Microsoft-Activision acquisition verdicts have been postponed pending further investigation by the governments of Australia and New Zealand

Three

Member
You can use Proton under Linux distributions and use all the games that the steam deck supports. So it's not true that you need windows, you could get a fair amount of games with Linux + Proton


What if you can't do that because the market leader buys exclusivity deals on those? Isn't then a problem anymore?
You are fighting incompatibility in that case though much like you were with WINE using office and other windows software.

As for deals those are still third party companies and you don't have antitrust or competition concerns. MS can and do enter third party contracts just fine in the latter case, they are not blocked or hindered from doing so.
 
Last edited:
Business as usual. I’ve survived two M&A, and now I’m facing my third one. Only one of them met the estimated closing date and that’s because it was a small-medium sized company. The first one didn’t met the initial closing date and this last one won’t either because they were/are large well known technology companies. Actually the current one is reall well known and the size of the deal is close to the MS-AB one, and due to the history behind of the buyer well, the deal will close way later than estimated since not only because of the USA, but the EU, UK, will look at it very carefully
 
Last edited:

Hendrick's

If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
Waiting GIF


Will every little impertinent countries hold this goddamn transaction? Who’s next? Vatican City? Barbados?
I mean at some point, MS might just blow off some of these smaller countries. They don't have to get approval everywhere.
 

onesvenus

Member
You are fighting incompatibility in that case though much like you were with WINE using office and other windows software.
You were saying using Windows was needed. Stadia and the Steam deck show that's not true anymore although it's preferable.

MS can and do enter third party contracts just fine in the latter case, they are not blocked or hindered from doing so.
Again, you can't when the market leader takes most of them. Acting like those deals don't hinder the competition is disingenuous at best. That the regulations agencies doesn't go after those deals because they aren't mergers or acquisitions doesn't mean there are no antitrust or competition concerns.
 

Three

Member
You were saying using Windows was needed. Stadia and the Steam deck show that's not true anymore although it's preferable.
I'm sorry but using proton to run games is like saying you don't need a playstation to run FFVII because you can install retroarch. It is not native compatibility. It's a modified version of WINE (yes I know what WINE stands for). It's fighting compatibility issues.

If you attend any dev events you would see google are fighting the library issues with windows emulators too for Stadia

https://gamedevsummit.withgoogle.com/events/cloud-infrastructure-track/watch?talk=talk-8


https://9to5google.com/2022/03/10/google-stadia-windows-tease/

MS with an update can break compatibility and they would need to keep chasing it.
 
Last edited:

onesvenus

Member
I'm sorry but using proton to run games is like saying you don't need a playstation to run FFVII because you can install retroarch. It is not native compatibility. It's a modified version of WINE. It's fighting compatibility issues.

If you attend any dev events you would see google are fighting the library issues with windows emulators too

https://9to5google.com/2022/03/10/google-stadia-windows-tease/
I thought you were having a fair discussion but it's obvious you are not. You can't say you need windows when there are multiple commercially available products (Steam deck, Stadia and Luna) not using it.
 

Neofire

Member
Done quick?

Where did you get that from?

They said it might complete middle of next year.
They'll be lucky if that time frame pans out. They have to grease a lot of wheels than previous thought after seeing how much the power dynamics of this deal will change the landscape of the videogame industry.
 

The_Mike

I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
As in they required regulatory approval outside of the US? Yup
Gotcha.

I just don't recall people in here talk about that part. I don't even recall anyone care about Bungie like when Bethesda was the first big acquisition, together with Activision Blizzard.
 

Three

Member
I thought you were having a fair discussion but it's obvious you are not. You can't say you need windows when there are multiple commercially available products (Steam deck, Stadia and Luna) not using it.
It's you not having a fair discussion. I said games are made for windows and MS XGS games are not officially supported on steamdeck when somebody said you can just launch them. You can't. Now you are saying but emulators and compatibility software exist. That's not the issue.

The issue is that you replied to me when I said that would be like running WINE, somebody said you dont need WINE it's the cloud, and then you came in suggesting a WINE fork known as Proton. You are fighting compatibility just as you were with WINE and Office.
 
