• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?


  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
The rumor mill has Sony closing in on an acquisition themselves so they might have some bullets in their gun very soon to trade with
Lol on the level of Activision blizzard and call of duty though? Highly doubt it and the more acquisitions Sony makes only means Microsoft themselves can make more as well. Like the regulators are stating that even if Microsoft made cod exclusive doesn’t lessen competition. If more regulatory bodies are of this opinion not sure it bodes well for Sony’s negotiation power. I’m here for all of the future throw downs though.
 
MS won't be petty. COD will be on PS for three years. After that, it will be up to PS to make some concessions.
I mean you’re saying MS will but Sony didn’t sign it because Jim thought he could force their hands or block the transaction outright. A big gambit but it’s not looking like it will succeed. So now when it does go through he’s going to be negotiating from a different position. Not to mention Microsoft can divide the revenue split different and take more unlike activision that could take less from Sony knowing the we’re getting money on all platforms.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
If Sony is not able to achieve some kind of condition regarding CoD (after crying out loud)...i wonder if MS is going to be like..."Now I am changing my inadequate offer, and you will be happy and accept it".

Nah, I don't think they want to incur any needless negative PR.
 
Last edited:

Louay

Member
"If on the one hand Activision Blizzard content proves to be important for PlayStation, there are indications that PlayStation [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE] for Activision Blizzard content."

 
The rumor mill has Sony closing in on an acquisition themselves so they might have some bullets in their gun very soon to trade with

Unless it's Take Two or EA I doubt they'd give any leverage that's worth COD or Activision's catalog. Sony would have to give something from one of their premiere studios (like Spiderman or Naughty Dog's games for instance), which isn't going to happen obviously but that's what it would likely take
 

Louay

Member
Not only is this embarrassing for Sony and Ryan for acting like hypocritical ass clowns but the way they have conducted themselves will only ensure that MS will say Fuck You when it comes time for deciding if they will release COD on PS5 in the future.
idk if MS that petty haha, i expect to be Multi, this cod factory must go on and make revenue stream so MS can invest in other things.
 
I don't know what you say has to do with anything 🤷
Brazil was one of the harshest countries regarding the Disney acquisition and demanded some concessions. That this one has been approved without any is interesting

Demanded some concessions until Disney couldn't sell Fox Sports and then they allowed Disney to fold it under ESPN lol. US, EU were way harsher since the former required divestiture of RSN and the latter required divestiture of A&E.

That said this is good news for Microsoft.
 
idk if MS that petty haha, i expect to be Multi, this cod factory must go on and make revenue stream so MS can invest in other things.
But they’re only promising them content parity for three years beyond the 2024 contract. After that I highly doubt it or maybe Microsoft requested Spider-Man or something that Jim was not trying to do.
 

Jormatar

Member
Not only is this embarrassing for Sony and Ryan for acting like hypocritical ass clowns but the way they have conducted themselves will only ensure that MS will say Fuck You when it comes time for deciding if they will release COD on PS5 in the future.
And lose billions while doing that.

I don't think companies are as petty as people on real life.
 

Anime-Vix

Member
More info from CADE on why Brazil approved the deal.

EXCLUSIVITY

In Consoles

As can be seen, the tables and graphs presented indicate that Sony is the leading company in the console market both worldwide and nationally, holding in 2021 a much higher share than Microsoft in this segment. It is also noted that, specifically in Brazil, the estimates in table 30 suggest that Sony has achieved market shares of over 60% at least since 2019, evidencing a clear preference of the Brazilian consumer for PlayStation consoles.

Sony's leadership in the console market is not restricted to recent times. In fact, according to data from Statista, PlayStation consoles sold more units worldwide than Xbox consoles in all their generations.

Considering that PlayStation and Xbox consoles traditionally have very similar technical specifications and third-party game catalogs in each iteration, one has to consider why Sony has maintained a consistent leadership in the segment over the years.

According to Microsoft's understanding, the reasons behind such favoritism would be the following: [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE AND APPLICANTS].

Based on all the above, it can be inferred that the game catalog of each console (in terms of quantity, quality and variety) and the loyalty of players to established brands are factors that play, in the consumer decision tree , a more important role than the price and technical specifications of each device.

In the case of the dispute between PlayStation and Xbox – and, more specifically, between PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X – there is a competition between two consoles that have similar technical specifications, similar prices and access to a set of games. from third-party publishers quite similar. Therefore, this SG/Cade believes that the best historical sales performance of Sony's consoles is probably due to other factors, such as: (i) the exclusive games in the ecosystem; and (ii) brand loyalty.

With the acquisition of a publisher such as Activision Blizzard, and considering the (theoretical) risk of the company's content becoming exclusive to Xbox, it is likely that the eventual conclusion of the Transaction will give Microsoft a considerable competitive advantage in the segment. of consoles. Even so, this SG/Cade does not see that such an advantage represents a risk of closing this market for current competitors. As already seen, Nintendo does not currently rely on any content from Activision Blizzard to compete in the market. In turn, Sony has several predicates - strength of the world's leading brand for more than 20 years, extensive experience in the sector, largest user base, largest installed base of consoles, robust catalog of exclusive games, partnerships with multiple publishers.third-party , brand loyal consumers, etc. – which should contribute to maintaining the competitiveness of PlayStation in a possible post-Operation scenario, even in the face of possible loss of access to Activision Blizzard content.

Furthermore, it is important to highlight that the central objective of CADE's activities is the protection of competition as a means of promoting the well-being of the Brazilian consumer, and not the defense of the particular interests of specific competitors . After all, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the holder of the legal assets protected by Law No. 12,529/2011 is the collectivity, and not the competitor/economic agent as an individual entity. In this sense, although it is recognized that part of PlayStation users may decide to migrate to Xbox in the event that Activision Blizzard games - and especially Call of Duty– become exclusive to the Microsoft ecosystem, SG/Cade does not believe that such a possibility represents, in itself, a risk to competition in the console market as a whole.


