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.
From what I understand it's not available on the Switch though, and rumours suggest it may come to the platform via streaming only(?)

If the Bungie commitment can side step native releases then that's not anywhere near comparable.
If as an independent publisher they see that there is an audience for it then yes. Is there though? Games like it and CoD don't/didn't sell that well on the Wii and Wii U. The "we will release on Nintendo" was so that they embrace the deal. You won't see it at all I bet.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to get an APB for one of these genuine "new entrants", been MIA for the past 20+ years, yet still presumed at large by the CMA.

Unless you're referring to Google and Amazon, who have invested and committed into gaming all the way up to their big toes. They have the resources and ability to compete subsequent this deal.
Then you clearly don't remember the steambox push, it came and failed. It wasn't competitive because as a linux based system it had poor game support and performance and as a windows based system wasn't price competitive. Now introduce subscription and cloud gaming competitors which are new entrants too, a big one failed.
 
Last edited:
What are you even talking about?

Microsoft has agreed to pay 95 dollars per share on a stock that is currently trading at 73.47 dollars per share. If this deal falls through, the stock is going to crash to like 35-45 dollars a share.

Imagine having say 1 million dollars in Activision stock options based on 50 dollars a share. That means you would have 20,000 shares. So currently your stock is worth 1.469 million dollars and if the deal goes through it's worth 1.9 million dollars and if the deal falls through, it's worth maybe 700K dollars.

If you don't think 1.2 million dollars is worth making a statement that you'll fight for deal to go through, you must be new at this adult stuff.

The part you skipped over while having your rant, is the part that points out the issue of well, THEM NOT DOING ANYTHING TO FIGHT and just now making this statement.
 
There would be a concession. This is a $68b deal after all.
Price tag does not matter. There won't be concessions because there is no party being hurt by that deal or there is a party that needs those concessions in the first place. Sony's cries are irrelevant to the regulators or the market. The existence of Nintendo and Geforce Now obliterates all Sony's arguments.
 
Last edited:
The part you skipped over while having your rant, is the part that points out the issue of well, THEM NOT DOING ANYTHING TO FIGHT and just now making this statement.

There wasn't a fight to be had until now. This is how M&A goes. Anytime you hear regulators say they're going to block M&A you hear the companies say they'll fight vigorously to keep the deal, obviously it's in their best interests to do so.

 
The part you skipped over while having your rant, is the part that points out the issue of well, THEM NOT DOING ANYTHING TO FIGHT and just now making this statement.
It was a threat to the regulators based on the rumours that they are bringing a case. They just wanted to show that they would not back down from the deal.
 
The part you skipped over while having your rant, is the part that points out the issue of well, THEM NOT DOING ANYTHING TO FIGHT and just now making this statement.
Because Sony is the obstacle here.
Sony provided documents, studies, pricing analyses and market research to CADE and the CMA, Jim Ryan met with the European Commission (and the CMA) and they hired a team of economists for the deal. They have even lobbied politicians.
Without them, there would have been less resistance.
So far, Sony is making Activision act little bit.
 
Price tag does not matter. There won't be concessions because there is no party being hurt by that deal or there is a party that needs those concessions in the first place. Sony's cries are irrelevant to the regulators or the market. The existence of Nintendo and Geforce Now obliterates all Sony's arguments.
It matters, when that price is can buy Nintendo. And it's 60% of Sony market cap.
 
It matters, when that price is can buy Nintendo. And it's 60% of Sony market cap.
Price does not matter to concessions. It does not work that way - "The price is big! We need concessions!". Even smaller acquisitions might require some concessions (like Illumina/Grail) or can pass without concessions like (Microsoft/Nuance) being more expensive than Illumina deal. And Illumina deal was blocked by EU (funnily enough FTC lost against Illumina in USA)

Sony provided documents, studies, pricing analyses and market research to CADE and the CMA, Jim Ryan met with the European Commission (and the CMA) and they hired a team of economists for the deal. They have even lobbied politicians.

Without them, there would have been less resistance.
It worked out pretty well with CADE. Oh, wait except it didn't and even CADE mentioned that they exist to protect the consumers and not the specific companies :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
Then you clearly don't remember the steambox push, it came and failed. It wasn't competitive because as a linux based system it had poor game support and performance and as a windows based system wasn't price competitive. Now introduce subscription and cloud gaming competitors which are new entrants too, a big one failed.
I'm not calling dropping a product with just a different store 'competing'. The 3 big main stayers have sizeable foot print with investments in studios and third-parties that drive consumers with exclusives. Was there even one timed exclusive for the steambox? How about merely a marketing exclusive? Or any marketing at all for that matter. I don't believe Phil Harrison for a second that Google don't have the resources to invest themselves for content.
 
Everything I've read about the reason to deny Microsoft would apply to other companies wouldn't it? Maybe a company like Amazon would be more willing to keep the industry status quo?
Nobody is saying the industry needs to be kept at a status quo. The main concerns I have seen repeated over and over by regulators is a concern about a single party having too much control over both distribution and content. Microsoft controlling Xbox, GamePass, and most major publisher content would make it extremely easy for Microsoft to foreclose on others trying to enter the market. There are similar concerns in other places as well. If Netflix went on a buying spree of studios they would probably get cited for similar concerns. If Apple bought all of the music catalogs of the major music companies that would be a concern as well.

