an you explain how? The CMA set out the position for the entire market, which includes anybody may choose to enter it - and Microsoft's response centred only on Sony and how big it is. Microsoft keep making statements like taking Call of Duty away from PlayStation would "alienate" the fanbase and "tarnish both the Call of Duty and Xbox brands" which suggests Microsoft would not remove COD from PlayStation (or other services/stores) and twice now they declined to commit to support other platforms. Why not commit to that, if you genuinely don't intent to withhold content?
It's entirely possible I may be mistaken on the series of events or what was said, but from what I understand all regulators in their respective areas were provided the same generic answers by MS as to why the merger should proceed. They all seek response from the rest of the industry what they feel on the matter. From what I understand today, and I could be mistaken, is that among all other companies that were interviewed, only Sony proposed to cancel the merger. In it, the talking points from Sony, were duplicated by the CMA for MS to respond. Thus MS' response looks like they are focusing on Sony.
As to why you wouldn't want to commit to Perma support on other platforms, I think this stands for obvious reasons that go beyond just market share. We're talking about development work as well. If MS and Sony go their separate ways for technology going forward, they would be required to change their title to meet Sony's needs. I think that alone is sufficient reason _not_ to guarantee commitment beyond the length of this current generation.
This isn't relevant to acquiring the studio acquisition. Consoles selling at the same price is the oddity, not the norm. Consumer goods and services going up in price, is the norm. This is just a weird position to take and it sounds like Microsoft are resentful that Sony can charge more for it's consoles than they do. WTF.
As per above, Sony's main rebuttal against the merger is that Sony would lose some market share Xbox if it no longer held exclusive marketing rights over COD, and gamers preferred console of choice would change. This is my understanding of why MS went after the market share talk, though you are correct in saying that MS should be responding to the elephant in the room which is around Cloud Gaming, in which I understand the concern is valid, I don't know if it's overblown considering Stadia just went bankrupt. These are the particular points in question from CMA, the one in orange I believe MS jumped the shark on.
24. Acquiring ABK would significantly expand Microsoft’s own gaming library, adding some of the world’s best-selling and most recognisable franchises, including Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, and Candy Crush. The CMA is concerned that having full control over this powerful catalogue, especially in light of Microsoft’s already strong position in gaming consoles, operating systems, and cloud infrastructure, could result in Microsoft harming consumers by impairing Sony’s—Microsoft’s closest gaming rival—ability to compete as well as that of other existing rivals and potential new entrants who could otherwise bring healthy competition through innovative multi-game subscriptions and cloud gaming services.
This is valid sure, but it's also nearly impossible for new entrants to come in on their own and many are failing to do so given the amount of infrastructure to support the service. That being said, Playstation has had PSNow for significantly longer before MS moved on xcloud. From a timeline perspective they are significantly established and as a market leader reaping the most profits, chose not to go this route despite knowing the future was cloud. I mean, why else purchase Gaikai in advance when it was cheap if not a chess piece in the future of gaming? They did nothing with it.
The CMA believes the Merger could allow Microsoft to make ABK content, including Call of Duty, exclusive to Xbox or Game Pass, or otherwise degrade its rivals’ access to ABK content, such as by delaying releases or imposing licensing price increases. This type of concern is known as ‘input foreclosure’, where a firm uses its control of an important input to harm its rivals
MS has agreed to ensure that it stays MP for the remaining of this generation, that way anyone making a console purchase today would not be impacted by it. They would know for sure if the next CODs are MP by next generation. But MS word is apparently not enough here. But to be fair Sony is currently doing this to MS for the better part of the last decade through marketing deals with both Destiny and COD. I'm not sure why this is particularly important? This is standard for exclusivity deals and the only difference is that MS is paying a much higher price tag to obtain ownership. Sony will always get the better deal through exclusivity marketing due to its position on the market, they stand to recuperate its costs 2x faster than MS because of their install base, but they would both have to pay the same price for that exclusive marketing.
The CMA believes that in the short- to medium-term, the main rival that could be affected by this conduct would be Sony. Evidence suggests that Microsoft and Sony compete closely with each other in terms of content, target audience, and console technology. Nintendo, on the other hand, competes less closely with either of Sony or Microsoft, generally offering games that focus more on ‘family fun’ and innovative ways of playing (eg the Wii Fit board) and does not currently offer any Call of Duty games on the Nintendo Switch.
So they are basically saying Call of Duty is not needed to be profitable and succeed in the market place, but because Sony and MS compete with each other and not Nintendo, this point no longer counts.
PlayStation currently has a larger share of the console gaming market than Xbox, but the CMA considers that Call of Duty is sufficiently important that losing access to it (or losing access on competitive terms) could significantly impact Sony’s revenues and user base. This impact is likely to be felt especially at the launch of the next Page 7 of 76 generation of consoles, where gamers make fresh decisions about which console to buy. The CMA believes that the Merger could, therefore, significantly weaken Microsoft’s closest rival, to the detriment of overall competition in console gaming.
Where MS jumped the shark on the response as being leader protection. Honestly, I think this statement is ridiculous.
As the market for multi-game subscription gaming services grows, Microsoft could use its control over ABK content to foreclose rivals, including recent and future entrants into gaming as well as more established players such as Sony. Absent the Merger, ABK games would in principle be available to any multi-game subscription service. The CMA recognises 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. After the Merger, Microsoft would gain control of this important input and could use it to harm the competitiveness of its rivals. As the multi-game subscription market is still in its infancy, the effect of the Merger could be to tip or significantly increase concentration in the market in Microsoft’s favour before future rivals have a chance to develop. The CMA therefore believes that the Merger gives rise to significant competition concerns in multi-game subscription services (including cloud gaming services, to the extent these are distributed through multi-game subscription services)
So I find this unfair because they're basically penalizing MS for innovating Game Pass and xcloud here which the investment and risk for success was enormous, therefore also penalizing the current paying customers of gamepass and xcloud to ensure that cannot get more or grow their customer base further by limiting their library (great AAA titles day 1 release on game pass, being able to play anywhere on any supported device)
URL to full CMA text release:
continued.
arstechnica.com