NINTENDO

The observation of the table above shows that, while the list of best-selling Nintendo Switch games is dominated by exclusive titles published by Nintendo itself, the lists referring to consoles from Microsoft and Sony are very similar, with most of the games listed appearing simultaneously among the best sellers on Xbox and PlayStation. Exceptions to this rule essentially refer to titles exclusive to each platform, such as the Xbox-exclusive Forza Horizon and Halo series games , and PlayStation-exclusive franchises such as Marvel's Spider Man , Ghost of Tsushima , and Ratchet & Clank.

Indeed, Sony itself claims to consider Xbox as a closer rival to PlayStation than Nintendo's console.

Notwithstanding, although the greater proximity between the hardware manufactured by Sony and Microsoft is recognized in terms of competition, this SG/Cade believes that all game consoles compete with each other in the same market, and that the Nintendo console is capable of exert some competitive pressure on PlayStation and Xbox sales. Despite Sony touting the Switch as " more geared towards kids, family and casual games " than rivals, the fact is that many adults who buy consoles today grew up playing games from popular Nintendo franchises such as Mario , The Legend of Zelda , Pokemon , Donkey Kong and Metroid, so the company's brands and characters appeal strongly to consumers of all ages.

SONY

As noted earlier in this opinion, there are currently very few Activision Blizzard games available for the Nintendo Switch (none of them Call of Duty ), and none of these titles appear to be performing particularly well on the platform. Thus, strictly considering the players that currently operate in the console market, it is noted that Sony would be the only company that could be effectively harmed by an eventual Microsoft exclusivity over the Activision Blizzard catalogue.

In this regard, it is important to note that Phil Spencer, the executive who heads the games division at Microsoft, has already publicly stated that he intends to honor the commitments made by Activision Blizzard with Sony, and even keep the launches of Call of Duty and other titles on the market. PlayStation for "several years" beyond current commitments [SUP][ 187 ][/SUP] . Indeed, [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE AND THE APPLICANTS] [SUP][ 188 ][/SUP] . There is, however, no [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE AND THE APPLICANTS] to date

Despite the above, the fact is that, if the Transaction is concluded, the future of Activision Blizzard content on Sony consoles would be uncertain after the lapse of the "several years" mentioned by the CEO of Microsoft Gaming; and, even before that deadline, one cannot rule out the possibility of Microsoft changing the understanding expressed in the aforementioned "public commitment", starting to adopt a different commercial strategy in relation to its biggest rival. Therefore, conservatively, this SG/Cade understands that the analysis of the competitive effects of the Operation must consider the possibility of all Activision Blizzard games becoming exclusive to the Microsoft ecosystem (Xbox consoles, Windows OS, digital stores and subscription services) , despite any claim by the company to the contrary.

It can be seen, in this sense, that Activision Blizzard and Call of Duty represented a portion of the revenue earned by Sony from the sale of game content on PlayStation in 2021 that should not be disregarded. However, the reported percentages do not seem to reflect values whose loss could effectively limit the market leader's ability to continue to compete in the console segment; furthermore, they are not sufficiently representative to the point of characterizing Activision Blizzard's content as an "essential input" to Sony's business.

If on the one hand Activision Blizzard content proves to be important for PlayStation, there are indications that PlayStation [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE] for Activision Blizzard content.

Considering the huge popularity of Call of Duty , it is reasonable to infer that if Activision Blizzard games were no longer available on Sony consoles, PlayStation users could decide to migrate to Xbox, or even a PC, to continue having access to franchise games. On the other hand, it's also reasonable to assume that if upcoming Call of Duty games became exclusive to the Microsoft ecosystem, players loyal to the PlayStation brand could simply abandon the series, migrating their demand to other games available on their favorite console.

This SG/Cade believes that the fact that Call of Duty has traditionally been a cross-platform game series has a significant influence on the number of users and the sales performance of the franchise. After all, it is a logical inference that the greater the number of hardware platforms on which a given game is playable, the greater the base of potential users and purchasers of that game. Given this context, it is likely that, at least in the short term, Call of Dutywould lose a significant amount of revenue and players if its games were no longer offered to users of the most popular console in the world. In fact, such a hypothetical scenario could not only negatively impact the franchise's numbers, but also favor other multiplatform games similar to Call of Duty that remain on PlayStation, such as competing series such as Battlefield (EA) and Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six (Ubisoft).

Conclusions about exclusivity

Specifically regarding the possibility of closing the game publishing market (upstream), it was found that, despite Microsoft having control of a relevant portion of the console and digital game distribution markets (downstream), the company would not have incentives to make it difficult for publishers competing with Activision Blizzard to access its platforms, as this would necessarily imply a reduction, in quantity and variety, of the catalog of games available in the Xbox ecosystem, making the company's products and services less attractive to consumers

With regard to the possibility of closing downstream markets , the analysis pointed out that, despite their relevance and popularity, Activision Blizzard games – and in particular the Call of Duty series– would not be essential assets to the performance of Microsoft's current and potential competitors in the console and digital game distribution markets (considering, in the latter, both digital stores and multiple game subscription services for PC and consoles). Thus, even if the Activision Blizzard game catalog were to become exclusive to the Microsoft ecosystem after the Transaction, SG/Cade considers that such exclusivity would not result in a substantial reduction in the levels of competition in the downstream markets, even if it could translate into a competitive advantage for Microsoft.

Finally, in relation to the existing complementarity between the activities of Microsoft and Activision Blizzard in the game publishing markets - and especially in the mobile games segment - and online advertising, it was found that the shares held by the Parties in these segments, in all scenarios examined, they are well below the minimum percentage considered for the purpose of presumption of the possibility of closing the market.
 
Last edited:
More info from CADE on why Brazil approved the deal.

EXCLUSIVITY

In Consoles

As can be seen, the tables and graphs presented indicate that Sony is the leading company in the console market both worldwide and nationally, holding in 2021 a much higher share than Microsoft in this segment. It is also noted that, specifically in Brazil, the estimates in table 30 suggest that Sony has achieved market shares of over 60% at least since 2019, evidencing a clear preference of the Brazilian consumer for PlayStation consoles.