I'll repeat my real world example of this shitty behavior which is Disney. Since they control Star Wars, Marvel, Pixar, and Disney content they are able to really push anyone around that relies on big budget films. They were able to force chains to do things like:



I guarantee those chains lost money but kinda have to do it or they lose the movies entirely. Day one streaming was also a tactic. Which is probably why some of GamePass may have been raising some eyebrows.
 
Thing is you think Activision would do something more, or maybe bring ore attention on their side which they aren't doing.
Honestly, though, who gives a shit what Activision thinks? They are selling themselves so it's obvious what their opinion is on the matter.
 
Price tag does not matter. There won't be concessions because there is no party being hurt by that deal or there is a party that needs those concessions in the first place. Sony's cries are irrelevant to the regulators or the market. The existence of Nintendo and Geforce Now obliterates all Sony's arguments.

Still believing this at this stage lmao
 
You need to understand that spending $68b on a publisher isn't a fair thing or being a competitor.
It's outright a bully move. That money can buy several gaming publishers. EA, take 2, Ubisoft, and Capcom.

We shouldn't normalize these stuff, and call it necessary for competition.

I dont care which brand you support.
It's business man. The regulators can decide if laws are broken. That is the standard to stop deal. It shouldn't be that hard to prove if it's true. Activision wanted to be brought and MS was willing to pay. That is all there is to it.
In Sony's response they've said NOTHING is acceptable or adequate and CMA simply has to reject the deal entirely. I don't know what another company could offer that would satisfy them and another company might not be willing to give them a 10-year contract, let alone a forever contract and with all the other stipulations they are demanding.
The double speak is problematic. If it's about CoD Sony will have it yet now they are asking for more and more as the market leader. They should be grateful MS doesn't behave like they do and make everything exclusive. It would be their right to. It's almost like Sony is the one buying Activision not MS.
 
Price does not matter to concessions. It does not work that way - "The price is big! We need concessions!". Even smaller acquisitions might require some concessions (like Illumina/Grail) or can pass without concessions like (Microsoft/Nuance) being more expensive than Illumina deal. And Illumina deal was blocked by EU (funnily enough FTC lost against Illumina in USA)
The price alone is enough to buy most gaming publishers. It matters the most, as Phil spencer himself said so. Unless you call him a liar.


It worked out pretty well with CADE. Oh, wait except it didn't and even CADE mentioned that they exist to protect the consumers and not the specific companies
Because cade isn't part of the 3 important regulator for this deal. These are the ones who decide this deal.
 
I'm not calling dropping a product with just a different store 'competing'.
What does that mean? The steambox wasn't "dropping a product with a different store". it was a console with set specs and tied to the biggest library of games with people possibly already owning games even.

The 3 big main stayers have sizeable foot print with investments in studios and third-parties that drive consumers with exclusives. Was there even one timed exclusive for the steambox? How about merely a marketing exclusive? Or any marketing at all for that matter.
Didn't you have a rant about exclusives being too difficult for xbox/MS of all people and their difficulty to compete? now you're trying to say Steambox could have secured them to compete instead?

Anyway I'm not sure why you are moving the goalposts, you said there weren't new entrants and there was. It failed, as did Ouya for whatever that's worth. New entrants tried and failed because it's difficult to enter the console market. If a competitor/company buys up multiplatform game publishers it becomes even more difficult because you won't even have those once multiplatform popular games to offer anymore let alone exclusives you can't afford.

I don't believe Phil Harrison for a second that Google don't have the resources to invest themselves for content.
Sure they did, they invested a lot to get games on their service. They spent unfathomable amounts for things like RDR2 etc.

Could you imagine needing Amazon Prime to play Call of Duty if Amazon bought them
Based on what? Not this Amazon boogeyman again. Amazon aren't buying up publishers. They bought an engine and branded it as Lumberyard, created some games like New World and sell it on steam and don't offer it on or require Amazon Prime. Amazon Prime and Luna offer third party multiplatform games.
 
Last edited:
It's business man. The regulators can decide if laws are broken. That is the standard to stop deal. It shouldn't be that hard to prove if it's true. Activision wanted to be brought and MS was willing to pay. That is all there is to it.
And that is what is going now. Regulators are checking the problems of this deal. Doesn't matter if 2 parties agree to merge or sell to one another.

Regulators job is to determine the risk for the market.
 
The price alone is enough to buy most gaming publishers. It matters the most, as Phil spencer himself said so. Unless you call him a liar.
The point is that just because it is expensive, it does not mean that it requires concessions. ABK is expensive because ABK is profitable. That's all to it.
 
Last edited:
idas from the other site that users reference quite a bit here is similarly impressed as I was with the staggering amount of hard data Microsoft and Activision has provided to CMA basically addressing every potential issue. The sheer amount of detail with hard data is a big reason for why I find it difficult to believe that things won't ultimately work out in their favor. Many more pages are dedicated to Call of Duty than anything else because Call of Duty IS the only thing that can stop this deal.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/th...-the-ftc-“likely”-to-sue.633344/post-97084198

Well, I finally read the whole response from MS (111 pages). So, long post incoming :p

I think that it is quite good. For starters, the tone is very different from the first one, where you could feel that they were annoyed by the decision.

From pages 13 to 69 everything is about Call of Duty: There is an insane amount of work on those pages. :O I really like how they dissect piece by piece every potential issue. And the amount of data presented is staggering.

