Not necessarily
As long as Phil Spencer is in charge, it will (under oath). Doesn't mean his successor is bound to the same oath
MS is unwilling to sign a perpetual contract. Says it all really. "10 years is plenty"
No evidence to suggest they won't foreclose eventually with CoD, every single one of their other acquisitions has been
The issue there being, anything Spencer says today could very easily be something Microsoft goes back on 10 years from now. Possibly even 5 years from now. And there are a multitude of ways that could be accomplished. Spencer no longer being with the company. Sony not agreeing to terms that Microsoft made unfavorable to them. Corporate strategy shifting due to a dynamic market. Clever changes to the franchise where some CoD titles still go to PlayStation while others don't. There are ways Microsoft could argue that years from now.
Doesn't mean they won't be hauled into court and face consequences, but let's be honest. The likelihood that anyone is going to go to prison over something said after a fair amount of time has passed or divestment is demanded, and Microsoft is given ample time to figure out its defense, is low. They would probably just end up with a slap on the wrist.
I don't think the FTC is going to stake their case on console concerns anyway. That's a losing battle. The fact that not a single regulator elsewhere found console gaming to be a concern, especially not in a competitive market like the UK, is going to be a point of contention that the FTC is not going to be able to overcome.
The FTC is trying to establish Microsoft's patterns to paint a picture of an untrustworthy defendant. They want to show contradictions. Inaccuracies. Intent, desire, or incentive to do the things they would claim they won't do. The FTC wouldn't mind at all if the judge walked away with console concerns and that was enough for a temporary injunction. But unless they're fools, that's not their endgame.
They'll focus on the same concerns that multiple regulators have on cloud gaming. They'll show how the EC demanded behavioral remedies, at least. They'll show that the CMA offered divestment options that Microsoft refused, which made them eventually block the deal. The FTC will likely lean on that especially, as the UK and US markets are very similar in their makeup.
At some point, they'll ask for a statement of intent from Satya Nadella on what Microsoft will do if the preliminary injunction isn't granted, even though the deal is technically blocked in the UK, with the appeal dated to start a week after the deadline. Which Microsoft and Activision have yet to renegotiate and to whom Microsoft's contractual obligation to achieve regulatory approval from the CMA cannot possibly be met without.
Which is a trap question. If Nadella answers that Microsoft plans to push through, regardless, the FTC will use that as an argument that Microsoft is showing contempt to authority and cannot be trusted to do the right thing in the US if they won't even do that in the UK. Which will also alert UK authorities to Microsoft's plan. If Nadella answers no, then the FTC will ask what the harm is in granting a preliminary injunction on a deal that can't go anywhere without a renegotiation that extends the deadline anyways. Answering no also putting Microsoft in a position to deal with serious litigation in two countries at once if they actually do try to force the deal. Even if the injunction isn't granted. Potentially costing them far more than anything the deal is worth.
If I'm Microsoft, I'm praying that the FTC never asks that question or that they miraculously get ABK to agree to an extension before they do.
Of course, this all assumes the FTC is even really trying to win here, actually cares about the deal, or has any competence.
I'd like to hear from
S
SneakersSO
, who has been very quiet during this, it seems.
