So I posted this link for other reasons yesterday, but today has brought some new light to another section in this article related to FTC worker survey under Kahn:
Khan's relationship with that staff was in tatters, according to a staff survey recently made public.
mlexmarketinsight.com
I mean that is a MASSIVE spike in saying leadership lacks integrity. Can't prove this at all they are related but something at the same time is very notable.
That (non-sense in my opinion) infographic is more recent, for the Activision deal, as a mean of justifying that the intentions with Activision IP are different
yeah, it's nonsense. imagine trying to argue all games being released day one on game pass with all still being available on multiple platforms (with cod on ps for what 10 years, if that stipulation was accepted) hurts the consumer. it's the exact opposite.
Game Pass is quite literally one of the most pro consumer gaming related things to come around in a long time. It benefits a lot of developers too.
They said that Microsoft made arguments about a lack of incentive to foreclose, and that their behaviour afterwards showed those arguments to be meaningless.
They didn't say there was a commitment not to foreclose. Nor did they say the case hinged on it. All of that is fill-in on the part of the reader.
The best argument that the FTC's statement is misleading is that MS did provide other explanations about what they were planning to do to the EC, and the FTC omits to mention that. But they can easily dance around that to say that they were addressing arguments about foreclosure incentives full stop. And if MS hasn't made similar statements about plans to potentially make some games exclusive in the ABK case, as they did in the Zenimax case, the FTC can say they're only addressing what's relevant in this case with that comment.
People have over-egged this comment in both directions over the past two days. It (IMO) wasn't the bald-faced accusation it was made out to be, nor is it some massive error the FTC would have trouble arguing around in court if it came to it.
Hoeg says it's a linchpin to the entire case. He showed the part of the document where they reinforce it but I'm not going back through the video. I don't believe for one second the FTC didn't know exactly what they were doing with that statement especially since they ARGUE it throughout the full complaint. Idas seems to agree that the intent is obvious. A few of the posters in here seem to want to argue semantics.
This all reminds me of "they didn't technically lie so we can't say they lied" narratives when big news outlets refuse to just call something a lie.
At the end of the day their intent was clear. The argument is that Microsoft misled the EC and that is a keystone to the FTC's argument. "They'll do it again." The EC confirms that they were not misled and that Microsoft never lied and goes further in saying it was irrelevant to even consider it.
I'm done arguing over "iS iT a LiE?!" because it's obvious the intent and the case they were trying to make. Putting a finger in the air and saying "I didn't lie technically" is about as weak as you'd imagine it looking when a teenager does it to their parents.
That (non-sense in my opinion) infographic is more recent, for the Activision deal, as a mean of justifying that the intentions with Activision IP are different
Hoeg says it's a linchpin to the entire case. He showed the part of the document where they reinforce it but I'm not going back through the video. I don't believe for one second the FTC didn't know exactly what they were doing with that statement especially since they ARGUE it throughout the full complaint. Idas seems to agree that the intent is obvious. A few of the posters in here seem to want to argue semantics.
This all reminds me of "they didn't technically lie so we can't say they lied" narratives when big news outlets refuse to just call something a lie.
At the end of the day their intent was clear. The argument is that Microsoft misled the EC and that is a keystone to the FTC's argument. "They'll do it again." The EC confirms that they were not misled and that Microsoft never lied and goes further in saying it was irrelevant to even consider it.
I'm done arguing over "iS iT a LiE?!" because it's obvious the intent and the case they were trying to make.
Right. Posters arguing semantics are ignoring that this IS their argument. It is why they are rejecting (through silence) the 10 year concessions. Why they don't care about CWA and the promises there. Why they don't care that MS has committed to a better app store. Etc etc. Because all of these are "promises" that they want us to believe MS will renege on and abandon, just like they supposedly did with the EC and Zenimax games.
At the end of the day, this is the main tact that FTC has leant a large portion of their deal on. Just a reminder FTC's document DOES NOT EXPLAIN the harms that MS foreclosing ABK games will have on the market. They straight up blow past it. "In conclusion, this will have bad effects, kthxbai". They spent literally ONE SENTENCE explaining how this whole document leading up to (edit: let me actually give you what they wrote -
IV. Withholding Activision Content From, or Degrading Activision Content On, Microsoft's Rival Products Will Harm Competition and Consumers in the Relevant Markets
- 118. Withholding Activision content from, or degrading Activision content on, Microsoft's rivals' products is reasonably likely to substantially lessen competition in the Relevant Markets.