Last edited:

onesvenus

Member
The issue is that you replied to me when I said that would be like running WINE, somebody said you dont need WINE, and then you came in suggesting a WINE fork known as Proton. You are fighting compatibility just as you were with WINE and Office
I mean, this is the post I was replying to:
I want to offer the popular games on my platform. What can I do? First I need to licence windows from MS for my server blades
Maybe I misunderstood but it seems quite clear you are saying you NEED TO LICENSE Windows. Which is obviously not true.
Are Stadia, Luna and the Steam Deck licensing windows to offer the popular games?
Now, tell me again it's me who it's not having a fair discussion.
 

JLB

Member
But MS isn't buying a studio. It's buying a huge ass publisher with countless IPs and one of the biggest gaming IPs.

You do know Sony bought like 6 studios between Dreamcast flopping and Insomniac in 2019...right?
Guerrila Games, Media Molecule, Sucker Punch, Evolution studios and a couple others that are now closed. Half of these studios had like 30 people in them and all of them were already working as full time PlayStation developers, lmao. The industry outside Sony didn't lose anything. Sony was already getting all games from these.

i got sunset overdrive on my xbox one.
 

Three

Member
I mean, this is the post I was replying to:

Maybe I misunderstood but it seems quite clear you are saying you NEED TO LICENSE Windows. Which is obviously not true.
Are Stadia, Luna and the Steam Deck licensing windows to offer the popular games?
Now, tell me again it's me who it's not having a fair discussion.
Yes because you refute it with "you can emulate windows" when that option of WINE was being discussed before you even entered the converstation. Nobody really takes that as a good option though because the company who has control of the API or OS can break compatibility with games/updates at any time and you would be at their mercy and late to react. As I said it's still fighting incompatibility. You would rather just have a "what you said is wrong" 'discussion' though.
 
Last edited:

Bernardougf

Member
I agree that inflation has played a role. However, you can only do it (and do it first within your industry) to express your market power. Microsoft and Nintendo are similarly effected by the same inflation and have not raised prices.

I think I watched a Hoeg video recently, where he said one of the tests of a monopoly within an industry is to raise prices 10% against the competition and witness any changes. Have there been any?

Part of the assessment from regulators is the impact to consumers. In particular, price. And consumers benefit from a more competitive field.
XBOX can afford the hit as they have a multi trillion parent company supporting it, Nintendo already sells a overpriced day 01 profit hardware, updating prices on a super dated hardware is not super necessary.. so basically yes Sony is the only one with market share and the NECESSITY of upping their prices .. people spend the last two years seeing the prices for everything going through the roof... and now want to act as Sony is the big bad against consumer/gamer company .. gtfo
 

onesvenus

Member
it's still fighting incompatibility
That's true but that doesn't mean you need Windows to enter the cloud gaming market which was your claim and what I've been responding to all along.
Luckily people have eyes and they can see non-Windows-based products on the market.

You are acting like you are above other posters but you are only defending your agenda to make people think that you can't get a cloud gaming product without Windows so you can defend the monopolistic position of Microsoft. And all that because you are a Sony fanboy. That's being delusional
 

Three

Member
That's true but that doesn't mean you need Windows to enter the cloud gaming market which was your claim and what I've been responding to all along.
Luckily people have eyes and they can see non-Windows-based products on the market.

You are acting like you are above other posters but you are only defending your agenda to make people think that you can't get a cloud gaming product without Windows so you can defend the monopolistic position of Microsoft. And all that because you are a Sony fanboy. That's being delusional
Then you completely ignored what me and modiz were talking about with your reply to me:

Obviously competition in OS and platforms cares. This would be like saying who cares about the EU antitrust cases that MS was guilty in, you could have just ran WINE for Office!


You don't need WINE at all, you can run office in the cloud, like your games, in your browser :⁠-⁠)

Then you came in with
You can use Proton under Linux distributions

Which is literally a WINE fork. You are trying to fake windows and that's not ideal for anyone especially for a cloud provider trying to be competitive. Come off it with the fanboy stuff too as if you're not an obvious xbox fanboy.
 
Last edited:

CatLady

Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
This green rats thing is weird because I've never seen a place that has a pet name for just xb fanboys but not ps ones. Or vice versa. Shouldn't they come in pairs? Xbots and sony ponies?
Blue Snakes
 

HeisenbergFX4

Gold Member
If it doesn't go through it'll be some real shenanigans of the highest order lol.

