Support NeoGAF

[Three]

Of course Microsoft gives them all the time they need. Look at the 1 yr delay for Halo Infinite. It allowed them to also include the kitchen sink with that complete game.

 

[feynoob]

Here is some recap.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4565240-microsoft-activision-merger-levered-bet-top-2023-pick

Risk of Acquiree Approval

This risk has been removed as the company voted overwhelmingly to accept the offer from MSFT in April 2022. With close to a $30 premium over the $65ish share price at the time, monetarily the offer was a good reward for shareholders. The company was also going through a lot of difficulty with a very toxic work environment so this acquisition would let the company "re-boot" its culture through integration with MSFT. There was not a lot of doubt that it would be approved, and it was.

Regulatory Risk

This is where the true risk of the deal closing sits. The US-based FTC has already sued Microsoft to stop the deal. Both companies are optimistic that they will win in court, and both had hoped to find a peaceful solution. From a high level, I struggle to see where the anti-competitive component comes in. Both Sony (SONY) and Nintendo (OTCPK:NTDOY) have more exclusive content than Microsoft does through its Xbox Platform, with Halo and Forza being the lead games for Microsoft. An acquisition of ATVI would bring Call of Duty but Microsoft has already offered its rights to Sony for its PlayStation Plus platform which would negate the exclusivity of that franchise. Of course, a deal needs to be worked out with Sony who could try to play hardball to scuttle the deal. Microsoft has an extensive lobbying arm, in Washington putting roughly $10m per year with close to 100 lobbyists to work to support the company's goals which should help to find a negotiated solution prior to any trial.

The other major regulatory agencies requiring approval include the UK's Competition and Markets Authority and the European Commission. Microsoft recently made a substantial investment with the London Stock Exchange Group which was likely a deal on its own merits but making its name felt in the markets isn't necessarily a bad thing. The CMA has already come back with findings to Microsoft which will now go about the process of finding remedies. The European Commission will similarly require some concessions but could also lead to early approval.

The regulatory risk comes down to is there either a real risk of a Microsoft/Activision merger being anti-competitive in the videogame landscape or if there is a perceived risk of that occurring. Sony PlayStation will still be larger than the combined Microsoft/Activision entity just among the major consoles. The growth of mobile games in recent years, while obviously different in complexity and target audience, should also be considered in whether this type of acquisition would be anti-competitive.

Bear Market Risk

These two risks are the biggest risks to whether investors in ATVI see the $95 per share that Microsoft offers. There is an additional downside risk in this environment is how a trade in this would be structure. An investment in the equity gives you the full upside opportunity from the current price. This type of positioning also has a lot of risk in a bear market. There are a lot of estimates that ATVI could be worth even above the current share price as a stand-alone entity, but in this environment, there is a lot of room to the downside with a stock trading at a 25x P/E value. Even a re-rating to a 15x P/E would see a $45 share price or close to a $30 downside vs $19 upside if the deal closes; this is not a particularly attractive risk-reward.

A straight call option would give you pure leverage to the upside, but with a capped upside due to the offer price. With that in mind, I chose to use a Bull Call Option spread to try to leverage up a bit more due to the upside cap from the buyout offer. I chose to go out to June 2023; this is the month the deal is supposed to close but I would expect any regulatory issues would need to addressed in advance of the end of June. The $95 calls do not give enough juice at the current pricing, so I used $90s as the upper bound. For lower bound, I used $85. The net spread (utilizing the ask prices) is $1.90 vs. $5.00 on the spread. You could also use $80 which would give you a spread cost of $3.70 vs $10 but I liked the fact the net cost was 50% which let you do a bit bigger call option position.

 

[feynoob]

Meta could face $11.8 billion fine as EU charges tech giant with breaching antitrust rules

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/19/met...e-as-eu-charges-it-with-antitrust-breach.html

KEY POINTS

• The European Commission, the EU's executive arm, said that it found Meta breached EU antitrust law by distorting competition in the markets for online classified ads.
• The Commission took issue with Meta's pairing of the Facebook Marketplace service, which lets users list items for sale, with its personal social network, Facebook.
• Meta could face a fine worth as much as $11.8 billion if it is found guilty of the charges.

The European Union on Monday issued Facebook parent company Meta with a list of objections over of its online classifieds business, Facebook Marketplace.

The European Commission, the EU's executive arm, said that it found Meta breached EU antitrust rules by distorting competition in the markets for online classified ads.