Sony's leadership in the console market is not restricted to recent times. In fact, according to data from Statista, PlayStation consoles sold more units worldwide than Xbox consoles in all their generations.

Considering that PlayStation and Xbox consoles traditionally have very similar technical specifications and third-party game catalogs in each iteration, one has to consider why Sony has maintained a consistent leadership in the segment over the years.

According to Microsoft's understanding, the reasons behind such favoritism would be the following: [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE AND APPLICANTS].

Based on all the above, it can be inferred that the game catalog of each console (in terms of quantity, quality and variety) and the loyalty of players to established brands are factors that play, in the consumer decision tree , a more important role than the price and technical specifications of each device.

In the case of the dispute between PlayStation and Xbox – and, more specifically, between PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X – there is a competition between two consoles that have similar technical specifications, similar prices and access to a set of games. from third-party publishers quite similar. Therefore, this SG/Cade believes that the best historical sales performance of Sony's consoles is probably due to other factors, such as: (i) the exclusive games in the ecosystem; and (ii) brand loyalty.

With the acquisition of a publisher such as Activision Blizzard, and considering the (theoretical) risk of the company's content becoming exclusive to Xbox, it is likely that the eventual conclusion of the Transaction will give Microsoft a considerable competitive advantage in the segment. of consoles. Even so, this SG/Cade does not see that such an advantage represents a risk of closing this market for current competitors. As already seen, Nintendo does not currently rely on any content from Activision Blizzard to compete in the market. In turn, Sony has several predicates - strength of the world's leading brand for more than 20 years, extensive experience in the sector, largest user base, largest installed base of consoles, robust catalog of exclusive games, partnerships with multiple publishers.third-party , brand loyal consumers, etc. – which should contribute to maintaining the competitiveness of PlayStation in a possible post-Operation scenario, even in the face of possible loss of access to Activision Blizzard content.

Furthermore, it is important to highlight that the central objective of CADE's activities is the protection of competition as a means of promoting the well-being of the Brazilian consumer, and not the defense of the particular interests of specific competitors . After all, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the holder of the legal assets protected by Law No. 12,529/2011 is the collectivity, and not the competitor/economic agent as an individual entity. In this sense, although it is recognized that part of PlayStation users may decide to migrate to Xbox in the event that Activision Blizzard games - and especially Call of Duty– become exclusive to the Microsoft ecosystem, SG/Cade does not believe that such a possibility represents, in itself, a risk to competition in the console market as a whole.


NINTENDO

The observation of the table above shows that, while the list of best-selling Nintendo Switch games is dominated by exclusive titles published by Nintendo itself, the lists referring to consoles from Microsoft and Sony are very similar, with most of the games listed appearing simultaneously among the best sellers on Xbox and PlayStation. Exceptions to this rule essentially refer to titles exclusive to each platform, such as the Xbox-exclusive Forza Horizon and Halo series games , and PlayStation-exclusive franchises such as Marvel's Spider Man , Ghost of Tsushima , and Ratchet & Clank.

Indeed, Sony itself claims to consider Xbox as a closer rival to PlayStation than Nintendo's console.

Notwithstanding, although the greater proximity between the hardware manufactured by Sony and Microsoft is recognized in terms of competition, this SG/Cade believes that all game consoles compete with each other in the same market, and that the Nintendo console is capable of exert some competitive pressure on PlayStation and Xbox sales. Despite Sony touting the Switch as " more geared towards kids, family and casual games " than rivals, the fact is that many adults who buy consoles today grew up playing games from popular Nintendo franchises such as Mario , The Legend of Zelda , Pokemon , Donkey Kong and Metroid, so the company's brands and characters appeal strongly to consumers of all ages.

SONY

As noted earlier in this opinion, there are currently very few Activision Blizzard games available for the Nintendo Switch (none of them Call of Duty ), and none of these titles appear to be performing particularly well on the platform. Thus, strictly considering the players that currently operate in the console market, it is noted that Sony would be the only company that could be effectively harmed by an eventual Microsoft exclusivity over the Activision Blizzard catalogue.

In this regard, it is important to note that Phil Spencer, the executive who heads the games division at Microsoft, has already publicly stated that he intends to honor the commitments made by Activision Blizzard with Sony, and even keep the launches of Call of Duty and other titles on the market. PlayStation for "several years" beyond current commitments [SUP][ 187 ][/SUP] . Indeed, [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE AND THE APPLICANTS] [SUP][ 188 ][/SUP] . There is, however, no [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE AND THE APPLICANTS] to date

Despite the above, the fact is that, if the Transaction is concluded, the future of Activision Blizzard content on Sony consoles would be uncertain after the lapse of the "several years" mentioned by the CEO of Microsoft Gaming; and, even before that deadline, one cannot rule out the possibility of Microsoft changing the understanding expressed in the aforementioned "public commitment", starting to adopt a different commercial strategy in relation to its biggest rival. Therefore, conservatively, this SG/Cade understands that the analysis of the competitive effects of the Operation must consider the possibility of all Activision Blizzard games becoming exclusive to the Microsoft ecosystem (Xbox consoles, Windows OS, digital stores and subscription services) , despite any claim by the company to the contrary.

It can be seen, in this sense, that Activision Blizzard and Call of Duty represented a portion of the revenue earned by Sony from the sale of game content on PlayStation in 2021 that should not be disregarded. However, the reported percentages do not seem to reflect values whose loss could effectively limit the market leader's ability to continue to compete in the console segment; furthermore, they are not sufficiently representative to the point of characterizing Activision Blizzard's content as an "essential input" to Sony's business.

If on the one hand Activision Blizzard content proves to be important for PlayStation, there are indications that PlayStation [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE] for Activision Blizzard content.

