Microsoft is trying to acquire Activision Blizzard (UPDATE: CMA says NO!).

[RubberJohnny]

Yeah, it is weird that the FCC say Bethesda shows they'll try and make things exclusive, when in reality everything that was multiplatform like ESO, Fallout76 has stayed multiplatform for years now, and the only exclusives have been exclusive to Playstation (Deathloop). Microsoft have some 2023 exclusive games coming where there were no exclusive deals, but surely that seems fair enough?

 

Like I'm no lawyer, but it seems absurd if the status of "when can I have the games this company I own makes on my own platform" is never, but only when Microsoft is doing it, Sony can buy up Insomniac and have them make only Sony games just fine, same with Nintendo and Monolith Soft. Disney could buy Fox and pull all that content off other platforms and make it exclusive behind the Disney+ paywall Day 1, but here a ten-year guarantee that everything will stay multiplatform isn't sufficient.

[Giddas]

8 minutes ago, rgraves said:

 

But the FTC comments on the Bethesda deal are incorrect - MS promised that content already on other platforms would stay and not get taken away, and it has. Deathloop only recently came over (because, funnily enough, it was tied up on a pre-existing Sony exclusivity contract) and Deathwire still hasn't come over yet. They made no promises over stuff like Redfall - that's never been on a Sony platform so could hardly be pointed at as hurting them by not appearing either. Unless the FTC are wanting an end to all exclusive content - in which case I'd say MS are looking forward to welcoming Kratos and Spiderman to GP...

 

If the FTC have been perfectly fine with Sony running around making exclusive deals for things like FF, Deathloop, CoD then I honestly don't see what the problem here is - at worst CoD is essentially going to move from 2 console platforms (PS and Xbox) to 2 platforms (Xbox and Nintendo) for at least the next ten years. At best they've offered the same deal to Sony so it'll be on all three.

 

Acti are making loud noises about this on Twitter today as well - I just can't see how this public woe is me strategy pans out well for Sony in any way. If it goes through they've pissed MS off, if it doesn't they've pissed Acti (and Nintendo) off.

Of course it’s better for Sony if they get the deal blocked rather than “upsetting” Microsoft.

 

Timed exclusivity (which sucks) is very different to the concern here as well which is of existing franchises being taken away.

[rgraves]

1 minute ago, Giddas said:

Of course it’s better for Sony if they get the deal blocked rather than “upsetting” Microsoft.

 

Is it though? MS are currently offering Sony a 10 year deal. They'll be at the table at least.

 

If this does not go through, Acti could well decide to cosy up to MS anyway, release on GP day 1, send exclusive content to MS etc etc with nothing at all in writing to say they have to stay on PS for any length of time at all. I mean they likely would, but it's a risk pissing them off like this. And I doubt EA are all that happy about what they said regarding Battlefield either. And Nintendo would lose possible access to CoD after doing a nice deal with MS for that as well - so those two would have decent relations and a common target. I could see MS pushing to put GP streaming on Switch and Nintendo at least considering it.....

[mikeyl]

Yeah, I don’t think the FTC decides to go all out after the big Big Boy without an army of lawyers telling them what may happen next, despite all the genius competition analysts and regulatory lawyers on the forums of xboxera.com have decided

[MidWalian]

I would avoid reading what Microsoft and Activision say what is in the European Commission report and just read the report itself.

 

Notifying party is Microsoft. Paragraph 114 for example:

Quote

Therefore, according to the Notifying Party, Microsoft would not have the incentive 
to cease or limit making ZeniMax games available for purchase on rival consoles.

 

The previous and following paragraphs are worth a read too. To me, and I'm not a lawyer, the deal was allowed to pass on the assumption that Bethesda games would not suddenly become exclusive. There is however plenty of slippery language which you get from lawyers and politicians.

 

 

[rgraves]

1 minute ago, mikeyl said:

Yeah, I don’t think the FTC decides to go all out after the big Big Boy without an army of lawyers telling them what may happen next, despite all the genius competition analysts and regulatory lawyers on the forums of xboxera.com have decided

 

You'd think, but then you read their statement and it's full of errors and...

[MidWalian]

At the end of the day the FTC may also be in "do something" mode after not acting that much in the past - in gaming and outside of it. 