The Commission took issue with Meta's pairing of the Facebook Marketplace service, which lets users list items for sale, with its personal social network, Facebook.

It said it was concerned this arrangement gives Facebook Marketplace a "substantial distribution advantage that competitors cannot match."

Margrethe Vestager, the Commission's vice president in charge of competition policy, said the tie-up of Facebook with Marketplace gives users "no choice but to have access to Facebook Marketplace."

"Furthermore, we are concerned that Meta imposed unfair trading conditions, allowing it to use of data on competing online classified ad services," Vestager said in a statement.

"If confirmed, Meta's practices would be illegal under our competition rules."

Tim Lamb, head of EMEA competition at Meta, said: "The claims made by the European Commission are without foundation."

"We will continue to work with regulatory authorities to demonstrate that our product innovation is pro-consumer and pro-competitive," he added.

The Commission opened an investigation into Meta in June 2021, looking into "possible anticompetitive conduct of Facebook."

Issuing a company with a statement of objections is a formal step in EU competition investigations and does not prejudge the outcome of a probe.

However, if after a company presents its defense the Commission still finds sufficient evidence of a breach, it can face potential changes to its business practices or a fine of up to 10% of global annual revenue.

For Meta, which made $117.92 billion in annual revenues in 2021, that could mean a penalty worth as much as $11.8 billion.

It would mark the latest setback for Meta, which is facing pressure from investors over its pivot to the "metaverse," among other things. The company's share price has fallen more than 60% this year amid a broader slump in technology stocks.

Separately Monday, the Commission closed an investigation into a partnership between Meta and Google that it earlier alleged hampered competition in advertising technology.

"Following a careful assessment of all relevant evidence, including information received from Google, Meta and other companies active in the tech sector, the Commission concluded that the evidence did not confirm its initial concerns and has therefore decided to close its investigation," the Commission said.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Let them sweat.

 

[Cheezewizz]

Meta could face $11.8 billion fine as EU charges tech giant with breaching antitrust rules

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/19/met...e-as-eu-charges-it-with-antitrust-breach.html

Not saying the EU is right or wrong about FB Marketplace, but they should know by now that it'll eventually become irrelevant regardless. Facebook Marketplace will suffer the same fate that every online marketplace does. They are fantastic for the first year or so as a place for people to list items for sale, and to find good deals. Eventually businesses start massive posting campaigns, and the marketplace becomes infested with business ads disguised as private sellers. Once it becomes basically a business directory, traffic falls off a cliff, another marketplace pops up, and the process is repeated.

Went on FB Marketplace browsing for a car engine last week, and took me 10 mins to realize that literally all the listings were just salvage yards or engine rebuilding companies. Give it another year, and FB Marketplace will be completely irrelevant.

 

[HoofHearted]

Fucking hell… now we are arguing about cars?

 

[Topher]

Fucking hell… now we are arguing about cars?

And buses

 

[gothmog]

Not saying the EU is right or wrong about FB Marketplace, but they should know by now that it'll eventually become irrelevant regardless. Facebook Marketplace will suffer the same fate that every online marketplace does. They are fantastic for the first year or so as a place for people to list items for sale, and to find good deals. Eventually businesses start massive posting campaigns, and the marketplace becomes infested with business ads disguised as private sellers. Once it becomes basically a business directory, traffic falls off a cliff, another marketplace pops up, and the process is repeated.

Went on FB Marketplace browsing for a car engine last week, and took me 10 mins to realize that literally all the listings were just salvage yards or engine rebuilding companies. Give it another year, and FB Marketplace will be completely irrelevant.

Maybe. EU would probably impose more fines if the marketplace ended up getting astroturfed like that.

 

[DarkMage619]

But I did answer you seriously the last time this came up by saying the Series S is 7-8 times more powerful than the Switch (4.2TF vs 470GF undocked, 780GF docked) whilst effectively targeting the same resolution. I also highlighted that Microsoft's own launch trailer highlighted next gen performance, 120fps, directx raytracing, VRS, VRR & 1440p resolutions.

Rather than engage in good faith you just told me to spread the word because other posters like to slate it.

I thought you were kidding. None of that proves MS targeted a 'high performance console' segment with the XSS. You know damn well that most of the features the XSS has are based on it being several years newer than Switch not because it's a high performance console. It's also priced LOWER than the Switch indicating its NOT targeting a high performance audience at all. Who charges less for high performance?

