I didn't make that argument because it's the easiest one of all to address with a deeper phase 2 look. Allow me to do a lazy version of what Microsoft and Activision together will drive home in far greater detail via phase 2 investigations.
Microsoft has an advantage in multi-game subscription markets and cloud gaming because of superior business planning, investment and strategy. They had better foresight of where the industry was going and actually took the hard steps necessary to put themselves where they are now. None of the opportunity or advantages that now exists is as it is due to an unfair access to popular content. Microsoft put in the work to make it happen.
Xbox Game Pass became a lot more popular than PS Now while having significantly weaker first party content and significantly less consoles sold because they made smarter, more consumer friendly business decisions. I don't believe Sony originally allowed you to have native downloads of games on PS Now. I think that came later after game pass started doing it. Sony also wasn't putting their very best content on there, content that most don't dispute was overall more exciting than what Microsoft's first party was delivering.
Microsoft chose to make their cloud gaming strategy simpler for all game developers by literally using the exact same hardware that's in their consoles in server blades.
By doing so, developers don't need to rebuild games to a new spec or with different APIs. They build the game once for xbox consoles, and then they automatically work with Xcloud. That is a Microsoft advantage due to PLANNING, not content. To not simplify it too much, Microsoft's technology, talent and the company's cloud investments and expertise is what put them in this position.
As to multi-game subscriptions, Microsoft's greatest advantage there is again business smarts and planning. Day One release for all first party games is a business decision. That there exists dual entitlement between PC and Xbox for first party Xbox titles is also something any other competitor can CHOOSE to do, but they do not. Microsoft isn't somehow taking a cut from people releasing games on PC. There are a multitude of storefronts out there. People are building their own launchers, even Sony.
It is Ubisoft who thus far only has Ubisoft+ on PC.
They could have already done what EA did by bringing it to consoles in full, but they haven't. Microsoft welcomes competitors to Game Pass on Xbox consoles, as evidenced by the following.
https://wccftech.com/ubisoft-plus-xbox-rainbow-six-extraction-day-1-game-pass/
Microsoft and Ubisoft conveniently cut this deal and announced it BEFORE the announcement of the Activision acquisition.
Microsoft partnering EA Play with Game Pass at the $15 tier is just smart business. Microsoft embracing EA Access/Play before any of their competitors on Xbox consoles is again just smart business. Sony hesitated and was resistant to it for a while before they finally gave in.
And as a simple rule of mergers and acquisitions, vertical mergers, which acquiring Activision Blizzard would absolutely be, are allowed. Why do you guys think Microsoft keeps stressing their intention to add Activision Blizzard's content to Game Pass aka their distribution network? Because that's actually allowed and exactly what regulators want to see in markets. The challenge then becomes what? To prove to regulators that Activision Blizzard games aren't so utterly special and all dominant in the game industry that other competitors not having IDENTICAL access does not destroy competition. So you must prove that Call of Duty and Activision's content has other popular, even dominant, competition, which is why I focused on that in my post you replied to. World of Warcraft will be shown as in a bad way and getting trounced by Final Fantasy XIV, a game exclusive to Playstation consoles. So what will it hurt if Microsoft has the significantly less popular, down on its luck World of Warcraft under their banner? They will even show CMA youtube videos from popular content creators who have been panning the current state of World of Warcraft. And they will show articles that do the same. Companys would never do this in public to their own product, but will absolutely do so in private discussions with regulators.
So as you can see, this is why I focused on how popular other games are, it's the whole ball game. Game Pass being as good as it is or Xcloud being as convenient and as good as it has emerged to be are just distractions. This deal will live or die on convincing regulators the content being acquired, while popular, has tons of competition in the gaming world, and will not create some massive shift killing Playstation, killing all other competitors or discouraging others from entering the market. In fact, there is a very good reason specific major companies such as META are backing Microsoft's acquisition with regulators. It's likely because they, among others, also intend on making a move. They're just waiting to see this deal go through.
Other games exist too, to keep it as simple as you did, is how Microsoft lands this deal. But they'll make that argument in a far more convincing and more detailed fashion than what I'm stating here. You think Activision hasn't done competitive analysis of other games they deem to be threats to Call of Duty and why? All of that internal documentation, very closely guarded stuff, will be provided in all phase 2 investigations.
Lognor
. Did
Ass of Can Whooping
finally bail you out of GAF jail? He's been a lousy guardian angel so far. He best do a better job this time.