 

Any ideas when the UK or EC may give their verdicts?

[thesnwmn]

1 minute ago, mikeyl said:

Yeah, I don’t think the FTC decides to go all out after the big Big Boy without an army of lawyers telling them what may happen next, despite all the genius competition analysts and regulatory lawyers on the forums of xboxera.com have decided

 

So I guess we'd best all just be quiet and not bother discussing this on a discussion forum until some lawyers tell us what is best.

 

I mean their takes on a range of other cases, both getting involved and not, doesn't give me great hope that the FTC are actually a reasonable or consistent voice on this at all.

 

Personally, I've got no idea if this is actually good or bad for competition. I mean I'd happily see Activision-Blizzard and all their franchises in the bin because either I'm not interested or their management and culture over decades repulses me (and their inability to own it and correct it seems insensitive). I'm not convinced that even if CoD did go single platform it would matter. I think it simply kills CoD over time rather than gifting console gaming to MS for all time. So whichever way this plays out meh. No one is deciding shit here, we're just debating stuff.

[dataDave]

6 minutes ago, rgraves said:

I could see MS pushing to put GP streaming on Switch and Nintendo at least considering it.....

 

Nintendo want people to pay €60 to play Nintendo games. There's no way GamePass is appearing on the Switch without MS first paying Nintendo $3B for the pleasure.

[mikeyl]

Just now, rgraves said:

 

You'd think, but then you read their statement and it's full of errors and...

Videogamers are seeing errors from a videogamers viewpoint. The FTC say stuff like the boring sounding Starfield is a top videogame franchise but in reality they probably don’t really give a fuck on the details but rather on the intent and  direction of travel.

[Giddas]

12 minutes ago, rgraves said:

 

Is it though? MS are currently offering Sony a 10 year deal. They'll be at the table at least.

 

If this does not go through, Acti could well decide to cosy up to MS anyway, release on GP day 1, send exclusive content to MS etc etc with nothing at all in writing to say they have to stay on PS for any length of time at all. I mean they likely would, but it's a risk pissing them off like this. And I doubt EA are all that happy about what they said regarding Battlefield either. And Nintendo would lose possible access to CoD after doing a nice deal with MS for that as well - so those two would have decent relations and a common target. I could see MS pushing to put GP streaming on Switch and Nintendo at least considering it.....

you really think Nintendo & EA are keen to see this deal go ahead?

[rgraves]

1 minute ago, dataDave said:

 

Nintendo want people to pay €60 to play Nintendo games. There's no way GamePass is appearing on the Switch without MS first paying Nintendo $3B for the pleasure.

 

If this does not go through, I'm sure they could take that $3bn from the $69bn they just saved. And Switch would just cloud stream GP content. Nintendo still sells their own stuff exclusive on that platform. I bet both sides would at least knock the idea around the room.

[rgraves]

1 minute ago, Giddas said:

you really think Nintendo & EA are keen to see this deal go ahead?

 

I don't see a downside for Nintendo - they've already sat at the table with MS and agreed a deal on CoD that falls through if it does not go ahead. So yeah, they have skin in the game and appear to be much cosier with MS than they are with Sony.

[Giddas]

3 minutes ago, rgraves said:

 

I don't see a downside for Nintendo - they've already sat at the table with MS and agreed a deal on CoD that falls through if it does not go ahead. So yeah, they have skin in the game and appear to be much cosier with MS than they are with Sony.

if CoD on a Switch was a compelling prospect it would be available now

[mikeyl]

9 minutes ago, thesnwmn said:

 

So I guess we'd best all just be quiet and not bother discussing this on a discussion forum until some lawyers tell us what is best.

 

I mean their takes on a range of other cases, both getting involved and not, doesn't give me great hope that the FTC are actually a reasonable or consistent voice on this at all.

 

Personally, I've got no idea if this is actually good or bad for competition. I mean I'd happily see Activision-Blizzard and all their franchises in the bin because either I'm not interested or their management and culture over decades repulses me (and their inability to own it and correct it seems insensitive). I'm not convinced that even if CoD did go single platform it would matter. I think it simply kills CoD over time rather than gifting console gaming to MS for all time. So whichever way this plays out meh. No one is deciding shit here, we're just debating stuff.