Look at this FTC nonsense you apparently believe:

Due to their distinct offerings, Microsoft and Sony consoles appeal to different gaming audiences than the Nintendo Switch. While Xbox Series X|S and PS5 consoles offer more mature content for more serious gaming, Nintendo's hardware and content tends to be used more for casual and family gaming.

You honestly think it's a good faith argument to say the XSS is a high performance console targeting 'serious gaming audiences'? Stop it. You know that isn't beginning to be true. XSS is marketed showing Fortnite and Rocket League. These are titles for 'serious gamers'? You know these games are on Switch too right? How can that be? It's not in the same market as Xbox right?

This by the way also means that Nintendo can NEVER release a new system with better specs because their whole company is defined as only catering to the low performance non-serious gamer segment right? I had no idea Bayonetta was for kids and Zelda was casual only title. Pure nonsense. You have to be a mind reader to know what Nintendo will do next.

Finally there we several titles that hit PlayStation and Switch but skip Xbox all together. How can be when only Sony and MS are in competition? How can Octopath Traveler 2 and Sifu some how miss Xbox but hit Switch and PlayStation with no issues at all? None of this makes any sense.

It's almost like all of these consoles are in competition with each other no matter how asine the FTC market segmentation is. Good faith argument my bottom. All of these consoles are in competition for gamers money and time and you know that's true. Switch isn't some sort of magical product that exists outside of the console market and you know it.

You know, I'm quite the therapist myself. I could help you. I'll even make the sessions ear reading friendly.

I hope you see the therapist first because most of the time I have no idea what you are rambling about.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I hope you see the therapist first because most of the time I have no idea what you are rambling about.

That's why I aim to make our sessions together ear reading friendly so you can follow along. Like Sony i'm all about accessibility.

 

[PhaseJump]

 

[adamsapple]

Fucking hell… now we are arguing about cars?

When hell is full, the dead will walk.

 

[HoofHearted]

When hell is full, the dead will walk.

 

[DarkMage619]

That's why I aim to make our sessions together ear reading friendly so you can follow along. Like Sony i'm all about accessibility.

Ok.

 

[MasterCornholio]

And Segways.

 

[Banjo64]

I thought you were kidding. None of that proves MS targeted a 'high performance console' segment with the XSS. You know damn well that most of the features the XSS has are based on it being several years newer than Switch not because it's a high performance console. It's also priced LOWER than the Switch indicating its NOT targeting a high performance audience at all. Who charges less for high performance?

Look at this FTC nonsense you apparently believe:

Due to their distinct offerings, Microsoft and Sony consoles appeal to different gaming audiences than the Nintendo Switch. While Xbox Series X|S and PS5 consoles offer more mature content for more serious gaming, Nintendo's hardware and content tends to be used more for casual and family gaming.

An accurate summary of the market.

You honestly think it's a good faith argument to say the XSS is a high performance console targeting 'serious gaming audiences'? Stop it. You know that isn't beginning to be true. XSS is marketed showing Fortnite and Rocket League. These are titles for 'serious gamers'? You know these games are on Switch too right? How can that be? It's not in the same market as Xbox right?

If you don't understand that the Series S will receive more mature content compared to the Switch like Starfield, TES, Fallout, GTA and RDR there's not much I can do to help.

This by the way also means that Nintendo can NEVER release a new system with better specs because their whole company is defined as only catering to the low performance non-serious gamer segment right?

It's almost as if people look at the extensive past precedent that's available when judging the likelihood of something.

I had no idea Bayonetta was for kids and Zelda was casual only title. Pure nonsense. You have to be a mind reader to know what Nintendo will do next. Finally there we several titles that hit PlayStation and Switch but skip Xbox all together. How can be when only Sony and MS are in competition? How can Octopath Traveler 2 and Sifu some how miss Xbox but hit Switch and PlayStation with no issues at all? None of this makes any sense. It's almost like all of these consoles are in competition with each other no matter how asine the FTC market segmentation is. Good faith argument my bottom. All of these consoles are in competition for gamers money and time and you know that's true. Switch isn't some sort of magical product that exists outside of the console market and you know it.

You are exhausting and spout so much crap, it would take me an hour to pick apart your post sentence by sentence.

But please stop saying things 'you know it' and 'allegedly believe' to me. I genuinely don't know if you got that from a self help book or The Art of the Deal or something, but it's pathetic.

 

[gothmog]

I can only imagine most of the legal teams have already started taking off for the holiday. If we don't hear about something in the next 24 hours or so, I'm expecting no major news until January.

 

[phil_t98]

And buses

This place has lost it totally lol

 

[DarkMage619]

If you don't understand that the Series S will receive more mature content compared to the Switch like Starfield, TES, Fallout, GTA and RDR there's not much I can do to help.

I thought it was performance that determined the market? What would help is if you acknowledged reality. The Switch has a bevy of hentai titles on its store right now. Don't tell me that's not mature. In addition none of those titles you mentioned are any more mature than Zelda or Bayonetta. Resident Evil and Monster Hunter are also on Switch. It is a normal game console like all the other consoles which is why it's part of the same market.

It's almost as if people look at the extensive past precedent that's available when judging the likelihood of something.

Nonsense. No one outside of Nintendo knows how powerful their next console will be but guaranteed people won't buy it based on how powerful it is. It always comes down to game libraries and it's another reason the FTC segmentation makes no sense at all. I noticed you decided not to comment on the FTC's idea of a serious game device. It's ridiculous.

You are exhausting and spout so much crap, it would take me an hour to pick apart your post sentence by sentence.

Haha reading your 'crap' ain't no picnic buddy. There is nothing for you to pick apart. Your position is illogical and trying to support it is a waste of time. No one buys a Switch based it's power. The same is true for the XSS. It's about price and game library. Both of those devices are casual friendly but that also means they are part of the same market.

But please stop saying things 'you know it' and 'allegedly believe' to me. I genuinely don't know if you got that from a self help book or The Art of the Deal or something, but it's pathetic.

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt because no one who games seriously believes either: the XSS was a high performance console play from MS nor the Switch was purchased by people looking for a non serious, low performance device. The notion is absurd.

What is truly pathetic is taking the FTC's definition of the market because you don't like the idea of MS buying Activision. You can dislike the idea of MS being more competitive all day long, lots here do, but there are far more logical reasons than citing reasons from people who know nothing about the video game industry... and you know it.

I can only imagine most of the legal teams have already started taking off for the holiday. If we don't hear about something in the next 24 hours or so, I'm expecting no major news until January.

If MS doesn't respond to the FTC, the FTC complaint will be final, MS will be admitting their acquisition is illegal and the deal will be blocked. They have to respond by Thursday.

 

[Banjo64]

I thought it was performance that determined the market? What would help is if you acknowledged reality. The Switch has a bevy of hentai titles on its store right now. Don't tell me that's not mature. In addition none of those titles you mentioned are any more mature than Zelda or Bayonetta. Resident Evil and Monster Hunter are also on Switch. It is a normal game console like all the other consoles which is why it's part of the same market.

Nonsense. No one outside of Nintendo knows how powerful their next console will be but guaranteed people won't buy it based on how powerful it is. It always comes down to game libraries and it's another reason the FTC segmentation makes no sense at all. I noticed you decided not to comment on the FTC's idea of a serious game device. It's ridiculous.

Haha reading your 'crap' ain't no picnic buddy. There is nothing for you to pick apart. Your position is illogical and trying to support it is a waste of time. No one buys a Switch based it's power. The same is true for the XSS. It's about price and game library. Both of those devices are casual friendly but that also means they are part of the same market.

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt because no one who games seriously believes either: the XSS was a high performance console play from MS nor the Switch was purchased by people looking for a non serious, low performance device. The notion is absurd.

What is truly pathetic is taking the FTC's definition of the market because you don't like the idea of MS buying Activision. You can dislike the idea of MS being more competitive all day long, lots here do, but there are far more logical reasons than citing reasons from people who know nothing about the video game industry... and you know it.


If MS doesn't respond to the FTC, the FTC complaint will be final, MS will be admitting their acquisition is illegal and the deal will be blocked. They have to respond by Thursday.

I don't know what this deal has done to you my friend, but it's grim.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I don't know what this deal has done to you my friend, but it's grim.

 

[jm89]

I don't know what this deal has done to you my friend, but it's grim.

Never go full senjutsu that's what I say.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

When the FTC can sue a third-party console publisher/creator/store bigger than COD revenues and get $520Million dollars into their warchest...competition is so tight and thin on the ground in this duopoly however will poor little indie developer Epic/Fortnite/Tencent ever afford half a billion from their $6Billion revenue last year? I have no idea how they could compete with Chief or COD with the tug of war Sony and Xbox have going. I guess the FTC see Epic/Fortnite big enough to wear the cost and survive but not a viable competitor to COD right? Fuck me.

I'd love to see the magic math to transform the ever so small market player oppressed by MS/Xbox into a corporate entity that can weather $520 Million out the door the FTC pushed for.

Fortnite key statistics

• Fortnite generated $5.8 billion revenue in 2021 for Epic Games
• Before it was banned, Fortnite made $1.1 billion in lifetime mobile revenue
• Fortnite has approximately 400 million registered players, 83 million play once a month
• Over 60 percent of players are in the 18-24 age bracket
• There are literally equal Fortnite players to PS subs. Think about that.
• Fortnite's gargantuan popularity may have also inadvertently helped microtransaction revenues, as it's thought that without Fortnite, global microtransaction revenues for consoles would have slumped 6%.
• Last 30 days there was approx. 250+Million total active players across all platforms.
• Fortnite is about 2 to 1 on Sony consoles. All of these reports include Nintendo Switch for figures, not a single one exempts Nintendo's Switch. Basically Xbox + Nintendo combined = Sony here. Sony dominate, I don't see the FTC pushing any anti-competitive cases against Fortnite, and Fortnite is larger than COD. Go figure.

And something even weirder here...Tencent own 40% of Epic. The largest global console player base and it has nothing to do with Sony or MS or the current anti-competitive FTC case? The FTC just successfully made Fortnite/Tencent pay and a major percentage of that fine is directly affecting consoles/players. And yet we don't have Tencent as a viable entry to the console market? Even looking at just Fortnite/Epic they challenge Apple, they support platforms/devices, technologies, opened a new gaming store competitor, compete with overlap against COD successfully etc. All backed by Tencent.

What a stupid case the FTC have for anti-competitiveness. They haven't even attacked the major players in the market. They also haven't promoted positive industry change and outcomes, literally all negative. SMH.

 

[hlm666]

And something even weirder here...Tencent own 40% of Epic. The largest global console player base and it has nothing to do with Sony or MS or the current anti-competitive FTC case? The FTC just successfully made Fortnite/Tencent pay and a major percentage of that fine is directly affecting consoles/players. And yet we don't have Tencent as a viable entry to the console market? Even looking at just Fortnite/Epic they challenge Apple, they support platforms/devices, technologies, opened a new gaming store competitor, compete with overlap against COD successfully etc. All backed by Tencent.

What a stupid case the FTC have for anti-competitiveness. They haven't even attacked the major players in the market. They also haven't promoted positive industry change and outcomes, literally all negative. SMH.

I wonder if that will have any blow back on other games, they are not the only ones doing what they called dark patterns there. Did they just fine them without also making them change the systems they got fined for?

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Not sure if they have yet, usually those rulings have a reasonable duration for fixes to be live.

 

[reksveks]

I can only imagine most of the legal teams have already started taking off for the holiday. If we don't hear about something in the next 24 hours or so, I'm expecting no major news until January.

I assume that we are only going to see the official and short response from the MS legal team that they are going to be fighting it cause they legally need to.

In other news,



The article should become public later today or tomorrow

 

[feynoob]

I guess the FTC see Epic/Fortnite big enough to wear the cost and survive but not a viable competitor to COD right? Fuck me

You fuck around and you will face consequences.
Epic fucked around, by using harmful tactics.

 

[feynoob]

In other news,



The article should become public later today or tomorrow

Does that mean, they found a way to prove it that MS can block off Activision games?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Does that mean, they found a way to prove it that MS can block off Activision games?

No, they're just investigating the would they and can they

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

When the FTC can sue a third-party console publisher/creator/store bigger than COD revenues and get $520Million dollars into their warchest...competition is so tight and thin on the ground in this duopoly however will poor little indie developer Epic/Fortnite/Tencent ever afford half a billion from their $6Billion revenue last year? I have no idea how they could compete with Chief or COD with the tug of war Sony and Xbox have going. I guess the FTC see Epic/Fortnite big enough to wear the cost and survive but not a viable competitor to COD right? Fuck me.

I'd love to see the magic math to transform the ever so small market player oppressed by MS/Xbox into a corporate entity that can weather $520 Million out the door the FTC pushed for.

Fortnite key statistics

• Fortnite generated $5.8 billion revenue in 2021 for Epic Games
• Before it was banned, Fortnite made $1.1 billion in lifetime mobile revenue
• Fortnite has approximately 400 million registered players, 83 million play once a month
• Over 60 percent of players are in the 18-24 age bracket
• There are literally equal Fortnite players to PS subs. Think about that.
• Fortnite's gargantuan popularity may have also inadvertently helped microtransaction revenues, as it's thought that without Fortnite, global microtransaction revenues for consoles would have slumped 6%.
• Last 30 days there was approx. 250+Million total active players across all platforms.
• Fortnite is about 2 to 1 on Sony consoles. All of these reports include Nintendo Switch for figures, not a single one exempts Nintendo's Switch. Basically Xbox + Nintendo combined = Sony here. Sony dominate, I don't see the FTC pushing any anti-competitive cases against Fortnite, and Fortnite is larger than COD. Go figure.

And something even weirder here...Tencent own 40% of Epic. The largest global console player base and it has nothing to do with Sony or MS or the current anti-competitive FTC case? The FTC just successfully made Fortnite/Tencent pay and a major percentage of that fine is directly affecting consoles/players. And yet we don't have Tencent as a viable entry to the console market? Even looking at just Fortnite/Epic they challenge Apple, they support platforms/devices, technologies, opened a new gaming store competitor, compete with overlap against COD successfully etc. All backed by Tencent.

What a stupid case the FTC have for anti-competitiveness. They haven't even attacked the major players in the market. They also haven't promoted positive industry change and outcomes, literally all negative. SMH.

The hell are you rambling on about with Tencent? They're not a player in the console market.

 

[feynoob]

No, they're just investigating the would they and can they

So just investigation.
Guess we will have to wait for their report.

 

[reksveks]

Does that mean, they found a way to prove it that MS can block off Activision games?

No, they're just investigating the would they and can they

This and its just a second stage of the previous questions that they asked about

The list of questions/topics were seen by Reuters (there was another article that broke it down more)

EU wants to know if Microsoft will block rivals after Activision deal

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.

www.reuters.com

It's where they asked whether MS/ABK would have too much data to give them an unfair disadvantages re making games and some other things.

 

[Banjo64]

Anyone else think this might end up with Jim and Phil on an episode of Judge Judy?

 

[feynoob]

Anyone else think this might end up with Jim and Phil on an episode of Judge Judy?

That would be the peak of this show.

 

[reinking]

I love popping into this thread every couple of days to see where it has gone. Thanks for the ride and let's keep it going.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Anyone else think this might end up with Jim and Phil on an episode of Judge Judy?

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Ass of Can Whooping Busting out napkin math again. COD since 2003 $30bil. Fortnite since 2018 $19bil. Tencent own 40% of Fortnite.



Tencent own 40% of Fortnite across all consoles. This alone makes them in the same level of competition as Sony or MS in the US market with regards to COD e.g. FTC case.

 

[feynoob]

Ass of Can Whooping Busting out napkin math again. COD since 2003 $30bil. Fortnite since 2018 $19bil. Tencent own 40% of Fortnite.



Tencent own 40% of Fortnite across all consoles. This alone makes them in the same level of competition as Sony or MS in the US market with regards to COD e.g. FTC case.

What are you smoking?

Fortnite is BR and COD is a selling machine that is top for too long.

They aren't on the same field.

Also tencent isn't a competition to Sony and MS.
They have no console.

 

[feynoob]

MLex has a report about the new questionnaire:

Microsoft exclusivity strategies at center stage in EU questions on Activision deal

Microsoft's ability to make Activision Blizzard's content exclusive to its Xbox console, either in full or in part, is at the heart of a new questionnaire from the EU's competition enforcer seeking to drill into the effect of the software giant's $69 billion takeover, MLex has learned.

Assuming that Activision Blizzard's content becomes exclusively available on Xbox, which of the three main console makers — Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo — would have the most attractive content, the European Commission asks in the 91-page questionnaire.

Which "partial" exclusivity strategies would Microsoft have the ability to engage in? Might it degrade the quality of Activision Blizzard content on rival consoles, or might it rather worsen the interoperability of the content with other consoles?

Or could it engage on another strategy such as providing upgrades for Activision Blizzard's titles on Xbox but not on other consoles, raising wholesale prices for rivals, delaying releases or making some features exclusively available on Xbox?

The watchdog said it was worried Microsoft may have the ability and incentive to prevent rivals from distributing Activision Blizzard's games or worsening their terms and conditions of access. It also said it was concerned Microsoft could restrict rival game subscription services or cloud gaming services' access to its games.

The questionnaire also asks how important it is for consoles to offer a full catalog of the most popular games in order to compete. Do they need to have a catalog across multiple genres or even a catalog of shooter games?

More broadly, does Microsoft compete most closely with Sony or Nintendo, or both? Which of the two competes most closely with Microsoft's Xbox in the distribution of console games, or do they both do so equally?

Further questions ask about the prevalence of cross-play in the gaming industry, where gamers play against others on a different console. Are there technical barriers to offering those services?

In its latest questionnaire, the commission asks games publishers about their distribution agreements with consoles and the advantages or disadvantages of making a blockbuster game exclusive to a certain console.

If a large proportion of PlayStation users switched to another console, would this change a developer's incentive to make games for PlayStation? How many users would have to switch for a developer to no longer have an incentive to make PlayStation games?

Other questions seek to determine what impact the deal would have on rival game subscription services and cloud gaming services, and how markets for these services are likely to develop in the next five to 10 years.

What time and resources are necessary to start providing a cloud game streaming service? What are the main factors of competition between such services, and how likely are consumers to subscribe to more than one service at once?

The commission wants to know what would be the impact on competition if the Activision Blizzard catalog was to become available on a cloud gaming service.

Other questions focus on the impact the takeover could have on rival manufacturers of PC operating systems. Is demand likely to increase for cloud gaming services on PCs in in the coming years, in particular on low-end PCs that would not normally be able to run complex games like Call of Duty?

The commission asks if "compatibility layers" can be used to run Windows games on non-Windows PCs. Would Microsoft have the ability to prevent Activision Blizzard's games from being compatible in this way on other operating systems in the future?

Could cloud gaming be an effective way to bring more PC games to non-Windows operating systems, the commission asks.

Should Activision Blizzard's games be only available for streaming on Windows PCs, would this attract additional users to Windows and discourage users from buying PCs with other operating systems?

 

[feynoob]

R reksveks
I think this the report.

 

[reksveks]

R reksveks
I think this the report.

Lol, wanted to beat you to it but yeah, that seems to be the one.

It would be fun to see if we can predict the answers that publishers/platform holders are going to say.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

At least that report goes about things in an appropriate, professional and positive manner with insightful and meaningful questions raised for review.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Oh wow. Seems EU is ready to accept the deal without any concession.

 

[reksveks]

Assuming that Activision Blizzard's content becomes exclusively available on Xbox, which of the three main console makers — Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo — would have the most attractive content, the European Commission asks in the 91-page questionnaire.

Might be nothing especially given that they ask other questions about who Xbox most competes with but interesting that they included Nintendo.

Oh wow. Seems EU is ready to accept the deal without any concession.

Not sure, I think there might be some windows/cloud related concessions depending on the answers

 

[DeepEnigma]

And buses

 

[Banjo64]

Oh wow. Seems EU is ready to accept the deal without any concession.

How have you drawn that conclusion?

 

[feynoob]

It would be fun to see if we can predict the answers that publishers/platform holders are going to say.

It would be something like the CMA one.
This deal benefits them, as they can get marketing money from Sony. So they want to get it approved it fast.
It will also allow them to get money from MS, like x360 era.

 

[reksveks]

It would be something like the CMA one.
This deal benefits them, as they can get marketing money from Sony. So they want to get it approved it fast.
It will also allow them to get money from MS, like x360 era.

I suspect most of the publishers are still fine with the deal. Am trying to get in the mind of the publishers/platform holders and answer the questions.

 

[reksveks]

Assuming that Activision Blizzard's content becomes exclusively available on Xbox, which of the three main console makers — Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo — would have the most attractive content, the European Commission asks in the 91-page questionnaire.

Tough to really quantify but Xbox in general, Nintendo first party? Wouldn't surprise me if there was some umm and ahh here from publishers

Which "partial" exclusivity strategies would Microsoft have the ability to engage in? Might it degrade the quality of Activision Blizzard content on rival consoles, or might it rather worsen the interoperability of the content with other consoles?

Or could it engage on another strategy such as providing upgrades for Activision Blizzard's titles on Xbox but not on other consoles, raising wholesale prices for rivals, delaying releases or making some features exclusively available on Xbox?

Alot of options for MS here, they (MS) have talk about the concessions about the same content at the same time on other consoles, maybe something that the EC force if MS wants to get the deal through. This may be relatively worse for Sony cause they already have exclusive content.

The questionnaire also asks how important it is for consoles to offer a full catalog of the most popular games in order to compete. Do they need to have a catalog across multiple genres or even a catalog of shooter games?

Hmm, depends on if they are including Nintendo here cause clearly they don't have COD and they may be competing in certain ways. More importantly the second question maybe leading to the argument that consoles need a game in the genre.

More broadly, does Microsoft compete most closely with Sony or Nintendo, or both? Which of the two competes most closely with Microsoft's Xbox in the distribution of console games, or do they both do so equally?

Sony most closely, would be interesting to see how binary the publishers reply or if they are a bit more vague. Suspect they may be binary/short and sweet

Further questions ask about the prevalence of cross-play in the gaming industry, where gamers play against others on a different console. Are there technical barriers to offering those services?

Bigger publishers and teams using Unreal will probably say that it isn't an big/major issue. I wonder if this is to force MS to support cross-play for ABK and maybe further.

If a large proportion of PlayStation users switched to another console, would this change a developer's incentive to make games for PlayStation? How many users would have to switch for a developer to no longer have an incentive to make PlayStation games?

Big big question here, specially the second one. I think publishers are going to reply with a 'big' %.

Other questions seek to determine what impact the deal would have on rival game subscription services and cloud gaming services, and how markets for these services are likely to develop in the next five to 10 years.

A big topic; good to note their previous position re: subscription services/cloud streaming being apart of the general market but may be slightly different this time, may not.

What time and resources are necessary to start providing a cloud game streaming service? What are the main factors of competition between such services, and how likely are consumers to subscribe to more than one service at once?

Clearly its hard if you do it yourselves and it still seems difficult if you are using a white-labelled service. It would be interesting to see how ubisoft's (imo the most experienced publisher) experience have been.

Other questions focus on the impact the takeover could have on rival manufacturers of PC operating systems. Is demand likely to increase for cloud gaming services on PCs in in the coming years, in particular on low-end PCs that would not normally be able to run complex games like Call of Duty?

I can see various answers here, wonder how bull-ish publishers/platform holders will be. I wonder what Nvidia predict re: cloud streaming growth.

The commission asks if "compatibility layers" can be used to run Windows games on non-Windows PCs. Would Microsoft have the ability to prevent Activision Blizzard's games from being compatible in this way on other operating systems in the future?

Don't know which way this is going to go, got the 'shitty experience' from Stadia failing to get their compatibility layer out but also Proton is getting alot better. Microsoft probably does have the ability to fuck Proton so may be a concern.

Should Activision Blizzard's games be only available for streaming on Windows PCs, would this attract additional users to Windows and discourage users from buying PCs with other operating systems?

Bit of a weird one since you can stream on Mac, no? if true, I am not sure that 'streaming games' is a seller for PC's.

 

[Punished Miku]

Tough to really quantify but Xbox in general, Nintendo first party? Wouldn't surprise me if there was some umm and ahh here from publishers




Alot of options for MS here, they (MS) have talk about the concessions about the same content at the same time on other consoles, maybe something that the EC force if MS wants to get the deal through. This may be relatively worse for Sony cause they already have exclusive content.



Hmm, depends on if they are including Nintendo here cause clearly they don't have COD and they may be competing in certain ways. More importantly the second question maybe leading to the argument that consoles need a game in the genre.



Sony most closely, would be interesting to see how binary the publishers reply or if they are a bit more vague. Suspect they may be binary/short and sweet



Bigger publishers and teams using Unreal will probably say that it isn't an big/major issue. I wonder if this is to force MS to support cross-play for ABK and maybe further.



Big big question here, specially the second one. I think publishers are going to reply with a 'big' %.



A big topic; good to note their previous position re: subscription services/cloud streaming being apart of the general market but may be slightly different this time, may not.



Clearly its hard if you do it yourselves and it still seems difficult if you are using a white-labelled service. It would be interesting to see how ubisoft's (imo the most experienced publisher) experience have been.



I can see various answers here, wonder how bull-ish publishers/platform holders will be. I wonder what Nvidia predict re: cloud streaming growth.



Don't know which way this is going to go, got the 'shitty experience' from Stadia failing to get their compatibility layer out but also Proton is getting alot better. Microsoft probably does have the ability to fuck Proton so may be a concern.



Bit of a weird one since you can stream on Mac, no? if true, I am not sure that 'streaming games' is a seller for PC's.

Not including Nintendo is ridiculous. They were literally putting out "high end" consoles until they got pushed out of that market, along with Sega. And they are still surviving, without the high end graphics and without Call of Duty.