Subscribe to read | Financial Times
News, analysis and comment from the Financial Times, the worldʼs leading global business publication
www.ft.com
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
FT: Microsoft’s Activision deal faces in-depth probes in Brussels and London
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
www.ft.com
Why? Confidence? Or would offering remedies prematurely be akin to admitting guilt?
Trust me. I'm an expert.
Honestly, I think it'll perhaps get delayed, worst case. But I do not see this falling through.
That makes sense, MS didn't offer any remedies, because there were no remedies that it could offer that the UK would accept.
"Sony and others want the commission to force Microsoft to offer guarantees that they will be able to access all games "on equal terms and in perpetuity"."
Lol
And yes as the article says MS didnt offer concessions to the CMA in Phase 1 because there's no point. They are going to Phase 2 anyway and they'll do it then if at all. No point in giving leverage early.
As Idas mentioned in the XGS thread the pre-notification EU phase has not found any major concerns this far, so it's not as "oh shit" as this language used in the article makes it sound. EU will of course have a lengthy investigation post filing just like the CMA phase 2. Nothing's really changes on the possibility of approval thus far.
Lol
And yes as the article says MS didnt offer concessions to the CMA in Phase 1 because there's no point. They are going to Phase 2 anyway and they'll do it then if at all. No point in giving leverage early.
As Idas mentioned in the XGS thread the pre-notification EU phase has not found any major concerns this far, so it's not as "oh shit" as this language used in the article makes it sound. EU will of course have a lengthy investigation post filing just like the CMA phase 2. Nothing's really changes on the possibility of approval thus far.
And here I was thinking....maybe MS needs to offer some concessions...
I just dont see them blocking. Especially when pretty much the only company complaining is Sony, who is by far the market leader. So of course they're going to complain. Not to mention, they themselves have also done plenty of things over the last couple generations that any regulator would consider anti-competitive or abusing market position to try and force Microsoft out.
The deal will take longer, but there really isn't a major concern. Worst case I can see is they force multiplatform for the rest of the generation, or restrict Game Pass. Both which would be an unprecidented move and legally questionable, but its not the end of the world for Microsoft. And even under the scenario where Microsoft is forced to divest of Call of Duty, whatever studio gets the boot will pretty much collapse because Call of Duty at this point depends on every single studio in Activision helping out.
The deal will take longer, but there really isn't a major concern. Worst case I can see is they force multiplatform for the rest of the generation, or restrict Game Pass. Both which would be an unprecidented move and legally questionable, but its not the end of the world for Microsoft. And even under the scenario where Microsoft is forced to divest of Call of Duty, whatever studio gets the boot will pretty much collapse because Call of Duty at this point depends on every single studio in Activision helping out.
I see ppl laughing at this, but again going back to the smartphone market...I wonder why Google gave patents to MS after Google sold Motorola...
Not sure if it was forced or they did it to keep things cool...but they did it for a reason.
Great from a consumer perspective, everyone gets games and noone is left out. Sketchy at best from a legal perspective because it'd basically be telling Microsoft they're forced to help the market leader retain their market dominance when they themselves currently the last place console platform in the market.
I think this will just take longer.
Regulators aren't teams of hardcore gamers with the inside knowledge of a ResetEra poster.
But once you examine the deal and the state of the games industry for more than a moment you realise there's significant publisher competition, no platform or publisher opposition (bar Sony's) and Microsoft are making the deal from a 'non-leader' position.
That said given the size of the deal it'd be crazy for a regulator not to give it a further look.
Regulators aren't teams of hardcore gamers with the inside knowledge of a ResetEra poster.
But once you examine the deal and the state of the games industry for more than a moment you realise there's significant publisher competition, no platform or publisher opposition (bar Sony's) and Microsoft are making the deal from a 'non-leader' position.
That said given the size of the deal it'd be crazy for a regulator not to give it a further look.
My expert analysis on the other hand leads me to believe that MS will probably acquire Activision Blizzard unless they are stopped from buying Activision Blizzard at which point they won't be able to acquire Activision Blizzard.
I think the logic is that MS lawyers would know better than anyone if concessions are necessary for the deal to close. If they aren't offering any, they're fairly sure it'll close even without them
And this coming from the same company that just had a 1 year exclusivity on Death Loop (which MS honored) and for which they now possibly even block a Game Pass release right after the exclusive deal ends, with putting it now into their PS Plus program. What a coincidental timing huh?
The nerves of that company.
But they're not doing it because of that. They're not offering any because these agencies don't accept concessions at the end of Phase 1. Now that it's gonna go on Phase 2, concessions can be made while the deal is investigated deeper.
No, as the article mentions there's hardly ever any behavioral remedy that would appease the CMA to prevent a Phase 2 investigation. You would basically be offering up a bunch only for them to go "not good enough". Then, after Phase 2 you have shown what you're willing to give up and now will likely have to do that and more.
So, just let Phase 2 ride out and come to the negotiation table at the end.
Why? So that Sony can raise games prices to $80 next generation? It's clear that Sony is the one making a huge deal over nothing here and they are the only ones currently negatively impacting gamers with raising prices and offering less for more.
they should agree to this, make a huge hoo ha about it with sony, then close development of call of duty and announce Command of Service a new FPS from Activision.*
*they shouldnt do this
Of course Sony are going to ask for the most extreme thing they can, if they only ask for all Call of Duty games or something small, that will be the point that gets negotiated down from.
I doubt MS would spend 70 billion without having the assurance from its lawyers that the deal wouldn't be approved, even if it took time.
Yes. But certain folks take it as an opportunity to have hot takes.
Meanwhile Xbox has to wait a year plus for a single mission in Hogwarts Legacy. A game neither company actually owns.
None of this really means anything. It's all for show. Deal will go through as expected.
Audacity? This is just basic business. You ask for the maximum and try to get as much as you can get. If the regulators come back with a 10 year deal it's still a win for Sony over the alternative.