thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Mentalities like this are why common people like you and I keep getting screwed over by governments and corporations. Just roll over and let markets eat themselves away to consolidate everything, amirite?
The irony being, even if we're supposed to believe this axiom, why have Microsoft made Sony's 3P exclusivity deals look like they were harmful to them and gamers? "Business is just business", right? Why have Microsoft been arguing Sony's 3P deals almost as if from an ethical POV (the pro/anti-consumer slant has an ethical factor involved)? Why do so many people make it sound as if certain 3P games skipping Xbox is a violation of privileged customer rights?
"Business is business" until it isn't for some people.
I didn't say they should divest all of Activision, just COD. And I even said that they would be able to retain partial ownership anyway. But if a hold up in getting the deal done has to do with concerns of long-term access to COD by companies like Sony in manners that would be typical of if a 3P publisher were providing the contracts and deals (which will no longer be the case if/when Microsoft acquire ABK, as they are a platform holder so there is a natural instinct to keep the most favorable pricing & licensing deals to themselves to benefit their own devices in their own ecosystem with some type of advantage be it backend or frontend), then why not divest COD into its own company, retain partial ownership, and be done with it?
Just today, Microsoft have began to address the FTC's concerns not with a focus on COD, but on the mobile aspect, because that's them reaffirming what the big part of this acquisition is for them, in their eyes. Any benefits they could get from COD by keeping it within ABK through the acquisition, can still more or less be had if they divested COD into its own company but Microsoft allowed to retain partial ownership. Microsoft would still get some of the sales revenue of COD sales on Xbox, PC, PlayStation and Nintendo devices. They would still be able to arrange for COD into GamePass. They would still be able to get marketing deals for COD releases.
If this acquisition is really about "competition" then that also needs to address how much is required in order to sufficiently compete. Divesting COD into its own entity ala The Pokemon Company, is not going to significantly impair Microsoft's ability to compete with Sony, Nintendo, Google, Apple, Amazon, Tencent, OR provide content they otherwise would fully own (the non-COD Activision IPs, Blizzard & King IPs) for Xbox and GamePass. It also removes one of the biggest concerns that Sony would have WRT fair access to COD content in the future. Divesting COD into its own company would also open up allowing other companies to invest via buying shares, in turn actually making them MORE receptive to Microsoft's services and products on their platforms and storefronts. It reduces friction, and that's been one of Microsoft's mantras since 2014 (supposedly).
Microsoft isn't trying to buy King and Blizzard. They're trying to buy Activision Blizzard King. If they were told to divest Blizzard that, too, would be a deal breaker for them. If they were told to divest King, that, too, would be a deal breaker for them because it's the area in which Xbox stands to gain the most and where they're on record as being weakest. Microsoft put in a $68.7 billion purchase for the entire package. Divesting any of it kills the deal for them. There's zero evidence that Microsoft doesn't really want King.
If they're not willing to provide concessions in the form of at least some kind of divestiture (and I'm only suggesting the COD franchise here, literally NOTHING else), then...maybe the deal deserves to fail.
.
