Support NeoGAF

[Three]

But does this impact the market so significantly that Sony or anyone else is not able to compete because of it? Of course not, not even close.

You are the one who said they failed because they used linux, not me. Now you are saying it wasn't a major factor.

 

[Banjo64]

From a regulatory perspective is it about survival or removal from the market because they cannot compete? The Brazilian agency seemed to believe competition would remain and customers are protected.

Ok? And that's fantastic. And each regulatory body will come to their own conclusions/interpretations individually.

That should be the primary focus for every agency not protecting Sony's market position.

No one is trying to protect Sony from what I have read, and in my opinion, only a childish mind could interpret it in that way.

Sony may lose market share but won't be removed from the industry over this acquisition.

As long as they can realistically remain competitive with Microsoft, and not some small footnote, then no one has anything to worry about

 

[PaintTinJr]

All regulation agencies need to approve the deal. If one of them does not it's up to Microsoft to decide what to do but that doesn't imply it's not cleared.
Again, Brazil was one of the last regulation agencies to clear the Disney deal, even after the US had approved the deal. Bob Iger itself went to Brazil to have a meeting with CADE to solve it and he left empty handed. That should tell you if it's important or not.

Well AFAIK from reading a little about this deal, it will go ahead so long as the US, EU or UK don't block it. These are the main gaming markets for A-AAA games industry games for Activision/Blizzard and probably King mobile stuff too, so I suspect even if they didn't get approval in Brazil they would still go ahead and deal with Brazil's market differently. For Disney they probably needed all regions because of some different reason, optics for shareholders with their debt level? i don't know.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Why would they not try and compete. Sounds like a bizarre reason. "Hey we've decided to not try and compete".

Stadia Games closed blaming the Bethesda buyout. It probably bid but it couldn't justify they cost with the marketshare. It failed to partner or incentives any major publishers to release on the platform outside of the huge money sink it initially spent paying the likes of Rockstar and Ubisoft for them to release on their platform. They tried, but it was difficult.

Do you honestly, and I mean HONESTLY believe stadias failure had ANYTHING to do with the bethesda buyout?

And, nothing to do with Googles absolutely terrible decisions and marketing...plus the laundry list of google failures that can easily be viewed below......

Killed by Google

Killed by Google is the open source list of dead Google products, services, and devices. It serves as a tribute and memorial of beloved services and products killed by Google.

killedbygoogle.com

 

[adamsapple]

Ok? And that's fantastic. And each regulatory body will come to their own conclusions/interpretations individually.

Of course, but this sets the precedent as CADE was the first big one where we got to see first hand what kind of objections and investigations were being raised.

This should pave a way for the kind of results most others should be giving out as well since they objections are about the same everywhere.

Do you honestly, and I mean HONESTLY believe stadias failure had ANYTHING to do with the bethesda buyout?

Everyone knows there's no real correlation between the two. Harrison used it as an excuse while shutting down Stadia's first party game development studios.

Like, what does a third party being acquired have to do with you shutting down your first party studios.

Imagine if Sony shuts down Naughty Dogs when the Activision buyout is complete. It's a preposterous assertion, right ?

 

[Thirty7ven]

Braziu is a banana republic they hold as much weight on this matter as Nicaragua.

 

[DarkMage619]

Ok? And that's fantastic. And each regulatory body will come to their own conclusions/interpretations individually.

If the agency isn't focused on consumer protection and fair competition what are they doing?

No one is trying to protect Sony from what I have read, and in my opinion, only a childish mind could interpret it in that way.

The initial CMA review certainly read like they were most concerned about Sony's market position. They even mimicked similar arguments Sony made to CADE. Rick Hoeg mentioned that in his analysis video. I wouldn't call him childish at all.

As long as they can realistically remain competitive with Microsoft, and not some small footnote, then no one has anything to worry about

There is no chance of Sony being a small footnote. They've been in the industry longer than MS has. As mentioned earlier Nintendo is doing fantastically without any real support from Activision.

Of course we never mention that MS has not stated they will remove any games from PlayStation. In fact they've said the opposite. This whole deal is about getting more games into Game pass and that doesn't really affect PlayStation much at all. Many of those fans hate sub services anyway.

 

[onesvenus]

Well AFAIK from reading a little about this deal, it will go ahead so long as the US, EU or UK don't block it. These are the main gaming markets for A-AAA games industry games for Activision/Blizzard and probably King mobile stuff too, so I suspect even if they didn't get approval in Brazil they would still go ahead and deal with Brazil's market differently. For Disney they probably needed all regions because of some different reason, optics for shareholders with their debt level? i don't know.

I'd love to get your cristal ball. I could see the deal going through even if some concessions need to be done in some of the markets but not in some others.

 

[Ozriel]

I don't think I did call them 'corrupt'.

You did say 'Like the world famous bastion of corruption'…

That is their interpretation and as noted, it appears that they are looking no further than 6 years in to the future in their findings.

They are using available expert projections that show growth will remain slow. The point they're making is extremely clear that streaming will not be a threat to traditional means of game distribution anytime soon.

Certainly not enough to disrupt plans for the next generation of consoles.

And? Could Google not have simply bundled a Stadia tier in to one of their many Google subscriptions? Google Play Pass, YouTube Premium etc?

They could have, yes.

And why is that?

Because Google is in cost-cutting mode? They certainly didn't can their Pixelbook division because of unfair competition. They closed their VR division.
Then killing Stadia is fully in line with with CADE's conclusion - drawn from expert analysis - that the cloud streaming market is niche.

 

[Three]

Do you honestly, and I mean HONESTLY believe stadias failure had ANYTHING to do with the bethesda buyout?

And, nothing to do with Googles absolutely terrible decisions and marketing...plus the laundry list of google failures that can easily be viewed below......

http://[URL]https://killedbygoogle.com/

[/URL]

I believe that they failed to get content and especially exclusive content because the major players and their market share make it more difficult for them to. Buyouts of major publishers and their install base mean they can't secure content without making the buyout more risky in terms of investment vs return Anyway I'm not the one saying it. It was the stadia head who said it before any regulators got involved in this deal. I don't have enough knowledge of what was going on in the background at stadia to make a conclusion that's better than theirs. They could be disingenuous though but I don't see why they would be.

