but there clearly is an incentive to do this. it would help to sell the xbox system and gamepass.
And do you understand that (1) This is not a monopoly and (2) wouldn't be if MS acquired ABK.
Say what? Because he said:
Yes, but they'd also lose the 70% of all sales from those who played COD on PS. MS
Ok, and that was simply a precursor to the overall point of if there's an incentive for MS to pull COD from Playstation.
Yeah, I think Microsoft can basically take that hit. If what they really want to do is increase marketshare, then they might be willing to take substantial losses. Like the other poster said: MS is already putting their games day 1 on gamepass, which is not the most profitable thing for them to do (probably they could be making a lot more money by delaying gamepass releases). They can just do that as Microsoft.
There is no focus, it's just you trying to brush an inconvenient truth under the rug maybe. If you still believe my reply clarifying something was somehow out of scope, again:
20 years in the industry shows MS is not a monopoly in gaming. Gaining control of Activision also won't make MS a monopoly in gaming either it is pure hyperbole.
in fairness this is their first 69 billion dollar acquisition
Looking at your revised numbers again they are still wrong. PC at 16% would be $168M. Not the figure you've given.
The change of tactics from MS regarding xbox division is obvious with the new grand purchases (in the history of this industry one might say) , and CMA and other regulatory systems are not there to only prevent an immediately monopoly, they are there to see the whole picture and make projections for the future, is easier to stop the first domino's from falling then is to catch up with the entire chain of domino's already unleashed
Again, you're confusing very different things.
Exactly. After Zenimax, it's not that difficult to predict.
Well we can draw the line at a monopoly. If your goal is simply to find a good opportunity to send a message to tell every mega corp to fuck off, then you're doing it wrong.
I mean by that logic Microsoft should buy every 3rd party publisher in the market because they still won't be a monopoly.
They might slowly develop a monopoly? That's the point of regulators, they have very little power to change a formed monopoly retroactively. They can only predict if one is forming through mergers and acquisitions and stop it before it's too late.
Except that they would literally be a monopoly.
In fairness a big acquisition doesn't make a business a monopoly. If they were buying Sony you might have a point though.
Again, never said either of these two things. But there is a #3, i.e., attempts to monopolize.
No it wouldn't because at the time of requiring them playstation and valve and Nintendo would still exist until they didn't. If we have to wait for monopoly to form before we raise concern that's how that would play out.
There is no evidence that an Activision purchase is an attempt to monopolize. How is offering every competitor under the sun access to the biggest IP their acquisition has monopolizing anything? If you acknowledge that buying Activision won't make them a monopoly nor are they currently one in gaming it takes quite the leap to conclude they are monopolizing the industry. You would have a better point if MS announced they were making their biggest IP exclusive but they are doing the opposite.
Of course regulators exist for obvious reasons, and you're correct that once a monopoly is formed, it's beyond any regulator's authority to reel them back in.
MS have spent more on acquisitions than Nintendo has made in revenue on Switch since launch
"
"Attempts to monopolize" is not a leap. It's literally part of the law. Whether you like it or not, this is how the current law works, and it can be applied to Microsoft.
This is something else. This is you saying the regulators are wrong and MS are right in their predictions/numbers. That very well may be the case but drawing the line at a monopoly isn't based on a current monopoly was the point. It's about telling them to fuck off before it's formed.
You're running in circles here. If MS literally bought every third party publisher in existence, they'd be considered a monopoly. A monopoly of what you ask? A monopoly of....
What a silly take this is because it assumes the silly idea that-that "third party monopoly" (or is it first party monopoly?) can never withdraw the games from other platforms and gain platform monopolies if it owned all the "third parties". As you say, we're running in circles because that's the whole point of contention that you seem to have ignored.
How? Their combined revenue is still less than Playstation division, right?
Murdoch's Sky takeover blocked by UK competition watchdog
The CMA says the merger 'is not in the public interest.'
Mike Segar / Reuters
January 23, 2018 4:45 AM
Rupert Murdoch has been blocked by the UK's competition watchdog from completing a full buyout of Sky. The media tycoon, which already owns 21st Century Fox and a range of newspapers including The Times, The Sunday Timesand The Sun, launched a £11.7 billion ($14.6 billion) takeover bid in December 2016. If successful, it would give the Murdoch family full control of Sky News, as well as the company's extensive TV, internet and phone businesses in the UK. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) rejected the idea, however, due to "media plurality" concerns, or how much power the resulting company would have over public opinion.
"We have provisionally found that if the Fox/Sky merger went ahead as proposed, it would be against the public interest," Anne Lambert, chair of the independent investigation group said. "It would result in the Murdoch family having too much control over news providers in the UK, and too much influence over public opinion and the political agenda." Murdoch already holds a 39 percent stake in Sky. He tried to buy the remaining piece in 2010, but abandoned the deal after News Corporation (which is now 21st Century Fox) was swept up in a hugely damaging phone hacking scandal.
The CMA is consulting on its decision and has proposed business "remedies" that could change its mind. These are unlikely to appeal to Murdoch and 21st Century Fox, however. The first is a complete ban on the transaction, which would preserve the status quo. The CMA is worried, however, that such a move would encourage Sky to close Sky News — if the company's newsroom disappeared, the concerns about "media plurality," or a journalistic monopoly, would arguably go with it. The second is a spin-off or divestiture of Sky News, thereby limiting the impact of a takeover.
The proposed merger has already been approved by Ofcom and the European Commission. Karen Bradley, then culture secretary, referred the bid to the CMA in September last year. Since then, 21st Century Fox has agreed to sell its media empire to Disney for $52 billion. That has complicated the CMA's decision. The regulator says the Disney deal is unlikely to go through before its own inquiry has been completed. As a result, it cannot assume that the transaction will be approved and make recommendations accordingly. It can, however, assess the possible implications and use them to guide its business concessions or "remedies."
The CMA has until May 1st, 2018 to finalise its report. The regulator will submit its findings to Matt Hancock, the secretary of state for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, who will then make the final decision.
People assume this by just adding MS + ABK revenue without taking into account the loss of Sony revenue or its overall impact if they started pulling content. That's what the regulators are there to figure out.
Ya, one game is a make or break for a monopoly, give me a break.
Go ahead and read (3) there as well please. There needs to be a dangerous possibility of achieving a monopoly power. That doesn't apply here whether you like it or not."Attempts to monopolize" is not a leap. It's literally part of the law. Whether you like it or not, this is how the current law works, and it can be applied to Microsoft.
And (1) anti-competitive conduct has been established.
Wrong. It's been accused, which is completely different. Not only has the victim in that case (the EC) denied it was deceived. Out of the 4 primary regulators, the weakest link by far is the FTC, which your claim comes from. Are you confident that the FTC can ultimately win it's case in federal court?
Also, it has been established this acquisition is an attempt to monopolize.
Well it has to be proven that not only intent, but probability would result in a monopoly. Now, you can say "yes, this all should be happening". But that doesn't change the facts or regulations.
Now, you can say, "no, none of this should be happening because ... reasons." But that doesn't change facts or regulations.
Why can't the CMA consider the consequences of removing the game from PS? Why just profits?
There is a limit to how much losses a company can take.
Yes it's an incredibly silly take, hence my statement saying as much with the whole "ridiculous what-if" part.
I'm aware but we both now that a monopoly isn't gained that easily, not when you are still smaller after buying ABK. Even if they would make the whole catalogue exclusive from day 1, it still wouldn't happen.
Oh there's people arguing it alright. Not very competently or successfully, but they're definitely arguing it.I'm not sure why you all are arguing about a monopoly. Its irrelevent, this isn't about Microsoft being a monopoly, it's about anti competitive behaviour in Microsoft using its outsized economic power to foreclose on what regulators have deemed to be an essential input for consoles
Nobody is arguing whether it would make MS into a monopoly of the whole gaming market. They are arguing Microsoft would be monopolising an essential input to the industry (Call of Duty) that would create a Substantial Lessening of Competition
But that wasn't anybody's take except your own. The person wasn't talking about a third party publisher monopoly and how you think it wouldn't affect anybody because they would just release everywhere as a "third party monopoly". That was only you making that silly example. The person was talking about what it means for platform holders like Sony when they can no longer compete in X amount of years if content is pulled and MS gains a platform monopoly with that content.
I'm only addressing the assumption that people seem to make that ABK + MS would still be smaller. They make this assumption based on only summing ABK + MS revenue and compare it to PlayStations current revenue. Not taking into account any losses that may occur to PlayStation should MS start making ABK games exclusive.
If you can put it in a safe bunker and wait for 50 years, you can sell your system for 10000% profit.