- 119. This lessening of competition will result in harm to consumers, including reduced consumer choice, reduced product quality, higher prices, and less innovation.
Also, you call them vague, but the problem is that EC redacted certain portions of the document, specifically "Microsoft's future strategy regarding Zenimax games". As in, the part that we're all looking for this evidence is blacked out. (gofreak) Here's the thing, FTC COULD HAVE GOTTEN ACCESS TO THAT, right? FTC could have looked into exactly what those parts said and then made a case based on that. But they used a sort of misleading read of the document, without any of that information. Of course that's going to raise some eyebrows.
Oh I think they were totally aware of that. But they'll say, we were talking about the value of arguments made by MS in the past about a lack of foreclosure incentive, given their prominence in this case, and that's it. The comment directly addresses those arguments and what they meant post-closure. It doesn't explicitly mention anything else. So they have plenty of room to argue the context of the comment - especially if it turns out that MS has leaned on that no-incentive argument in its submissions re. ABK over any more explicit outline about situations where they may foreclose. (I'm wondering: if MS had submitted to the FTC re. ABK that they may make some content exclusive, as they did with Zenimax, would the FTC not highlight that in their case layout? That 'MS acknowledges it will foreclose supply' etc. etc. I dunno why they would omit that if it was the case, as it would presumably be relevant to their argument about supply foreclosure, and continuing a pattern of making content exclusive post acquisition etc. And MS has been quieter publicly this time about the prospect of exclusive titles - leaned far more on the idea in this acquisition about keeping games available to everyone, treating ABK like Minecraft, etc.)
That (non-sense in my opinion) infographic is more recent, for the Activision deal, as a mean of justifying that the intentions with Activision IP are different
If maintaining or growing an IPs value is contingent on having a number of customers that greatly exceeds your platforms installed base- it makes the most sense to be multi-platform.
If an IP is comparatively small, and the playerbase not saturated on the first party platform, an exclusive strategy is much less risky, because there's an opportunity to grow the sales on a single platform. For example Hellblade sold 1 million copies across all platforms. It's not a stretch to suggest Hellblade 2 could exceed that as an Xbox exclusive.
The mid-tier IP can go either way, because it wouldn't be immediately obvious if the increase in console sales would offset the loss of sales on rival platforms.
The idea that the bigger the IP the more incentive to go exclusive doesn't make any sense. there's a point where you're just reducing the value of your own IP.
They said that Microsoft made arguments about a lack of incentive to foreclose, and that their behaviour afterwards showed those arguments to be meaningless.
They didn't say there was a commitment not to foreclose. Nor did they say the case hinged on it. All of that is fill-in on the part of the reader.
The best argument that the FTC's statement is misleading is that MS did provide other explanations about what they were planning to do to the EC, and the FTC omits to mention that. But the FTC could easily dance around that to say that they were addressing arguments about foreclosure incentives full stop. And if MS hasn't made similar statements about plans to potentially make some games exclusive in the ABK case, as they did in the Zenimax case, the FTC can say they're only addressing what's relevant in this case with that comment.
People have over-egged this comment in both directions over the past two days. It (IMO) wasn't the bald-faced accusation it was made out to be that would cause trouble for MS, nor is it some massive error the FTC would have trouble arguing around in court if it came to it.
No, they didn't say Microsoft "made arguments" they said "despite assurances"
"Microsoft decided to make several of Bethesda's titles including Starfield and Redfall Microsoft exclusives despite assurances it had given to European antitrust authorities that it had no incentive to withhold games from rival consoles."
Moreover, Microsoft never made the argument that they had no incentive to make future games exclusive. That's not supported by any of the quotes from Microsoft, and the EC has made clear that it wasn't their interpretation when they made the incentive comment
Hoeg says it's a linchpin to the entire case. He showed the part of the document where they reinforce it but I'm not going back through the video. I don't believe for one second the FTC didn't know exactly what they were doing with that statement especially since they ARGUE it throughout the full complaint. Idas seems to agree that the intent is obvious. A few of the posters in here seem to want to argue semantics.
The question for the FTC, or their case, is to what degree they can counter the accusation in court. And you're saying 'it's just semantics', but that's half of what lawyers do. IMO there's more then enough absent from the comment, and more than enough fill-in required, for them to argue that their intended meaning was a much narrower message than was ascribed to it in the 'they misled the EC' interpretation. Once they do that, there's nothing further for them to cede, or no further argument about a regulator being misled, for MS to argue against. Unless MS wants to argue that the FTC, based on a broader interpretation of that comment, is unfit to bring competition cases to court? Which I mean they could try, but I think the court will just want them to move on.
They said that Microsoft made arguments about a lack of incentive to foreclose, and that their behaviour afterwards showed those arguments to be meaningless.
They didn't say there was a commitment not to foreclose. Nor did they say the case hinged on it. All of that is fill-in on the part of the reader.
The best argument that the FTC's statement is misleading is that MS did provide other explanations about what they were planning to do to the EC, and the FTC omits to mention that. But the FTC could easily dance around that to say that they were addressing arguments about foreclosure incentives full stop. And if MS hasn't made similar statements about plans to potentially make some games exclusive in the ABK case, as they did in the Zenimax case, the FTC can say they're only addressing what's relevant in this case with that comment.
People have over-egged this comment in both directions over the past two days. It (IMO) wasn't the bald-faced accusation it was made out to be that would cause trouble for MS, nor is it some massive error the FTC would have trouble arguing around in court if it came to it.
Oh I think they were totally aware of that. But they'll say, we were talking about the value of arguments made by MS in the past about a lack of foreclosure incentive, given their prominence in this case, and that's it. The comment directly addresses those arguments and what they meant post-closure. It doesn't explicitly mention anything else. So they have plenty of room to argue the context of the comment - especially if it turns out that MS has leaned on that no-incentive argument in its submissions re. ABK over any more explicit outline about situations where they may foreclose. (I'm wondering: if MS had submitted to the FTC re. ABK that they may make some content exclusive, as they did with Zenimax, would the FTC not highlight that in their case layout? That 'MS acknowledges it will foreclose supply' etc. etc. I dunno why they would omit that if it was the case, as it would presumably be relevant to their argument about supply foreclosure, and continuing a pattern of making content exclusive post acquisition etc. And MS has been quieter publicly this time about the prospect of exclusive titles - leaned far more on the idea in this acquisition about keeping games available to everyone, treating ABK like Minecraft, etc.)
I actually bet they laid out a framework. But of course they didn't say "we will make this game exclusive". They technically haven't done the due diligence to be able to MAKE that determination for any given ABK game yet. What they gave is a guide to how they will approach their decisions, which in the EC document would likely have been in the non-public documents and referenced in that redacted portion.
I think FTC's wording is highly misleading. But we can ignore that. Let's say their argument is well we know you're telling us that you have no incentive to take COD off PS in the future, but we don't believe you. FTC is perfectly in their rights to do so (but they don't really show their work, either). But..... that concern is easily taken care of. With the exact concession that MS has already offered, no? A 10 year offer that takes COD not only safely into the next console generation, but potentially into even the next PlayStation iteration after that - which might well not even be a traditional console at all. Even if MS were planning to take away COD after 10 years, you can't seriously believe that Sony, a very good competitor in this space, wouldn't be reasonably expected to find a way to plan for success without COD in that whole time?
Unless someone wants to argue that Chair Khan believes that COD will be an essential input for video games until the heat death of the universe? That'd be a nightmare.
The question for the FTC, or their case, is to what degree they can counter the accusation in court. And you're saying 'it's just semantics', but that's half of what lawyers do. IMO there's more then enough absent from the comment, and more than enough fill-in required, for them to argue that their intended meaning was a much narrower message than was ascribed to it in the 'they misled the EC' interpretation. Once they do that, there's nothing further for them to cede, or no further argument about a regulator being misled, for MS to argue against. Unless MS wants to argue that the FTC, based on a broader interpretation of that comment, is unfit to bring competition cases to court? Which I mean they could try, but I think the court will just want them to move on.
There's also a mountain of evidence that MS has said enough times that it would be a case-by-case basis for future games, including publicly to EVERYONE, that it would be a stretch to take this one line and interpret that THIS was MS's promise of future strategy and nothing else that contradicts it. This one statement that is NOT a promise. NOT an assurance. NOT binding even in a casual sense. And also just clearly not meant to be interpreted or used the way the FTC is trying to.
The question for the FTC, or their case, is to what degree they can counter the accusation in court. And you're saying 'it's just semantics', but that's half of what lawyers do. IMO there's more then enough absent from the comment, and more than enough fill-in required, for them to argue that their intended meaning was a much narrower message than was ascribed to it in the 'they misled the EC' interpretation. Once they do that, there's nothing further for them to cede, or no further argument about a regulator being misled, for MS to argue against. Unless MS wants to argue that the FTC, based on a broader interpretation of that comment, is unfit to bring competition cases to court? Which I mean they could try, but I think the court will just want them to move on.
Lawyers are going to tear that specific claim apart. They ARE going to ascribe this argument to it because they clearly argue it throughout the document. The intent is clear when taken as a whole. They argue for my interpretation.
The FTC knows their argument is super weak, though. It's really not about a coherent complaint case so it's really whatever.
If maintaining an IPs value is contingent on having a number of customers that greatly exceeds your platforms installed base- it makes the most sense to be multi-platform.
If an IP is comparatively small, and the playerbase not saturated on the first party platform, an exclusive strategy is much less risky
The mid-tier IP can go either way.
The idea that the bigger the IP the more incentive to go exclusive doesn't make any sense. there's a point where you're just reducing the value of your own IP.
Starfield (Or The Elder Scrolls/Fallout) is not a mid-tier IP by any reasonable measurement, and it's the clear example of a game which will be its potential playerbase reduced because of exclusivity. There is a logic behind it, true, but the examples have no sense.
I think FTC's wording is highly misleading. But we can ignore that. Let's say their argument is well we know you're telling us that you have no incentive to take COD off PS in the future, but we don't believe you. FTC is perfectly in their rights to do so (but they don't really show their work, either). But..... that concern is easily taken care of. With the exact concession that MS has already offered, no? A 10 year offer that takes COD not only safely into the next console generation, but potentially into even the next PlayStation iteration after that - which might well not even be a traditional console at all. Even if MS were planning to take away COD after 10 years, you can't seriously believe that Sony, a very good competitor in this space, wouldn't be reasonably expected to find a way to plan for success without COD in that whole time?
I think that's absolutely what Microsoft's argument will be re. incentives to foreclose, that even if they wanted to, they won't be able to for 10 years.
The FTC will say that these are time limited assurances. And they'll probably also say that MS could renege on those contracts at any time if they felt the strategic benefit outweighed the legal liability (indeed that's part of their case outline - they don't think that even ABK's pre-existing 3 year contract is 'assurance enough'). So they'll say long term, past the contracts, they're left with arguments about a lack of incentive, which are meaningless per prior actions.
Now is that a good case? I don't know. Like I don't believe MS would renege on those contracts. But the FTC will appeal to the need for a structural resolution in settling this with MS, I think it's obvious that's what they want if 10 year behavioural deals aren't enough.
I just realized why this place is being labeled an echo chamber. It's because the anti-acquisition arguments are so weak that most of the people trying to make them dipped out long ago.
Well when the argument is "the cma is gonna block it to stick it to big tech and microsoft has no answer gg no re" what exactly are you supposed to meaningfully discuss? That's really the best argument people who think the acquisition won't happen have and it's basically a dead end for discussion.
Starfield (Or The Elder Scrolls/Fallout) is not a mid-tier IP by any reasonable measurement, and it's the clear example of a game which will be its potential playerbase reduced because of exclusivity. There is a logic behind it, true, but the examples have no sense.
Starfield is not going to even be as big as God of War or Tears of the Kingdom. No one expects those games to make financial sense as multiplat titles. MS's point is that there is no incentive for making games of a certain scale and format exclusive, including some of Zenimax's. Like Elder Scrolls Online. Like the NEXT Zenimax Online Game. Like Minecraft. Like COD.
Microsoft never says that there is NO game in the catalog that could makes sense as an exclusive (even though I'd be happy to see them all go multiplat personally).
Best thing FTC could do to save face after today would probably be to get MS to make the ten-year COD deal legally binding (which they can do now they've sued) and that way all sides come through with a victory.
Sony gets a decade of COD.
Microsoft gets ABK.
FTC gets to say "we used our power to broker a deal where EVERYONE wins!"
Best thing FTC could do to save face after today would probably be to get MS to make the ten-year COD deal legally binding (which they can do now they've sued) and that way all sides come through with a victory.
Sony gets a decade of COD.
Microsoft gets ABK.
FTC gets to say "we used our power to broker a deal where EVERYONE wins!"
Lawyers are going to tear that specific claim apart. They ARE going to ascribe this argument to it because they clearly argue it throughout the document. The intent is clear when taken as a whole. They argue for my interpretation.
There's two references to the EC, both the same point re. incentive and Microsoft's statements around those. There's nothing else in the doc that suggests the FTC is accusing MS of lying to the EC. Just this one comment open to interpretation. And when the FTC says, no, that's not our interpretation - when they cede any suggestion that MS misled anyone - what will happen?
Or do you think the FTC will argue MS misled the EC? Cos I'd agree on that front... I mean that would be very dumb.
Starfield (Or The Elder Scrolls/Fallout) is not a mid-tier IP by any reasonable measurement, and it's the clear example of a game which will be its potential playerbase reduced because of exclusivity. There is a logic behind it, true, but the examples have no sense.
Starfield is not a mid-tier IP because it is nearly a worthless IP. There are no Starfield products. We'll see if it turns into a valuable IP in the future. It holds no goodwill -- its value is simply the limited amount of marketing money that has been pumped into it
I mean, I posted the entire thing in a previous post. But neither parts that you posted say that Microsoft made guarantees to the EC regarding Zenimax. Still trying to find the "gotcha."
Not sure why you are suddenly moving the goal post to guarantees, the discussion has been about commitments.
The EC responded saying no commitments had been made by Microsoft. I quoted the parts where the FTC argued MS can't be trusted because they said one thing and then acted differently. You know, as in breaking a commitment.
If you still believe the FTC's representation is "a factual account of what transpired" and there's no conflict to the EC's statement, there's really no point in arguing further.
I think that's absolutely what Microsoft's argument will be re. incentives to foreclose, that even if they wanted to, they won't be able to for 10 years.
The FTC will say that these are time limited assurances. And they'll probably also say that MS could renege on those contracts at any time if they felt the strategic benefit outweighed the legal liability (indeed that's part of their case outline - they don't think that even ABK's pre-existing 3 year contract is 'assurance enough'). So they'll say long term, past the contracts, they're left with arguments about a lack of incentive, which are meaningless per prior actions.
Now is that a good case? I don't know. Like I don't believe MS would renege on those contracts. But the FTC will appeal to the need for a structural resolution in settling this with MS, I think it's obvious that's what they want if 10 year behavioural deals aren't enough.
Exactly the point we're making. FTC's argument is ultimately centered on "we don't trust Microsoft" and exhibit A (the only one, actually) is that they didn't follow their "assurances" to the EC. Is there ANY example of MS reneging on a contract in all of these deals? I mean, they could have chosen to reference the (unrelated) cloud stuff in the EC that MS is getting hit with lol. That would have actually had some teeth maybe. But they didn't.
Yes, we all know FTC won't accept it. But they have to explain WHY NOT. And they can't. They have no evidence. They've done no work to explain how it even harms to the industry or consumers if it DOES happen. They have less than nothing right now. (And again, that's even without the absolute insanity of promising something for 10 years in TECH!?)
They can definitely ASK for structural. But we don't even know if they've offered any. Sony hasn't offered any. They've shown no paths forward other than going to court that we know of. They went all in on this and they're hoping they get bailed out by someone else and don't have to face the consequences.
Starfield (Or The Elder Scrolls/Fallout) is not a mid-tier IP by any reasonable measurement, and it's the clear example of a game which will be its potential playerbase reduced because of exclusivity. There is a logic behind it, true, but the examples have no sense.
Starfield hasn't sold a single copy
COD sells annually what ES/FO sells in 4-5
It's objective to say that zenimax IP sit somewhere in the middle of Hellblade and COD/Minecraft. "Mid-tier" isn't a slight. It's just a fact that there is a wide chasm in terms of demand and consumer spend for the IP that MS vows to keep multiplat and the IP that MS got from Zenimax. and then another wide chasm between Zenimax and IP like Hellblade.
The question isn't whether or not exclusivity will reduce the playerbase. The question is if platform growth will offset the reduction in playerbase. The larger the IP, the more likely to reach a point where the answer is NO. Minecraft and COD are clearly beyond that point. And Zenimax IP could go either way.
Not sure why you are suddenly moving the goal post to guarantees, the discussion has been about commitments.
The EC responded saying no commitments had been made by Microsoft. I quoted the parts where the FTC argued MS can't be trusted because they said one thing and then acted differently. You know, as in breaking a commitment.
If you still believe the FTC's representation is "a factual account of what transpired" and there's no conflict to the EC's statement, there's really no point in arguing further.
There is no goal posts moving?
The FTC does not claim that the Microsoft made 'commitments' to the EC.
The EC reaffirms that no commitments were made to them from Microsoft.
No, they didn't say Microsoft "made arguments" they said "despite assurances"
"Microsoft decided to make several of Bethesda's titles including Starfield and Redfall Microsoft exclusives despite assurances it had given to European antitrust authorities that it had no incentive to withhold games from rival consoles."
My question would be how much could the FTC's websites paraphrased summary of the complaint be used against them in court. Because I don't believe they used this language in the actual court filing
EDIT: nvm I did find a similar statement in the complaint
Exactly the point we're making. FTC's argument is ultimately centered on "we don't trust Microsoft" and exhibit A (the only one, actually) is that they didn't follow their "assurances" to the EC. Is there ANY example of MS reneging on a contract in all of these deals? I mean, they could have chosen to reference the (unrelated) cloud stuff in the EC that MS is getting hit with lol. That would have actually had some teeth maybe. But they didn't.
So I think that's what the substance of the argument would come down to. And key to that re. the FTC's comments about incentive arguments is whether 'other things' have been said to them. And if they have, if MS has furnished a representative outline of intended strategy re. ABK titles, MS of course has a strong argument that they're not hiding anything, just as they didn't with Zenimax. However if they haven't disclosed plans like that in the ABK case, if they've been simply maintaining that they've no reason to make games exclusive, and that it would be stupid etc. then IMO the FTC is wise to hone in on what that came to mean previously.
I'm sure someone must know if there's signs of those kinds of submissions, even redacted?! I mean that would say a lot about possible lines of attack in court for MS (or the FTC depending).
They can definitely ASK for structural. But we don't even know if they've offered any. Sony hasn't offered any. They've shown no paths forward other than going to court that we know of. They went all in on this and they're hoping they get bailed out by someone else and don't have to face the consequences.
For Sony, they're irrelevant. They can't propose remedies. They're not going to court as a party to the case (though they may get called as a witness). (If this ever gets to court!)
BTW, thanks for your response on an earlier post of mine...re. consolidation etc. I will read it!
Ugh. I am pretty anti-monopoly, but I would have a very hard time seeing any worse custodian for the games owned by activision blizzard than activision blizzard.
Same note about EA and it's games.
EDIT: Same note about Epic.
Final note is that there isn't the political will to break up companies like these anymore, and it would take a hell of a congress to break the walled garden 30% commission standard.
Maybe a dumb question, if you give "assurances" or just say this is what we're going to do In your response to a regulatory inquest. Then later the deal gets passed without any considerations. Do you have to abide by what you said you would do as part of the initial response, essentially is any of it binding? Or only if there is a concession as part of the final approval?
I just realized why this place is being labeled an echo chamber. It's because the anti-acquisition arguments are so weak that most of the people trying to make them dipped out long ago.
Yeah. Some of it is thinly-veiled "I hate Xbox" and a bunch of others are general "I hate big tech!" and neither are serious arguments. Yelling "Consolidation" doesn't make it true.
Best thing FTC could do to save face after today would probably be to get MS to make the ten-year COD deal legally binding (which they can do now they've sued) and that way all sides come through with a victory.
Sony gets a decade of COD.
Microsoft gets ABK.
FTC gets to say "we used our power to broker a deal where EVERYONE wins!"
My question would be how much could the FTC's websites paraphrased summary of the complaint be used against them in court. Because I don't believe they used this language in the actual court filing
Yup, this is from the actual filing (emphasize mine as that's the important part):
Microsoft's past conduct provides a preview of the combined firm's likely plans if it consummates the Proposed Acquisition, despite any assurances the company may offerregarding its plans. In March 2021, Microsoft acquired ZeniMax Media Inc. ("ZeniMax"), theparent company of the well-known game developer and publisher Bethesda Softworks LLC("Bethesda"). Microsoft assured the European Commission ("EC") during its antitrust review ofthe ZeniMax purchase that Microsoft would not have the incentive to withhold ZeniMax titlesfrom rival consoles. But, shortly after the EC cleared the transaction, Microsoft made public itsdecision to make several of the newly acquired ZeniMax titles, including Starfield, Redfall, andElder Scrolls VI, Microsoft exclusives.
And that is indeed exactly what Microsoft said (Microsoft is the Notifying Party here):
Therefore, according to the Notifying Party, Microsoft would not have the incentive to cease or limit making ZeniMax games available for purchase on rival consoles.
Just for discussion, why are you so sure they won't be a seller (again) - my rationale that it's a definite possibility is that if they weren't in the first place we wouldn't be having this discussion at all
So I think that's what the substance of the argument would come down to. And key to that re. the FTC's comments about incentive arguments is whether 'other things' have been said to them. And if they have, if MS has furnished a representative outline of intended strategy re. ABK titles, MS of course has a strong argument that they're not hiding anything, just as they didn't with Zenimax. However if they haven't disclosed plans like that in the ABK case, if they've been simply maintaining that they've no reason to make games exclusive, and that it would be stupid etc. then IMO the FTC is wise to hone in on what that came to mean previously.
I'm sure someone must know if there's signs of those kinds of submissions, even redacted?! I mean that would say a lot about possible lines of attack in court for MS (or the FTC depending).
For Sony, they're irrelevant. They can't propose remedies. They're not going to court as a party to the case (though they may get called as a witness). (If this ever gets to court!)
BTW, thanks for your response on an earlier post of mine...re. consolidation etc. I will read it!
Yes, I agree. It would have been a smart thing to hone in on for FTC. And I said as much when this first came out yesterday. But I also said that it really depends on what MS told EC specifically. And I said it was weird that EC hasn't flagged any issues re: Zenimax this whole time. And we know why now. And now that we know FTC's approach, I think they may have botched the opportunity. At least somewhat.
Yes, we actually DO KNOW that MS has offered CMA, FTC, and other regulators a detailed financial model of why certain games will be doing whatever and why it doesn't make sense. That's the financial model that they (and Sony) offered to CMA. CMA rejected it, saying that it didn't weight certain things enough and was not standard. But CMA never explained what the CORRECT (or better) financial model that they adopted from Sony is or why it's better.
But yes, you can definitely trust that MS has shared internal documents in addition to specifically prepared documents about strategy for ABK games moving forward. They did that with Zenimax. They OBVIOUSLY know it's something regulators want now.
Sony can't propose remedies, but they have been nonstop making demands this whole time. They absolutely could have proposed something if they wanted to (but their goal was to be as roadblock as possible). So, they didn't.
(Heh, it's very long. No worries. But I think it makes sense. I hope.)
it's referring to BROADLY all games, games already released and future multi-platform titles (this is worded this way for a reason).
so they don't have incentive of removing skyrim from playstation
they don't have incentive to remove fallout 76
they don't have incentive to remove ESO
they don't have incentive to remove any game that they release across platforms in the future
context is everything and the FTC is lying about what was said.
A future title being exclusive is outside of the incentive that Microsoft was speaking of.
mlexmarketinsight.com