 

[Ozriel]

Ok? And that's fantastic. And each regulatory body will come to their own conclusions/interpretations individually.

The chances that other regulators won't at least read through this decision is very remote.

As long as they can realistically remain competitive with Microsoft, and not some small footnote, then no one has anything to worry about

If this was all there was to this, approvals would come in a week.
Extremely unlikely that Sony doesn't preserve their dominance for many years to come, let alone being merely 'competitive'.

 

[Banjo64]

If the agency isn't focused on consumer protection and fair competition what are they doing?

Which agency isn't focussed on consumer protection and fair competition?

The initial CMA review certainly read like they were most concerned about Sony's market position. They even mimicked similar arguments Sony made to CADE. Rick Hoeg mentioned that in his analysis video. I wouldn't call him childish at all.

Ok? All that suggests to me is that Sony have raised some valid concerns, and that a regulator has found similar cause for concern.

There is no chance of Sony being a small footnote. They've been in the industry longer than MS has. As mentioned earlier Nintendo is doing fantastically without any real support from Activision.

Nintendo's first party brand power is stronger than Sony's, by far. Sony could only wish to have a franchise like Mario or Pokémon.

Of course we never mention that MS has not stated they will remove any games from PlayStation. In fact they've said the opposite. This whole deal is about getting more games into Game pass and that doesn't really affect PlayStation much at all.

Microsoft have fulfilled contractual obligations for games like Psychonauts, Deathloop and Ghostwire. They've subsequently committed nothing else to PlayStation, aside from CoD for 3 years. Starfield, TES and Redfall, no.

 

[Ozriel]

I believe that they failed to get content and especially exclusive content because the major players and their market share make it more difficult for them to.

Hogwash. The real reason they struggled with getting content is because they went with a Linux build that required games to be ported across.
Exclusive content makes only a small portion of games released.

Ironically, their biggest titles - Doom Eternal and Destiny 2 - are tied to purchased devs/studios.

Anyway I'm not the one saying it. It was the stadia head who said it before any regulators got involved in this deal.

There's a reason the fellow never said this publicly. He'd be laughed out of the room. Probably 90% of multiplatform, 3rd party games didn't get a Stadia release.

He made that statement when closing down their first party studios, and it certainly didn't even make sense back then. Nobody response to potential removal of content by shutting in their own first party pipeline.

 

[SportsFan581]

Nobody response to potential removal of content by shutting in their own first party pipeline.

IKR, quite a leap of logic that the best way forward when consolidation was potentially removing content was to cancel in-house content creation.

Not that anyone believes that was the real ethos behind the decision anyway, the real reason was because they could see that it wasn't viable to release quality content as platform exclusive with the number of users they had. And rather than eat the losses to build a brand (like MS likely did during the OG Xbox era on a lot of titles) or support PC releases to boost sales potential, they cut bait.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

"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."

We need that slide from the game where the question "what would you do for sex?"

 

[SteelCurtain 59]

And lose billions while doing that.

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

The only way COD being exclusive would lose Microsoft "billions" is if most of the COD fans on Playstation all decide that they actually don't care about COD and will now play Destiny instead or become a single player gamer. Which I don't know about you but that sounds a little far fetched, the COD community on Playstation will almost certainly find a way to access COD, whether it be buying an Xbox, playing on PC, or streaming via xCloud. And given the fact to Microsoft a consumer on Xbox is worth substantially more than a user on Playstation, so they could get similar revenue by only attracting a small fraction of Playstation COD players into the Xbox ecosystem.

To be clear I'm not arguing for what I want, as I'd rather there be no exclusives honestly, but I just think people are overlooking or ignoring the potential revenue gain Microsoft would get by making COD exclusive

 

[PaintTinJr]

I'd love to get your cristal ball. I could see the deal going through even if some concessions need to be done in some of the markets but not in some others.

And so, could I but I think the UK and EU will ultimately see the deal blocked by asking MSFT for information they won't be willing to give.

Take for instance if they said they need them to provide full accounts for xbox back to 2001(or when the project R&D first began) to verify that it is profitable and not some phantom platform player waiting in the wings for MSFT.

I don't think MSFT would provide that info and would rather walk away - at the cost of giving ACTIV the $3b for pulling out. If they haven't and won't give that info to shareholders, they aren't giving it to a regulator IMO.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Because buying a publisher for $70B when you have an install base of 2M is not a sound investment.

Microsoft literally went against enormous PS2 when they joined the console market, bought Rare and studios (like Bungie) and were bleeding money for years to complete. Google did not want to invest, because - honestly - Google does not know how to do anything that does not generate the immediate profit.

 

[SportsFan581]

And so, could I but I think the UK and EU will ultimately see the deal blocked by asking MSFT for information they won't be willing to give.

Take for instance if they said they need them to provide full accounts for xbox back to 2001(or when the project R&D first began) to verify that it is profitable and not some phantom platform player waiting in the wings for MSFT.

I don't think MSFT would provide that info and would rather walk away - at the cost of giving ACTIV the $3b for pulling out. If they haven't and won't give that info to shareholders, they aren't giving it to a regulator IMO.

As if admitting to a lifetime net loss would be so damning that they would walk away an eat a $3b penalty. I'm not seeing it, the information they provide wouldn't be for public consumption anyway, even if that were the case (which I don't think it is). Seems like that would only strengthen MS's argument since MS pulling out of the market, given their current position in it, would be a much bigger blow to the competitive landscape than this acquisition closing. Developers of modern games would basically be up the creek without a paddle if that played out.

I don't think MS, or any other business for that matter, has this strange desire to have a certain project be this or that over a lifetime. They live in the here and now, losses that were written off years ago are history and so are successes/profits for that matter. Decisions are always going to be made with a closer eye on the current numbers combined with speculation for future outcomes.

 

[Infamy v1]

Braziu is a banana republic they hold as much weight on this matter as Nicaragua.