MS has cash upfront, Activision is ready to be sold without hesitation. Both the buyer and seller are in agreement.
Activision wasn’t overly keen on the idea until a certain someone left Xbox and went there. This same certain person while at Xbox pushed hard for MS “to back up the Brinks truck” to Acti to make COD some sort of exclusive to Xbox. Funny how he is now at Acti and now they are ready to sell
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Activision wasn’t overly keen on the idea until a certain someone left Xbox and went there. This same certain person while at Xbox pushed hard for MS “to back up the Brinks truck” to Acti to make COD some sort of exclusive to Xbox. Funny how he is now at Acti and now they are ready to sell

The Montreal Screwjob was an inside job :messenger_beaming:
 

John Wick

Member
I guess Liverpool didn't exist! (Psygnosis) You should turn in your Sony card like now!
Sony bought Psygnosis to make games for their new PS1 console or did you think they were gonna make games out of thin air? What recognisable developers did they own prior to buying Psygnosis?
MS have plenty of studios when they tried acquiring AB.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
There's way more to DirectX than just the graphics API.
There is but none of it is important to this discussion of the closed API being a weapon IMO, because all the other things DX currently does are either trivially worked around or not used for platform agnostic solutions.

Only the ever evolving graphics API is positioned deeper in a game to result in platform API dependency for the developers working on games, say at a A or indie level. It is graphics API of DirectX tying them to the DirectX API- and Microsoft's platforms by extension.
 
So can someone tell me if there is anything substantial in Microsoft buying Activision except people pretending gamers deserve to have CoD on their platform of choice?

You think a company spends 70 billion dollars on something if it wasn’t substantial? It’s literally bigger than the Fox acquisition which was the biggest media buy out of all time
 
Last edited:

Thirty7ven

Sony make cringe trainers.
I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Most of the green rats are saying Sony will have enough time to come up with alternates to counter CoD leaving PS for good, if that ever happens.

They have Bungie now.

Aside from fanboy wars what do you even gain from this? MS doesn’t need to buy AB to get their games on GP.

Basically you just want the ability to say Xbox is number uno, which is sad because you are basically admitting they aren’t even in your heart and that makes you feel like a loser.
 
Last edited:
Aside from fanboy wars what do you even gain from this? MS doesn’t need to buy AB to get their games on GP.

Basically you just want the ability to say Xbox is number uno, which is sad because you are basically admitting they aren’t even in your heart and that makes you feel like a loser.

They don’t even actually care about the games, they treat it as a sport. I guarantee most people on here or twitter cheerleading this acquisition don’t even care about CoD or blizzard games. Bethesda I can understand they make big single player games that get a lot of discussion on enthusiast boards but call of duty was all but completely dead discussion wise last year after vanguard.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Aside from fanboy wars what do you even gain from this? MS doesn’t need to buy AB to get their games on GP.

If that were the case, those games would be coming to game pass already. But they aren't, are they.

We know there are clauses put on by Sony's marketing agreements that prevent games from coming to game pass for X years with Sony getting first right of refusals to extend it even more.

So can someone tell me if there is anything substantial in Microsoft buying Activision except people pretending gamers deserve to have CoD on their platform of choice?

King is the most substantial part of the purchase, CoD is just the one big name in mainstream consoles hence it's getting all these name drops.

Phil has directly said as much in a recent interview that they want to get a foot into mobile gaming and King is their way in.
 
Last edited:

onesvenus

Member
that's not ideal for anyone especially for a cloud provider trying to be competitive
That's why there are multiple commercial products using just that. I'm sure you know much better than Google, Amazon or Steam.
There's a great gap between something not being ideal and you only having the option to use Windows OS.

Come off it with the fanboy stuff too as if you're not an obvious xbox fanboy
I have my preferences and I don't hide them. I also have the three consoles and a PC. Finally, I also don't try to show myself as someone without bias like what you do. It's obvious my views are influenced by my preferences as yours are. Talking like you are above that is crazy.
 

Three

Member
That's why there are multiple commercial products using just that. I'm sure you know much better than Google, Amazon or Steam.
There's a great gap between something not being ideal and you only having the option to use Windows OS.


I have my preferences and I don't hide them. I also have the three consoles and a PC. Finally, I also don't try to show myself as someone without bias like what you do. It's obvious my views are influenced by my preferences as yours are. Talking like you are above that is crazy.

Google and Amazon aren't using proton. 10% of the library are officially supported/verified (sellable) and whopping 40% completely unplayable on it. Thats nice but you're still silly for suggesting Proton. Faking windows using Wine was clearly being discussed in the post you replied to already and not swaying regulators as an alternative in a past OS antitrust case. I bet because you didn't even know Proton was a Wine fork so you thought you had the regulators and my post in a gotcha because I said regulators see the OS stranglehold on games as a problem and a cloud provider would opt for windows or be hindered by games designed for windows instead. You do you as usual though, not responding to you anymore. I've seen all this song and dance from you before.
 
