Xbox Microsoft refutes Sony’s claims that its Activision acquisition is anti-competitive

In my opinion Microsoft is the one that is anti-competitive which evidence can be found here (under the anti-trust section), here and here (under the Licensing agreements section}

Interesting read from the first link. Why then do a lot of people make it look like Sony are the big issue?
 
Interesting read from the first link. Why then do a lot of people make it look like Sony are the big issue?
I don't know why people make it look like Sony are the big issue.
 
Microsoft and Activision Responded to FTC's Complaint, read from VGC:

“The acquisition of a single game by the third-place console manufacturer cannot upend a highly competitive industry,” Microsoft claimed. “That is particularly so when the manufacturer has made clear it will not withhold the game.f

“The fact that Xbox’s dominant competitor has thus far refused to accept Xbox’s proposal does not justify blocking a transaction that will benefit consumers. Giving consumers high-quality content in more ways and at lower prices is what the antitrust laws are supposed to promote, not prevent.”

In its complaint, the FTC claimed Microsoft has a track record of acquiring valuable gaming content, like upcoming Bethesda games Starfield and Redfall, and making them Xbox exclusives, “despite assurances it had given to European antitrust authorities that it had no incentive to withhold games from rival consoles”.

Microsoft rejected these claims in its response, while confirming it “anticipates that three future [Bethesda] titles—[redacted], all of which are designed to be played primarily alone or in small groups—will be exclusive to Xbox and PCs”.

The games Microsoft is referring to could be Starfield, Redfall and The Elder Scrolls 6, all of which have previously been confirmed as Xbox and PC exclusives, or other titles which have yet to be announced.

“Any suggestion that Microsoft’s statements to the European Commission about ZeniMax were misleading is incorrect. Microsoft explicitly said it would honor Sony’s existing exclusivity rights and approach exclusivity for future game titles on a case-by-case basis, which is exactly what it has done.

“The European Commission agrees it was not misled, stating publicly the day after the Complaint that Microsoft did not make any ‘commitments’ to the European Commission, nor did the European Commission ‘rely on any statements made by Microsoft about the future distribution strategy concerning ZeniMax’s games’.”

In Activision’s response to the FTC’s complaint, it accused the regulator of misreading the realities of the competitive gaming industry and “turning antitrust on its head”.

“The FTC ignores the significant benefits of the Transaction in favor of a warped attempt to ignore the facts and rewrite antitrust law and settled precedent to protect Xbox’s competitors from hypothetical harm that has no basis in marketplace realities,” it claimed.

“Adding Activision’s content to multigame subscription and cloud gaming, where it would not have been available otherwise, is plainly output enhancing and gives garners more options on how and where to engage with Activision content.

“Activision, and particularly its King division, will also enable the acceleration of Xbox’s early non-existent mobile gaming business, which would enhance competition in the fastest growing segment of gaming. And the transaction will ultimately expand the capital support and talent available to Activision’s game development studios, driving further innovation in new games and technologies.”

It continued: “The FTC’s disregard for these benefits to consumers and focus on supposed harms to Xbox’s deep-pocketed competitors betrays a fundamental disconnect between the FTC’s theories and the antitrust laws’ underlying purpose, which is to protect competition, not competitors. The FTC is asking this Court to protect the world’s largest gaming companies from further competition from Xbox, and thereby turning antitrust on its head.

“Blinded by ideological skepticism of high value technology deals and by complaints from competitors, the FTC has not only lost sight of the realities of the intensely competitive gaming industry, but also the guiding principles of our nation’s antitrust laws.”

Both Microsoft and Activision also claimed that the FTC’s approach to the merger is unconstitutional because it violates their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection and procedural due process.

“Even with confidence in our case, we remain committed to creative solutions with regulators that will protect competition, consumers, and workers in the tech sector,” he said. “As we’ve learned from our lawsuits in the past, the door never closes on the opportunity to find an agreement that can benefit everyone.”
 
Seems like this will rage on for at least another year or so. I can somewhat see where Sony are coming from in terms of their argument. CoD is probably the largest franchise in terms of multi platform sales and it would be a big blow to their competitive position for this to be only on Xbox and PC. I’m not a massive fan of this recent trend of consolidation of big historically multi platform developers into a first party studio personally and don’t think the consumer will benefit in the long run.
 
Jim Ryan Said this recently so Playstation would go bankrupt without COD

As SIE's CEO, Jim Ryan, explained to the CMA at the Remedies Hearing, if PlayStation received a degraded version of Call of Duty, it would "seriously damage our reputation. Our gamers would desert our platform in droves and network effects would exacerbate the problem. Our business would never recover."

 
Seems like this will rage on for at least another year or so. I can somewhat see where Sony are coming from in terms of their argument. CoD is probably the largest franchise in terms of multi platform sales and it would be a big blow to their competitive position for this to be only on Xbox and PC. I’m not a massive fan of this recent trend of consolidation of big historically multi platform developers into a first party studio personally and don’t think the consumer will benefit in the long run.
From what I've read so far there is a possibility that Sonny is going to do everything to ensure that they have a stake in Call of Duty.
 
From what I've read so far there is a possibility that Sonny is going to do everything to ensure that they have a stake in Call of Duty.
Microsoft will be silly to cut out Sony from the franchise. They will lose more than they can gain.
 
Read from tweaktown:

Microsoft will reportedly defy the FTC and close its merger with Activision in June, sources have told the New York Post.

The FTC has sued to block the Microsoft-Activision merger. Instead of bringing the merger to federal court, where the general consensus is that the FTC would lose the case, the Commission has brought the antitrust lawsuit to its in-house administrative court in an adjudicative proceeding on the basis on multiple theories of harm. These include potential anti-competitive effects in the High-Performance Console Relevant Market, where Microsoft is said to have the incentive and ability to foreclose competitors to key Activision-Blizzard titles, and in the nascent cloud gaming segment.

With the EU and UK on Microsoft's side, it's believed that the FTC will have a hard time proving anti-competitive and convincing the FTC's Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell to issue an injunction for the case to be tried in federal court.

"If no resolution is reached, a team was suggesting that we have to...that the deal could then go forth and could close. We assume the FTC would make a decision to go to federal court and that's why we wanted to kind of front load the discovery in case they were to move it because we have a termination date of July 18, 2023," Wilkinson said.

"We are preparing for all options, either resolution if we can, which would be ideal, or a trial in front of you which of course is fine and is up to the FTC, or federal court."
 
So it turns out UK is not on Big Green X's Side, read from Nintendolife:

Microsoft's planned acquisition of publisher Activision Blizzard has been officially blocked in the UK by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).

The $68.7 billion acquisition was blocked on grounds that it would "alter the future of the fast-growing cloud gaming market, leading to reduced innovation and less choice for UK gamers over the years to come."

The CMA has posted a full statement on the UK Government website (along with a 415 page final report if you're up for some light reading) that elaborates on the decision in greater detail, confirming that Microsoft's proposed solution to its concerns "had significant shortcomings and would require regulatory oversight by CMA."

In regards to its specific concerns, the CMA stated the following:

"The cloud allows UK gamers to avoid buying expensive gaming consoles and PCs and gives them much more flexibility and choice as to how they play. Allowing Microsoft to take such a strong position in the cloud gaming market just as it begins to grow rapidly would risk undermining the innovation that is crucial to the development of these opportunities."
 
Now FTC law judge orders Nintendo executive who negotiated the 10-year Call of Duty deal with Microsoft to testify in FTC's Activision merger lawsuit.
 
Back
Top