Brazil was able to get consessions from the Disney Fox merger after being adamantly against it. But hey, keep telling yourself lies to make yourself sleep better at night. This is a much bigger deal then lots of you think.

 

[adamsapple]

And so, could I but I think the UK and EU will ultimately see the deal blocked by asking MSFT for information they won't be willing to give.

Take for instance if they said they need them to provide full accounts for xbox back to 2001(or when the project R&D first began) to verify that it is profitable and not some phantom platform player waiting in the wings for MSFT.

I don't think MSFT would provide that info and would rather walk away - at the cost of giving ACTIV the $3b for pulling out. If they haven't and won't give that info to shareholders, they aren't giving it to a regulator IMO.

huuuuuhhhh ?? Why would they need to unearth 21+ years of earnings ?

My dude I'm going to assume you're making these posts on purpose now.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

And so, could I but I think the UK and EU will ultimately see the deal blocked by asking MSFT for information they won't be willing to give.

Take for instance if they said they need them to provide full accounts for xbox back to 2001(or when the project R&D first began) to verify that it is profitable and not some phantom platform player waiting in the wings for MSFT.

I don't think MSFT would provide that info and would rather walk away - at the cost of giving ACTIV the $3b for pulling out. If they haven't and won't give that info to shareholders, they aren't giving it to a regulator IMO.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

The rumor mill has Sony closing in on an acquisition themselves

Then it is not happening Because stuff like this does not leak.

 

[DarkMage619]

Which agency isn't focussed on consumer protection and fair competition?

The CMA's initial comments didn't seem to be particularly focused on consumer protection. Hopefully they will make an neutral and fair assessment.

Ok? All that suggests to me is that Sony have raised some valid concerns, and that a regulator has found similar cause for concern.

Sony's concerns are only about Sony. They aren't worried about protecting consumers. Didn't they raise prices on games and consoles during a massive inflationary period?

Nintendo's first party brand power is stronger than Sony's, by far. Sony could only wish to have a franchise like Mario or Pokémon.

Lots of people like God of War and The Last of Us. Those games are very important to the PlayStation ecosystem and there is nothing MS can do to take them away. I would argue that Sony's brand is just as strong as Nintendo's. Nintendo has just be around longer.

Microsoft have fulfilled contractual obligations for games like Psychonauts, Deathloop and Ghostwire. They've subsequently committed nothing else to PlayStation, aside from CoD for 3 years. Starfield, TES and Redfall, no.

Which means MS has been honorable and done what they've said they were going to do. If Sony approached MS with a good offer perhaps MS will put more of their IP on PlayStation and extend CoD longer term. It just has to be on terms favorable to MS. MS has put far more of their IP on other platforms than competitors have on theirs. It's business at the end of the day.

 

[The_Mike]

I'm telling you that Sony can't simply choose to do something that tanks their entire organisation - as it would for most other companies.


That's some reach

Reach? Its the exact same thing lol.

Only difference is, according to you, Microsoft is not allowed to do it because Sony can't afford it.

Hypocrite at its finest.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

I'm telling you that Sony can't simply choose to do something that tanks their entire organisation - as it would for most other companies.

Are you implying that Sony would die without their first party game profits? I'm gonna need receipts because as far as I know, Sony makes the most money off 3rd party sales, by far.

 

[SportsFan581]

Are you implying that Sony would die without their first party game profits? I'm gonna need receipts because as far as I know, Sony makes the most money off 3rd party sales, by far.

They've already released pie charts showing how insignificant their first-party software revenue is in comparison to the revenue they make from micro transactions alone.

 

[Banjo64]

The CMA's initial comments didn't seem to be particularly focused on consumer protection. Hopefully they will make an neutral and fair assessment.

They definitely did seem to be focussed on consumer protection

Sony's concerns are only about Sony. They aren't worried about protecting consumers. Didn't they raise prices on games and consoles during a massive inflationary period?

No shit. That doesn't mean the two things can't align though (something that can benefit Sony can also ensure there is fair competition in the future).

And yeah, they did raise prices, the fucking orcs. Has nothing to do with this though.

Lots of people like God of War and The Last of Us. Those games are very important to the PlayStation ecosystem and there is nothing MS can do to take them away. I would argue that Sony's brand is just as strong as Nintendo's. Nintendo has just be around longer.

See you are just using spaghetti logic now. You can tart it up however you like, but factually; Pokémon and Mario are absolute behemoths compared to anything that Sony has ever had (and will ever have). The cultural mindshare that those two IP have is unique.

Which means MS has been honorable and done what they've said they were going to do. If Sony approached MS with a good offer perhaps MS will put more of their IP on PlayStation and extend CoD longer term. It just has to be on terms favorable to MS. MS has put far more of their IP on other platforms than competitors have on theirs. It's business at the end of the day.

Initially you said;

Of course we never mention that MS has not stated they will remove any games from PlayStation. In fact they've said the opposite. This whole deal is about getting more games into Game pass and that doesn't really affect PlayStation much at all.

Barmy way of just saying 'MS had tried to commit to keeping CoD and CoD alone on PS for 3 years'

 

[Banjo64]

Are you implying that Sony would die without their first party game profits? I'm gonna need receipts because as far as I know, Sony makes the most money off 3rd party sales, by far.

Third parties like CoD by any chance? But no, we were talking about hypotheticals.

 

[Banjo64]

Reach? Its the exact same thing lol.

Only difference is, according to you, Microsoft is not allowed to do it because Sony can't afford it.

Hypocrite at its finest.

Do you even know what a hypocrite is? I don't think I've even given a personal view in this thread, just tried to explain the CMA's viewpoint to some illiterates.

 

[Kagey K]

Why are we downplaying Brazil's role in this thread?

Last I can recall they have some of the strongest consumer protection laws in the world, it was initially expected that Brazil was one of the places they were going to get hard pushback from.

 

[Tomcat]

Why are we downplaying Brazil's role in this thread?

Last I can recall they have some of the strongest consumer protection laws in the world, it was initially expected that Brazil was one of the places they were going to get hard pushback from.

sony fan boys are downplaying for the obvious reasons. They don't like when someone tells them the truth. Truth hurts

 

[Gone]

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.

Who the fuck is stopping Sony from creating their own Gamepass and xCloud services? No one does, except their pathetic argument of "Our games are so good we don't release them on subscription services"

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

So I'm hearing that the reason Brazil approved the deal so fast is because Microsoft have agreed to provide financial aid & investments into the Brazilian government. If that's true, that sounds a bit "suspect", to say the least. Brazil has actually taken big money from other companies (look at how embedded Coca-Cola is in the country, or McDonald's, and ask how they pulled that off), so I wouldn't be surprised if they took Microsoft money in exchange for approving the acquisition on their end.

That said, it just shows how shady these deals can actually go and how the ethics of integrity can be undermined by lining pockets.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

No it is not. Sony does not define what "competition" is. Market does not operate on basis "we can't afford this merger so it should be illegal"

If you look at this acquisition through "console gaming only" lens it will not put Microsoft in dominant position. That argument is clearly debunked by Nintendo who does not have Call of Duty and is still smothering Xbox a PlayStation in terms of console sales.
If you look at this acquisition through "whole gaming including mobile" it makes even less sense arguing against it. Especially when you have companies like Tencent, Apple, Google, Sony, Nintendo etc. on the market.

Only way how you can argue against this acquisition is through lens of "will it hurt Sony?" Which is ultimately not really reasonable argument. Because you can't argue against merger just because one company will loose money. Especially when you read all Brasil stuff where nobody have a problem with this merger except Sony.
Basically the only reason why there is even a doubt that this acquisition will go through is because current FTC hates big tech companies. But even then, senators tried to challenge this acquisition through "workers rights" which have bitten them in the ass because merger got approval of CWA (labour org. in USA).

Finally some sensible post on the subject.

 

[Kagey K]

So I'm hearing that the reason Brazil approved the deal so fast is because Microsoft have agreed to provide financial aid & investments into the Brazilian government. If that's true, that sounds a bit "suspect", to say the least. Brazil has actually taken big money from other companies (look at how embedded Coca-Cola is in the country, or McDonald's, and ask how they pulled that off), so I wouldn't be surprised if they took Microsoft money in exchange for approving the acquisition on their end.

That said, it just shows how shady these deals can actually go and how the ethics of integrity can be undermined by lining pockets.

You are hearing wrong.

Also

Someone forgot to tell the CMA

http://[URL]https://news.microsoft....r-memorandum-of-understanding-with-microsoft/

[/URL]

 

[reksveks]

So I'm hearing that the reason Brazil approved the deal so fast is because Microsoft have agreed to provide financial aid & investments into the Brazilian government. If that's true, that sounds a bit "suspect", to say the least. Brazil has actually taken big money from other companies (look at how embedded Coca-Cola is in the country, or McDonald's, and ask how they pulled that off), so I wouldn't be surprised if they took Microsoft money in exchange for approving the acquisition on their end.

That said, it just shows how shady these deals can actually go and how the ethics of integrity can be undermined by lining pockets.

The deal that the fanboys are going crazy about is from OCtober 2020

Microsoft expands its cloud offering in Brazil, creates plan to help job matching opportunities for up to 25 million workers and skilling platform for Brazilians with Ministry of Economy - News Center Latinoamérica

“More for Brazil” plan supports inclusive growth through technology, sustainability and skilling programs for up to 5.5 million Brazilians, including expansion of Microsoft’s cloud infrastructure in Brazil São Paulo, Brazil – Today, Microsoft announced “More for Brazil,” a comprehensive plan...

news.microsoft.com

Microsoft unsurprisingly works with a lot of governmental bodies, local and/or national.

Just saw the UK deal from April 2021.

 

[Banjo64]

Who the fuck is stopping Sony from creating their own Gamepass and xCloud services? No one does, except their pathetic argument of "Our games are so good we don't release them on subscription services"

Are you asking why Sony don't just spend 10s or 100s of billions on their own data centres?

As I've probably said about 4 times now, they are a publicly traded company with PlayStation being a main pillar and can't simply copy Microsoft's strategy if it loses them a lot of money. Pretty simple really.

 

[adamsapple]

So I'm hearing that the reason Brazil approved the deal so fast is because Microsoft have agreed to provide financial aid & investments into the Brazilian government. If that's true, that sounds a bit "suspect", to say the least. Brazil has actually taken big money from other companies (look at how embedded Coca-Cola is in the country, or McDonald's, and ask how they pulled that off), so I wouldn't be surprised if they took Microsoft money in exchange for approving the acquisition on their end.

That said, it just shows how shady these deals can actually go and how the ethics of integrity can be undermined by lining pockets.

You should probably hang in different twitter circles.

 

[Ozriel]

huuuuuhhhh ?? Why would they need to unearth 21+ years of earnings ?

My dude I'm going to assume you're making these posts on purpose now.

I've long since come to that same conclusion, tbh.

 

[Darsxx82]

Below is more about the decision from Brazil. After reading, I can definitely see this deal going through without any concessions or problems worldwide. It's pretty lengthy but good read.


EXCLUSIVITY

The Applicants argue that such a vertical relationship would not entail risks associated with the possibility of closing the upstream and downstream markets, since, even in a hypothetical post-Operation scenario: (i) on the one hand, " [a] Microsoft will not have the capacity or incentives to harm rival consoles by preventing them from accessing Activision Blizzard games "; (ii) on the other, " Microsoft will have no ability or incentive to harm rival publishers of console games by preventing them from accessing the Xbox Store (or other Xbox-specific digital stores) "; and (iii) among all the segmentations considered in this analysis for the relevant vertically related markets, the only market segment in which the market shareof the Applicants would exceed the level of 30% would be the digital distribution of games for consoles.

However, despite what is alleged by the Parties, what is observed in practice is that, in general, the concerns expressed by market agents consulted by SG/Cade regarding the proposed Transaction refer precisely to the vertical integration in question.

It can be seen, therefore, that the concerns raised by the aforementioned players boil down to two main points: (i) if Activision Blizzard games – and especially the titles of the popular Call of Duty series – become exclusive to the Xbox ecosystem ( consoles, digital stores, subscription services) upon completion of the Transaction, such a condition could give Microsoft a considerable competitive advantage over rivals, harming competition in the digital distribution and game console markets; and (ii) with the Transaction, Microsoft would significantly expand the size and variety of its first-party game backlog.(which would include, in addition to games developed by Microsoft's own studios and the recently acquired Zenimax, also the successful franchises from Activision Blizzard), which could reduce its demand for third-party content in its ecosystem - and therefore , reduce distribution channels available to other game publishers.

The information presented above shows that the combined share of the Parties in the upstream market is less than 20% in all scenarios evaluated, not reaching the minimum percentage defined in article 36, § 2 of Law No. 12,529/2011 for the purpose of presumption of possible dominant position.

Therefore, despite the popularity that Microsoft or Activision Blizzard titles may have among the gaming public, the fact is that there is no indication that the Claimants have market power in the electronic game publishing segment, nor that the Transaction could create or strengthen a dominant position on the market in question.

The evolution shown in the tables and graphs presented shows that, although Microsoft has a relevant market share - more precisely, [ 30-40]% [ RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE AND APPLICANTS] worldwide and [30-40]% [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE AND APPLICANTS] in Brazil in 2021 –, its share is still lower than that of the leader Sony, which accounts for [50-60]% [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE AND APPLICANTS] of the global market and [ 5 0 -60]% [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE AND APPLICANTS] of the Brazilian market.

Also noteworthy is the fact that, concomitantly with the growth of Nintendo's share in this segment in recent years – possibly motivated by the commercial success of the Nintendo Switch console – Microsoft lost a significant portion of its market share . Indeed, while Nintendo's worldwide market share has increased from [0-10]% [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE AND CLAIMS] in 2017 to [10-20]% [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE AND CLAIMS] in 2021, the Microsoft's share dropped from [40-50]% [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE AND PLAINTIFF] to [ 30-40 ]% [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE AND PLAINTIFF]in the same period. Sony, meanwhile, has seen its market share fluctuate from [ 50-60 ]% [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE AND APPLICANTS] in 2017 to [ 50-60 ]% [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE AND APPLICANTS] in 2021.

In the present case, the closing of the game publishing market would occur in the event that Microsoft has market power and has incentives to acquire content primarily from Activision Blizzard, in order to make it difficult, or even prevent, the access of other game publishers to the its digital game distribution platforms .

More precisely, as pointed out [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE] in its manifestation in the file, there would be a theoretical risk that Microsoft, having enough first-party content in its ecosystem, could reduce its demand for third-party games for its consoles, digital stores and subscription services, and with that, decided to "close" the Xbox ecosystem to third-party content.

As seen earlier, the only downstream market segment in which Microsoft's market share slightly exceeds the 30% threshold - 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 – is the digital distribution of games for consoles , in the world and national scenarios. It can be inferred, in this sense, that the vertical integrations generated by the Transaction do not give rise to the risk of closing the upstream markets for publishing games for PCs and mobile devices , since Microsoft does not hold a dominant position in the downstream markets.relating to the distribution of games to such devices. It follows, therefore, that the present analysis concerns especially the vertical relationship between the publishing and distribution segments of games for consoles.

As popular and commercially successful as Activision Blizzard and Microsoft games may be, both Parties' 2021 sales represented a combined share of approximately [10-20]% [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE] in the worldwide gaming market. publishing games for consoles, and only about [0-10] % [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE] on the national scene. From another angle, it can be seen that almost [90-100]% [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE] of the total revenue generated from the activity of publishing games for consoles in 2021, worldwide, does not refer to the content of the Claimants. So, if Microsoft chose to market only first-party contenton the Xbox Store after the eventual conclusion of the Transaction, or to market third-party content under less favorable conditions than those practiced in other stores/platforms, this would likely imply a drastic reduction in the quantity and variety of games available for Xbox, reducing the attractiveness of the console and its ecosystem to consumers.


Console Exclusivity

On consoles , as already seen, there are currently only three stores that distribute digital game content, each one exclusively linked to a manufacturer/console: (i) the Xbox Store , from Microsoft Xbox; (ii) Sony PlayStation's PlayStation Store ; and (iii) the Nintendo eShop for Nintendo Switch. In the current market context, the only way for a game publisher to digitally distribute its content to users of a given console is through the official store of the respective manufacturer/console. It follows that, in practice, competition in the segment of digital distribution of games for consoles takes place only between different devices (or " interconsoles ")."), so it reflects, to some extent, the competitive dynamics of the console market itself.

In this specific segment, therefore, the possibility of closing the downstream market would occur in the event that Microsoft starts to concentrate the distribution of Activision Blizzard games on the Xbox Store after the Transaction, in order to make difficult, or even prevent, the distribution of these titles on the PlayStation Store and Nintendo eShop – and, of course, as long as such games represent relevant inputs so that Microsoft's rival stores can continue to compete in the market.

In consultation with Nintendo's official website in Brazil, this SG/Cade found that only some games and content from the Crash Bandicoot , Diablo , Overwatch and Tony Hawk's Pro Skater series by Activision Blizzard are for sale on the official Nintendo Switch digital store, not there being a single Call of Duty title available for the platform [153]​. The list of best-selling games released on the store itself reveals that, currently, no Activision Blizzard game is among the 92 (ninety-two) best-selling Nintendo Switch titles [154]​. Another list available on Wikipedia, which lists the best-selling games for the Nintendo Switch since its launch in 2017, does not mention a single Activision Blizzard game in the rankingof titles that have sold more than 1 million copies on the console.

Taken together, these elements show that the relevance of Activision Blizzard games to the Nintendo Switch and Nintendo eShop is minimal, so their eventual withdrawal from this ecosystem would likely not have any significant impact on Nintendo's game distribution business.

As for Sony, on the other hand, it turns out that all major Activision Blizzard titles for consoles are available on PlayStation, including games in the Call of Duty series . In fact, as informed by the Plaintiffs, Sony is currently responsible for [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE AND PLAINTIFF] of the revenue earned by Activision Blizzard from the sale of games and game content for consoles worldwide, also representing [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE AND THE APPLICANTS] of such sales under the national scenario. It follows, therefore, that Sony is the only playerof the game distribution market for consoles that could, in theory, be harmed by Microsoft's eventual exclusivity over the distribution of Activision Blizzard content.

Despite this, this SG/Cade considers that, in light of the elements available in the records, there is no evidence that Activision Blizzard games actually represent an indispensable asset for Sony's competitive performance in the digital distribution market.

In its response to a letter sent by SG, Sony reported that in the year 2021, Activision Blizzard accounted for [CADE RESTRICTED ACCESS] of total consumer spending on games and add-ons ( "add-ons" ) in the PlayStation ecosystem at the global, and only Call of Duty responded for [CADE RESTRICTED ACCESS] . Such percentages, although they are quite expressive, do not seem to reflect values whose loss could effectively limit the ability of the leading company in the console market to compete in the digital distribution segment, and are certainly not sufficiently representative to the point of, by themselves, characterize Activision Blizzard content as an "essential input" to Sony's business.

Furthermore, as already shown in Table 5, it is observed that no Activision Blizzard game released for the PlayStation 4 was among the 10 best-selling games on the Brazilian PlayStation Store in the last 5 years, despite the company having published several titles for that console between 2017 and 2021 – including, among them, at least five games in the Call of Duty series . It is quite true that the PlayStation Store rankingmay not accurately reflect PlayStation 4 game sales in their entirety, as they do not include games sold on physical media; nevertheless, it is still a reasonable indication that, for most Brazilian users of the console, the Activision Blizzard games catalog is less attractive and relevant than that of other major publishers such as Electronic Arts, Take-Two Interactive, Sony and Ubisoft, which are better positioned on the list.

For all of the foregoing, although it is recognized that an eventual exclusivity over the distribution of Activision Blizzard's content may give Microsoft a competitive advantage, there is no evidence that such an advantage can, by itself, harm the performance of third parties to the point of limit competition in the market for digital distribution of electronic games.

CALL OF DUTY

The information presented seems to corroborate the allegations made by some of the players consulted by SG/Cade throughout the procedural instruction, who cited the Call of Duty franchise as Activision Blizzard's most important asset in the video game market for PC and consoles. So important that, in Sony's understanding, such a franchise could stand out " as a category of games in itself".

As can be seen, no less than 10 of the 20 best-selling games in the US in the last decade are Call of Duty , with 7 titles in the franchise among the top 10. It is also noted that 14 of the 20 games on the list belong to the "first-person shooter" genre, which seems to indicate a certain predilection of the American consumer for this type of game. Although it refers only to the US market, it is possible that the ranking presented is also representative, to some extent, of the preferences of players worldwide, given the relevance of such a country in the global context of the sector. According to estimates by Newzoo, the United States constitutes the [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE AND CLAIMANTS]The largest market in the gaming industry in terms of revenue generation ( [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE AND PLAINTIFF] ), with [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE AND PLAINTIFF] being for the specific console segment.

Despite the undeniable popularity of Call of Duty , the series' dominance in the best-selling video game list is not, in itself, an indication that Activision Blizzard holds a dominant position in the game publishing market. In 2021, as already seen, the company's games catalog earned it, worldwide, a market share of [0-10]% [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE] in the PC games segment and of [0-10] % [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE]in console games – percentages that, although they are quite expressive when compared to the shares held by most competitors, seem insufficient to give Activision Blizzard a leadership position. In Brazil, in turn, the company's share in the game publishing market is even less representative, reaching [0-10] % [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE] on PCs and [0-10] % [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE] on consoles in 2021. In fact, from a Brazilian consumer perspective, Activision Blizzard games for PC and consoles seem to have less relevance than publisher titlescompetitors such as Take-Two Interactive, Electronic Arts, Sony, Tencent and Valve, among others, as evidenced in the offer structures presented in tables 7 and 8 above.

The information presented shows that neither Call of Duty , nor any other Activision Blizzard title for PlayStation 4 appeared on the list of best-selling games on the Brazilian PlayStation Store in the years 2017 to 2021, despite the company having published several games for the console. Sony (the most popular console in Brazil) in the period – among them, at least five titles from the Call of Duty series. Although the rankingof the PlayStation Store may not accurately reflect the sales of games for the PlayStation 4 as a whole, as it does not include games sold on physical media, it still constitutes a reasonable indication that, for the majority of Brazilian users of such console , Activision Blizzard's games catalog is less attractive than that of publishers such as Electronic Arts, Take-Two Interactive, Sony and Ubisoft (whose games are also sold in physical media in Brazil), which are better positioned on the list.

It should also be noted that it is not only in Brazil and other Latin American countries that Call of Duty seems to be less popular and relevant than in the United States, but also in the Japanese market.

Based on all the above, it is possible to observe that the Activision Blizzard catalog, and in particular the Call of Duty series , are very important assets in the general context of the video game industry, being among the most successful games in terms of sales and audience. Nevertheless, this SG/Cade considers that, from the perspective of the Brazilian consumer, Call of Duty represents one among several highly successful game franchises, while Activision Blizzard, although it is among the largest publishers of games for consoles in the national scenario, is not the most relevant among them.

It is also necessary to consider that, as Call of Duty is an "essential" game, as defended by Sony, then the Nintendo Switch would probably not be able to compete effectively in the market, since no title in the franchise was released for the platform ( until the moment). What can be observed, however, is that the Nintendo console has been showing a good sales performance since its launch in 2017, having even surpassed the numbers of the recently launched PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X|S in 2021, according to estimates.

Furthermore, it is important to bear in mind that the game development and publishing market is quite dispersed and open to innovation, and that consumer tastes and preferences can vary significantly over time. That said, a video game does not necessarily need to have a multi-million budget to obtain recognition and commercial success. As an emblematic example of such a statement, it should be noted that the initial version of the Minecraft game – today [RESTRICTED ACCESS TO CADE AND CLAIMANTS] , usually referred to as the best-selling game of all time – was created and published in a independently by a single developer.

In light of all the above, what can be observed is that, despite the fact that Activision Blizzard is the owner of some of the most popular game franchises today, there is no evidence in the file that the company has market power in the publishing segment. of games, or that their titles can be considered indispensable for the commercial success of a given console or digital game distribution platform – especially from the perspective of the Brazilian consumer, which is what is effectively of interest to the present analysis.

The text of the final resolution of the CADE is devastating for SONY.... And it is logical because its defense argument was poor and easily questionable and to answer for MS. I'm not surprised that Jim Ryan has rushed to the CE, I suppose with better arguments than with CADE.

I'd love to Know about (REDACTED), but just from the context you get an idea of the possible arguments of SONY and MS.

For what it says there:

1-SONY defended XBOX as the only competitor with similar market share and brand power (LOL).

2-Nintendo "is a toy for children" and does not count in the console market where PS and Xbox compete and therefore it is not an example of success without ACT-BLZ games ().
The reality is that Nintendo had to reinvent itself and bet on new formulas in order to exist against the Playstation brand that acted as a quasi-monopoly at one time signing exclusive THIRDS or directly buying them.

3-That XBOX+ACT means closing the door to the entrance of other competitors or making it impossible for existing ones ().

I believe that there is no need to respond to such absurdity. The fact is that if there are three console manufacturers today it is because Nintendo has known how to reinvent itself and XBOX has had the sustenance of MS. It is the market domination and power of the Playstation brand that makes it difficult for more competitors to exist.

MS for its part seems dont missed the opportunity to highlight SONY's facilities and strategy of buying exclusivity agreements with AAA THIRDS games thanks to its dominant position and brand power in most markets. That they do not have access to those agreements and that the power of the Playstation brand in many markets means that the price, the power of the hardware or the catalog (similar by 90%) are insufficient to improve market share.
That Playstation's market share is long enough for XBOX to make it disappear with the acquisition of Activision.


The CADE, as can be read, has clearly understood and has a closer vision of the reality of the console and video game market than the CMA, which was based on a total absurdity and only had concerns about the effects on Sony's income and profits. when their attention should have been on users, workers, Nintendo, other Publishers and the true effects on the market and competition.

 

[Kagey K]

Are you asking why Sony don't just spend 10s or 100s of billions on their own data centres?

As I've probably said about 4 times now, they are a publicly traded company with PlayStation being a main pillar and can't simply copy Microsoft's strategy if it loses them a lot of money. Pretty simple really.

That doesn't sound like a Microsoft problem, Sony has had 25 years to establish these things and even bought companies to work towards doing it.

 

[Banjo64]

That doesn't sound like a Microsoft problem, Sony has had 25 years to establish these things and even bought companies to work towards doing it.

There's 2 perspectives here.

On the one hand people are saying 'Sony are just greedy nob heads who don't want to compete'

And then on the other hand you are saying 'if they can't compete it's just tough shit, they've had 25 years to prepare for the Game Pass future'

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

The deal that the fanboys are going crazy about is from OCtober 2020

Microsoft expands its cloud offering in Brazil, creates plan to help job matching opportunities for up to 25 million workers and skilling platform for Brazilians with Ministry of Economy - News Center Latinoamérica

“More for Brazil” plan supports inclusive growth through technology, sustainability and skilling programs for up to 5.5 million Brazilians, including expansion of Microsoft’s cloud infrastructure in Brazil São Paulo, Brazil – Today, Microsoft announced “More for Brazil,” a comprehensive plan...

news.microsoft.com

Microsoft unsurprisingly works with a lot of governmental bodies, local and/or national

I was just thinking that, did a Google search and came across a similar article:

https://labsnews.com/en/news/business/microsoft-partnership-with-the-brazilian-government/

And I do agree it could be a BIT of a reach though....it's not a complete reach. It does bring into question just how in bed some of these megaconglomerates are with various governments around the world, and how those financial investments & ties might be buying them favor in cases where otherwise they shouldn't, or at least where with companies not lining those government pockets as much, wouldn't be given favor as easily nor as quickly.

It's an extension of legitimate concerns over lobbying; not saying the investments companies like Microsoft make in these governments (incidentally, the thing we're talking about is aimed at Brazil's cloud industry) are literally the same as lobbying (which is usually thought of as corporations, usually for the benefit of themselves & their industries, paying off politicians to argue on their behalf for favorable legislation and property rights), but there are definitely some similarities in connective threads and I can see people wondering if these types of investments have curried MS favor with Brazilian regulators through a sort of unfair advantage due to pumping money into their government (which has a history of its own corruptions involving money & politics, TBF).

For me it just reinforces the idea that big tech companies in general are too glued to the hip of government institutions in terms of being big spenders on them in direct capacities (or indirect capacities that effectively link right back to the governments anyway), not to mention acting as extensions of government policy implementations & adaption by the mainstream, and so that may create favoritism for them in making big acquisitions and lead to regulators skirting on the enforcement of specific decrees (or only doing the bare minimum to uphold them), and I think that's a massive problem.

And yes before someone goes "but Jim Ryan met with CMA regulators!", yes I know Sony have their own involvements with various governments if Jim Ryan's meeting with them to curry favor towards their company that effectively isn't much any different than Microsoft making financial investments directly into Brazilian government that may've bought them favor with regulators to get the ABK deal approved significantly easier over there. It's a game of 12-dimensional chess, I get it. I'm just looking at this from the MS/Brazil angle because that's the country whose regulators recently approved the acquisition on their end, and it got me thinking about a few things. That's all.

You should probably hang in different twitter circles.

It was a podcast, and I regret having listened. But at least all this led me to some info on MS's investments in Brazil which, aren't the same thing as that podcast or other people are trying say, but it does open up an interesting discussion on how closely these big tech and mega-conglomerates are connected with governments these days, and if it's healthy or ultimately detrimental.

And I did also bring up Jim Ryan meeting with the CMA folks as another example of that, FWIW.

 

[ReBurn]

EA, Ubisoft and Sony wouldn't have a catalogue featuring CoD, Zenimax and Microsoft Game Studios' releases. CoD sells more alone than any of Sony's exclusives every single year. None of those companies have their own cloud infrastructure either, so as the CMA say, it's a combination of all 3 factors. Library, infrastructure, existing brand power.


If Sony would make more money following Microsoft's path, why haven't they done it? If they've crunched the numbers and calculated that they'd be losing hundreds of millions of pounds annually by putting games on PS Plus day 1, you think that's a sensible decision?


Listen, anyone is free to check out my post history, when Zenimax and AKB's acquisitions were announced I basked in the tears of Sony fanboys along with the best of them.

However I won't play along with people who think that Brazil and Saudi Arabia are sound and that true scrutiny shouldn't exist it's likely that the CMA still ratify this deal after their phase 2, but it's their job to investigate the possible future impact and the Xbox fans crying about it, and pretending not to understand basic hypotheticals, that are plainly spelled out, is the most cringe worthy display of corporate bootlicking on par with anything I've see from PS fanatics.

Sony would have a catalog of the best first party games ever made and the dozen live service games they are making. Is Sony's own output high enough quality to support them in a digital subscription model or is it not? Microsoft is buying content to help them be successful. It's an option Sony also has.

If what Sony already have and what they are creating isn't enough to support them in a timeline where people prefer to consume games via a subscription then losing COD isn't their problem. Their problem is inability or unwillingness to adapt.

I don't think you're really championing one company or the other here. Scrutiny absolutely should exist and consumer rights should be protected regardless of which corporation wins or loses. The thing about this deal is that consumers don't really lose out if it happens. Sony maybe loses out on future install base that COD drives and the traditional high price "premium" model Sony currently relies on (and $70 plastic disc collectors love) weakens even more.

 

[reksveks]

And I do agree it could be a BIT of a reach though....it's not a complete reach. It does bring into question just how in bed some of these megaconglomerates are with various governments around the world, and how those financial investments & ties might be buying them favor in cases where otherwise they shouldn't, or at least where with companies not lining those government pockets as much, wouldn't be given favor as easily nor as quickly.

The problem is that there is no real evidence here of wrong-doing here. This does feel like an allegation that requires more evidence

There are obviously very real concerns with lobbying but this seems like a very weird example.

For me it just reinforces the idea that big tech companies in general are too glued to the hip of government institutions in terms of being big spenders on them in direct capacities (or indirect capacities that effectively link right back to the governments anyway), not to mention acting as extensions of government policy implementations & adaption by the mainstream, and so that may create favoritism for them in making big acquisitions and lead to regulators skirting on the enforcement of specific decrees (or only doing the bare minimum to uphold them), and I think that's a massive problem.

Think we need to stop with the "there's no smoke without fire"; it's just leading to massively levels of distrust (very topical conversation especially reding Brazilian politics but ehh.)

 

[reksveks]

Probably the survey in a little more detail

https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/10/06/activision-m-a-microsoft-eu

 

[SportsFan581]

The deal that the fanboys are going crazy about is from OCtober 2020

They freaking plan ahead don't they. Gotta love the hustle.

 

[Three]

Microsoft literally went against enormous PS2 when they joined the console market, bought Rare and studios (like Bungie) and were bleeding money for years to complete. Google did not want to invest, because - honestly - Google does not know how to do anything that does not generate the immediate profit.

They invested in console but it wasn't in the same position that google or anybody else entering would be in by a long shot. Before xbox MS was already heavily in gaming on PC. Microsoft Game Studios existed before xbox did, dating back to 1982 and PC gaming wasn't exactly a new platform. The xbox was a directX box. Their PC platform as a console. They had a massive Zones community with age of empires, midtown madness, motorcross madness, flight sim, monster truck madness. Convincing developers or other studios to release on xbox wasn't difficult because they would be convincing them to develop using their PC Api for a PC in a box. Their massive Rare purchase played very little part in setting up xbox, that was mainly Halo. Rare was a dud for years. Even with all that it struggled and this only shows that it's difficult even for megacorps.

 

[Banjo64]

https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/10/06/activision-m-a-microsoft-eu

BRUSSELS – EU antitrust regulators are asking games developers whether Microsoft will be incentivised to block rivals' access to "Call of Duty" maker Activision Blizzard's best-selling games, according to an EU document seen by Reuters.

EU antitrust regulators are due to make a preliminary decision by Nov. 8 on whether to clear Microsoft's proposed $69 billion acquisition of Activision.

The EU competition enforcer also asked if Activision's trove of user data would give the U.S. software giant a competitive advantage in the development, publishing and distribution of computer and console games, the EU document shows.

The planned acquisition, the biggest in the gaming industry, will help Microsoft better compete with leaders Tencent and Sony.

After its decision next month the European Commission is expected to open a four-month long investigation, underscoring regulatory concerns about Big Tech acquisitions.

Games developers, publishers and distributors were asked whether the deal would affect their bargaining power regarding the terms for selling console and PC games via Microsoft's Xbox and its cloud game streaming service Game Pass.

Regulators also wanted to know if there would be sufficient alternative suppliers in the market following the deal and also in the event Microsoft decides to make Activision's games exclusively available on its Xbox, its Games Pass and its cloud game streaming services.

They asked if such exclusivity clauses would reinforce Microsoft's Windows operating system versus rivals, and whether the addition of Activision to its PC operating system, cloud computing services and game-related software tools gives it an advantage in the video gaming industry.

They asked how important the Call of Duty franchise is for distributors of console games, third-party multi-game subscription services on computers and providers of cloud game streaming services.

The questionnaire, with about 100 questions, asked which of the rivals such as Nvidia's GeForce Now, Sony's Playstation, Google Stadia, Amazon Luna and Facebook Gaming could be considered the most attractive following the deal.

Respondents have until Oct. 10 to reply.

Hopefully some eye thought provoking reading for those determined to make this a simplistic case of Sony vs Microsoft.