Last edited:

SenjutsuSage

Halo TV Series Promoter - Live from: Reach
None of this addresses the CMAs primary voiced concern than it reduces competition particularly in the cloud and multigame subscription markets which are emerging

I hope MS lawyers have better arguments than "other games exist too"

I didn't make that argument because it's the easiest one of all to address with a deeper phase 2 look. Allow me to do a lazy version of what Microsoft and Activision together will drive home in far greater detail via phase 2 investigations.

Microsoft has an advantage in multi-game subscription markets and cloud gaming because of superior business planning, investment and strategy. They had better foresight of where the industry was going and actually took the hard steps necessary to put themselves where they are now. None of the opportunity or advantages that now exists is as it is due to an unfair access to popular content. Microsoft put in the work to make it happen.

Xbox Game Pass became a lot more popular than PS Now while having significantly weaker first party content and significantly less consoles sold because they made smarter, more consumer friendly business decisions. I don't believe Sony originally allowed you to have native downloads of games on PS Now. I think that came later after game pass started doing it. Sony also wasn't putting their very best content on there, content that most don't dispute was overall more exciting than what Microsoft's first party was delivering.

Microsoft chose to make their cloud gaming strategy simpler for all game developers by literally using the exact same hardware that's in their consoles in server blades. By doing so, developers don't need to rebuild games to a new spec or with different APIs. They build the game once for xbox consoles, and then they automatically work with Xcloud. That is a Microsoft advantage due to PLANNING, not content. To not simplify it too much, Microsoft's technology, talent and the company's cloud investments and expertise is what put them in this position.

As to multi-game subscriptions, Microsoft's greatest advantage there is again business smarts and planning. Day One release for all first party games is a business decision. That there exists dual entitlement between PC and Xbox for first party Xbox titles is also something any other competitor can CHOOSE to do, but they do not. Microsoft isn't somehow taking a cut from people releasing games on PC. There are a multitude of storefronts out there. People are building their own launchers, even Sony.

It is Ubisoft who thus far only has Ubisoft+ on PC. They could have already done what EA did by bringing it to consoles in full, but they haven't. Microsoft welcomes competitors to Game Pass on Xbox consoles, as evidenced by the following.

https://wccftech.com/ubisoft-plus-xbox-rainbow-six-extraction-day-1-game-pass/

Microsoft and Ubisoft conveniently cut this deal and announced it BEFORE the announcement of the Activision acquisition.

Microsoft partnering EA Play with Game Pass at the $15 tier is just smart business. Microsoft embracing EA Access/Play before any of their competitors on Xbox consoles is again just smart business. Sony hesitated and was resistant to it for a while before they finally gave in.

And as a simple rule of mergers and acquisitions, vertical mergers, which acquiring Activision Blizzard would absolutely be, are allowed. Why do you guys think Microsoft keeps stressing their intention to add Activision Blizzard's content to Game Pass aka their distribution network? Because that's actually allowed and exactly what regulators want to see in markets. The challenge then becomes what? To prove to regulators that Activision Blizzard games aren't so utterly special and all dominant in the game industry that other competitors not having IDENTICAL access does not destroy competition. So you must prove that Call of Duty and Activision's content has other popular, even dominant, competition, which is why I focused on that in my post you replied to. World of Warcraft will be shown as in a bad way and getting trounced by Final Fantasy XIV, a game exclusive to Playstation consoles. So what will it hurt if Microsoft has the significantly less popular, down on its luck World of Warcraft under their banner? They will even show CMA youtube videos from popular content creators who have been panning the current state of World of Warcraft. And they will show articles that do the same. Companys would never do this in public to their own product, but will absolutely do so in private discussions with regulators.

So as you can see, this is why I focused on how popular other games are, it's the whole ball game. Game Pass being as good as it is or Xcloud being as convenient and as good as it has emerged to be are just distractions. This deal will live or die on convincing regulators the content being acquired, while popular, has tons of competition in the gaming world, and will not create some massive shift killing Playstation, killing all other competitors or discouraging others from entering the market. In fact, there is a very good reason specific major companies such as META are backing Microsoft's acquisition with regulators. It's likely because they, among others, also intend on making a move. They're just waiting to see this deal go through.