Considering the huge popularity of Call of Duty , it is reasonable to infer that if Activision Blizzard games were no longer available on Sony consoles, PlayStation users could decide to migrate to Xbox, or even a PC, to continue having access to franchise games. On the other hand, it's also reasonable to assume that if upcoming Call of Duty games became exclusive to the Microsoft ecosystem, players loyal to the PlayStation brand could simply abandon the series, migrating their demand to other games available on their favorite console.

This SG/Cade believes that the fact that Call of Duty has traditionally been a cross-platform game series has a significant influence on the number of users and the sales performance of the franchise. After all, it is a logical inference that the greater the number of hardware platforms on which a given game is playable, the greater the base of potential users and purchasers of that game. Given this context, it is likely that, at least in the short term, Call of Dutywould lose a significant amount of revenue and players if its games were no longer offered to users of the most popular console in the world. In fact, such a hypothetical scenario could not only negatively impact the franchise's numbers, but also favor other multiplatform games similar to Call of Duty that remain on PlayStation, such as competing series such as Battlefield (EA) and Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six (Ubisoft).

Conclusions about exclusivity

Specifically regarding the possibility of closing the game publishing market (upstream), it was found that, despite Microsoft having control of a relevant portion of the console and digital game distribution markets (downstream), the company would not have incentives to make it difficult for publishers competing with Activision Blizzard to access its platforms, as this would necessarily imply a reduction, in quantity and variety, of the catalog of games available in the Xbox ecosystem, making the company's products and services less attractive to consumers

With regard to the possibility of closing downstream markets , the analysis pointed out that, despite their relevance and popularity, Activision Blizzard games – and in particular the Call of Duty series– would not be essential assets to the performance of Microsoft's current and potential competitors in the console and digital game distribution markets (considering, in the latter, both digital stores and multiple game subscription services for PC and consoles). Thus, even if the Activision Blizzard game catalog were to become exclusive to the Microsoft ecosystem after the Transaction, SG/Cade considers that such exclusivity would not result in a substantial reduction in the levels of competition in the downstream markets, even if it could translate into a competitive advantage for Microsoft.

Finally, in relation to the existing complementarity between the activities of Microsoft and Activision Blizzard in the game publishing markets - and especially in the mobile games segment - and online advertising, it was found that the shares held by the Parties in these segments, in all scenarios examined, they are well below the minimum percentage considered for the purpose of presumption of the possibility of closing the market.
Lol if more regulators side on this with Brazil lol Jim better sign those papers now and send it over. Clearly making the cma look incompetent.
 

Kagey K

Banned
More info from CADE on why Brazil approved the deal.

EXCLUSIVITY

In Consoles

As can be seen, the tables and graphs presented indicate that Sony is the leading company in the console market both worldwide and nationally, holding in 2021 a much higher share than Microsoft in this segment. It is also noted that, specifically in Brazil, the estimates in table 30 suggest that Sony has achieved market shares of over 60% at least since 2019, evidencing a clear preference of the Brazilian consumer for PlayStation consoles.

Sony's leadership in the console market is not restricted to recent times. In fact, according to data from Statista, PlayStation consoles sold more units worldwide than Xbox consoles in all their generations.

Considering that PlayStation and Xbox consoles traditionally have very similar technical specifications and third-party game catalogs in each iteration, one has to consider why Sony has maintained a consistent leadership in the segment over the years.

According to Microsoft's understanding, the reasons behind such favoritism would be the following: [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE AND APPLICANTS].

Based on all the above, it can be inferred that the game catalog of each console (in terms of quantity, quality and variety) and the loyalty of players to established brands are factors that play, in the consumer decision tree , a more important role than the price and technical specifications of each device.

In the case of the dispute between PlayStation and Xbox – and, more specifically, between PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X – there is a competition between two consoles that have similar technical specifications, similar prices and access to a set of games. from third-party publishers quite similar. Therefore, this SG/Cade believes that the best historical sales performance of Sony's consoles is probably due to other factors, such as: (i) the exclusive games in the ecosystem; and (ii) brand loyalty.

With the acquisition of a publisher such as Activision Blizzard, and considering the (theoretical) risk of the company's content becoming exclusive to Xbox, it is likely that the eventual conclusion of the Transaction will give Microsoft a considerable competitive advantage in the segment. of consoles. Even so, this SG/Cade does not see that such an advantage represents a risk of closing this market for current competitors. As already seen, Nintendo does not currently rely on any content from Activision Blizzard to compete in the market. In turn, Sony has several predicates - strength of the world's leading brand for more than 20 years, extensive experience in the sector, largest user base, largest installed base of consoles, robust catalog of exclusive games, partnerships with multiple publishers.third-party , brand loyal consumers, etc. – which should contribute to maintaining the competitiveness of PlayStation in a possible post-Operation scenario, even in the face of possible loss of access to Activision Blizzard content.

Furthermore, it is important to highlight that the central objective of CADE's activities is the protection of competition as a means of promoting the well-being of the Brazilian consumer, and not the defense of the particular interests of specific competitors . After all, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the holder of the legal assets protected by Law No. 12,529/2011 is the collectivity, and not the competitor/economic agent as an individual entity. In this sense, although it is recognized that part of PlayStation users may decide to migrate to Xbox in the event that Activision Blizzard games - and especially Call of Duty– become exclusive to the Microsoft ecosystem, SG/Cade does not believe that such a possibility represents, in itself, a risk to competition in the console market as a whole.


NINTENDO

The observation of the table above shows that, while the list of best-selling Nintendo Switch games is dominated by exclusive titles published by Nintendo itself, the lists referring to consoles from Microsoft and Sony are very similar, with most of the games listed appearing simultaneously among the best sellers on Xbox and PlayStation. Exceptions to this rule essentially refer to titles exclusive to each platform, such as the Xbox-exclusive Forza Horizon and Halo series games , and PlayStation-exclusive franchises such as Marvel's Spider Man , Ghost of Tsushima , and Ratchet & Clank.

Indeed, Sony itself claims to consider Xbox as a closer rival to PlayStation than Nintendo's console.

Notwithstanding, although the greater proximity between the hardware manufactured by Sony and Microsoft is recognized in terms of competition, this SG/Cade believes that all game consoles compete with each other in the same market, and that the Nintendo console is capable of exert some competitive pressure on PlayStation and Xbox sales. Despite Sony touting the Switch as " more geared towards kids, family and casual games " than rivals, the fact is that many adults who buy consoles today grew up playing games from popular Nintendo franchises such as Mario , The Legend of Zelda , Pokemon , Donkey Kong and Metroid, so the company's brands and characters appeal strongly to consumers of all ages.

SONY

As noted earlier in this opinion, there are currently very few Activision Blizzard games available for the Nintendo Switch (none of them Call of Duty ), and none of these titles appear to be performing particularly well on the platform. Thus, strictly considering the players that currently operate in the console market, it is noted that Sony would be the only company that could be effectively harmed by an eventual Microsoft exclusivity over the Activision Blizzard catalogue.

In this regard, it is important to note that Phil Spencer, the executive who heads the games division at Microsoft, has already publicly stated that he intends to honor the commitments made by Activision Blizzard with Sony, and even keep the launches of Call of Duty and other titles on the market. PlayStation for "several years" beyond current commitments [SUP][ 187 ][/SUP] . Indeed, [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE AND THE APPLICANTS] [SUP][ 188 ][/SUP] . There is, however, no [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE AND THE APPLICANTS] to date

Despite the above, the fact is that, if the Transaction is concluded, the future of Activision Blizzard content on Sony consoles would be uncertain after the lapse of the "several years" mentioned by the CEO of Microsoft Gaming; and, even before that deadline, one cannot rule out the possibility of Microsoft changing the understanding expressed in the aforementioned "public commitment", starting to adopt a different commercial strategy in relation to its biggest rival. Therefore, conservatively, this SG/Cade understands that the analysis of the competitive effects of the Operation must consider the possibility of all Activision Blizzard games becoming exclusive to the Microsoft ecosystem (Xbox consoles, Windows OS, digital stores and subscription services) , despite any claim by the company to the contrary.

It can be seen, in this sense, that Activision Blizzard and Call of Duty represented a portion of the revenue earned by Sony from the sale of game content on PlayStation in 2021 that should not be disregarded. However, the reported percentages do not seem to reflect values whose loss could effectively limit the market leader's ability to continue to compete in the console segment; furthermore, they are not sufficiently representative to the point of characterizing Activision Blizzard's content as an "essential input" to Sony's business.

If on the one hand Activision Blizzard content proves to be important for PlayStation, there are indications that PlayStation [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE] for Activision Blizzard content.

Considering the huge popularity of Call of Duty , it is reasonable to infer that if Activision Blizzard games were no longer available on Sony consoles, PlayStation users could decide to migrate to Xbox, or even a PC, to continue having access to franchise games. On the other hand, it's also reasonable to assume that if upcoming Call of Duty games became exclusive to the Microsoft ecosystem, players loyal to the PlayStation brand could simply abandon the series, migrating their demand to other games available on their favorite console.

This SG/Cade believes that the fact that Call of Duty has traditionally been a cross-platform game series has a significant influence on the number of users and the sales performance of the franchise. After all, it is a logical inference that the greater the number of hardware platforms on which a given game is playable, the greater the base of potential users and purchasers of that game. Given this context, it is likely that, at least in the short term, Call of Dutywould lose a significant amount of revenue and players if its games were no longer offered to users of the most popular console in the world. In fact, such a hypothetical scenario could not only negatively impact the franchise's numbers, but also favor other multiplatform games similar to Call of Duty that remain on PlayStation, such as competing series such as Battlefield (EA) and Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six (Ubisoft).

Conclusions about exclusivity

Specifically regarding the possibility of closing the game publishing market (upstream), it was found that, despite Microsoft having control of a relevant portion of the console and digital game distribution markets (downstream), the company would not have incentives to make it difficult for publishers competing with Activision Blizzard to access its platforms, as this would necessarily imply a reduction, in quantity and variety, of the catalog of games available in the Xbox ecosystem, making the company's products and services less attractive to consumers

With regard to the possibility of closing downstream markets , the analysis pointed out that, despite their relevance and popularity, Activision Blizzard games – and in particular the Call of Duty series– would not be essential assets to the performance of Microsoft's current and potential competitors in the console and digital game distribution markets (considering, in the latter, both digital stores and multiple game subscription services for PC and consoles). Thus, even if the Activision Blizzard game catalog were to become exclusive to the Microsoft ecosystem after the Transaction, SG/Cade considers that such exclusivity would not result in a substantial reduction in the levels of competition in the downstream markets, even if it could translate into a competitive advantage for Microsoft.

Finally, in relation to the existing complementarity between the activities of Microsoft and Activision Blizzard in the game publishing markets - and especially in the mobile games segment - and online advertising, it was found that the shares held by the Parties in these segments, in all scenarios examined, they are well below the minimum percentage considered for the purpose of presumption of the possibility of closing the market.
Be interesting to see if the CMA tries to dispute any of these findings. Seems well researched and a good guideline for other regulators.

I can't find any inaccuracies.
 

Three

Member
Can Microsoft say mobile and throw shade against the app store/play store any more?

sfd9foQ.jpg
I don't even know what the Activison deal is even meant to achieve in that regard. By buying Activision they are going to fight the iOS and Android play store? Makes no sense at all. It's the dumbest thing I've read.
 

modiz

Member
CADE did their job properly and with their reasoning also reminds other regulators what their actual job is, no matter how often Jim flies to Europe to hand over some coffers.
 
Last edited:
idk if MS that petty haha, i expect to be Multi, this cod factory must go on and make revenue stream so MS can invest in other things.
For what it's worth I think they will keep COD multiplatform as they will think having it day and date on Gamepass will be enough of a caret and then they will make all the other AB games exclusive to Xbox.
 
And lose billions while doing that.

I don't think companies are as petty as people on real life.
I don't know, Sony acting pretty damm petty as they come at the moment.
The exact same thing was said about MS not making Bethesda games exclusive as they needed that Playstation coin for Starfield, Fallout and Elder Scrolls.
Microsoft is playing the long game. Losing some short term PS sales while increasing revenue from GP and Xbox sales would be more than acceptable to them.
 

12Dannu123

Member
I don't even know what the Activison deal is even meant to achieve in that regard. By buying Activision they are going to fight the iOS and Android play store? Makes no sense at all. It's the dumbest thing I've read.

Yes they can fight the App Store and Play Store in the gaming front. They are lobbying for sideloading on IOS, they also a Cloud Gaming service, which means that they can bypass the both IOS and Android stores for all types of games.
 

Three

Member
Yes they can fight the App Store and Play Store in the gaming front. They are lobbying for sideloading on IOS, they also a Cloud Gaming service, which means that they can bypass the both IOS and Android stores for all types of games.


And why wouldn't Activision or other publishers do this already if it were possible to fight for sideloading? A buyout would achieve nothing. Epic already tried as a publisher and failed in court. How are they trying to suggest this will fight the app store with their own "fair" app store, especially when they themselves prevent sideloading on their system.

What stopped Activision from providing cloud before too? Both Activision and Bethesda actively removed their games from streaming services like Geforce Now prior to being bought.

It's strange that the market segments are not separated and MS is leaning in on mobile.

"Finally, in relation to the existing complementarity between the activities of Microsoft and Activision Blizzard in the game publishing markets - and especially in the mobile games segment - and online advertising, it was found that the shares held by the Parties in these segments, in all scenarios examined, are well below the minimum percentage considered for the purpose of presumption of the possibility of closing the market, as defined in article 8, IV of CADE Resolution No. 33/2022."

They are using mobile as the reason that there is no possibility of "closing the market" because their percentage is low there. CADE seem to think this is about mobile but that's not where this is going to make the biggest dent.

The damage to console gaming is going to be big, the benefit to mobile gaming inconsequential.
 
Last edited:

onesvenus

Member
Demanded some concessions until Disney couldn't sell Fox Sports and then they allowed Disney to fold it under ESPN lol. US, EU were way harsher since the former required divestiture of RSN and the latter required divestiture of A&E.

That said this is good news for Microsoft.
Even then, Brasil was still saying no while the US had already approved the deal. Bob Iger himself met with CADE to push for its approval and left empty handed.
 

reksveks

Member
I don't even know what the Activison deal is even meant to achieve in that regard. By buying Activision they are going to fight the iOS and Android play store? Makes no sense at all. It's the dumbest thing I've read.
Their argument is probably going to be that they need King and COD Mobile to create a genuine alternative to the App Store and Android Play Store. I am not sure thats even possible looking at the lack of success that the Samsung Play Store had even with Fortnite.

And why wouldn't Activision or other publishers do this already if it were possible to fight for sideloading? Epic already tried as a publisher and failed in court. How are they trying to suggest this will fight the app store with their own "fair" app store, especially when they themselves prevent sideloading on their system.
Unsurprisingly very few devs wants to bite the hand that feeds them. Epic is appealing and and remember that this is a hot topic for the US (OAMA) and the EU (DMA) and also South Korea (https://www.macobserver.com/news/ap...rust Regulators Raid Apple Korea Headquarters)

"Finally, in relation to the existing complementarity between the activities of Microsoft and Activision Blizzard in the game publishing markets - and especially in the mobile games segment - and online advertising, it was found that the shares held by the Parties in these segments, in all scenarios examined, are well below the minimum percentage considered for the purpose of presumption of the possibility of closing the market, as defined in article 8, IV of CADE Resolution No. 33/2022."

They are using mobile as the reason that there is no possibility of "closing the market" because their percentage is low there. CADE seem to think this is about mobile but that's not where this is going to make the biggest dent.

The damage to console gaming is going to be big, the benefit to mobile gaming inconsequential.

They use mobile as 'a rmarket' not 'the reason'. You have the % of console revenue related to ABK vs % of mobile revenue related to ABK?
 

Three

Member
Their argument is probably going to be that they need King and COD Mobile to create a genuine alternative to the App Store and Android Play Store. I am not sure thats even possible looking at the lack of success that the Samsung Play Store had even with Fortnite.

It's an absolutely ridiculous idea that this aquisition will fight the app store. Sideloading has already lost in court and their solution is something that hasn't gotten anywhere on the platform (streaming) to somehow fight it with another "fair" app store.


They use mobile as 'a rmarket' not 'the reason'. You have the % of console revenue related to ABK vs % of mobile revenue related to ABK?


I don't have that figure unfortunately but I'm not sure that's what it's referring to.

Here is some info if you're just looking for info: https://www.pcgamer.com/activision-...s-last-quarter-than-pc-and-consoles-combined/

But From my interpretation it seems to suggest that they would not corner a market because MS + ABK as publishers do not have a high percentage of that market. Meaning ABK+MS % of the overall game publishing market.
In terms of mobile I would agree ABK and MS probably don't have a high enough percentage even though ABK has Candy Crush. For console gaming though that percentage would be pretty massive, especially since they have bought Zenimax too.
 
Last edited:

Godot25

Banned
So basically CADE agrees with general gist.
This deal does not hurt overall market, Call of Duty is not some allmighty game that is required to be competitive thanks to Nintendo that does not have Call of Duty and only "party" hurt by this deal is Sony.

Cool
 

MistBreeze

Member
I think it is for the best

Activision has a lot of studios and IPs but they only make COD for the most part

They dedicate all of their studios to cod and warzone and I do not like that

Maybe Microsoft can change that

As for Sony they have no excuse, they can protect their own interests themselves

They bought several talented studios and bungie

They can buy Capcom or Square, they can take a longterm loan or whatever and buy EA if they really want to, its Jim Ryans call

and what is the worst case scenario for Sony?

negotiate with Microsoft and allowing gamepass on playstation is a plus for playstation consumers
 

Three

Member
They use mobile as 'a rmarket' not 'the reason'. You have the % of console revenue related to ABK vs % of mobile revenue related to ABK?
So here is the relevant info regarding that:

Activision Blizzard earned $332 million on the PC during the quarter, and $376 million on combined console sales. That's a lot of money! Under the "mobile and ancillary" category, however—which Activision Blizzard said "primarily include revenues from mobile devices"—the company pulled in a whopping $831 million for the quarter. It earned a further $105 million in revenues for the quarter in the "Other" category
 

reksveks

Member
It's an absolutely ridiculous idea that this aquisition will fight the app store. Sideloading has already lost in court and their solution is something that hasn't gotten anywhere on the platform (streaming) or another "fair" app store.
The alternatives won't take off until there is passing for the OAMA. The DMA is been passed but its going to go to the courts. Its not just about the courts, its about regulators who are also looking into apple and google at the same time for things that Microsoft says that they have alternatives to. (https://www.imore.com/apple/apple-could-be-in-trouble-with-the-doj-as-an-antitrust-suit-looms)

Another 'fair' app store hasn't really been given a good try imo. I think this is a stretch of an argument but can see why they have made it.

But From my interpretation it seems to suggest that they would not corner a market because MS + ABK as publishers do not have a high percentage of that market. Meaning ABK+MS % of the overall game publishing market.
In terms of mobile I would agree ABK and MS probably don't have a high enough percentage even though ABK has Candy Crush. For console gaming though that percentage would be pretty massive, especially since they have bought Zenimax too.

So here is the relevant info regarding that:

Activision Blizzard earned $332 million on the PC during the quarter, and $376 million on combined console sales. That's a lot of money! Under the "mobile and ancillary" category, however—which Activision Blizzard said "primarily include revenues from mobile devices"—the company pulled in a whopping $831 million for the quarter. It earned a further $105 million in revenues for the quarter in the "Other" category

Cheers, had opened the latest earning document.

Think that is what we need to clarify, I think given that console (2bn) and mobile revenue for ABK (3.2bn) is the same or largely for mobile. I think that ABK's % for each market isn't going to be too different. Think it doesn't 100% correlate to the impact in within each market. Unfortunately there isn't a good way to see what MS Gaming revenue comes from a normal publisher rev stream.
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
I think that ABK's % for each market isn't going to be too different.

How do you figure? ABK, EA, and Ubisoft are huge console publishers but they have very little marketshare on mobile.

Even if a case is brought (it hasn't yet) it's ridiculous to say you want to fight the app store or side loading while your alternative is your own '30%' "fair" app store and you have a system that prevents side loading.

If the app store were to be taken apart it would mean publishers like Activision can sell without middlemen like Apple, Google or MS anyway.
 
Last edited:

Banjo64

cumsessed
Clearly making the cma look incompetent.
Be interesting to see if the CMA tries to dispute any of these findings. Seems well researched and a good guideline for other regulators.

I can't find any inaccuracies.
Someone should send this to CMA
How dare the CMA consider future competition (or lack thereof) in the cloud streaming and subscription market. Those fucking clueless corrupt bastards, clearly in Sony’s pocket.

Like the world famous beacon of non-corruption, Brazil, they should just be looking at this through a single one dimensional lens.
 

reksveks

Member
How do you figure? ABK, EA, and Ubisoft are huge console publishers but they have very little marketshare on mobile.
Mobile is dominated by other players, just doing a simple rough calculation of ABK's mobile revenue divided by mobile gaming revenue.

2bn out of the 50bn = 4% of console
3bn out of the 90bn = 3% of mobile

https://newzoo.com/insights/article...et-is-on-track-to-surpass-200-billion-in-2023

There is the big factor of console software revenue needed to be split out of the 50bn.

What are ABK's top drivers in the mobile space?
Candy Crush is the big one, then COD mobile and now Diablo Immortal but its Candy Crush.
 

Darsxx82

Member
Hmm

"It is important to highlight that the central objective of CADE's activities is the protection of competition for Brazilian consumers, and not the defense of the particular interests of specific competitors."

gg
In the CMA report their "concerns" were exclusively limited to the possible effect of the acquisition on Sony's revenues and profits and whether it could cause Playstation users to lose...
Absolutely 0% "concerns" about the effects for the user, the workers of Act-Blz, the Third Party ...... and not on Nintendo, which is also a provider of console hardware and does not have COD in its catalog and is still successful.


A report where they said stupid things like "MS has a market leading console"...🤣 The Brazilian competition commission, apart from being transparent by publishing the works, has entered into all aspects and puts the user and workers above....
 

phil_t98

#SonyToo
Going by Sony's past successes in other markets like making WALKMANs a ubiquitous portable music device for children to grandparents, and the market growth PlayStation and PlayStation 2 were delivering, you might consider that it has been Xbox's presence as the unnatural survivor - being propped up eternally by MSFT - that has stopped the market leaders from growing the market over the last 2 decades - because they are already fighting a financial goliath that doesn't bow out after losing repeatedly - and both PlayStation and Nintendo only have enough to survive that market clash each gen, leaving nothing spare to focus on market growth like they did before Xbox arrived.

In fact, it was MSFT's observation that PlayStation's growth would ultimately impact Windows that MSFT entered the console market, so in many ways they've achieved a goal - that's anti consumer - by hampering console market growth as they originally intended.


microsoft was worried that playstation would impact windows? you do know how many pc's have windows and a windows licence don't you?
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
In the CMA report their "concerns" were exclusively limited to the possible effect of the acquisition on Sony's revenues and profits and whether it could cause Playstation users to lose...
So can you not even read?

First paragraph;

After examining a range of evidence, the CMA believes that the Merger meets the threshold for reference to an in-depth phase 2 investigation, giving rise to a realistic prospect of a substantial lessening of competition (SLC) in gaming consoles, multi-game subscription services, and cloud gaming services.