I think FTC are going in because they want to clip Microsoft, because they dominate every other pie they’ve got their fingers in and how unfathomably loaded they are.  It’s not comparable to Disney or Sony monopolising entertainment so showing proof that the FTC are wrong by referring to the Gamepass release schedule are takes only computer gamers make.

[rgraves]

6 minutes ago, Giddas said:

if CoD on a Switch was a compelling prospect it would be available now

 

Oh come on, the Switch userbase is massive - it would easily sell millions (even the Wii and Wii U releases did reasonable numbers all things considered and the demographics were certainly not in favour there). Not PS/Xbox levels, but more than enough to make it commercially worthwhile in the same way the mobile releases are. I'd bet a bollock the fact it's not there now is nothing to do with financial reasons and more likely everything to do with something like either Kotick being a dick, keeping Sony happy or maybe even a contractual obligation they have to them (in the same way they block GP), or a combination of both.

 

Conspiracy theory maybe - but you can't look at the size of the Switch userbase and not think CoD would sell a few. MS obviously think it will, as they just put pen to paper on a deal to do exactly that....

[RubberJohnny]

3 hours ago, mikeyl said:

I think FTC are going in because they want to clip Microsoft, because they dominate every other pie they’ve got their fingers in

 

This isn't true though, is it? They failed in personal music players, smartphones, browsers, search, maps, streaming, video calls, web stores for music, films, etc. At this point they're a legacy software company for boomer office corporations, a bunch of server farms and a videogame platform holder stuck in third place.

 

There's trillion dollar companies that do have genuine monopolies, like Google with Search, or Facebook with Social Networking, so you seem to be admitting that Microsoft are being somewhat unfairly singled out, after wading in arguing against exactly that position.

[Kryptonian]

2 hours ago, Orion said:

 

Not really because I've played a ton of games this year on Game Pass and only bought two games in that time. Arcade Paradise for £15 and Cyberpunk second hand for £25.

 

And you still have gamepass regardless of the rrp of the games

[layten]

Actual lawyers have been saying for a while that the FTC would very much likely lose if they took this to court. It being more about the FTC chair making it look like they suddenly have some fucks to give after shit like letting Disney, Borg the entire film and TV industry. 

[Stanley]

1 hour ago, rgraves said:

 

If this does not go through, I'm sure they could take that $3bn from the $69bn they just saved. And Switch would just cloud stream GP content. Nintendo still sells their own stuff exclusive on that platform. I bet both sides would at least knock the idea around the room.

If that happened you’d effectively have a handheld Xbox, for that reason I’m doubtful. Nintendo sell way too many games to consider giving over their platform, or a slice of their platform, to MS. 

[Stanley]

51 minutes ago, rgraves said:

 

Oh come on, the Switch userbase is massive - it would easily sell millions (even the Wii and Wii U releases did reasonable numbers all things considered and the demographics were certainly not in favour there). Not PS/Xbox levels, but more than enough to make it commercially worthwhile in the same way the mobile releases are. I'd bet a bollock the fact it's not there now is nothing to do with financial reasons and more likely everything to do with something like either Kotick being a dick, keeping Sony happy or maybe even a contractual obligation they have to them (in the same way they block GP), or a combination of both.

 

Conspiracy theory maybe - but you can't look at the size of the Switch userbase and not think CoD would sell a few. MS obviously think it will, as they just put pen to paper on a deal to do exactly that....

COD on Switch would be appetising to Nintendo but far from essential. No doubt they have been included in this deal to make Sony look like sourpusses, and not something they themselves will have fought hard for. 

[TehStu]

2 hours ago, thesnwmn said:

It's simply an matter of scale. At some point your competitors can kick up enough fuss and regulators get interested.

Is this why we haven't broken up Amazon, Google, et al? There are none.

[rgraves]

24 minutes ago, Stanley said:

COD on Switch would be appetising to Nintendo but far from essential. No doubt they have been included in this deal to make Sony look like sourpusses, and not something they themselves will have fought hard for. 

 

I'm not saying they fought hard for it, or see it as even slightly essential to them in the way that Sony want authorities to believe - I'm just saying now they don't have CoD, but if MS win they do. If Nintendo have a preference either way in this, surely it's going to be the way that a) brings them more popular content to their platform(s) and b) puts one over on their old rival. They did not sign and agree to the public annoucement of that CoD deal for no reason. They effectively nailed their colours to the mast with that.

 

Or, alternatively - what good would the deal being blocked do for Nintendo? Going through they get content. Being blocked they get nothing.

 

They won't lose sleep over it either way, but if asked the question I'd say they'd vote allow (because saying anything other now would make the deal they just signed look a little odd - "you don't want it, but you just signed an agreement with one of the parties involved in it regarding the content produced by the other")

[thesnwmn]

23 minutes ago, TehStu said:

Is this why we haven't broken up Amazon, Google, et al? There are none.

 

Clearly it would be best if the regulators were more proactive in general. But yes. Unless competitors kick up a fuss, or some people who the government/.officials are backed by then a lot of this just sails along. A few investigations here and there. The odd request to split a bit of a company off. But in the US (and elsewhere) there has been little action to stop competitors from merging and almost no help to stop the big players reducing choice for consumers (see cable TV and internet provision). How often have they broken up a monopoly in the last 30 years?

[mikeyl]

1 hour ago, RubberJohnny said:

 

This isn't true though, is it? They failed in personal music players, smartphones, browsers, search, streaming, web stores for music, films, etc. At this point they're a legacy software company for boomer office corporations, a bunch of server farms and a videogame platform holder stuck in third place.

 

There's trillion dollar companies that do have genuine monopolies, like Google with Search, or Facebook with Social Networking, so you seem to be admitting that Microsoft are being somewhat unfairly singled out, after wading in arguing against exactly that position.

 

I’m not arguing against anything, I’m saying that they being singled out has little to do as to who gets to play Modern Warfare on a joycon or not.

 

It’s a bit wild to minimise Microsoft’s reach to just boomer corporations. Every computer is a Windows computer for a start. And I don’t know how many contracts they hold in which they are responsible for the infrastructure of a state. That’s why they get a target and why suppliers of Walkmans and entertainment companies don’t. And aren’t they always forever trying to dial back search provider monopolies? 

[mikeyl]

10 minutes ago, thesnwmn said:

 

Clearly it would be best if the regulators were more proactive in general. But yes. Unless competitors kick up a fuss, or some people who the government/.officials are backed by then a lot of this just sails along. A few investigations here and there. The odd request to split a bit of a company off. But in the US (and elsewhere) there has been little action to stop competitors from merging and almost no help to stop the big players reducing choice for consumers (see cable TV and internet provision). How often have they broken up a monopoly in the last 30 years?

Didn’t they do it with like a network comms provider? Vaguely something. Or even Fox/Sky/Disney because of the news provision issue?

[jcafarley]

2 minutes ago, mikeyl said:

Every computer is a Windows computer for a start. 

This isn't really the case these days as Windows desktop share has been decreasing (mostly) year on year. Sure, it's still the dominant platform, but its not on everything.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/218089/global-market-share-of-windows-7/

[mikeyl]

3 minutes ago, jcafarley said:

This isn't really the case these days as Windows desktop share has been decreasing (mostly) year on year. Sure, it's still the dominant platform, but its not on everything.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/218089/global-market-share-of-windows-7/

76%! And the rest is testament to Apple’s expertise in making beautiful shiny lifestyle machines for us all to flex in Costa Coffee.

[RubberJohnny]

1 hour ago, jcafarley said:

This isn't really the case these days as Windows desktop share has been decreasing (mostly) year on year. Sure, it's still the dominant platform, but its not on everything.

Yep, and break that out into consumer market and corporate market and I bet Microsoft are probably the minority in the former. Most tech corporations are also running their own web tech rather than anything from Microsoft’s stack, so ‘boomer corporations’ isn’t far off.

 

It’s becoming clear some people are just stuck mentally in the 90s and aren’t aware how much things have changed, thinking things like desktops are still key when we've all been on phones and pads for 15 years, or mentally basing their image on old photoshops of Bill Gates as Darth Vader from a Geocities website, when things like the old antitrust ruling look positively quaint with three decades of hindsight.

[TehStu]

Azure and Microsoft 365 are doing numbers, I thought. By design, knowing Windows isn't where the money is/was. This was Nadella's whole spiel.