Other games exist too, to keep it as simple as you did, is how Microsoft lands this deal. But they'll make that argument in a far more convincing and more detailed fashion than what I'm stating here. You think Activision hasn't done competitive analysis of other games they deem to be threats to Call of Duty and why? All of that internal documentation, very closely guarded stuff, will be provided in all phase 2 investigations.
 
Last edited:

The_Mike

I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Almost 30 years of being in business nintendo nor sony have bought any major publishers, microsoft has already bought 3.

But Sony Too lol
It's easy to look like a Saint when you can't afford to do the same as the competitor.

Sony bought Bungie though. After hitting their hands at the bottom of the bargain bin.
 

Menzies

Banned
XBOX can afford the hit as they have a multi trillion parent company supporting it, Nintendo already sells a overpriced day 01 profit hardware, updating prices on a super dated hardware is not super necessary.. so basically yes Sony is the only one with market share and the NECESSITY of upping their prices .. people spend the last two years seeing the prices for everything going through the roof... and now want to act as Sony is the big bad against consumer/gamer company .. gtfo


I was thinking of starting a gofundme page for Sony. In their last earnings call they really showed how dire their situation is right now.
 

onesvenus

Member
Google and Amazon aren't using proton. 10% of the library are officially supported/verified (sellable) and whopping 40% completely unplayable on it. Thats nice but you're still silly for suggesting Proton. Faking windows using Wine was clearly being discussed in the post you replied to already and not swaying regulators as an alternative in a past OS antitrust case. I bet because you didn't even know Proton was a Wine fork so you thought you had the regulators and my post in a gotcha because I said regulators see the OS stranglehold on games as a problem and a cloud provider would opt for windows or be hindered by games designed for windows instead. You do you as usual though, not responding to you anymore. I've seen all this song and dance from you before.
What's nice about you is that you think you know what I know, what I don't and what I'm saying better than myself.
Good luck with believing you are the wisest among us and that only your PoV are valid.
 
I didn't make that argument because it's the easiest one of all to address with a deeper phase 2 look. Allow me to do a lazy version of what Microsoft and Activision together will drive home in far greater detail via phase 2 investigations.

Microsoft has an advantage in multi-game subscription markets and cloud gaming because of superior business planning, investment and strategy. They had better foresight of where the industry was going and actually took the hard steps necessary to put themselves where they are now. None of the opportunity or advantages that now exists is as it is due to an unfair access to popular content. Microsoft put in the work to make it happen.

Xbox Game Pass became a lot more popular than PS Now while having significantly weaker first party content and significantly less consoles sold because they made smarter, more consumer friendly business decisions. I don't believe Sony originally allowed you to have native downloads of games on PS Now. I think that came later after game pass started doing it. Sony also wasn't putting their very best content on there, content that most don't dispute was overall more exciting than what Microsoft's first party was delivering.

Microsoft chose to make their cloud gaming strategy simpler for all game developers by literally using the exact same hardware that's in their consoles in server blades. By doing so, developers don't need to rebuild games to a new spec or with different APIs. They build the game once for xbox consoles, and then they automatically work with Xcloud. That is a Microsoft advantage due to PLANNING, not content. To not simplify it too much, Microsoft's technology, talent and the company's cloud investments and expertise is what put them in this position.

As to multi-game subscriptions, Microsoft's greatest advantage there is again business smarts and planning. Day One release for all first party games is a business decision. That there exists dual entitlement between PC and Xbox for first party Xbox titles is also something any other competitor can CHOOSE to do, but they do not. Microsoft isn't somehow taking a cut from people releasing games on PC. There are a multitude of storefronts out there. People are building their own launchers, even Sony.

It is Ubisoft who thus far only has Ubisoft+ on PC. They could have already done what EA did by bringing it to consoles in full, but they haven't. Microsoft welcomes competitors to Game Pass on Xbox consoles, as evidenced by the following.

https://wccftech.com/ubisoft-plus-xbox-rainbow-six-extraction-day-1-game-pass/

Microsoft and Ubisoft conveniently cut this deal and announced it BEFORE the announcement of the Activision acquisition.

Microsoft partnering EA Play with Game Pass at the $15 tier is just smart business. Microsoft embracing EA Access/Play before any of their competitors on Xbox consoles is again just smart business. Sony hesitated and was resistant to it for a while before they finally gave in.

