Eddie-Griffin
Banned
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/mi...g-the-company-doesnt-make-any-must-have-games
This contradicts the theory that Microsoft will be open with Activisions games on other platforms outside of contracts. If Microsoft believes that, or is saying they believe Activision doesn't make "must have" games, that excuse would only really make sense if they wanted to try and address the concern that several of those games may become console exclusive. I can't see any other case where they would use wording that specific.
I assume that is regulators biggest concern, and Microsoft is trying to downplay them with this statement.
To be fair to Microsoft, on the Activision end at least, COD would be the only point of concern regarding this issue these days. So if they can get around regulators concern for this one series, they can probably get this deal done by August or September without having to convince regulators about Blizzards stuff. That could be advantageous given the rather dry holiday lineup this year.
“Specifically, with respect to Activision Blizzard video games, there is nothing unique about the video games developed and published by Activision Blizzard that is a ‘must have’ for rival PC and console video game distributors that could give rise to a foreclosure concern,” read Microsoft’s response to the New Zealand Commerce Commission, published in a report from June. That means that Microsoft don’t consider their future ownership of Activision Blizzard’s franchises such as Call Of Duty to cause issues that would prevent their rivals – among whom they identify Valve in the PC space – from competing against them.
Bear in mind that Call Of Duty alone has raked in $27 billion (£22 billion) for Activision Blizzard since the series debuted in 2003, as an earnings call revealed last year. At the time of that call, the company’s Chief Operating Officer Daniel Alegre said Call Of Duty was “one of the most successful entertainment franchises of all time”.
This contradicts the theory that Microsoft will be open with Activisions games on other platforms outside of contracts. If Microsoft believes that, or is saying they believe Activision doesn't make "must have" games, that excuse would only really make sense if they wanted to try and address the concern that several of those games may become console exclusive. I can't see any other case where they would use wording that specific.
I assume that is regulators biggest concern, and Microsoft is trying to downplay them with this statement.
To be fair to Microsoft, on the Activision end at least, COD would be the only point of concern regarding this issue these days. So if they can get around regulators concern for this one series, they can probably get this deal done by August or September without having to convince regulators about Blizzards stuff. That could be advantageous given the rather dry holiday lineup this year.