A paragraph that I liked in this case: MS is not denying the relevance of COD, but the data doesn't automatically show that COD is the only game to attract gamers to a console or that losing it would become critical (Page 25)

While these assertions are central to the case for referral, they are not supported by any evidence. Instead, the Phase 1 Decision relies on high level points such as "CoD is currently one of the largest game franchises", "has a high level of awareness amongst gamers" and "has been consistently successful for nearly a decade". These points may all be true (as they are equally for other popular games), but do not show that the franchise is critical to attracting gamers to a console platform, nor that the loss of that one franchise would foreclose the console in question from the downstream market. No evidence has been provided to suggest that other Activision titles have any degree of market power. As above, the share of these titles is minimal ([0-5]% or less).

From pages 70 to 90 everything is about Gamepass: I think that they offer good arguments, specially the ones about ABK (extensively) being against subscriptions if there is no deal. Therefore, saying that without the merger all competitors could potentially have access to all the ABK content doesn't make a ton of sense because all the evidence points against that: without the acquisition Activision is not interested in subscription services (not even their own).

From pages 91 to 111 everything is about cloud gaming: I thought that it was the most complicated issue but they again present a ton of (internal) data, in this case to downplay cloud gaming as viable option in the short - medium term. The ecosystem theory of harm is counter-argued by also downplaying the importance of Azure for xCloud or the lack of economic incentive to 'block' similar services in the future.

All in all, a very good answer with tons and tons of data.

Anyway, I took notes of things that I believe are new and interesting:

Specific notes from the CMA

The page for the case now includes a notice that is not present in other mergers in Phase 2 (I guess that they felt some pressure):

Evidence

The publication of the evidence of any party on the CMA's webpages does not indicate in any way endorsement by the CMA of the views expressed in the evidence or acceptance of that evidence. Publication in this way is designed to assist public understanding of the issues.


On the other hand, it looks like they'll share more responses from other third parties:

The CMA received a large number of submissions from the public, which it is still in the process of reviewing, and which it will take into account, where appropriate, in the course of its merger investigation.

The future Universal Store is a risky move (pages 12-13)

As Mr. Spencer explained because of "[X]." In particular, the concept of a next- generation game store that operates across a range of devices ("Universal Store") is risky… Moving consumers away from the Google PlayStore and Apple AppStore on mobile devices will require a major shift in consumer behaviour. Microsoft hopes that by offering well-known and popular content, gamers will be more inclined to try something new. But this is far from guaranteed and also depends on proposed regulations and legislation in the U.S., and around the world, that would require Apple and Google to make their platforms and app stores more open to third-party stores and commerce platforms. As such, in seeking approval from its Board of Directors as a public company, Microsoft leadership could [X]. Nevertheless, as Mr. Spencer confirmed, Microsoft will measure the strategic success of the Merger on [X].

MAU for PlayStation and Xbox (page 35)

Publicly available data suggests that PlayStation MAUs in 2021 are more than double Xbox MAUs (107 million versus [X] million).

Steam Deck is a new console for MS (page 38)

Steam has launched a new console without Call of Duty: The Steam experience is also directly relevant to console, as Steam has recently launched a new console, the Steam Deck, without Call of Duty. The Steam Deck is a handheld console which has a docking station that allows it to be plugged into a television or used as a PC. 141 The console runs on a Linux-based operating system and allows gamers to access Windows PC games through the Steam digital storefront. In the words of Valve, "[t]he Proton translation layer allows most Windows games to run with equal or better performance on Steam OS without requiring game developers to do any heavy porting work to get their games running". This means that there are thousands of games available to play on the Steam Deck – and as explained above this does not currently include Call of Duty. Valve has promoted the Steam Deck using a range of other popular titles (including a number of Sony first-party titles) – see Figure 32 below.

The extreme levels of monetisation used by ABK regarding COD (pages 39-40)

Even though Activision has faced a strong incentive to monetize every form of exclusivity which makes sense for Call of Duty, there has been no foreclosure: Activision has had a strong incentive to come up with different forms of content and marketing exclusivity which it could monetize in its negotiations with Microsoft and Sony. Since 2005 these marketing arrangements have included: (i) exclusive console marketing arrangements following the release of new titles and downloadable content; (ii) priority access to new maps (until these were phased out following the introduction of cross- platform play); (iii) exclusive access to the online alpha version of the game and access to the beta version of the game 5 days earlier than gamers on Xbox consoles or PC; (iv) game bonuses such as extra "tier skips" on the battle pass; (v) the ability to access additional "experience points" (e.g., through exclusive events); and (vi) certain in-game character customisations and content bundles.

MS left ABK in 2015, not the other way around (page 41)

Sony was not foreclosed when Call of Duty was exclusive to Xbox: There is no indication, based on Call of Duty's prior history of differentiation between versions of Call of Duty on Xbox and PlayStation, that this could in any way affect rival consoles' ability to compete effectively. Sony's share of console sales grew in the period from 2005-2015 when Xbox had certain exclusive rights to Call of Duty content. There are many more popular games available in the market in 2022 than there were between 2005 and 2015 (including Fortnite, PUBG, Apex Legends, Elden Ring and many others). If anything, Call of Duty's importance as a franchise was greater in 2005-2015. When Xbox decided not to continue with the Call of Duty co-marketing agreement in 2015, it simply found other ways to market and promote its platform. Sony, as the market leading console with an extensive first-party and third-party exclusive game catalogue, is even better placed to do the same.