And as a simple rule of mergers and acquisitions, vertical mergers, which acquiring Activision Blizzard would absolutely be, are allowed. Why do you guys think Microsoft keeps stressing their intention to add Activision Blizzard's content to Game Pass aka their distribution network? Because that's actually allowed and exactly what regulators want to see in markets. The challenge then becomes what? To prove to regulators that Activision Blizzard games aren't so utterly special and all dominant in the game industry that other competitors not having IDENTICAL access does not destroy competition. So you must prove that Call of Duty and Activision's content has other popular, even dominant, competition, which is why I focused on that in my post you replied to. World of Warcraft will be shown as in a bad way and getting trounced by Final Fantasy XIV, a game exclusive to Playstation consoles. So what will it hurt if Microsoft has the significantly less popular, down on its luck World of Warcraft under their banner? They will even show CMA youtube videos from popular content creators who have been panning the current state of World of Warcraft. And they will show articles that do the same. Companys would never do this in public to their own product, but will absolutely do so in private discussions with regulators.

So as you can see, this is why I focused on how popular other games are, it's the whole ball game. Game Pass being as good as it is or Xcloud being as convenient and as good as it has emerged to be are just distractions. This deal will live or die on convincing regulators the content being acquired, while popular, has tons of competition in the gaming world, and will not create some massive shift killing Playstation, killing all other competitors or discouraging others from entering the market. In fact, there is a very good reason specific major companies such as META are backing Microsoft's acquisition with regulators. It's likely because they, among others, also intend on making a move. They're just waiting to see this deal go through.

Other games exist too, to keep it as simple as you did, is how Microsoft lands this deal. But they'll make that argument in a far more convincing and more detailed fashion than what I'm stating here. You think Activision hasn't done competitive analysis of other games they deem to be threats to Call of Duty and why? All of that internal documentation, very closely guarded stuff, will be provided in all phase 2 investigations.
 

Yoboman

Member
I didn't make that argument because it's the easiest one of all to address with a deeper phase 2 look. Allow me to do a lazy version of what Microsoft and Activision together will drive home in far greater detail via phase 2 investigations.

Microsoft has an advantage in multi-game subscription markets and cloud gaming because of superior business planning, investment and strategy. They had better foresight of where the industry was going and actually took the hard steps necessary to put themselves where they are now. None of the opportunity or advantages that now exists is as it is due to an unfair access to popular content. Microsoft put in the work to make it happen.

Xbox Game Pass became a lot more popular than PS Now while having significantly weaker first party content and significantly less consoles sold because they made smarter, more consumer friendly business decisions. I don't believe Sony originally allowed you to have native downloads of games on PS Now. I think that came later after game pass started doing it. Sony also wasn't putting their very best content on there, content that most don't dispute was overall more exciting than what Microsoft's first party was delivering.

Microsoft chose to make their cloud gaming strategy simpler for all game developers by literally using the exact same hardware that's in their consoles in server blades. By doing so, developers don't need to rebuild games to a new spec or with different APIs. They build the game once for xbox consoles, and then they automatically work with Xcloud. That is a Microsoft advantage due to PLANNING, not content. To not simplify it too much, Microsoft's technology, talent and the company's cloud investments and expertise is what put them in this position.

As to multi-game subscriptions, Microsoft's greatest advantage there is again business smarts and planning. Day One release for all first party games is a business decision. That there exists dual entitlement between PC and Xbox for first party Xbox titles is also something any other competitor can CHOOSE to do, but they do not. Microsoft isn't somehow taking a cut from people releasing games on PC. There are a multitude of storefronts out there. People are building their own launchers, even Sony.

It is Ubisoft who thus far only has Ubisoft+ on PC. They could have already done what EA did by bringing it to consoles in full, but they haven't. Microsoft welcomes competitors to Game Pass on Xbox consoles, as evidenced by the following.

https://wccftech.com/ubisoft-plus-xbox-rainbow-six-extraction-day-1-game-pass/

Microsoft and Ubisoft conveniently cut this deal and announced it BEFORE the announcement of the Activision acquisition.

Microsoft partnering EA Play with Game Pass at the $15 tier is just smart business. Microsoft embracing EA Access/Play before any of their competitors on Xbox consoles is again just smart business. Sony hesitated and was resistant to it for a while before they finally gave in.

