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

[iroboto]

Microsoft will keep Call of Duty on Sony platforms "as long as there's a PlayStation out there to ship to"

Xbox boss Phil Spencer has made Microsoft's plainest promise yet around the future of Call of Duty on PlayStation platf…

www.eurogamer.net

Speaking to the Same Brain Youtube channel, Spencer pledged to keep releasing Call of Duty games on Sony's consoles "as long as there's a PlayStation out there to ship to".

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Yes but that market doesn’t exist. We’ve gone through this. You can’t monopolize this future market with cod.

You lost me, which market doesn't exist?

Based on the CMA's response there are only looking at 3 things, anything outside of this is out of bounds for their investigation.

I think you misunderstood the CMA's initial report. The CMA have found sufficient concerns that justify a phase two investigation, these are set out in para 306 but the phase two investigation is not restricted to these three things - under the UK process there is no barrier to entry of new evidence in areas that may present themselves as being a risk to competition. It's not, as it were, a knock-out round approach.

306. Based on the evidence set out above, the CMA believes that it is or may be the case that the Merger may be expected to result in an SLC as a result of non- horizontal effects in relation to the following frames of reference in the UK:
(a) the manufacture and supply of gaming consoles (together with their digital storefronts);
(b) the distribution of games through multi-game subscription services; and
(c) the supply of cloud gaming services.

You might want to give para 304 a read too. The CMA sought evidence from a wide range of Microsoft's competitors, the key ones were Amazon, Apple, EA, Epic, Facebook, Google Netflix, Nintendo, Nvidia, Sony, Twitch, Ubisoft, Utomik and Valve. What does para 304 say?

304. Most competitors raised concerns regarding (i) Microsoft making ABK games exclusive to its own platform; and/or (ii) degrading the quality of ABK games on other platforms; and/or potential self-preferencing behaviour by Microsoft

Most. Not one. Not a few. Not "just Sony". Shocking.

 

[eastmen]

Microsoft will keep Call of Duty on Sony platforms "as long as there's a PlayStation out there to ship to"

Xbox boss Phil Spencer has made Microsoft's plainest promise yet around the future of Call of Duty on PlayStation platf…

www.eurogamer.net

all this will be contingent on sony continuing to sign deals for the title to show up on the platform.

With the new mine craft games like dungeons and realms Sony had to approve the title releasing for the playstation .

 

[chris1515]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1587131090484994050

It seems European Union will do the same thing than the CMA.

 

[iroboto]

You lost me, which market doesn't exist?

cloud streaming is an emerging market, and game streaming is an emerging market. The latter more so than the former. Because they are so new in their infancy there are so many areas of growth and innovation it is much too early for anyone to know what the real drivers for these markets are.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1587131090484994050

It seems European Union will do the same thing than the CMA.

Seems like MS is not longer going to bother with remedies because they know it's going to a phase 2 from here on out, which is what they should have been planning for from the get go.

They'll just offer what they need when asked. Everything being public is probably not ideal for them. It may have backfired I think by not keeping quiet.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

cloud streaming is an emerging market, and game streaming is an emerging market. The latter more so than the former. Because they are so new in their infancy there are so many areas of growth and innovation it is much too early for anyone to know what the real drivers for these markets are.

Gaikai was founded in 2008 and OnLive launched in 2010 so it's stretch to call this an emerging market ;-). What it is, is a market not embraced by the public. But like Sony, once you've heavily invested it the tech, and got the infrastructure in play, it's easier to keep it - possibly at a bit of a loss, or at most barely breaking even, than mothball itl and try to relaunch later.

Seems like MS is not longer going to bother with remedies because they know it's going to a phase 2 from here on out, which is what they should have been planning for from the get go.

Demonstrating intransigence to other's concerns rarely pays off. If you don't change, change is often forced upon you and it's rarely as easy when the change is forced. Microsoft's public statements are not addressing the concerns, all Microsoft want to do is talking about Sony and Call of Duty. This is some of the dumbest corporate handling of a regulator investigation I can recall seeing.