(c) Microsoft [X] Call of Duty exclusivity: Microsoft's exclusive arrangements for Call of Duty content expired at the end of 2015. (Page 31)

(d) Microsoft did not expect [X]. Microsoft did not [X], but does not believe this agreement [X]. Microsoft was not foreclosed as a result of the agreement. (Page 31)


The EMEA (Europe, the Middle East and Africa) market is where COD has more players? (Page 54)

Second, as noted in Microsoft's deal model, "continued sales of Activision Blizzard's portfolio on all platforms (console, PC, mobile)" accounted for [X] of the estimated "Value to Microsoft" from the Merger.200 Given that ca. [X]% of Call of Duty's total MAUs (and ca. [X]% of console MAUs) are on PlayStation, a hypothetical foreclosure strategy would involve putting at risk a significant portion of Activision's revenues. The consequences would be even more severe in the EMEA region where ca. [X]% of Call of Duty's total MAUs (and ca. [X]% of console MAUs) are on PlayStation. This would be a commercially irrational strategy, in particular in circumstances where Microsoft could not conceivably expect to foreclose Sony from the market.

MS is expecting to lose market share in UK

As the table below shows, Xbox in 2021 accounts for [20-30]% of the installed base of gaming consoles globally, [30-40]% in the UK, while Sony accounted for [40-50]% globally and [40-50]% in the UK – this is even excluding handheld console devices. Xbox's share of yearly sales is even lower, suggesting that its share of installed base is likely to decrease against Nintendo and Sony in the near future. The global and UK leader Sony just cannot be foreclosed by losing access to a single franchise among the broad range of alternatives for gamers available on the PlayStation platform.

20-30% of PlayStation 5 users also have an Xbox: 10-20% of Xbox users have a PlayStation 5 (page 67)

Gamers often multi-home across gaming consoles: Gamers who multi-home simultaneously own more than one gaming console. Multi-homing gamers who already own an Xbox are not impacted by a withholding of Activision content from PlayStation and/or Nintendo. They are unlikely to "abandon" their PlayStation or Nintendo console and instead simply purchase the exclusive content for their Xbox console. This severely reduces any impact on rival platforms and further hinders Microsoft ability to foreclose rivals. Third-party data procured by Microsoft in the ordinary course of business suggests that at the very least [20-30]% of PlayStation 5 users also owned an Xbox Series X/S and [X] also gamed on a PC. These metrics are as of December 2020 and are likely to have [X] at the time of this submission.

Microsoft regularly procures third-party data from NPD on console cross-ownership in the USA. The latest available data from NPD shows that in the fall of 2020, ca. [20-30]% of PlayStation 5 users also owned an Xbox Series X/S whereas [10-20]% of Xbox Series X/S users also owned a PlayStation 5. The same data also suggests that [] of PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X/S owners also plays on their PC. The difference in share of cross-owners across consoles is likely to be explained by the ongoing semiconductor shortage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that PlayStation 5 has witnessed a higher excess demand compared to the Xbox Series X/S. As the latest available data refers to the very beginning of the console generation, Microsoft expects the share of multi-homing console gamers to have increased materially over the course of the past months
.

Users with multiple consoles generally prefer PlayStation (page 68)

In the context of a survey, Microsoft has asked gamers which of their consoles is their "favourite" to play on. Generally, gamers that multi-home across consoles have reported to prefer their PlayStation over their Xbox More specifically, in response to the question: "Of the consoles you play games on, which one is/was your favourite to play on?", [60-70]% of gamers owning an Xbox and a PlayStation have reported their favourite console to be a PlayStation – [30-40]% PlayStation 4, [20-30]% PlayStation 5, [10-20]% Xbox Series X, [10-20]% Xbox One. Of the gamers owning all three consoles, [40-50]% have reported their favourite console to be a PlayStation – [30-40]% PlayStation 5, [10-20]% PlayStation 4, [10-20]% Xbox Series X, [10-20]% Nintendo Switch, [10-20]% Nintendo Switch OLED, [0-10]% Xbox One, [0-10]% Nintendo Switch Lite.

Sony and Nintendo could allow access to Gamepass via browser but they don't want to (page 68)

Gamers can access content via the web browser on their console – if their console provider allows them to: Microsoft allows other content services to be accessed on Xbox consoles via the web browser on the console (e.g., Luna, GeForce Now and Stadia can be accessed via Xbox consoles). Other console providers would have the option to do the same and allow gamers using their consoles to access Game Pass through the console browser. In that scenario, gamers would be able to access content which is exclusive to Game Pass without the need to purchase a new Xbox console. From a technical perspective, a gamer on any platform can access Game Pass, as long as the platform supports a modern implementation of a chromium-based browser and does not block the site. Game Pass is available via the browsers on increasing range of other devices, including Valve's Steam Deck, Razer and Logitech handheld gaming devices, the Meta Quest platform, new Samsung smart TVs, and Google Chromebooks. Sony and Nintendo do not currently allow gamers on their platforms to access Game Pass or other gaming services via the browsers on their consoles – but could easily do so.

The potential problems of having content from ABK on Gamepass (page 70)

The reality is that Activision content is present today on multi-game subscriptions only to a very limited extent. For reasons previously explained and reiterated below, publishers like Activision have conflicting incentives when it comes to the economics of placing their content on multi-game subscription services. Moreover, Microsoft would have to navigate current contractual restrictions to place Activision content into Game Pass. However, the intention of improving Game Pass with the inclusion Activision content would be to differentiate the service give gamers the benefit of accessing these titles more cheaply via a subscription.