And as a simple rule of mergers and acquisitions, vertical mergers, which acquiring Activision Blizzard would absolutely be, are allowed. Why do you guys think Microsoft keeps stressing their intention to add Activision Blizzard's content to Game Pass aka their distribution network? Because that's actually allowed and exactly what regulators want to see in markets. The challenge then becomes what? To prove to regulators that Activision Blizzard games aren't so utterly special and all dominant in the game industry that other competitors not having IDENTICAL access does not destroy competition. So you must prove that Call of Duty and Activision's content has other popular, even dominant, competition, which is why I focused on that in my post you replied to. World of Warcraft will be shown as in a bad way and getting trounced by Final Fantasy XIV, a game exclusive to Playstation consoles. So what will it hurt if Microsoft has the significantly less popular, down on its luck World of Warcraft under their banner? They will even show CMA youtube videos from popular content creators who have been panning the current state of World of Warcraft. And they will show articles that do the same. Companys would never do this in public to their own product, but will absolutely do so in private discussions with regulators.

So as you can see, this is why I focused on how popular other games are, it's the whole ball game. Game Pass being as good as it is or Xcloud being as convenient and as good as it has emerged to be are just distractions. This deal will live or die on convincing regulators the content being acquired, while popular, has tons of competition in the gaming world, and will not create some massive shift killing Playstation, killing all other competitors or discouraging others from entering the market. In fact, there is a very good reason specific major companies such as META are backing Microsoft's acquisition with regulators. It's likely because they, among others, also intend on making a move. They're just waiting to see this deal go through.

Other games exist too, to keep it as simple as you did, is how Microsoft lands this deal. But they'll make that argument in a far more convincing and more detailed fashion than what I'm stating here. You think Activision hasn't done competitive analysis of other games they deem to be threats to Call of Duty and why? All of that internal documentation, very closely guarded stuff, will be provided in all phase 2 investigations.

I would counter that this is not a trial about the efficacy of models, whether MS has a better product or whether it is consumer friendly. Their primary concerns after phase 2 investigations are:
  • The deal could see Microsoft "withholding or degrading" Activision Blizzard's content from other consoles or subscription services
  • Microsoft could leverage its broader ecosystem together with Activision's catalogue to "raise barriers to entry and foreclose rivals in cloud gaming services"
Coming in with an argument that Gamepass is better therefore its no big deal just doesn't hold up outside of forums. They are concerned that MS is using its considerable financial advantages to make major acquisitions and which fund a model which undercuts the competition. They are concerned this will hinder market competition.

MS need to prove the theory that buying gaming's biggest publisher for close to 10 times the value of any previous gaming acquisition in history doesn't hinder competition. And that doing so does not directly harm competitors by creating barriers to entry for ABK content and situations of foreclosing on current snd future rivals ability to compete

It's on MS to prove against these points. Not try and argue that ABK really isn't that big after all or that Gamepass is the "best deal in gaming". They can look at financial statements themselves to see that COD is in a league of it's own year after year and the acquisition price reflects that.

Whether this acquisition goes through or not it reflects an ongoing trend with MS that I am sure will be highlighted. At what point does this strategy harm competition? Maybe Sony and rivals can still compete. But how many more acquisitions before they can't and the market is cornered via acquisition strategy? MS have built a strategy of success predicated on merger and acquisition resulting in the loss of content for rivals and I can tell you regulators do not like that one bit.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
I would counter that this is not a trial about the efficacy of models, whether MS has a better product or whether it is consumer friendly. Their primary concerns after phase 2 investigations are:
  • The deal could see Microsoft "withholding or degrading" Activision Blizzard's content from other consoles or subscription services
  • Microsoft could leverage its broader ecosystem together with Activision's catalogue to "raise barriers to entry and foreclose rivals in cloud gaming services"
Coming in with an argument that Gamepass is better therefore its no big deal just doesn't hold up outside of forums. They are concerned that MS is using its considerable financial advantages to make major acquisitions and which fund a model which undercuts the competition. They are concerned this will hinder market competition.

MS need to prove the theory that buying gaming's biggest publisher for close to 10 times the value of any previous gaming acquisition in history doesn't hinder competition. And that doing so does not directly harm competitors by creating barriers to entry for ABK content and situations of foreclosing on current snd future rivals ability to compete

It's on MS to prove against these points. Not try and argue that ABK really isn't that big after all or that Gamepass is the "best deal in gaming". They can look at financial statements themselves to see that COD is in a league of it's own year after year and the acquisition price reflects that.

Whether this acquisition goes through or not it reflects an ongoing trend with MS that I am sure will be highlighted. At what point does this strategy harm competition? Maybe Sony and rivals can still compete. But how many more acquisitions before they can't and the market is cornered via acquisition strategy? MS have built a strategy of success predicated on merger and acquisition resulting in the loss of content for rivals and I can tell you regulators do not like that one bit.
I suspect the underlying issue with damaging competition isn't based on morality for regulators, but the loss of taxes the competition won't be paying when they can no longer compete, and loss of jobs when the competition can't compete.

At a basic level - in the long run - will the market pay more in taxes in the relevant countries from Microsoft taking Activision games away from competitors or less? I would find it almost impossible to make a hypothetical scenario where the acquisition results in more taxes collected by those countries' governments in the short term or long term. As I would expect the basic situation is more companies in business more taxes paid.
 
Last edited:

SenjutsuSage

Halo TV Series Promoter - Live from: Reach
I would counter that this is not a trial about the efficacy of models, whether MS has a better product or whether it is consumer friendly. Their primary concerns after phase 2 investigations are:
  • The deal could see Microsoft "withholding or degrading" Activision Blizzard's content from other consoles or subscription services
  • Microsoft could leverage its broader ecosystem together with Activision's catalogue to "raise barriers to entry and foreclose rivals in cloud gaming services"
Coming in with an argument that Gamepass is better therefore its no big deal just doesn't hold up outside of forums. They are concerned that MS is using its considerable financial advantages to make major acquisitions and which fund a model which undercuts the competition. They are concerned this will hinder market competition.

MS need to prove the theory that buying gaming's biggest publisher for close to 10 times the value of any previous gaming acquisition in history doesn't hinder competition. And that doing so does not directly harm competitors by creating barriers to entry for ABK content and situations of foreclosing on current snd future rivals ability to compete

It's on MS to prove against these points. Not try and argue that ABK really isn't that big after all or that Gamepass is the "best deal in gaming". They can look at financial statements themselves to see that COD is in a league of it's own year after year and the acquisition price reflects that.

Whether this acquisition goes through or not it reflects an ongoing trend with MS that I am sure will be highlighted. At what point does this strategy harm competition? Maybe Sony and rivals can still compete. But how many more acquisitions before they can't and the market is cornered via acquisition strategy? MS have built a strategy of success predicated on merger and acquisition resulting in the loss of content for rivals and I can tell you regulators do not like that one bit.

And Phase 2 will prove to them why there is LESS concern for any withholding of Activision Blizzard content from other consoles or subscription services by showcasing that Activision Blizzard's games, while popular, do not possess the competition killing power that's claimed by showing them just how vast the industry is and how many popular hits and competitors exist, even coming from Sony itself.

As to degrading games on competition, will never happen. In fact, Microsoft would be 100% willing to sign a commitment with regulators to never purposely degrade games on PlayStation consoles.

Everything you say here, which I read, you will come to find has been hashed out to the satisfaction of all major regulators, because the deal is 100% going to get approved. Call of Duty itself as a game or franchise being in a league of its own is not true, and never has been from a quality or popularity standpoint. There are tons of other games that match or exceed the quality of Call of Duty games, and there are games that can and do match and exceed Call of Duty's popularity. Multiple such games release every single generation. FPS just so happens to be one of the most popular genres in all of gaming. That's part of what helps COD.

So what really separates Call of Duty as a franchise and everything else? The insane yearly release cadence is what does it due to all the different studios they have working on Call of Duty at any given time to make it a yearly possibility. Ubisoft, as demonstrated from their show today, is taking what is their own Call of Duty - the Assassin's Creed franchise - and doubling down on a proven strategy that has been working quite well for them for years also. Ubisoft was already successfully doing yearly releases with their Assassin's Creed games, sometimes needing an extra year for a release, leading to 2 year cycles. Today they've made clear they are as committed to the franchise as they ever were, and are investing more heavily than ever.

I'm guessing you're taking a skeptical view, believing Microsoft won't possibly be able to convince or prove to regulators that they can be allowed to buy Activision Blizzard, but I'm telling you with 100% confidence you will be mistaken when the dust settles and the acquisition is approved. It would be the gravest of mistakes to assume that the ONLY regulatory calculations here are just the categories explained by the CMA. It goes above and beyond that many times. It's political, it's economic, lobbying is involved, connections are involved. Don't ever assume that all of these regulatory reviews are always above board and without greased palms.
 
Top Bottom