2nd page;

Subscription services and cloud gaming are growing
7. The CMA believes the gaming industry is in a transitional phase. Over the past several years, gamers have typically accessed games by paying an up-front fee and downloading the relevant games from a digital storefront (such as the Xbox Store) to their console or device (such as a PC or mobile). For consoles this ‘buy-to-play’ model, whereby the gamer pays for the game in full and then accesses the software locally on their device, remains the primary mode of delivering games.
8. In recent years, two important and closely related disruptions have started to emerge in the gaming industry. The first is the development of cloud gaming services, a technology that allows complex games to be accessed on remote servers and streamed directly to a device. Since games are executed remotely, gamers can play using a range of devices that can be less powerful, and are often cheaper, than consoles (such as mobile phones or tablets). There have been several recent entrants into the gaming industry using this disruptive technology, including Amazon Luna, Netflix, Google Stadia, Blacknut, NVIDIA GeForce Now, as well as publishers like Ubisoft. Many industry experts predict that cloud gaming will continue to grow significantly in the coming years.
9. The second important development is the emergence of multi-game subscription services. Unlike the traditional buy-to-play model, these services allow gamers to access a catalogue of games for a fixed, often monthly, fee. Some subscription services currently offer games that must be downloaded and played on consoles, with a smaller selection of games that can be streamed from cloud infrastructure (such as Xbox Game Pass), and other subscription services offer gaming libraries that are entirely cloud-based (such as Amazon Luna and Google Stadia). While most of the revenue in the industry continues to be generated from the purchase of
Page 2 of 8

individual games, multi-game subscription services are rapidly growing and have attracted a range of new entrants, including Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Amazon, Apple, Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, NVIDIA, Netflix, Utomik, Blacknut, and Google.
10. Although the console gaming market is highly concentrated, the CMA believes that the shift to cloud gaming services and multi-game subscription services is opening a window of opportunity for new entrants. To succeed, these new entrants will need to offer a strong gaming catalogue that will attract users. Cloud gaming service providers will also need access to cloud infrastructure and an operating system (OS) license (especially Windows OS, which is the operating system for which most PC games are designed).

I won’t even bother to go on through the remainder of the 8 pages, because you’ve clearly never bothered to read it yourself.
 

reksveks

Member
microsoft was worried that playstation would impact windows? you do know how many pc's have windows and a windows licence don't you?
They might have thought that at the start but would have definitely been corrected a couple of years afterwards.

Remember when a decent chunk of people thought that mobile was going to kill laptops.
 

jhjfss

Member
They are using mobile as the reason that there is no possibility of "closing the market" because their percentage is low there. CADE seem to think this is about mobile but that's not where this is going to make the biggest dent.
They have entire sections dedicated to PC, sony, nintendo, consoles, and mobile. CADE dosent think its all about mobile, you do, because you haven't read the whole document.
 

DenchDeckard

Moderated wildly
What a ride...one side swings for a haymaker, Jim Ryan goes sees his Conservative buddies in the cma spins them a yarn about cats and dogs and they swing back...how exciting...then the other side swings a haymaker while philly Spencer showers us with dreams of fairness and gaming equality for all, especially those with purple hair...

...me, I just sit here and realise my medication might have kicked in.
 
How dare the CMA consider future competition (or lack thereof) in the cloud streaming and subscription market. Those fucking clueless corrupt bastards, clearly in Sony’s pocket.

Like the world famous beacon of non-corruption, Brazil, they should just be looking at this through a single one dimensional lens.
Sony can compete in the subscription market by copying Microsoft's strategy. If they don't want to do that, that's their own fault.

Regarding cloud, Microsoft will always have the advantage of having their own server infrastructure, as do Google, Amazon and Nvidia. It has nothing to do with the ABK deal, though.
 
I think it is for the best

Activision has a lot of studios and IPs but they only make COD for the most part

They dedicate all of their studios to cod and warzone and I do not like that

Maybe Microsoft can change that

As for Sony they have no excuse, they can protect their own interests themselves

They bought several talented studios and bungie

They can buy Capcom or Square, they can take a longterm loan or whatever and buy EA if they really want to, its Jim Ryans call

and what is the worst case scenario for Sony?

negotiate with Microsoft and allowing gamepass on playstation is a plus for playstation consumers

Let me be clear on that, Sony is only worried because if the deal goes through they can say goodbye to CoD exclusive partnership (while MS would be the ones with exclusive content, day 1 release on gamepass, etc..), meaning less revenue, they couldn't care less about the rest of IPs.

I find this really funny because Sony barely moved a finger when MS made public their intentions of acquiring Bethesda, and that's probably because ES, Doom, or any other Bethesda IP doesn't make as much money as CoD. If CoD wasn't part of AB Sony wouldn't be complaining at all, and that says a lot about how they care about consumers, or how they like to say "the players".

The deal will go through, it's just a matter of time.
 
Last edited:

Banjo64

cumsessed
Sony can compete in the subscription market by copying Microsoft's strategy. If they don't want to do that, that's their own fault.
You yourself don’t even know if that is true, because you don’t know the margins with Game Pass.

If Sony are hypothetically making £500m per year PROFIT on first party sales, but would only make £100m per year profit releasing everything day one on PS Plus, how is it within their power as a publicly traded company to voluntarily give up £400m a year in profit?

‘If Sony don’t want to give up £400m a year in profit, it’s their fault’ - do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?

Regarding cloud, Microsoft will always have the advantage of having their own server infrastructure, as do Google, Amazon and Nvidia. It has nothing to do with the ABK deal, though.
It does though, which is why it is being scrutinised.

Microsoft has other business areas that are relevant to gaming. One is Azure, a leading cloud platform (ie a network of data centres and cloud computing infrastructure) that offers a wide range of services across several industries, including gaming. Another is Windows, the leading PC operating system. Many people play games on a PC rather than a console, and the vast majority of them use Windows OS. Because of its popularity, game developers generally make games that are designed and optimised for Windows OS.

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom