I think it's dead at this point.
Open Markets Weighs in on Latest in Microsoft’s Acquisition of Activision Blizzard — Open Markets Institute
The Open Markets Institute Europe Director Max von Thun released the following statement with regard to the United Kingdom Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) issuing of provisional findings from its investigation into Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard.www.openmarketsinstitute.org
No, not that simple but that I believe is the biggest part is how to own CoD but still offer fair value to the likes of Sony and others. How they get there I don’t know.
I think it's dead at this point.
Open Markets Weighs in on Latest in Microsoft’s Acquisition of Activision Blizzard — Open Markets Institute
The Open Markets Institute Europe Director Max von Thun released the following statement with regard to the United Kingdom Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) issuing of provisional findings from its investigation into Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard.
But they haven't made this distinction anywhere as far as I could see.
Lot of people might want to take some posts back.
Yea, big difference between posting a fanboy tweet & posting useful info for the thread that was tweeted by a fanboy citing other sources.
Microsoft’s vice-president of business development, gaming, media and entertainment obviously doesn’t understand the gaming industry.
This affair has made me realise that MS are massive shysters from top to bottom. Makes me actually route for the Japanese 2 even though I know they all view me as nothing but a bag of cash.Microsoft's response is a hoot.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/637cec9dd3bf7f5a0b33f881/MICROSOFT_S_RESPONSE.pdf
So many disingenuous takes:
Microsoft's response is a hoot.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/637cec9dd3bf7f5a0b33f881/MICROSOFT_S_RESPONSE.pdf
So many disingenuous takes:
DarkMage619
yo, check this out. This addresses one of your points about why nobody was counting Nintendo and why "bringing COD to Nintendo" doesn't really matter.
In before: That guy they quoted was only a vice president. The actual president knows Nintendo is the primary competitor. Or would be except MS is putting COD on Duty to make Nintendo more competitive.
That's true.
CADE is busy.
Maybe just stick with an avatar bet for the next one, amigo. Don't go paying for a classroom's worth of games when all's said and done
From the wording it sounds like a behavioral remedy (or remedies) is only something they'd entertain if they're VERY good and notably better than what Microsoft have already publicly pitched. So they would have to be beyond a 10-year deal.
You even said it yourself: a deal for full COD multiplatform access and parity (including service access) in perpetuity. But the challenge to that is the services part, because MS can still just roll COD into Game Pass and for various financial reasons, Sony would not be able to do the same for PS+. When it comes to gaming revenue, every dollar MS loses means at least 10x in value that Sony loses on the same dollar. That's the difference in gaming as a pillar for the respective companies revenue and especially profit-wise.
So MS could promise to keep COD on PlayStation forever, have feature and timing parity, marketing parity (meaning both can advertise COD for their platform as they see fit) and so forth, but even though Sony could put COD in PS+, that works against their business model for PlayStation. OTOH, MS can and most likely would put COD in Game Pass, and any money left on the table through loss of direct sales means literally nothing to them because Xbox's absolute revenue is a pittance compared to the money Microsoft makes from their other divisions.
It can basically be argued as a form of predatory pricing, which does fall under antitrust. And that would be a big hold-up in any such behavioral remedy, long as MS still had full ownership of COD. Which is why I think the concessions will probably be structural remedies, likely divesting COD into its own company (but I can see them allowing MS to retain partial ownership).
So MS are telling regulators Xbox MAU is 55 million? And we all know that's between Game Pass, XBL Gold, and Silver (which is free).
I mean, are they only focusing on Xbox-branded services, so not including Game Pass, or only accounting for services (any type) actually accessed through Xbox consoles? I think it HAS to only be considering Xbox consoles here, not PC, mobile, PlayStation or Nintendo platforms, because they can only reach 120 million MAU by including all the non-Xbox consoles in there.
It's really weird, both in however MS are reporting the number and whether or not they've done something illegal. I'd just play it safe and say the 55 million is for all MS-owned services accessed through Xbox consoles, although again folks don't need to pay for Silver or for accounts needed for say Minecraft. And the 120 million figure accounts for Xbox consoles, Sony consoles, Nintendo consoles, PC and mobile. Probably bloated with a shit ton of free Minecraft accounts, ESO accounts, Sea of Thieves accounts and the such.
That's the response to the phase one summary, right?Microsoft's response is a hoot.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/637cec9dd3bf7f5a0b33f881/MICROSOFT_S_RESPONSE.pdf
So many disingenuous takes:
They put behavioral remedies on the same pedestal as divestiture or block. They also seem very conscious about solving the SLC concerns (which are now down to two from a much larger list before. Microsoft's arguments have clearly hit home. They had far more concerns than this in phase 1.
Cloud gaming in UK and consoles are as easy to fix as it gets. We shall see how our bet ends up, but I feel pretty good, win or lose, that this deal is 100% closing.
This is significant progress for Microsoft.
Microsoft's response is a hoot.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/637cec9dd3bf7f5a0b33f881/MICROSOFT_S_RESPONSE.pdf
So many disingenuous takes:
They put behavioral remedies on the same pedestal as divestiture or block. They also seem very conscious about solving the SLC concerns (which are now down to two from a much larger list before. Microsoft's arguments have clearly hit home. They had far more concerns than this in phase 1.
Cloud gaming in UK and consoles are as easy to fix as it gets. We shall see how our bet ends up, but I feel pretty good, win or lose, that this deal is 100% closing.
This is significant progress for Microsoft.
They put behavioral remedies on the same pedestal as divestiture or block. They also seem very conscious about solving the SLC concerns (which are now down to two from a much larger list before. Microsoft's arguments have clearly hit home. They had far more concerns than this in phase 1.
Cloud gaming in UK and consoles are as easy to fix as it gets. We shall see how our bet ends up, but I feel pretty good, win or lose, that this deal is 100% closing.
This is significant progress for Microsoft.
If MS was not remotely impaired in their ability to compete, why do we keep hearing about needing to compete?Microsoft's response is a hoot.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/637cec9dd3bf7f5a0b33f881/MICROSOFT_S_RESPONSE.pdf
So many disingenuous takes:
Exactly how did today give you hope for approval? At this point you HAVE to be trolling… right?
