the time you could use Internet explorer and download chrome or fire fox or what have you. Fast forward to today and Apple forces users through the app store and safari on their mobile devices.
Again how would stopping MS from buying activision create an uncompetitive market ? Nintendo and Sony both have more market share and there is no indication that MS purchasing activision would do anything to actually change the market share. Even if MS was to pull COD from Playstation that doesn't remove it from the PC which of course gives playstation fans an alternative.
MS always limits employee footprint in hostile markets. They will off shore everything they possibly can and keep lower head counts in those markets. I have seen as an employee Microsoft do so for less. Remember Mixer ? MS closed down a whole product team and product which it dumped hundreds of millions into content for in a heart beat because of a toxic head.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Neither Apple, nor individual Android phone manufacturer's represent a monopoly. Windows had (still has) a massive hulking desktop OS monopoly. Nobody was asking Microsoft to ship an OS without a browser, the deal - which Microsoft agreed too - was during install/setup it would ask which browser the user wanted, with the order of the list randomised.
Why is this important? Because overwhelmingly, all evidence showed that when Microsoft included IE with Windows, the vast majority of users never downloaded another browser. This led to IE, which was had poor HTML compliance, becoming the defacto web standard. Many website devs only ever tested against IE and many websites looked bad, or didn't work at all, on alternative browsers which were rendering HTML correctly because Microsoft's shite implementation has become the most common. This basically make it impossible for anybody to compete.
Microsoft has, several times, admitted wrong-doing. And apologised.
This is explained in the published and linked documentation.
I can't tell if you're serious or not. Being made to comply with the law does not make a market hostile. Outside of the US, the UK is one of Microsoft's most profitable markets and one where revenue is growing a significant amount. Of course Microsoft could just walk away, I'm sure Amazon, Google and other competitors would like to fill server/services vacuum Microsoft's departure would create. That'll show those... Microsoft shareholders? Because giving up your market position in a profitable market is obviously a sound business strategy..
What requires a monopoly ? Android is on 86% of phones world wide. to use any google apps on andriod you have to have the playstore on it.Neither Apple, nor individual Android phone manufacturer's represent a monopoly. Windows had (still has) a massive hulking desktop OS monopoly. Nobody was asking Microsoft to ship an OS without a browser, the deal - which Microsoft agreed too - was during install/setup it would ask which browser the user wanted, with the order of the list randomised.
Why is this important? Because overwhelmingly, all evidence showed that when Microsoft included IE with Windows, the vast majority of users never downloaded another browser. This led to IE, which was had poor HTML compliance, becoming the defacto web standard. Many website devs only ever tested against IE and many websites looked bad, or didn't work at all, on alternative browsers which were rendering HTML correctly because Microsoft's shite implementation has become the most common. This basically make it impossible for anybody to compete.
Microsoft has, several times, admitted wrong-doing. And apologised.
This is explained in the published and linked documentation.
I can't tell if you're serious or not. Being made to comply with the law does not make a market hostile. Outside of the US, the UK is one of Microsoft's most profitable markets and one where revenue is growing a significant amount. Of course Microsoft could just walk away, I'm sure Amazon, Google and other competitors would like to fill server/services vacuum Microsoft's departure would create. That'll show those... Microsoft shareholders? Because giving up your market position in a profitable market is obviously a sound business strategy..
MS didn't have a 100% of the market share then either. More to my point however competitors were doing the same exact thing and continue to do the same exact thing. Apple is even more locked down since you can only add things to the OS through their store. There was nothing stopping anyone from installing a program on a windows pc then nor now
Microsoft has been forced to admit they are wrong and apologize for behavior their competitors are doing.
You also don't read what others post. I never said Microsoft would leave the UK market. They will just reduce their employee foot print in the market. If they can off shore it they will and what they can't they will keep as low as possible in employee rates. You think if UK is the only country in the world that trys to block this or get more concessions out of MS to approve this that microsoft wont invest in other Countries that approved it quicker or with zero concessions ?
I can't wait for the next thing you leave out of my posts in your reply .
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
It can be different in different territories and there are often secondary conditions that need to be met. In the UK, some markets are considered a monopoly when a single company has 25% of the market - because if the market consists of 20 companies, 25% is disproportionately large.
Android isn't a monopoly because the Android market is made up of a lot of individual companies and the discretion to change or include additional software with Android is within the control of those companies.
Nobody cares that Apple included a browser - which at one period was Internet Explorer - and nobody cares that Apple include Safari now. Why? Like I said before Apple don't have a monopoly and even if all Apple owners use Safari on all devices, it cannot cannot influence the browser market, nor screw up the situation with HTML compliance that Microsoft created with Windows and IE.
It's not necessarily about consumers can do, consumer behaviour is also important. Like I said before, the evidence showed that most Windows users didn't use any other browser. Ergo, including what was clearly a shit browser by default eventually created a situation where others browsers couldn't compete because websites only tested against IE because over 90% of desktop users used that. Using another browser meant many websites looked bad/didn't work because they had only tested against IE. It's that simple.
It's the same reason why Google pay Apple a mountain of gold every year to be the default search engine in Safari on iOS. Because the vast majority of users will never change it. If it seems to work, they'll never question or change it.
Bullshit. Microsoft could just have paid and show no contrition at all. They were not required, nor forced to apologise, only to pay the fine. Apologising is what you do when you screw-up or are in the wrong. Admitting wrong-doing and showing a willingness to change is how you begin to rebuild trust - assuming you want a healthy relationship with the regulators in the places you do business.
The majority of Microsoft employees in the UK is server/services and R&D. The former is not feasible to offshore because you need people where infrastructure and customers are located. If the move the infrastructure, you add latency and also run into issues about where customer data is stored relative to users which is a big headache for all cloud services in Europe. On the latter, Microsoft have R&D facilities in the UK because there is valuable expertise in the UK that does not wish to emigrate. What do you think Microsoft can offshore that doesn't cause problems?
Such odd reasoning
Didn't sony just raise their console prices in the UK ? Also didn't they at the start of the generation raise their game prices also? doesn't seem like a very competitive market and allowing MS to become more competitive would create down ward momentum in pricing in the UK
So yea this is them disregarding Nintendo in the discussion which is odd since they also make consoles. So now they are protecting sony.
So I guess sony will never be able to buy a video game company that has a UK presence.
So in 32 they mention that Amazon and Google have entered Cloud gaming but ignore netflix and apple. But then they say it could reduce competition. Seems there are more companies in this market than consoles. You have Sony, Amazon, google , Nvidia, Netflix , Apple and nintendo vs MS/Nintendo/Sony in the console market.
Will be interesting to see what happens.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
The reason you're struggling to comprehend of this is because you cannot detach yourself from this from the point of a consumer. There are different regulators to concern themselves on how companies treat consumers, in the UK trading standards lead on that. The CMA look at the health of the market and try to ensure it remains competitive for existing players and new entrants - this is stated in the report. Read it.
Sony putting up their prices makes the market more competitive for the other console manufacturers and for everybody who competes with Sony selling games on PlayStation. Publishers set the prices of games, not Sony. Sony said they were increasing the prices on their (Sony) first-party titles. Some publishers have also done this on PlayStation (and Xbox and PC), whilst others have not. Sony increasing their prices does not give them an edge and if consumers don't like those prices, they will not buy - which is the power of a free market.
That's a weird thing to say given the report does talk about Nintendo and their place in the UK market. Read it.
That's a weird thing to say given Sony are buying Bungie who'se games are sold in the UK and Sony will have to going through the same assessment process. Were you to check, you will find that the CMA have investigated Sony acquisitions a lot. Not just in videogames, but in practices related to videogames and music label acquisitions. Your weird projected slant that the UK regulator is pro-Sony and anti-Microsoft is simply not true.
I'm not aware Netflix or Apple have significant UK cloud gaming markets. The CMA looks at the UK market.
1) In terms of global OS MS hasn't had a monopoly in decades and shouldn't be excluded from having basic functionality to compete with other companies. Microsoft didn't really agree to anything. MS was forced to do it by different governments and had to pay up also.Neither Apple, nor individual Android phone manufacturer's represent a monopoly. Windows had (still has) a massive hulking desktop OS monopoly. Nobody was asking Microsoft to ship an OS without a browser, the deal - which Microsoft agreed too - was during install/setup it would ask which browser the user wanted, with the order of the list randomised.
Why is this important? Because overwhelmingly, all evidence showed that when Microsoft included IE with Windows, the vast majority of users never downloaded another browser. This led to IE, which was had poor HTML compliance, becoming the defacto web standard. Many website devs only ever tested against IE and many websites looked bad, or didn't work at all, on alternative browsers which were rendering HTML correctly because Microsoft's shite implementation has become the most common. This basically make it impossible for anybody to compete.
Microsoft has, several times, admitted wrong-doing. And apologised.
This is explained in the published and linked documentation.
I can't tell if you're serious or not. Being made to comply with the law does not make a market hostile. Outside of the US, the UK is one of Microsoft's most profitable markets and one where revenue is growing a significant amount. Of course Microsoft could just walk away, I'm sure Amazon, Google and other competitors would like to fill server/services vacuum Microsoft's departure would create. That'll show those... Microsoft shareholders? Because giving up your market position in a profitable market is obviously a sound business strategy..
This would be akin to the market leader in consoles not being able to include a digital store on their console and at start up had to give options to competitor stores while the competition could continue to exclude all but their own.
I think you trying to conflate a government forcing a company to do something and the government being right as the same thing.
2) What you are stating seems to be a 3rd party issue. Any company could go about getting browser development support. Anyone could have logged into the windows and downloaded chrome or firefox. People choose not to because they felt IE was good enough. Just like people only use the default browser on their mobile device. there are tons of other browsers out there that are great but people still use shitty ones like chrome or safari or edge.
3) As part of their settlement and to prevent future issues for them. Again you seem to conflate a government forcing something as another company accepting blame. MS doesn't really have a choice when a government says something. I guess you never got scolded by your parents for doing something and even if you weren't wrong you still had to apologize and accept blame ? You can see the UK going back to the stone for more blood when an update broke the browser choice option. But yea I am sure if MS continued to be defiant the UK government would have loved it and wouldn't have pushed for even more free money from Microsoft.
4)Again you don't read what others wrote. I never said MS would pull their product out of the UK. They will just limit their personal and project investment. Cloud server locations that would be in the UK but could function just as well in a near by country will go to the other countries. Need to increase headcount for a new project ? Devote the head count to another country not the UK.
1) I can detach myself just fine. The CMA wants its cake and eat it too. In section 8 they state there are two closely related disruptions. the first of them is over a decade old with cloud streaming. The other is subscription services. The second disruption is because of MS. They are directly responsible for it. They also have a myopic view of the industry. They base their argument not on the competition in cloud gaming but in that there are only 3 console makers. At the same time they go on about network effects of content and gamers. but what they fail to mention or entertain is that when you have multiple console makers at similar market share you get a greater chance of a new competition entering the market. the more concentrated the divide of the market is into a single one or two console makers the harder it is to break in. At the same time you have a half a dozen companies or more entering the cloud gaming market. Netflix , Amazon, Google , Nvidia and so on.
The cloud market in which they are worried about here is growing with more players entering.
2) Sony raising prices shows that they have preferable market share because if they didn't they wouldn't increase costs to the consumer. Its bad for the consumer. Even in the UK the install base difference last gen was at least 2:1 in favor of sony. We see abusive behavior time and time again in the console markets. With nintendo in the 80s , sony in the early 2000s and in the 2010s and now we are getting sony again in the 2022s
MS buying activision and releasing games on PC and Xbox will still give consumers a choice of where to buy it. If anything its a good thing as pricing on PC is cheaper than consoles the majority of the time and with sony releasing on the pc you get an open platform that allows for anyone to create a gaming store and competed.
More so for cloud gaming . What cloud gaming options are there on the playstation ? What cloud streaming options are there on the pc ? IF the UK wants more competition it would be found from the pc not consolidating playstations market share.
3)I read it and quoted it. Sony buying bungie would be worse for the cloud gaming market and the console market by CMA's very own reasoning since it has a larger share of the global console market place and their own gaming network and has x amount of game studios and their own cloud streaming service.
can't have that if you allow sony to continue buying studios right ?
4) CMA is looking at the future. Their claim is that by MS buying activision it will be difficult for other cloud gaming service providers to match. I quoted it above. this isn't true however as there are other extremely popular FPS multiplayer games such as fortnite , battlefield , apex and even destiny. You know Destiny that game series made by Bungie that sony wants to buy.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
@eastmen I'm not responding to you re-resonding to previously replied messages. Your "The CMA wants its cake and eat it too" sentiment is batshit crazy. There is nothing in this for the regulator, they don't get money from this and the longer the investigation goes on, the more it eats into their budget which is finite.
By all means you believe what you want, but regulators around the world are reviewing the acquisition and you're acting like everybody has said no. Why don't you keep an open mind? Fortunately the regulators are.
edit: grammar/typos
By all means you believe what you want, but regulators around the world are reviewing the acquisition and you're acting like everybody has said no. Why don't you keep an open mind? Fortunately the regulators are.
edit: grammar/typos
Last edited by a moderator:
So far the only squeaky wheel is the UK. No one else has said no and some have approved it already. You know what they say about the squeaky wheel.
The UK hasn't said no.
They are now at the same stage that the US is at, where they have said they need additional details etc.
We have no idea how far along other authorities are.
Have you read the 8 page doc that @BRiT posted?
Edit: That sounds harsher than I meant. Just meant that it basically said the threshold to go into next stage is pretty low. It's a lot higher for them to say no.
Last edited:
Similar threads