 

[BRiT]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1587074757337432064

 

[Miniature Kaiju]

They'll just offer what they need when asked. Everything being public is probably not ideal for them. It may have backfired I think by not keeping quiet.

Regulatory agencies aren't asking for or accepting remedies that can just be walked back, and I'm not sure what else could be done besides asking MS to divest of huge parts of their business that would essentially neuter the deal.

It's much more likely they will just go for a block, if it comes to it, I feel.

 

[iroboto]

Regulatory agencies aren't asking for or accepting remedies that can just be walked back, and I'm not sure what else could be done besides asking MS to divest of huge parts of their business that would essentially neuter the deal.

It's much more likely they will just go for a block, if it comes to it, I feel.

Technically, they can't legally hold them to it however, unless they force them to write some sort of contract in order for the motion to pass.
I think MS was just pushing to have this done earlier than March 2023. I don't see this merger being stopped.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1587074757337432064

Over here in Europe, we like accountability and transparency in our Governmental processes Having a regulator say something looks 'sus' and they need another four months to think it over is the opposite of being accountable or transparent. Having faith in Government process is hard enough, more so when you have no idea what is going on.

Technically, they can't legally hold them to it however, unless they force them to write some sort of contract in order for the motion to pass.
I think MS was just pushing to have this done earlier than March 2023. I don't see this merger being stopped.

The regulator can hold Microsoft to any remedies, because it's the law. Breaking the law has consequences. When Microsoft messed-up and sold versions of Windows without the browser download option active, the EU fined them $731m on top of the billions they were already fined.

 

[Nesh]

Er.....they say what they are investigating below the tweet. They also have a link with how and why they are investigating. Shouldnt they come with an update on results after the investigation ends?

 

[iroboto]

Over here in Europe, we like accountability and transparency in our Governmental processes Having a regulator say something looks 'sus' and they need another four months to think it over is the opposite of being accountable or transparent. Having faith in Government process is hard enough, more so when you have no idea what is going on.



The regulator can hold Microsoft to any remedies, because it's the law. Breaking the law has consequences. When Microsoft messed-up and sold versions of Windows without the browser download option active, the EU fined them $731m on top of the billions they were already fined.

Sure, I think you are actually technically correct from a literal pov. I’m not expecting CMA to say, “hey this gotta stay MP to get our rubber stamp,”. I dunno, just feels awkward given how pervasive exclusivity is in video gaming.

I feel like they are milking this merger for some reason. Feels different, irregular, way more than the norm.

 

[Nesh]

Sure, I think you are actually technically correct from a literal pov. I’m not expecting CMA to say, “hey this gotta stay MP to get our rubber stamp,”. I dunno, just feels awkward given how pervasive exclusivity is in video gaming.

I feel like they are milking this merger for some reason. Feels different, irregular, way more than the norm.

Well it is probably the biggest video game acquisition by a competing company targeting a huge company that owns a wide range of highly successful franchises. It certainly sounds like a case that requires more investigation.
They certainly green lid every previous merger/acquisition MS has ever made without issues. I dont think it's awkward. It is different from almost every previous buyout case no matter how much we are trying to spin it as the same.
Previously exclusives were mainly either from new IPs created by smaller studios within a competing company or one off contracts with third parties. And they were within the existing competing environment. Barely anything you would call disruptive through unfair business practices

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Sure, I think you are actually technically correct from a literal pov. I’m not expecting CMA to say, “hey this gotta stay MP to get our rubber stamp,”. I dunno, just feels awkward given how pervasive exclusivity is in video gaming.

It is, and the line has to be drawn somewhere. There has already been a number of acquisitions and the line has to be drawn somewhere. Consolidation in most industries is generally bad for consumers, because it is the literal erosion of competition parties and competition is essential for markets. Consolidation only makes sense when markets are disprotionately fractured that costs are unmanageable and being passed on to consumers.

I feel like they are milking this merger for some reason. Feels different, irregular, way more than the norm.

Can you explain what you feel is irregular? From the perspective of somebody who lives in the UK, this looks the same as every other M&A assessment. There is nothing in it for the Government Tod stretch this assessment out, it costs industry nothing and the taxpayer suffer the burden. This process is identical for all acquisitions, and all are published. The outcomes of acquisitions over time are released as official statistics.

 

[iroboto]

It is, and the line has to be drawn somewhere. There has already been a number of acquisitions and the line has to be drawn somewhere. Consolidation in most industries is generally bad for consumers, because it is the literal erosion of competition parties and competition is essential for markets. Consolidation only makes sense when markets are disprotionately fractured that costs are unmanageable and being passed on to consumers.



Can you explain what you feel is irregular? From the perspective of somebody who lives in the UK, this looks the same as every other M&A assessment. There is nothing in it for the Government Tod stretch this assessment out, it costs industry nothing and the taxpayer suffer the burden. This process is identical for all acquisitions, and all are published. The outcomes of acquisitions over time are released as official statistics.

the constant tweeting about ... nothing? The asking for public input through social media. Just seems weird, perhaps I've not been paying attention, but I wouldn't care what the public thought since the public is not paid to do a proper job.

 

[Nesh]

the constant tweeting about ... nothing? The asking for public input through social media. Just seems weird, perhaps I've not been paying attention, but I wouldn't care what the public thought since the public is not paid to do a proper job.

Although I doubt that the public will affect much the decision making, who do you think is suitable to make the decision? MS is a company that care about their own profits, shareholders especially those of ABK are very likely to gain handsomely from the buyout, the CMA is a government regulatory organization with everything bad or good that may entail, the public is the consumer with wildly varied and in some cases ironic opinions since they aren't the ones to profit.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

the constant tweeting about ... nothing? The asking for public input through social media. Just seems weird, perhaps I've not been paying attention, but I wouldn't care what the public thought since the public is not paid to do a proper job.

What "constant tweeting"? A scan of @cmagov.uk's tweets as far as this acquisition goes show they tweeted once on 14 October after they published the stage one findings, then tweeted again yesterday (31 October)? Why did the CMA tweet on this yesterday? Because a) the EU provided an update yesterday and b) a lot of people were tweeting at the CMA yesterday regarding the acquisition, so they responded so that - which is the point of twitter. The rest of their twitter feed is, as I would expect, full of all of the other acquisitions under assessments. Tweets two weeks apart is "constant tweeting"? Give me a break.

As for the Government using social media to engage with consumers? Yeah, that's been a thing in Europe for over a decade. It's the quickest way to reach a large number of people. As for the public's view not counting, in the UK everybody is a member of the public and the purpose assessments is to give anybody in any capacity the option to input, not just pre-determined interested parties.

 

[eastmen]

EU / UK just want money. Watch the end result of this being it gets passed and ms suddenly announces new studios or other projects in the EU and UK .

They have always been uneven when dealing with MS and love to go back to the well to get even more money. I am sure they are chomping at the bit to go after Apple for an even bigger piggy bank

 

[Miniature Kaiju]

The inquiry in this M&A case is different: it's the biggest M&A in gaming, one of the biggest in tech. It has wide-reaching consequences in a variety of different markets, some of them nascent, and has the very real possibility of just outright creating insurmountable barriers of entry in these nascent markets for anyone but, maybe, some other trillion dollar company.

Besides that, regulatory agencies just wised up to the fact that they spent the past two decades being way too lenient with big tech in these matters and doing that put us into this hellhole that that is Meta controlling an outsized slice of social media worldwide, for instance.

So yeah, scrutiny will be way more intense. It should be.

 

[Nesh]

EU / UK just want money. Watch the end result of this being it gets passed and ms suddenly announces new studios or other projects in the EU and UK .

They have always been uneven when dealing with MS and love to go back to the well to get even more money. I am sure they are chomping at the bit to go after Apple for an even bigger piggy bank

It is pretty tiring to always discuss fictitious scenarios about the EU and the UK conspiring against American companies and especially MS when the evidence show the contrary. You had a whole thread about this somewhere else.
They all approved MS's previous acquisitions and Sony isn't European or UK either and they also approved theirs. What gives with you?