Microsoft is trying to acquire Activision Blizzard (UPDATE: CMA says NO!).

[Stanley]

Lawyers $$$

[TehStu]

So which is it?

Quote

The Federal Trade Commission has filed a lawsuit seeking to block the proposed $69 billion merger between Microsoft and Activision Blizzard. By a 3–1 vote, the regulatory commissioners approved the filing of an "administrative complaint" showing they have "reason to believe" antitrust law is being violated and will argue as much in front of an administrative law judge.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2022/12/ftc-files-suit-to-stop-microsofts-69-billion-activision-purchase/

 

Someone explain American M&A law.

[Mogster]

19 minutes ago, RubberJohnny said:

 

It is somewhat wild that Microsoft got hauled over the coals in the 90s for including a browser in their operating system, then Google launches Android, an entire mobile operating system based around using their own software and services, and reaches like 3x the number of users Microsoft ever had and not a whisper. Facebook get billions of users, does a genocide or two, meddles with elections and fucks over the entire US media ecosystem with their "pivot to video" that used fake figures, and not a murmur.

 

Then Microsoft tries to buy the guys who make 2012's hottest mobile game Candy Crush, and that's the step that's too far.

I'm not defending Google's practices, but it's easy to forget that Android was by far the most open phone OS around at the time. It was certainly more open than Blackberry OS, iPhoneOS, Symbian and Windows Mobile, and was far less reliant on Google services at launch than it is today.

 

Internet Explorer was a bit of a different situation as Windows was so ubiquitous on desktops, and Internet Explorer was preventing any kind of real competition as so many people saw it as just "the internet". Android was just one of many competing mobile OS options at the time. Google's march to gobbling up all your data was a slow one.

[RubberJohnny]

Honestly I'd rather they walk away than fight it. 

 

I think this was a poor choice of acquisition and Microsoft were buying at basically a historical high (2020 peak of the market bubble). Most of Activisions slate is past its prime in terms of longevity, it'll be another Skype where it loses most of its value while they own it and ends up as a big writedown.

 

Even if it goes ahead, I don't see how Xbox doesn't end up back at the situation they are in now in ten years time, with a bunch of faded franchises running on nostalgia fumes because being the out of touch mid-40s dad of gaming is their brand at this point.

[MidWalian]

Was expecting something like this to get a mention.

Quote

In a complaint issued today, the FTC pointed to Microsoft’s record of acquiring and using valuable gaming content to suppress competition from rival consoles, including its acquisition of ZeniMax, parent company of Bethesda Softworks (a well-known game developer). 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.

 

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/ftc-seeks-block-microsoft-corps-acquisition-activision-blizzard-inc

[layten]

9 minutes ago, MidWalian said:

Was expecting something like this to get a mention.

 

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/ftc-seeks-block-microsoft-corps-acquisition-activision-blizzard-inc

You would think the FTC would want to make sure what they were saying was correct before throwing down with the likes of Microsoft legal team.

Spoiler

 

[LaveDisco]

I hope they stop it. I’m all for getting cod on my gamepass and the like.  That’s great for me in the short term, but for the long term health of the industry, I think MS buying everything is bad news. 

[Unofficial Who]

So looking at this again (as a PS5 owner so take this with a grain of salt as I have a pro Sony bias) Sony seeing their success with exclusives from 1996 seeing off Sega, Nintendo and Microsoft have only had 25 years to plan for this sort of scenario.

 

And the case they're making is that if this sale goes through they'll be fine this generation but in trouble in 2027, when they're looking at releasing the PS5.

 

So 25 years to prepare for this and a five year grace period.

 

They've got to be joking.

[Giddas]

On 18/01/2022 at 21:47, Orion said:

 

No I'm happy because I just reupped for three more years of Game Pass and thinking of all the new games I will get to play in that time.  I'm quite happy tbh with my cheap, shitty steak if the alternative gaming world is paying £70 for games. 

this did not age well

[MidWalian]

34 minutes ago, layten said:

You would think the FTC would want to make sure what they were saying was correct before throwing down with the likes of Microsoft legal team.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

There was more said to the EU regulators though. See 109 and 114 for example:

 

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=2_M_10001

 

Glad to see lawyers doing well in the cost of living crisis 

 

[Giddas]

41 minutes ago, layten said:

You would think the FTC would want to make sure what they were saying was correct before throwing down with the likes of Microsoft legal team.

  Hide contents

 

So Microsoft didn’t immediately cut all the already released games from all other platforms 😄

 

 

[stir fry]

From what I remember with IE the issue was around MS privileging certain web APIs over others in their operating system, and basically knee capping the competition by making the environment literally hostile to them. Which they were able to do cause of their position as browser and OS vendors.

 

I don't know if is similar to the above mentioned situations (maybe it is). Anyway I'd rather MS didn't buy activision. I know there's apparently a commitment from them to remain neutral on unionization, so it wouldn't be a total win without any side impacts it if failed to go through. But long term it just seems like by buying what might be the MCU of shooters (maybe?) they could build up a massive moat that suffocates out a lot of competitors (cause if making a quality FPS was all it took to take down COD we would be playing Titanfall 12 by now)

 

imo

 

69-get

[TehStu]

Xbox has no games and they can't buy more studios. We don't like paid or timed exclusives. Xbox will never have games.

 

Just taking years of discussion to, I think, their logical conclusion.

 

Are they going to stop Sony buying any more studios?

[TehStu]

7 minutes ago, stir fry said:

From what I remember with IE the issue was around MS privileging certain web APIs over others in their operating system, and basically knee capping the competition by making the environment literally hostile to them. Which they were able to do cause of their position as browser and OS vendors.

Like Google, now? But they're hip so get a pass. This whole thing is bizarre.

[Giddas]

3 minutes ago, TehStu said:

Like Google, now? But they're hip so get a pass. This whole thing is bizarre.

MS also used to charge pc makers whether windows was bundled or not. Google is “free” so doesn’t attract the same attention.

[thesnwmn]

51 minutes ago, Giddas said:

MS also used to charge pc makers whether windows was bundled or not. Google is “free” so doesn’t attract the same attention.

 

Yes it's free. But it also comes with heavy restrictions about use. So, if an OEM wants Android on their phone (by which I mean the Google owned one, not the forks), then then Google place many restrictions.

 

The exact set has been reduced by regulators, or at least their sniffing, but it's still really just a new version of the way MS used their Windows dominance to position IE and other apps/services.

[thesnwmn]

5 hours ago, Shindig said:

I really don't think Microsoft will change much on that end.  I've not heard much about them being that hands on.

 

Rubbish (imo). Whilst I suspect they'll be quite hands off creatively I think culturally they'd cull the upper management (as per most take overs) and probably want to calm the tensions around their long term cultural issues, and the way the current management dealt with it.

 

I also think they want to smooth the way the they monetise. Maybe at Blizzard most of all. The real money auction house in Diablo 3, Overwatch loot boxes, Overwatch 2 generally, Diablo Immortal. Whilst CoD is obviously racking in cash that's fine. There is no reputation to restore there. They've always been this. But Blizzard were a beloved developer. They still are to an extent. But how many more times can they keep launching products with monetisation models designed to piss off your audience.

 

MS would do none of this out of the goodness of their heart of course but there's a big win if you can bring them in and make these studios appear more pro-consumer and less like the bunch of obvious cunts they've been for a while.

 

That's why I'd at least consider it possible buying them would be a good thing.

[Giddas]

7 hours ago, thesnwmn said:

 

Yes it's free. But it also comes with heavy restrictions about use. So, if an OEM wants Android on their phone (by which I mean the Google owned one, not the forks), then then Google place many restrictions.

 

The exact set has been reduced by regulators, or at least their sniffing, but it's still really just a new version of the way MS used their Windows dominance to position IE and other apps/services.

or how MS continue to do it with windows 10/11, or MacOS etc

[carlospie]

This is like watching your mum and dad get divorced and just dragging up all the shit from the whole marriage. 

[Mr. Gerbik]

11 hours ago, RubberJohnny said:

being the out of touch mid-40s dad of gaming is their brand at this point

I think I now understand why I like my Xbox so much 

[thesnwmn]

25 minutes ago, Giddas said:

or how MS continue to do it with windows 10/11, or MacOS etc

 

Absolutely. I never said MS and other platform holders across many markets aren't as bad. Of course they are. They're all shits.

 

As usual the free thing hides a lot from the consumer. But we all know if it's free then you are the product.

[rgraves]

9 hours ago, TehStu said:

Are they going to stop Sony buying any more studios?

 

Yeah, this is totally confusing as Sony is doing exactly that and releasing console exclusive titles themselves - the only difference here really is that Sony have complained that they can't be without CoD or they'll die. It's totally hypocritical, and makes no real sense when you consider that the status quo is Sony having all sorts of CoD stuff tied up exclusively, but this going through means CoD showing up on rival platforms like Nintendo again. The deal will open up access to CoD, not close it down.

 

Surely MS could argue - if this doesn't go through CoD will again contain content that is exclusive to Sony, including agreements for it not to be allowed onto GP, and again not be available on the current #1 selling console system (Nintendo Switch). How is that, in any way, 'working to promote competition'?

 

If I was MS and this didn't go through, I'd give Acti $1bn a year for the next 69 years to basically make the same deal that Sony has with them. Make CoD a day 1 GP release with exclusive Xbox platform content (plus a block on any Sony subscription service appearances) in the way that Sony are currently doing to everyone else without issue. I'd also specifically state in the "marketing agreement" that none of those restrictions applied to Nintendo either.

[Orion]

10 hours ago, Giddas said:

this did not age well

 

Not really because I've played a ton of games this year on Game Pass and only bought two games in that time. Arcade Paradise for £15 and Cyberpunk second hand for £25.

[thesnwmn]

11 minutes ago, rgraves said:

 

Yeah, this is totally confusing as Sony is doing exactly that and releasing console exclusive titles themselves - the only difference here really is that Sony have complained that they can't be without CoD or they'll die. It's totally hypocritical, and makes no real sense when you consider that the status quo is Sony having all sorts of CoD stuff tied up exclusively, but this going through means CoD showing up on rival platforms like Nintendo again. The deal will open up access to CoD, not close it down.

 

It's simply an matter of scale. At some point your competitors can kick up enough fuss and regulators get interested.

 

As for this opening up CoD to more people we need to be clear that MS are only doing/saying this because of regulation. Of course they might keep CoD on other platforms for a while after acquisition but they won't prefer that long term. Slowly content would become exclusive to MS' world. Slowly they'll want to be attracting people into their ecosystem and locking them in.

 

11 minutes ago, rgraves said:

 

Surely MS could argue - if this doesn't go through CoD will again contain content that is exclusive to Sony, including agreements for it not to be allowed onto GP, and again not be available on the current #1 selling console system (Nintendo Switch). How is that, in any way, 'working to promote competition'?

 

There are (I believe) anti-collusion and anti-competition rules in at least some countries which maybe need looking at more closely. But it's tricky though where the line might be drawn. Is paying for an exclusive okay? That's also keeping it off someone else's platform in some way. So why is it different to say you can put i on their system but not GP.

[rgraves]

1 minute ago, thesnwmn said:

Of course they might keep CoD on other platforms for a while after acquisition but they won't prefer that long term. Slowly content would become exclusive to MS' world. Slowly they'll want to be attracting people into their ecosystem and locking them in.

You mean like they have with Minecraft?

[thesnwmn]

Good point.

 

Of course then there's all of Bethesda's output.

[Cyhwuhx]

I think the main issue here is '90s IE Microsoft.

 

It's just a giant scar and whenever an organisation like the FTC or the EU looks at Microsoft, they see the scar and twitch. I do not expect this court case to be very rational. It'll be very emotional instead. Especially after the FTC missteps on both Instagram and WhatsApp.

[K]

I guess the difference between Sony and Microsoft is that MS have been acquiring publishers, whereas Sony have been acquiring developers. Bungie are a publisher but they only publish their own games, and Sony's other purchases have been individual developers who usually had an extremely close relationship with them anyway. MS have been buying up whole groups of developers, which obviously has a bit more impact in terms of competition.

[MidWalian]

5 minutes ago, rgraves said:

You mean like they have with Minecraft?

 

Bethesda deal was more recent and is taken into consideration.

 

Personally, don't care about Activision. Especially after it turned into a COD factory.

 

Both Sony and Microsoft care about money at the end of the day and easy to show shitty behaviour on both sides but it's the size of the deal and recent behaviour which has grabbed attention. There are plenty of other deals, not just to do with gaming, which should have had similar attention too.

[rgraves]

24 minutes ago, MidWalian said:

Bethesda deal was more recent and is taken into consideration.

 

But the FTC comments on the Bethesda deal are incorrect - MS promised that content already on other platforms would stay and not get taken away, and it has. Deathloop only recently came over (because, funnily enough, it was tied up on a pre-existing Sony exclusivity contract) and Deathwire still hasn't come over yet. They made no promises over stuff like Redfall - that's never been on a Sony platform so could hardly be pointed at as hurting them by not appearing either. Unless the FTC are wanting an end to all exclusive content - in which case I'd say MS are looking forward to welcoming Kratos and Spiderman to GP...

 

If the FTC have been perfectly fine with Sony running around making exclusive deals for things like FF, Deathloop, CoD then I honestly don't see what the problem here is - at worst CoD is essentially going to move from 2 console platforms (PS and Xbox) to 2 platforms (Xbox and Nintendo) for at least the next ten years. At best they've offered the same deal to Sony so it'll be on all three.

 

Acti are making loud noises about this on Twitter today as well - I just can't see how this public woe is me strategy pans out well for Sony in any way. If it goes through they've pissed MS off, if it doesn't they've pissed Acti (and Nintendo) off.