The Microsoft / Activision Blizzard acquisition |OT| Antitrust Simulator (completed; discussing post-merger issues)

Madjoki · Dec 9, 2022

DriftingSpirit said:
View: https://twitter.com/hoeglaw/status/1601319724218200065?s=46&t=cW-SRDZUrM3zp4vXh2i15A

View: https://twitter.com/hoeglaw/status/1601319737992318976?s=46&t=cW-SRDZUrM3zp4vXh2i15A

Since Hoeg seems to be a reliable source here, maybe this will clear things up.

I don't think he's fully right in this case (assuming Microsoft isn't lying).

This is because that summary by EU, quotes in footnote, the same document where Microsoft says they will decide case-by-case (which is quoted on "Get Facts!" pdf):

"Microsoft will not make any existing ZeniMax games exclusive to Xbox. They
will continue to be available for purchase for PCs and other gaming hardware for which they are
currently available, which will ensure that they continue to be available to current players of
those games. Microsoft will not be removing players' access to any current games, no matter where they currently play."

"For future ZeniMax games, Microsoft intends to make these games available
for purchase on PC and, where the games are designed as native mobile games, on mobile
devices running both iOS and Android. Future decisions on whether to distribute ZeniMax games
for other consoles will be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account player demand and
sentiment, Microsoft's strategic and financial goals, and the willingness of third-party gaming
hardware providers to run Microsoft games and services. Microsoft will make all acquired
games and future releases available to subscribers of its Game Pass service on the day the games
are launched (which can be used to play on PCs, Xbox consoles and Android mobiles), but does
not currently anticipate distributing them through other subscription services. This reflects
Microsoft's broader strategy to promote a subscription-based model which it believes will
generate value and choice for game players. This policy would not preclude players from
downloading or buying these games outside of Xbox Game Pass: Microsoft anticipates that
existing games and future multi-platform games will be available for purchase from relevant
digital storefronts of all major consoles and PCs."

He's right only in sense that the EU's summary can be read as MS promising all future games too. But it seems unlikely that this is what original statement by MS means, considering the quoted parts.

Chaos Legion · Dec 9, 2022

DriftingSpirit said:
View: https://twitter.com/hoeglaw/status/1601319724218200065?s=46&t=cW-SRDZUrM3zp4vXh2i15A

View: https://twitter.com/hoeglaw/status/1601319737992318976?s=46&t=cW-SRDZUrM3zp4vXh2i15A

Since Hoeg seems to be a reliable source here, maybe this will clear things up.

Hopefully the conversation can move on from the FTC given how his word is treated as gospel.

DukeBlueBall said:
Btw, have we confirmed that MS was talking about no incentive of all future Zenimax games in their merger notice? Seems like to me, no incensitive to foreclose Zenimax games isn't legally the same as we promise we will put all future games on rival platforms.

MS could have being talking about existing games. Or incentives to not make all games exclusive. We have to establish the meaning.

I don't think it has. That seems to be open to interpretation and the relevant part is redacted. It reads to me as Zenimax titles in general, both existing and future.

UraMallas · Dec 9, 2022

larryfox said:
It's a couple of tweets can't post them all here.

View: https://twitter.com/hoeglaw/status/1601319718069350400?s=46&t=9pjI1s9dpJyIa2s8WtfC6Q

To me, he's pretty much saying "technically they didn't lie." Especially when he was talking about it live. He said pretty much this exact stuff but added that one of the pillar arguments revolved around this point and that is shown by the fact they were arguing in the document as if the "Microsoft lied" interpretation WAS their position.

DukeBlueBall · Dec 9, 2022

Chaos Legion said:
I don't think it has. That seems to be open to interpretation and the relevant part is redacted. It reads to me as Zenimax titles in general, both existing and future.

If EC doesn't point to it as a concern in Phase 1 and again in their response via email, how can it be a basis of argument for AKB + MS. There are so much reasons why this is weak.

1. It's from a different jurisdicition.
2. The MS statement was not legally binding concessions.
3. The EC basically said in the Zenimax ruling we don't care about your incentives, go ahead and make your games exclusive if you want.
4. What MS said anyways can be legally interpreted as not foreclosing existing games, or not foreclosing all future Zenimax titles. They didn't promise to put all future Zenimax titles on rival platforms. To argue that they did say that is impossible, since we have evidence in writing they promised case by case in the SAME document in which the allegedly problematic MS statements are from.

I am not sure that this part about Zenimax isn't automatically tossed out by their internal judicial judge in a few weeks. I bet the FTC will drop it in their amended complaint.

cyrribrae · Dec 9, 2022

DriftingSpirit said:
View: https://twitter.com/hoeglaw/status/1601319724218200065?s=46&t=cW-SRDZUrM3zp4vXh2i15A

View: https://twitter.com/hoeglaw/status/1601319737992318976?s=46&t=cW-SRDZUrM3zp4vXh2i15A

Since Hoeg seems to be a reliable source here, maybe this will clear things up.

I mean... it's clear in that all of the regulars here repeatedly said things like FTC "mischaracterized" "misinterpreted" or at most "misled" with their statements. That they made implications on their arguments. These are all things that Hoeg has said, as well. Some of the people popping in have interpreted it as lying. But I don't think many of us in here have. FTC purposefully phrased it in a way where they're not technically lying but they can imply something advantageous (that MS lied and can't be trusted) - which, ironically, is EXACTLY what they [implicitly, but also.. weirdly take it even further actually out loud] accuse MS of doing.

Bazz Bazz · Dec 9, 2022

larryfox said:
It's a couple of tweets can't post them all here.

View: https://twitter.com/hoeglaw/status/1601319718069350400?s=46&t=9pjI1s9dpJyIa2s8WtfC6Q

I was checking this previous report. Few interesting things here :

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases1/202124/m10001_438_3.pdf

5.2.3.2. Incentive to engage in input foreclosure (A) The Notifying Parties' view

(107) The Notifying Party submits that Microsoft has strong incentives to continue making ZeniMax games available for rival consoles (and their related storefronts).

(108) The Notifying Party explains that the profitability of a strategy to make ZeniMax games exclusive to the Xbox console would depend on a trade-off between: (i) the value of attracting new players to the Xbox ecosystem; and (ii) the lost income from the sale of ZeniMax games for rival consoles (through the related storefronts). In this regard, the Notifying Party forecasts that a significant share of ZeniMax games sales will occur on rival consoles over the life cycle of the newly released console generation. Based on such a trade-off, the Notifying Party submits that a hypothetical console exclusivity strategy would be profitable only if it led to an increase in the number of Xbox users [forecast million] over the next five years, corresponding to an increase in Xbox shipments [forecast percentage] above the forecast leve

(109) In the Notifying Party's view, it is implausible that Microsoft would achieve such results. Firstly, the Notifying Party considers that such a strategy is likely to be successful if service differentiation is weak and the content at issue is extremely valuable. However, rival consoles are significantly differentiated, and have accumulated brand loyalty.

(110) Secondly, a high switching rate by players is implausible due to the considerable switching costs between consoles, and the relative value of ZeniMax games compared to the gaming landscape.

(111) Thirdly, the Notifying Party considers that the players' switching rates indicated above are conservative, as they would have to increase further if more realistic switching patterns were taken into account. In particular, the Notifying Party submits that multi-homing across consoles may further reduce the incentives for a foreclosure strategy.Players loyal to Nintendo or Sony consoles with a strong desire to play ZeniMax games can respond to a console exclusivity strategy by buying an Xbox to play ZeniMax games, while keeping most of their gaming activity and expenditure on their preferred console.

(112) In this regard, the Notifying Party submits that cross-platform console ownership reduces the value of an incremental switcher, because players who buy an Xbox as a second console would not bring their entire game purchasing activity to the Xbox. [details about the profit, value and ownership of the Xbox and the profit made from the sale of ZeniMax games].

(113) [Microsoft's strategy regarding ZeniMax games]. Missing

(114) 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.

So bad to not have the "Notifying party" but after reading this, looks like Microsoft showed a different strategy. The FTC conclusion looks clearer.

BTW, (114) is really funny now, reading the "not have the incentive" from a $70 billions deal.

Precious Tritium · Dec 9, 2022

Zebesian-X said:
Klob had me thinking the EC had busted the whole case open lol. But in reality it's kinda… not much. The FTC's argument is flimsy af, but nothing in the EC's comments to MLex contradicts what they're saying

Their statement seems mostly focused on the claim they were "mislead" and that they couldn't have been since they didn't ask for considerations.

DukeBlueBall · Dec 9, 2022

Bazz Bazz said:
I was checking this previous report. Few interesting things here :

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases1/202124/m10001_438_3.pdf

So bad to not have the "Notifying party" but after reading this, looks like Microsoft showed a different strategy. The FTC conclusion looks clearer.

BTW, (114) is really funny now, reading the "not have the incentive" from a $70 billions deal.

The Notifying Party submits that Microsoft has strong incentives to continue making ZeniMax games available for rival consoles

Is this existing games or future games?
or all future games?

It's not the same statement as MS promises to make all future ZeniMax games available for rival consoles. We have in writing in the SAME document that they'll look at future games on a case by case basis.

Chaos Legion · Dec 9, 2022

DukeBlueBall said:
If EC doesn't point to it as a concern in Phase 1 and again in their response via email, how can it be a basis of argument for AKB + MS. There are so much reasons why this is weak.

1. It's from a different jurisdicition.
2. The MS statement was not legally binding concessions.
3. The EC basically said in the Zenimax ruling we don't care about your incentives, go ahead and make your games exclusive if you want.
4. What MS said anyways can be legally interpreted as not foreclosing existing games, or not foreclosing all future Zenimax titles. They didn't promise to put all future Zenimax titles on rival platforms. To argue that they did say that is impossible, since we have evidence in writing they promised case by case in the SAME document in which the allegedly problematic MS statements are from.

We will see what the EC's investigation leads them to reason. We know that it is something that they are going to focus on in their investigation, as they already announced.

The preliminary investigation suggests that Microsoft may have the ability, as well as a potential economic incentive, to engage in foreclosure strategies vis-à-vis Microsoft's rival distributors of console video games, such as preventing these companies from distributing Activision Blizzard's console video games on consoles or degrading the terms and conditions for their use of or access to these video games.

Which lines up with one of the concerns of the FTC.

cyrribrae · Dec 9, 2022

Bazz Bazz said:
I was checking this previous report. Few interesting things here :

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases1/202124/m10001_438_3.pdf

So bad to not have the "Notifying party" but after reading this, looks like Microsoft showed a different strategy. The FTC conclusion looks clearer.

BTW, (114) is really funny now, reading the "not have the incentive" from a $70 billions deal.

You're like 20 pages behind at this point XD

vixolus · Dec 9, 2022

Bazz Bazz said:
I was checking this previous report. Few interesting things here :

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases1/202124/m10001_438_3.pdf

So bad to not have the "Notifying party" but after reading this, looks like Microsoft showed a different strategy. The FTC conclusion looks clearer.

BTW, (114) is really funny now, reading the "not have the incentive" from a $70 billions deal.

(113) is likely shared with the European Commission's Assessment of that whole block, where they also redact [Microsoft's strategy regarding ZeniMax games]. The cited references include quotes where Microsoft explicitly states they intend on making games in the future exclusive.

gofreak · Dec 9, 2022

gremlinz1982 said:
You are using a lot of words and not saying much.

Microsoft did not promise to put future games on PlayStation beyond existing agreements. The European Commission did not have a problem with that, neither did they think that concessions were needed.

There is no need for anyone to apply any imagination.

I didn't disagree with anything you're saying there. I think you missed my point. In summary it's more or less what Hoeg's point above was re. what the FTC was or wasn't technically saying. There's zero dispute on my part about MS not making promises to the EC, I was never arguing the idea that MS misled the EC, but the interpretation of the FTC's comment technically and its weight.

Bradbatross · Dec 9, 2022

People can argue on and on about the FTC, but they're irrelevant now and they're getting laughed at by everyone. It really comes down to the CMA, and after seeing the reactions to the FTC's arguments, I'm feeling pretty good about them coming to a different conclusion.

Uzuzu · Dec 9, 2022

FTC brings up the EC case as evidence that Microsoft cannot be trusted when they say they will continue COD on rival consoles. They imply Microsoft says one thing to regulators pre merger and then go back on their word ("true intentions") post merger.

"Microsoft's previous representations to the EC about its incentives after its purchase of ZeniMax were not borne out by Microsoft's own post-merger behavior. Instead, Microsoft put its true post-merger incentives on full display when it decided to deny rivals its newly acquired future releases and thwart consumers who would choose to play them on a competing product. Microsoft's past behavior should also cast more suspicion on its non-binding public commitments to keep Call of Duty available on PlayStation consoles through the end of Activision's existing agreement with Sony."

But if you read the case Microsoft did exactly what it told the EC it would do. It had no incentive to remove existing Zenimax content so it did not do so and they said they would treat future game exclusivity on a case-by-case basis.

Microsoft will not make any existing ZeniMax games exclusive to Xbox. They will continue to be available for purchase for PCs and other gaming hardware for which they are currently available, which will ensure that they continue to be available to current players of those games. Microsoft will not be removing players' access to any current games, no matter 2 where they currently play

"In its merger notice to the European Commission on ZeniMax, Microsoft stated: "Future decisions on whether to distribute ZeniMax games for other consoles will be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account player demand and sentiment. Factors that will inform Microsoft's decision-making on future games include consumer demand and preference and the willingness of third parties to work with Microsoft to launch games for their devices."

I think it's fair to say the FTC is misleading. While they may not be lying about what the EC says, the conclusion they reach (Microsoft says one thing to regulators and then does the opposite) with the evidence presented in the EC is not true.

DrowsyJungle · Dec 9, 2022

I still think this goes through. It just depends on if MS has the stomach for it is the real question now. IMO the market performance in the EU and GB is too weak for them to say anything against it. Also now with the new statement from EC the CMA can't rely on the same argument the FTC just used. MS is playing chess while regulators are playing checkers.

Zebesian-X · Dec 9, 2022

Hate to say it (bro has some questionable views) but hoeg's right. Wish I hadn't spent all that time writing an essay, he broke it down clearer and more succinct.

DukeBlueBall said:
We have in writing in the SAME document that they'll look at future games on a case by case basis.

do you know which page this quote is stated in that document? Couldn't find it when I was reading it over yesterday

Native_Vel · Dec 9, 2022

I don't understand the back and forth.

If it was all kosher, why would someone representing the EC feel the need to respond? I think they have a pretty good idea of what was said to them and what their expectations were.

According to them, the FTC needed to be corrected and that's exactly what they did.

Wereroku · Dec 9, 2022

Native_Vel said:
I don't understand the back and forth.

If it was all kosher, why would someone representing the EC feel the need to respond? I think they have a pretty good idea of what was said to them and what their expectations were.

According to them, the FTC needed to be corrected and that's exactly what they did.

The EC were asked a question they didn't just respond of their own volition.

Agent Icebeezy · Dec 9, 2022

Deal is still going through because I believe that Microsoft unequivocally believes that they are in the right and they aren't going to let this opportunity pass. Not so much worrying about it now but this is legacy making or breaking. People like to keep bringing up it costs 70 billion dollars as to why regulatory entities should look at this. You better have at that much in value to force Microsoft to stand down on it. To this point, I don't think they've seen it so they will forge ahead here, continuing on with the EU.

WillowWrath · Dec 9, 2022

(This is a thread, more than just these 3 tweets!)

View: https://twitter.com/stephentotilo/status/1601330982900015104?s=20&t=OCjzdxQhSVFZP1lp9SU0Kg

View: https://twitter.com/stephentotilo/status/1601330990965612544?s=20&t=OCjzdxQhSVFZP1lp9SU0Kg

View: https://twitter.com/stephentotilo/status/1601331120297377792?s=20&t=OCjzdxQhSVFZP1lp9SU0Kg
Saw this update from Mr. Axios. Hope this helps any confusion here.

(This is a thread, more than just these 3 tweets!)

cyrribrae · Dec 9, 2022

Wereroku said:
The EC were asked a question they didn't just respond of their own volition.

Regulators are in the habit of no commenting on things that they don't need to comment on. MLex even specified that the EC seemed particularly keen to set the record straight (whereas they no commented to Totillo's slightly different question above/below).

I'm not going to say this is super important to the outcome of the case (I didn't think the EC former spokesperson My PlayStation tweet was that big of a deal either). But dismissing it as not relevant, when it forms a core pillar of FTC's entire chain of argumentation against MS, would be a wild stance to take, if anyone were to try to take it.

Zebesian-X · Dec 9, 2022

View: https://twitter.com/stephentotilo/status/1601331138337050625?s=46&t=A92Q_Us1CzM3h-PVluin5A
Yea

Wereroku · Dec 9, 2022

cyrribrae said:
Regulators are in the habit of no commenting on things that they don't need to comment on. MLex even specified that the EC seemed particularly keen to set the record straight.

I'm not going to say this is super important to the outcome of the case (I didn't think the EC former spokesperson My PlayStation tweet was that big of a deal either). But dismissing it as not relevant, when it forms a core pillar of FTC's entire chain of argumentation against MS, would be a wild stance to take, if anyone were to try to take it.

However as the above from Totilo has pointed out the EC is saying no comment to the FTC's conclusion. The answer before was to an specific question that was not shared as well. So it really has no bearing on the FTC argument.

Tigerfish419 said:
This thread is going to be amazing for the next six months, pages and pages of whether they lied or didn't, this is one statement as well. If this goes to courts its gonna be pages per second.

However if this does go to court can you just imagine the gold mine that would come from Activision emails. They have to have so many skeleton's lurking in there.

Tigerfish419 · Dec 9, 2022

This thread is going to be amazing for the next six months, pages and pages of whether they lied or didn't, this is one statement as well. If this goes to courts its gonna be pages per second. End of the day I don't think it matters if they lied or not, their entire arguments are baseless.

DeadlyVenom · Dec 9, 2022

Zebesian-X said:
View: https://twitter.com/stephentotilo/status/1601331138337050625?s=46&t=A92Q_Us1CzM3h-PVluin5A
Yea

Okay but if they have it in writing that they won't for 10 years then who fucking cares? I swear to god this suit is so stupid.

Mxlegend99 · Dec 9, 2022

Its hilarious that the FTC accuse Microsoft of lying about Zenimax. That it therefore can't be trusted. Only for the EU to come out and confirm that this never happened.

A rival of Microsoft (Gabe Newell) had recently come out saying that Microsoft didnt need any contract with him. He trusts them and they have always kept their promises.

FTC have no legal reason to block the deal. They're the ones who come out looking dodgy here. They decided the day it was announced they were trying to block it and none of the facts mattered.

Dierce · Dec 9, 2022

Tigerfish419 said:
This thread is going to be amazing for the next six months, pages and pages of whether they lied or didn't, this is one statement as well. If this goes to courts its gonna be pages per second. End of the day I don't think it matters if they lied or not, their entire arguments are baseless.

Exactly it shouldn't matter at all because like the Brazilian regulators concluded, it wouldn't matter if MS were to make CoD exclusive and thats the point. Even if CoD were to be made exclusive to Xbox it would not cause Playstation to go out of business. The entire FTC argument is flawed from that very point.

Wereroku · Dec 9, 2022

Mxlegend99 said:
Its hilarious that the FTC accuse Microsoft of lying about Zenimax. That it therefore can't be trusted. Only for the EU to come out and confirm that this never happened.

A rival of Microsoft (Gabe Newell) had recently come out saying that Microsoft didnt need any contract with him. He trusts them and they have always kept their promises.

FTC have no legal reason to block the deal. They're the ones who come out looking dodgy here. They decided the day it was announced they were trying to block it and none of the facts mattered.

Might want to go up a bit. The EC came out and said MS made no formal commitments. They didn't say the FTC is lying. They actually just no commented on that. They were answering a specific question that we don't know.

Tigerfish419 · Dec 9, 2022

Wereroku said:
However if this does go to court can you just imagine the gold mine that would come from Activision emails. They have to have so many skeleton's lurking in there.

I would honestly love to see what these Sony marketing deals cost and what is exactly in them, that shit is interesting.

DeadlyVenom said:
Okay but if they have it in writing that they won't for 10 years then who fucking cares? I swear to god this suit is so stupid.

Right, surely they could put something like "if you remove the game off X platform you will trigger a clause for a second look" sort of thing like they're doing with Facebook and insta, maybe a huge fine as well.

Jarmel · Dec 9, 2022

Zebesian-X said:
View: https://twitter.com/stephentotilo/status/1601331138337050625?s=46&t=A92Q_Us1CzM3h-PVluin5A
Yea

This feels like someone trying to weasel the FTC out of how misleading their own statement was yesterday.

Tigerfish419 · Dec 9, 2022

Dierce said:
Exactly it shouldn't matter at all because like the Brazilian regulators concluded, it wouldn't matter if MS were to make CoD exclusive and thats the point. Even if CoD were to be made exclusive to Xbox it would not cause Playstation to go out of business. The entire FTC argument is flawed from that very point.

Yeah, they're gonna have to prove Sony would be that hurt by this and I do not think in a million years they can even come close to something like this even when trying their hardest

Zebesian-X · Dec 9, 2022

DeadlyVenom said:
Okay but if they have it in writing that they won't for 10 years then who fucking cares? I swear to god this suit is so stupid.

Right, the FTC's argument is weak for a lot of reasons, most of which were covered yesterday when we went over their Doc.

But their position hasn't been made WEAKER by today's comments. EC replied to a v specific question from MLex, the answer to which doesn't actually contradict the FTCs position

Jarmel said:
This feels like someone trying to weasel the FTC out of how misleading their own statement was yesterday.

I get it if you want to argue that the FTC's claim was misleading from the jump. I just don't see how today's development changes anything. All they're really doing is restating the conclusion they came to in the Zenimax document we all read yesterday.

UraMallas · Dec 9, 2022

Funny that the people in here who were arguing that the Zenimax document we saw in here yesterday showed Microsoft lied are the same people now off of that train and on the "FTC didn't technically lie tho" train.

gofreak · Dec 9, 2022

UraMallas said:
Funny that the people in here who were arguing that the Zenimax document we saw in here yesterday showed Microsoft lied are the same people now off of that train and on the "FTC didn't technically lie tho" train.

That ain't true of me.

My on take on this yesterday before it became a gotcha:

The Microsoft / Activision Blizzard acquisition |OT| Antitrust Simulator (Update: EC responds to FTC's case against ActiBlizz/MS) OT

Wow, with the way this thread was headed, you would have the FTC was a lock. Guess they saw through the PR avalanche. At least there is some good news for Xbox fans: Zenimax unionization bid should still be successful, despite the FTC ruling. That's nice. Yea an if this deal dies in court...

www.resetera.com

I never bought it as an accusation of misleading a regulator - and so, perhaps, never thought the FTC case was as strong as some people did until today! - and never argued MS was lying to the EC.

00Quan[T] · Dec 9, 2022

Idas said:
MLex emailed the European Commission about the FTC accusation and they provided a very interesting answer:

I can't share the link yet because it's behind a subscription service (they usually share part of the content a few days later here).

So, I made screens captures (from mobile). I hope it helps (I'll try to look for a better solution later):

B7-B195-CD-3-D9-F-43-BF-8-FC8-E582-F265355-B

Image B7-B195-CD-3-D9-F-43-BF-8-FC8-E582-F265355-B hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

89-AB7629-5-F91-4-A57-B0-D1-31178-AF654-CE

Image 89-AB7629-5-F91-4-A57-B0-D1-31178-AF654-CE hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

599-B296-C-4439-449-B-B1-BD-6-FF4605-CCF08

Image 599-B296-C-4439-449-B-B1-BD-6-FF4605-CCF08 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

877-EFF25-DD5-B-4395-AFA2-C57-D97-A72-B0-A

Image 877-EFF25-DD5-B-4395-AFA2-C57-D97-A72-B0-A hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

32-A8-DA53-D906-464-E-A999-A6-C74761-A508

Image 32-A8-DA53-D906-464-E-A999-A6-C74761-A508 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

320-DB51-B-173-C-479-A-95-BC-4-BC822-EB9825

Image 320-DB51-B-173-C-479-A-95-BC-4-BC822-EB9825 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

A33-EFB04-06-F2-41-B1-8-CB6-046-D3-ED297-BA

Image A33-EFB04-06-F2-41-B1-8-CB6-046-D3-ED297-BA hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

29-D7136-D-BC57-4129-AF89-18-B7-AF2-DEA19

Image 29-D7136-D-BC57-4129-AF89-18-B7-AF2-DEA19 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

As I mentioned yesterday, so much focus on the Zenimax case and the exclusivity issues didn't make any sense.

And the EC is almost accusing the FTC of lying, things could get serious.

This situation is simply... What?
Feels like a movie.

arsene_P5 · Dec 9, 2022

Lant_War said:
it wouldn't make sense to make Bethesda games exclusive because we wouldn't make up the money lost)

Microsoft said that in the context of legacy games. It wouldn't make sense to withdraw ESO, Skyrim, Doom Eternal, ... from competitors stores. For new games like Starfield they told the EC those decisions will be made on case by case basis.

ryan299 · Dec 9, 2022

TypicScroll said:
I am a little bit confused that people seem to think they understand the statements better than the EC themselves.

Lol it's crazy. The EC wouldn't have said anything if they didn't see a problem with what the FTC said.

vixolus · Dec 9, 2022

ryan299 said:
Lol it's crazy. The EC wouldn't have said anything if they didn't see a problem with what the FTC said.

Not necessarily - they were asked a question

arsene_P5 · Dec 9, 2022

Chaos Legion said:
The FTC used Microsoft's statements to the EU and actions post-close to illustrate potential risks with this transaction. Disagree with their perspective or understanding, but it is a factual account of what transpired.

Accusing the FTC of lying is just bizarre.

The FTC presented what was said between EC and MS in a way that wasn't accurate and got called out for that. It wasn't factual at all and whilst there is the risk that MS could make CoD exclusive after 10 years using Zenimax as an example is misleading. MS did exactly what they said they would when talking to EC.

GulfCoastZilla · Dec 9, 2022

vixolus said:
Not necessarily - they were asked a question

They would have no commented

DixieDean82 · Dec 9, 2022

What would have happened if say, MS signed a 10 year console exclusive deal to get COD on Xbox? Instead of trying to buying Activision outright. Would a deal like that even end up in front of regulators?

Ombretoile · Dec 9, 2022

European Commission argues FTC's Microsoft lawsuit is unjustified

The European Commission is looking into Microsoft's merger with Activision Blizzard, but doesn't think the FTC's lawsuit has any real substance.

www.gamedeveloper.com

Microsoft Didn't Lie to the EU on ZeniMax Deal Like the FTC Said, According to Sources

A new report says that Microsoft did not lie about the future exclusivity of ZeniMax games to the EU like the FTC had suggested yesterday.

wccftech.com

EU Responds To FTC's Concerns Over Microsoft's Acquisition Of ZeniMax & Activision Blizzard

Update: New report sheds more light on the story

www.purexbox.com

The FTC claimed Microsoft misled the EU, it appears the FTC was wrong.

In its recent filing against Microsoft the FTC claimed that the company misled EU regulators over its earlier acquisition of ZeniMax. Now the EU is telling the publication MLex that the FTC’s complaint is wrong. The EU apparently never asked Microsoft to guarantee ZeniMax games be available on...

www.theverge.com

It's slowly getting bigger.

vixolus · Dec 9, 2022

Ombretoile said:
European Commission argues FTC's Microsoft lawsuit is unjustified

The European Commission is looking into Microsoft's merger with Activision Blizzard, but doesn't think the FTC's lawsuit has any real substance.

www.gamedeveloper.com

Microsoft Didn't Lie to the EU on ZeniMax Deal Like the FTC Said, According to Sources

A new report says that Microsoft did not lie about the future exclusivity of ZeniMax games to the EU like the FTC had suggested yesterday.

wccftech.com

EU Responds To FTC's Concerns Over Microsoft's Acquisition Of ZeniMax & Activision Blizzard

Update: New report sheds more light on the story

www.purexbox.com

The FTC claimed Microsoft misled the EU, it appears the FTC was wrong.

In its recent filing against Microsoft the FTC claimed that the company misled EU regulators over its earlier acquisition of ZeniMax. Now the EU is telling the publication MLex that the FTC’s complaint is wrong. The EU apparently never asked Microsoft to guarantee ZeniMax games be available on...

www.theverge.com

It's slowly getting bigger.

resetera -> posts -> resetera

bsigg · Dec 9, 2022

DixieDean82 said:
What would have happened if say, MS signed a 10 year console exclusive deal to get COD on Xbox? Instead of trying to buying Activision outright. Would a deal like that even end up in front of regulators?

Per Hoeg from yesterday, it would be looked at by regulators since it is essentially the same as buying the IP. What they would actually do, I have no idea but apparently it would be looked at.

Yerffej · Dec 9, 2022

My god. I clicked on the Verge one. I'd forgotten they redid their look. BaAaArRrrrrfff

DixieDean82 · Dec 9, 2022

bsigg said:
Per Hoeg from yesterday, it would be looked at by regulators since it is essentially the same as buying the IP. What they would actually do, I have no idea but apparently it would be looked at.

Interesting! Not that it was ever on the table.

killerrin · Dec 9, 2022

bsigg said:
Per Hoeg from yesterday, it would be looked at by regulators since it is essentially the same as buying the IP. What they would actually do, I have no idea but apparently it would be looked at.

Hoeg says that, but let's be real here. No regulator would give it time of day. Because if they did, Sony wouldn't have been able to make the moneyhats they've been making for the past decade and some change.

Regulators clearly don't give a fuck about exclusives unless the owner on the contract is actually changing hands.

zou · Dec 9, 2022

Ombretoile said:
European Commission argues FTC's Microsoft lawsuit is unjustified

The European Commission is looking into Microsoft's merger with Activision Blizzard, but doesn't think the FTC's lawsuit has any real substance.

www.gamedeveloper.com

Microsoft Didn't Lie to the EU on ZeniMax Deal Like the FTC Said, According to Sources

A new report says that Microsoft did not lie about the future exclusivity of ZeniMax games to the EU like the FTC had suggested yesterday.

wccftech.com

EU Responds To FTC's Concerns Over Microsoft's Acquisition Of ZeniMax & Activision Blizzard

Update: New report sheds more light on the story

www.purexbox.com

The FTC claimed Microsoft misled the EU, it appears the FTC was wrong.

In its recent filing against Microsoft the FTC claimed that the company misled EU regulators over its earlier acquisition of ZeniMax. Now the EU is telling the publication MLex that the FTC’s complaint is wrong. The EU apparently never asked Microsoft to guarantee ZeniMax games be available on...

www.theverge.com

It's slowly getting bigger.

those articles based on the EC's response are as misleading as the FTC's "interpretation" of MS misleading EU regulators. loving it.

DukeBlueBall · Dec 9, 2022

zou said:
those articles based on the EC's response are as misleading as the FTC's "interpretation" of MS misleading EU regulators. loving it.

Inception.

Windu · Dec 9, 2022

Yerffej said:
My god. I clicked on the Verge one. I'd forgotten they redid their look. BaAaArRrrrrfff

BaAaArRrrrrfff is an understatement lol.

The Microsoft / Activision Blizzard acquisition |OT| Antitrust Simulator (completed; discussing post-merger issues)

The Wise Ones

Chicken Chaser

The Wise Ones

Chicken Chaser

Prophet of Truth

Chicken Chaser

The Jackrabbit Always Wins

Prophet of Regret

Prophet of Truth

Prophet of Regret

Shinra Employee

Prophet of Truth

Prophet of Regret