ABK seems to be "against" subscription services and cloud gaming (page 76)

Activision has never published any newer content on multi-game subscription services and has no intention to do so in the future.

This stance is reflected in statements made by Activision's senior leadership, who in recent Investigational Hearings with the FTC in relation to the Merger have stated on the record that [X]. The Parties specifically note that:

(a) Bobby Kotick, CEO of Activision stated that [X]. Specifically, Mr. Kotick stated that [X]. Mr. Kotick was even more unequivocal in his position on cloud streaming, calling it [X]. Regarding the technical requirements, Mr. Kotick stated that even if latency and control issues could be improved, he considered that game developers were [X]. Likewise, Mr. Kotick stated [X]. For the reasons stated above, Mr. Kotick considered cloud-based game streaming to be [X].

(b) Mr. Kotick's position has been reiterated by numerous other senior leadership figures in Activision. Mike Ybarra, President of Blizzard Entertainment, stated that [X]. Additionally, Mike confirmed that [X]. Moreover, with regards to cloud-based game streaming, Mr. Ybarra stated that [X]. Mr. Ybarra stated that [X]. Mr. Ybarra has stated his view that [X].


World of Warcraft likely not coming to Gamepass (page 78)

A large component of Activision's share of PC game publishing is due to World of Warcraft, a single-game subscription title that is not part of any multi-game subscription service and would be technically very challenging to integrate into a multi-game subscription service.

Gamepass was expected to be around 35 million in July 2022 (page 82)

Since its launch in 2017, Game Pass has gradually grown to approximately 25 million subscribers. As above, this is 10 million fewer subscribers (28%) than what was forecasted for Fiscal Year 2022.

A bit more about Sony preventing games from being included on Gamepass (page 85)

Any potential growth of Game Pass, whether or not it elicits competitive response from Sony, would only be beneficial to gamers. For completeness, Microsoft is aware that Sony has secured contractual rights to prevent games from a number of publishers from being included on Game Pass. Sony engages in conduct today which is reflective of its market power in multi-game subscriptions, including charging a significant pricing premium for its subscription services without fear of losing share in either subscriptions or consoles, as well as restrictive provisions in its agreements with publishers. Accordingly, any concerns raised by Sony in relation to the potential impact of the Merger on multi-game subscription services must acknowledge this conduct, which suggests that Sony has prioritised its own profits, rather than benefits to gamers.

For example, Microsoft understands that [X]. 👀


PC Gamepass having a small market share (page 89)

While Microsoft's share of revenue generated by multi-game subscriptions services on PC is [X] than the Parties' share of game publishing on PC, these should not be taken as an indication that anticompetitive effects are likely to arise from any strategy involving the withholding of Activision's games from rival services. It is not appropriate to sub-segment the PC gaming segment and carve out subscription services. As explained, these are just another means of paying for gaming content and do not represent a meaningfully different offering from a demand-side perspective. Game Pass' share is miniscule on PC: the overall revenue from subscription services on PC accounts for less than [X]% of the global PC gaming segment and [X]% in the UK. The beta for PC Game Pass was only launched in June 2019 and Microsoft has not seen any evidence of a cannibalisation effect in PC gaming to date. Microsoft notes that its share of distribution in PC games is limited in any event (ca. [X]% in the UK in 2021).

xCloud numbers are really small? (Page 92) We don't know the numbers, but I guess that they wouldn't frame them this way if they were good.

In December 2021, there were only around [X] million MAUs on xCloud worldwide, representing [X]% of total Xbox MAUs in the same period. These proportions are even smaller if one considers the percentage of game time: the total game-time on xCloud is only [X]% of the total game-time on Xbox console in 2021, and only [X]% in 2022. Over January - March 2022 the average share of xCloud MAUs to Xbox MAUs was [X]%

Fortnite on xCloud is having worse numbers than MS expected (page 94)

While cloud gaming on mobile may grow, adoption is not expected to be rapid as it requires a significant change in consumer behaviour. Research published by the CMA shows that, both worldwide and in the UK, where cloud gaming app users had a choice between a provider's native or web app on Android, around 99% of users used the native app, with 1% using either the web app or a combination of the web and native app. Microsoft's experience with adding Fortnite on Xbox Cloud Gaming illustrates these challenges.

Microsoft added cloud gaming as a feature of its top-tier subscription service offer, Game Pass Ultimate (which also includes the multi-player functionality of Xbox Live Gold) in September 2020. Yet, more than two years later, Xbox Cloud Gaming is still available as a "beta", meaning that it is still in second- stage testing.

(b) At launch, Microsoft was hopeful that [X].373 But even then, Microsoft understood [X].374 The 'market signal' Microsoft received, [X].

(c) Fortnite was launched as a free-to-play game on Xbox Cloud Gaming in May 2022. 375 As the game was free-to-play and available separately from Game Pass, Microsoft was relatively optimistic as to the number of potential users of the service. [X].

(d) As shown by Figure 53 below, the number of players on Fortnite on Xbox Cloud Gaming [X].


Premium COD maybe not be coming to xCloud because that would damage COD: Mobile (pages 102-103)

As outlined above, Activision has developed a native mobile version, Call of Duty: Mobile. Since its launch in 2019, Call of Duty: Mobile has been extremely successful and has MAUs of ca. [X] million, ca. [X]% of the total MAUs of the franchise. Call of Duty: Mobile is available via the App Store and Google Play Store. Because of the success of Call of Duty: Mobile, the inclusion of Call of Duty on Xbox Cloud Gaming would be likely to cause consumer confusion and damage the Call of Duty: Mobile brand (particularly as the user experience and game-play would be different between the two versions).

As noted above, minimising latency is critical to the gamer experience and high latency can have a significant detrimental effect on the quality of gameplay, particularly for competitive multiplayer gameplay – a central element of the appeal of Call of Duty. As such, if Call of Duty were offered over a cloud streaming service, players would [X] particularly given the success of Call of Duty: Mobile (i.e., the native mobile version of the game).


Azure is not optimised for gaming (page 104)

Azure has a limited number of data centres in the UK: Azure provides IaaS from a limited number of [X] data centres in the UK. The locations of Azure's data centres are optimized for enterprise customers, not gaming customers. Azure GPU optimised servers suitable for cloud gaming are located at third- party data centres in London. Azure does not, therefore, offer a broader footprint in the UK than its competitors.

Cloud gaming is losing money for MS right now (page 107)

Microsoft has no history of using Windows OS to target cloud gaming providers: Cloud gaming providers such as Amazon, Google and Nvidia have been SPLA partners for many years. Microsoft has not withheld access to the SPLA program, nor has it degraded access to Windows Server under SPLA in the past. The revenue Microsoft receives from licensing Windows Server via SPLA is substantial at ca. USD [X] billion [X] (equating to approximately [X]% of SPLA revenues) and it is not credible that Microsoft would forgo this revenue in order to protect its position in cloud gaming which does not generate material revenues and is loss-making.
 
Price tag does not matter. There won't be concessions because there is no party being hurt by that deal or there is a party that needs those concessions in the first place. Sony's cries are irrelevant to the regulators or the market. The existence of Nintendo and Geforce Now obliterates all Sony's arguments.
Hilarious that some people still believe this. Not even era and the lunatics on twitter are this delusional anymore about the deal 😂
 
The point is that just because it is expensive, it does not mean that it requires concessions. ABK is expensive because ABK is profitable. That's all to it.
It is, if there is a harm to the market. Which this deal has.
The person who will benefit from this deal is MS who would gain new powerhouse. The losers are the people who use PS and are going to lose COD, because Sony is competing with MS.
 
idas from the other site that users reference quite a bit here is similarly impressed as I was with the staggering amount of hard data Microsoft and Activision has provided to CMA basically addressing every potential issue. The sheer amount of detail with hard data is a big reason for why I find it difficult to believe that things won't ultimately work out in their favor. Many more pages are dedicated to Call of Duty than anything else because Call of Duty IS the only thing that can stop this deal.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/the-microsoft-activision-blizzard-acquisition-ot-antitrust-simulator-update-the-ftc-"likely"-to-sue.633344/post-97084198

Has Idas disected Sony's response and if so, do you have a link to it? Someone told me it was posted in this thread, but I haven't found it, just a summary without comments or opinions on both company's responses.
 
The point is that just because it is expensive, it does not mean that it requires concessions. ABK is expensive because ABK is profitable. That's all to it.

Precisely. Especially when Activision Blizzard as a business, even when you narrow the market down to just shooters, is nowhere close to the levels of market power and credible network effects that have triggered findings of foreclosure in past CMA investigations. To block this deal CMA will need to take unprecedented action they've never taken in their entire history, which is what makes it so interesting.
 
They'll be devalued af, so yeah. And like was said before, they won't lose that sweet sweet Sonys revenue, or else they'll lose even more market value. 🤷🏻‍♂️
Incase you don't realize, Activision makes more than what they make on Sony devices, thnx to COD mobile, not to mention there other titles.
Call of Duty Mobile has reached a massive new revenue milestone. The game has now passed $1.5 billion in lifetime spending globally across iOS and Android, according to SensorTower.

It's why they accepted this deal. They know MS is Sony competitor, and there is exclusive risk. They care so little about Sony. It's business opportunities. And losing that means consequences in future businesses.
Activision-Blizzard's is going to lose alot from this deal. From stock fall, to losing money from the result of stock downfall.
 
Last edited:
idas from the other site that users reference quite a bit here is similarly impressed as I was with the staggering amount of hard data Microsoft and Activision has provided to CMA basically addressing every potential issue. The sheer amount of detail with hard data is a big reason for why I find it difficult to believe that things won't ultimately work out in their favor. Many more pages are dedicated to Call of Duty than anything else because Call of Duty IS the only thing that can stop this deal.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/the-microsoft-activision-blizzard-acquisition-ot-antitrust-simulator-update-the-ftc-"likely"-to-sue.633344/post-97084198
If it turns out they have to fight this deal on three regulatory fronts(UK, EU, US) to get it approved, the deal is almost certainly already dead IMO - unless no one at Microsoft studied history or knows the lesson about fighting battles on too many fronts at the same time.
 
Precisely. Especially when Activision Blizzard as a business, even when you narrow the market down to just shooters, is nowhere close to the levels of market power and credible network effects that have triggered findings of foreclosure in past CMA investigations. To block this deal CMA will need to take unprecedented action they've never taken in their entire history, which is what makes it so interesting.
Who said they are going to block it. Do people just open their mouth?
 
idas from the other site that users reference quite a bit here is similarly impressed as I was with the staggering amount of hard data Microsoft and Activision has provided to CMA basically addressing every potential issue. The sheer amount of detail with hard data is a big reason for why I find it difficult to believe that things won't ultimately work out in their favor. Many more pages are dedicated to Call of Duty than anything else because Call of Duty IS the only thing that can stop this deal.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/the-microsoft-activision-blizzard-acquisition-ot-antitrust-simulator-update-the-ftc-"likely"-to-sue.633344/post-97084198

You really have to have an eye for bullshit to work at one of these regulatory agencies. That much I've learned reading arguments from both Microsoft and Sony. It is damn surreal.
 
It is, if there is a harm to the market. Which this deal has.
Except it does not harm to the market. Nintendo is literally not affected and it is part of the market. Same with PC and Steam. For PC it changes nothing.

"Harm to the market" is the same argument as "harm to the consumers" that Sony uses yet it always turns into "Playstation market" and "Playstation consumers" :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
Precisely. Especially when Activision Blizzard as a business, even when you narrow the market down to just shooters, is nowhere close to the levels of market power and credible network effects that have triggered findings of foreclosure in past CMA investigations. To block this deal CMA will need to take unprecedented action they've never taken in their entire history, which is what makes it so interesting.
I don't believe that anybody is gonna block the deal. EU might ask not to bundle COD with Windows for example. CMA's only argument is cloud but cloud is not that big yet and it is not proved market in the first place (Stadia proves that success is not guaranteed) - not to mention Geforce Now does not even have exclusive games for example. With CMA, Microsoft's argument and comparison with Giphy was pretty solid.
If FTC won't do that because it would cause a blowback from CWA, unions and workers (especially considerig the original situation with ABK that triggered the deal in the first pllace) - we should remember the original letter from the senators in the beginning.
 
Last edited:
Has Idas disected Sony's response and if so, do you have a link to it? Someone told me it was posted in this thread, but I haven't found it, just a summary without comments or opinions on both company's responses.

I believe he has.

Let me find it.

What I've found so far was his initial assessment of the Sony document.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/th...“likely”-to-sue.633344/page-128#post-96994015

The CMA published the response from Sony :p 21 pages, some of them fully redacted.

Reading right now...

https://www.resetera.com/threads/th...-the-ftc-“likely”-to-sue.633344/post-96994648

Almost done reading and this document is going to generate sooo much console warring :p xD

Some of the arguments are indeed a little 🤔

https://www.resetera.com/threads/th...-the-ftc-“likely”-to-sue.633344/post-96999529
Yes, I think that Sony is doing really well. They have a clear objective and the execution so far has been quite successful.

Sony has probably contributed a lot to the level of scrutiny that the transaction is having.

Anyway, from this new response, I personally love the definition of Minecraft that they provide to downplay the title:

"It is a single release, virtually infinite game world that uses blocky graphics, has no required goals, and is already in users' hands."

Haha! It's a very legal way to define Minecraft xD


All I've found thus far. But I've read Sony's in full along with Microsoft's, and Microsoft's submission contains an overwhelming amount of data, a lot more than what is provided by Sony to back up their claims. What data may be shown by Sony is totally redacted, but still appears completely drowned out by the overwhelming amount of data provided by Microsoft and Activision.

Also, idas pointed out something very interesting - CMA went out of its way to state that nothing they've published thus far should be confused to be them taking any position. He suggested it could be a sign that CMA is feeling a bit of pressure over accusations of being a little bit too friendly to Sony.
 
You really have to have an eye for bullshit to work at one of these regulatory agencies. That much I've learned reading arguments from both Microsoft and Sony. It is damn surreal.
He needs to do more reading from Idas.
This guy is only focusing on what he wants.

For example, Idas is talking as to why Sony is fighting for this.

I think that it's important to talk about third party strategies in mergers, what Sony is doing and (probably) why.

Third parties can oppose to a potential transaction in their industry taking proactive steps to challenge a deal: 1) encouraging the regulators to block it; 2) filing a private civil suit or 3) even lobbying politicians.

But first of all, what is a third party in this case?

  • Customers (Users from Xbox or ABK, for example)
  • Competitors (Sony or Nintendo)
  • Suppliers (Take-Two, Electronic Arts or any indie developer)
  • Distributors (From Steam in digital to GAME in retail)
  • Wholesalers (GameStop, for example)
  • Advocacy groups (the Communications Workers of America, for example)
Opposing a transaction has pros and cons, but more than once has been a successful strategy. For example, when in 2014 Comcast announced its intent to acquire Time Warner, Netlix (among others) opposed to it, influencing the DOJ very early. The transaction was finally abandoned.

When a third party complains to the regulator during the review process, it's mainly for 4 reasons.

- To influence the regulator to investigate particular aspects of a transaction
- To encourage regulators to make a formal legal challenge or reject the deal
- To help regulators to shape an eventual merger remedy
- To obtain the merging parties' divested assets

While the complaints that usually carry more weight are the ones from customers, the ones from competitors can also be relevant. In fact, even more in vertical mergers where foreclosure is a potential key issue (like this one). In any case, regulators are always skeptic about a competitor opposing a merger because their interests usually diverge from the interests of the consumer. But competitors can be helpful for regulators because they are well-placed to offer concrete, relevant and detailed facts that regulators may find useful in developing theories and arguments.

If a third party wants to oppose a transaction, they have to start as soon as possible. Early involvement can help set the tone for the investigation, including what the regulators view as key issues and whom the regulator approaches for information. It looks like Sony approached regulators in April - May (the start of the first review processes) and from the info shared by CADE and the CMA it's obvious that they tried to set the tone of the investigation.

Third parties usually provide things like internal documents, studies, pricing analyses, market research, customer surveys, face to face meetings with the CEO or knowledgeable representative, etc. Expert opinions from reputable economists are also useful.

Sony provided documents, studies, pricing analyses and market research to CADE and the CMA, Jim Ryan met with the European Commission (and the CMA) and they hired a team of economists for the deal. They have even lobbied politicians.

If a competitor decides to oppose a transaction, they'll highlight that the merger is likely to stop the competitor from competing effectively against the merged entity by:

- Foreclosing the competitor from access to a necessary market or input (Call of Duty)
- Foreclosing the competitor from specific and important market opportunities (ABK games in subscription services)
- Subjecting the competitor to higher costs (Gamepass negatively affecting the value of games)
- Subjecting the competitor to exclusionary conduct (raising barriers to entry in cloud gaming)

In addition, although regulators are generally skeptical of competitor complaints, if a regulator decides to oppose a transaction, a complaining competitor can be a valuable ally for the agency (for example in future litigation). This is way the FTC staff was probably getting third party signed declarations in October.

But complaining to the agencies also have risks:

- Third-party materials and testimonies that now are confidential could become public
- It's not cheap :p
- You are wasting time that could be spend on your business
- It's a one-way flow of information (the regulators will not provide a complaining third party with info about the investigation)
- It could affect future acquisitions: regulators could use arguments and information submitted by Sony in the future (market definitions, for example)

So, I understand what Sony is doing and it makes sense from their perspective. But if the trend of the industry is consolidation, they'll have to make more acquisitions too. And being so aggressive now could have unintended consequences in a few years...
 
Topher Topher
Here is where he explains about concession or remedies.
Since the beginning MS has been looking for "informal remedies": multiple public statements about COD being on everything, offers to Sony, changing the terms of the cloud licenses, the agreement with the CAW, etc.

They have been proactive and fixing potential issues on their own expecting an easier review process and no formal remedies. But if that is not enough and they also need formal remedies, those are always more troublesome. Like an official settlement with the FTC.

Edit:
Also ftc issues
I think it goes something like this:

1.- The FTC files a motion for a preliminary injunction (unlikely here because the timing is in favour of the FTC)
2.- The FTC issues a complaint and begins proceedings before an FTC administrative law judge (likely if they challenge)
3.- The FTC Commissioners review the initial decision from the administrative judge
4.- If the FTC Commissioners still believe that the transaction would lessen competition, then the parties can go to a federal appellate court

6 to 10 extra months, give or take.
 
Last edited:
Microsoft's submission contains an overwhelming amount of data, a lot more than what is provided by Sony to back up their claims
But of course - Sony's arguments are not based on data. Sony even claimed that Xbox is somewhat behind Playstation, while Microsoft literally provided the hard data withh Xbox (10-20) and Playstation(40-50).

Also, idas pointed out something very interesting - CMA went out of its way to state that nothing they've published thus far should be confused to be them taking any position. He suggested it could be a sign that CMA is feeling a bit of pressure over accusations of being a little bit too friendly to Sony.
Yeah, it was an interesting note.
 
Except it does not harm to the market
It does. You wont see it, if you argue on behalf of MS.
Nintendo is literally not affected and it is part of the market.
They never had COD for years. They arent impacted by this deal.
Same with PC and Steam. For PC it changes nothing.
MS does Day1 on steam. Battle net would be part of MS.
"Harm to the market" is the same argument as "harm to the consumers" = "Playstation consumers"
There. This is what you need to know.
 
MLB the show. It's a PlayStation studios game.

So is that the reason? Just trying to understand why there's so much doubt maybe I missed something that contradicts there statement.

Do not forget the fact Sony were forced to release it on multiple platforms to keep the right for the MLB series, otherwise they would've been taken away the MLB rights for gaming titles
 
And thát proves that market is not harmed. Only Playstation is, but Playstation is not the market. World doesn't resolve around Playstation :ROFLMAO:


Oh, so you were trolling. I believed for a moment that you really thought the market is harmed.
fuck my life fml GIF
 
It has already happened, I even had the Sony logo as my background image on my Xbox because I thought it was so strange lol

But as said when the deal happened Bungie would be in control of the publishing and would keep their titles multiplatform. Guessing it's like Mojang, their titles are bigger than some childish platform war.
As always though, things can change.

Bungie might have some sort of control, but at the end of the day it will depend on SIE. Mojang doesn't have any control at all, it's MS the one deciding to release Mojang games on multiple platforms, not Mojang.

By the way will the new Bungie IP owned by themselves or SIE?
 
And thát proves that market is not harmed. Only Playstation is, but Playstation is not the market. World doesn't resolve around Playstation :ROFLMAO:


Oh, so you were trolling. I believed for a moment that you really thought the market is harmed.
What the hell do you consider "the market" if not direct competitors and consumers?
 
What the hell do you consider "the market" if not direct competitors and consumers?
Market is an overall gaming market. PC + console. Arguably mobile too in 2-3 years.
Harming competitors (though Sony won't be harmed that much and won't leave the console market altogether) is a part of the competition.

If Sony loses some market share, it is not a big deal.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom