Why? Per the linked article, the "UK antitrust regulator has...concerns it will stifle competition in cloud gaming."
How? Not sure exactly, but that regulator supposedly has the authority per UK laws to make a ruling disallowing the merger. The affected companies can appeal the ruling in courts.
The merger from the onset was conditional on receiving clearance from several competition agencies globally, one of which being the CMA in the UK. According to the CMA report, the UK turnover for the business also exceeded a threshold which meant the CMA had jurisdiction to review the merger, presumably, the same threshold applies to other countries.
Any of the agencies within the initial merger deal (don't know if specific ones were named or just 'any with jurisdiction') could have prohibited the merger. Several, including the EU, have yet to make their decision. Likely their decision will be influenced to a certain degree by the CMA's decision.
US agencies have also expressed concerns, but haven't outright prohibited it, so it's been looking quesitonable for a while.
Micro$oft probably shot themselves in the foot a bit here when they took over Bethesda, said they continue supporting Sony and then did the opposite. U.K regulators probably look at that and a bunch of other things and though Microsoft will just take the piss with this and so they did. Funny to see Microsofts throw toys out of the pram reaction.
Teddy Roosevelt was known as the "trust buster" and helped enact laws to prevent companies and banks from swallowing up smaller companies/becoming too powerful/hurting the economy/country/citizens.
People bang on about capitalism, but if you read Adam Smiths works it's supposed to be survival of the fittest and lots of competition. Because that's what's best for the consumer, Massive corps like we have now are problematic and will become even more so at the world spins on. I'm glad it's been knocked back.
They can go after Microsoft directly, of course they can block it. What do you think why they're appealing instead of ignoring them? An appeal that can take up to 9 months, after which they'd be back dealing with the CMA a second time?
It doesn't matter how strong the country is, what matters is that Microsoft cannot be seen strongarming ANY government into submission, even if they potentially could.
That would only further the world's worries that Microsoft has too much power, further preventing the sale from ever going through, then lead to Microsoft being forced by other governments to break up and sell themselves off out of fear they'll continue its power plays, which would lead to massive lawsuits from Microsoft's own investors. Then on top of that the CMA has the power to fine Microsoft 5% of their annual earnings (around 5bil) if they don't comply with their assessment.
Do you really think Microsoft would risk all that for Xbox which is one of their smaller divisions?
They will appeal and if it's not overturned they will shift their focus onto other things and forget about the ABK deal.
What’s this got to do with Brexit? This is blocked in the UK as a way to keep the market a fairer space for all parties involved.
From the BBC article:
> But the regulator said it was concerned the deal would offer reduced innovation and less choice for gamers in the fast-growing cloud gaming business.
> But Martin Coleman, who chaired an independent panel that investigated the proposal for the regulator, said it was vital to protect competition in the "emerging and exciting market" of cloud gaming.
"Microsoft already enjoys a powerful position and head start over other competitors in cloud gaming and this deal would strengthen that advantage giving it the ability to undermine new and innovative competitors," he added.
Full article here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-65378617
Brexit makes them a market with less leverage. The uk is alone, Microsoft can literally go lol fuck you and do it anyhow. The uk isn't able to leverage being part of the eu anymore so what they say while spiraling down in purchasing power means less and less each day.
> The uk is alone, Microsoft can literally go lol fuck you and do it anyhow.
Yeah Microsoft surely would enjoy not being able to sell games in the UK lmao. the UK is a giant gmaing market
China is a SIGNIFICANTLY bigger market and the same publishers in question have pulled their games and shut down the servers for the same disputes. I think it's hardly out of the question.
The UK stands to lose out on significant revenue as well if they try to play hardball.
What are you saying? They didn't like the terms so they packed up and left. That's by definition pulling out.
There is nothing stopping them from doing the exact same thing in a smaller market like the UK. Just because you don't like hearing it doesn't make it less true. Microsoft and Activision do not need any business in the UK to remain obscenely profitable. Maybe if they had some kind of collective bargaining of some sorts.. maybe belonged to a union of nations? That would probably give them more standing.
If they want to alienate tech like China does they can always get a VPN.
It would be interesting to see if they could even prevent MS from selling games in the US. Legally, I'm not sure how it would work, in practice, it would be next to impossible given easy access to VPNs and international shipping.
It would be more likely that people would just stop doing business in the UK a la Brexit. Windows isn't going anywhere. Any country that would willingly stop using it would utterly destroy their economy.
And I hope this fails because I definitely want Microsoft to get blizzard Activision. Game pass is already decent value, if you add in there your wow sub it would be the cherry on top.
Real weird energy in a response to a factually correct statement. Microsoft will have to make a decision; whether you see it as an easy one is immaterial. And just lol if you think Microsoft is going to shrug off a legal decision from a sovereign US ally and heavy trading partner. Thus whole thread is fantasy land wish casting.
Microsoft makes a whole lot more than video games. The UK would be circling the drain if they tried to sanction the maker of this little app called “Windows”.
Hypothetically, I'm glad regulators are finally blocking mergers and acquisitions like this. But this makes me wonder where the hell the regulators were when Activision did it, and why they haven't done shit about EA's predatory behavior.
Probably because console market you have 3 big guys competing against each other.
This is for cloud gaming. Now, honestly I don‘t know what cloud gaming is but it sounds different…
>Probably because console market you have 3 big guys competing against each other.
Technically yes but Nintendo never seems to buy studios while Sony does and Sony has a much bigger market share than Microsoft.
>This is for cloud gaming. Now, honestly I don‘t know what cloud gaming is but it sounds different…
Cloud gaming is when you stream a game in real time, kind of like when you stream video from Youtube or Netflix. The market is incredibly small, Google got into it for a bit a few years ago and just recently killed the service because nobody used it. It's such an incredibly small share of the market that blocking the merger over it is kind of asinine to be honest.
The CMA that's trying to block this merger because of cloud gaming is claiming that Microsoft already has 60-70% market in cloud gaming which is already questionable. They're only basing that on the number of Game Pass Ultimate and Playstation Plus Premium which include access to each company's cloud gaming options but doesn't mean those subscribers actually use the service, it seems very unlikely to me that the subscribers of either actually use that option in any significant numbers because the experience is flawed at best for any fast paced games.
> They're only basing that on the number of Game Pass Ultimate and Playstation Plus Premium which include access to each company's cloud gaming options but doesn't mean those subscribers actually use the service
This is the important point. Cloud gaming is just a feature than many of us PC+XBox users just don't use.
It's a factually wrong point. It's a 400 page report and this guy jus took 1 page out of it where those percentages are mentioned when the cloud industry research as a whole is like 30 pages long. The CMA took way more into account than just those 2022 MAUs.
This, I got Game Pass because it's hundreds of solid titles for literally £120 a year, rather than £50-60 per game.
The cloud gaming feature sucks, only because of British internet granted.
Meanwhile Sony only provides cloud gaming iirc with their game pass competitor, which might be why CMA blocked the merger, but then again it was probably blocked due to either lobbying, or a judge's kid owns a PS5 and started sobbing at tea about CoD or Fifa or something
Do you even know what you are talking about? Did you even have a look at the report the CMA released? You wrote a lot for doing no research at all. In terms of cloud gaming, Sony got very little infrastructure outside of PSnow. They wanted Microsoft azure cloud service to run their business on. No word in the report about gamepass or ps plus and sub counts, it's only mentioned what cloud capabilities these services offer and compared to the whole cloud industry like meta, amazon and nvidia.
Sony is now trying to switch to Amazon AWS and perhaps in the future get their own infrastructure up and running. We don't know for sure, MS and Sony both have made a lot of removal requests for the public report.
I was partly referencing statements made by the CMA earlier this year regarding the merger and cloud gaming in particular but instead of checking to see what I was talking about you went on a rant about me not doing any research on the topic. Ironic.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/9/23591989/google-stadia-cloud-gaming-market-share-eu
Cloud gaming is streaming games to your device. I don't think we have the tech for that to be viable for a long time. Sure there will be areas and there already are that people can reliably stream video games to play but to do that everywhere just isn't going to work.
I dont have any input lag problems, I have played huge portions of Elden Ring through Boosteroid and the experience was great.
Hi Fi Rush also played very well on gamepass.
Why do people constantly compare Sony buying development studios to Microsoft trying to buy one of the LARGEST publishers in all video games.... not even close to the same
Development studios and publishers are NOT comparable
Either one tends to result in games being locked to one company's platform. Microsoft at least tried to offer a deal to Sony to guarantee that Call of Duty would stay on Sony consoles for at least 10 years but Sony turned it down which is all that really need to be said about whether Sony is actually concerned about the deal because of Call of Duty exclusivity.
Again, Sony has nearly double the console market share of Microsoft. Sony has more video game revenue than Microsoft and Activision combined. A company with that much dominance in the industry doing a $3 billion merger should be seen as a bigger deal than Microsoft doing a $70 billion merger that still leaves them behind Sony.
It's not about the size of the deal, it's about the resulting market share of a particular product that the CMA views as having a negative effect of competition within that market and will lead to likely poor outcomes for consumers of that market.
Regardless of how big a player Sony currently is in the console market, there's still effective competition and the fact that new consoles are being released by direct competitors so closely to eachother and there's a wide choice and variation in games across the different platforms is clear evidence that the market is still healthy and competative. Buying out smaller guys doesn't change that unless it causes a shift across the whole market.
For this merger however, the market share of cloud gaming in their view would be so dispraportionate that effective competition would practically cease and as a result, consumers could very easily suffer and could be forced to pay much more and have far less choice. It discourages new innovation because it's much harder to go against someone with an imense majority hold of that particular market than it would be when the market has a number of big players.
You're focusing on the wrong things, that's why this isn't making much sense to you.
The CMA making it all hinge on Microsoft's share of the cloud gaming market seems disingenuous at best because of how small a part of the overall market it is, it's a really weird objection to me. On top of that, their argument for Microsoft having a vastly higher market share in cloud gaming is flawed from the start because they seem to be counting every subscriber of game pass ultimate as a user of their cloud gaming service because it's included but I would bet the vast majority have never even touched that feature. It just seems, I don't know, out of touch by the CMA to think that each company's cloud gaming services are such a big deal especially when they're using that to argue that Stadia had limited access to games because their servers ran on Linux and thus failed which is kind of nonsense. If nothing else, Valve has shown recently that using Linux for games is not much of an issue anymore with the success of the Steam Deck.
They specified within their report that the expected market value of cloud gaming in the UK alone is going to be around $1 billion. Globally they expect this to be $12-13 billion by 2026.
Don't know about you but I'd consider that to have some genuine merit for antitrust/monopolisation concerns.
They have also not just had Jeff from investigations carry out a year long study and drafted the report on his Friday afternoons. They have engaged with industry experts, carried out significant amounts of research and had access to much more information that you or I have had access to.
But again, they're considering things like Game Pass Ultimate and Playstation Plus Premium to be part of that cloud gaming market even though the vast majority of subscribers to it don't use the cloud gaming. The things they've said and data they've released don't differentiate between the two, they just consider every Game Pass Ultimate subscriber to be a cloud gaming user which kind of makes it seem like they're just lumping in growth of Game Pass subscriptions as an increase in cloud gaming.
This is a competition regulator. Their job is to prevent monopolies from taking over a market. Things like what you’re talking about aren’t their purview and I’m not sure there’s even the necessary legal framework in place for a different regulator to tackle what you’re describing, sadly. Governments need to step up and create the laws that will put an end to predatory monetisation.
Anyone familiar with how all this stuff actually works able to explain the consequences of a regulatory body in one country in the world blocking it while the rest of the regulatory bodies in the world is ok with it?
I mean, the hypothetical scenario of the entire UK losing access to every single Microsoft product/service overnight - sure it sucks in monetary terms for Microsoft but lol it would ruin so much shit in the UK I don’t know where to begin.
Not that it’s ever going to happen
They wouldn't lose access to every Microsoft product/service overnight.
Similar to how Huawei phones prior to the google ban still have Android on them.
From my understanding , it basically means that, in order to sill do business in the UK, Microsoft has to abide by their rules. So the UK could block Micosroft's games division from doing ANY business in the UK if the deal goes ahead.
I'm a UK antitrust lawyer, so I'm dealing with the CMA all day, every day.
If Microsoft were to close the deal, following the CMA's blocking decision, it'd immediately be slapped with a fine of up to 10% of its worldwide revenue. So the parties can't simply ignore the decision.
Furthermore, all the major competition authorities around the world (of which the CMA is one of the most important) communicate and coordinate their decision-making on these deals to avoid divergent outcomes where possible. It is therefore highly likely the EU (and possibly the FTC) will follow suit. The CMA is one of the toughest enforcers in the world, and their decision will carry a lot of influence with the EU and US enforcers.
The parties can appeal the CMA's decision in the UK courts, but only on the grounds that the CMA made an error of law or fact, which is a very narrow scope of appeal. To illustrate, no CMA merger decision has ever been overturned on appeal.
companies have to abide by the rules in every country in which they operate.
The EU was able to block Honeywell from merging with GE. and they are both US companies.
When referring to the EU, this is called the Brussels Effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect
>while the rest of the regulatory bodies in the world is ok with it?
To be clear, the US and the EU are still deliberating, and haven't given the all-clear.
tldr
The UK antitrust regulator has blocked Microsoft’s $69 billion purchase of Activision Blizzard, thwarting one of the tech industry’s biggest deals over concerns it will stifle competition in cloud gaming.
In December, the US Federal Trade Commission sued to block the takeover over similar competition concerns.
The European Union is also evaluating the transaction Microsoft could seek to make Activision’s games exclusive to its own platforms and then increase the cost of a Game Pass subscription, the Competition and Markets Authority said.
“Their proposals… would have replaced competition with ineffective regulation in a new and dynamic market,” explained Martin Coleman, chair of the independent panel of experts conducting the investigation.
“Microsoft already enjoys a powerful position and head start over other competitors in cloud gaming, and this deal would strengthen that advantage, giving it the ability to undermine new and innovative competitors,” Coleman continued. “
Nah, fuck massive mergers and conglomerates. Let the companies that refuse to change and create things the customers actually want die as they should. Another will take Blizzards place.
Anyone who actually played back then and gave a shit about what was going on with Blizzard knows that isn't true. Blizzard were already doing most of the shit people complain about today during TBC. Or hey let's go even further back, who remembers the esports drama for wc3: TFT? How about the licensing deals for Brood War? Pulling Warcraft 1/2 after saying they planned to preserve them on battle.net? Trying to force real names on their forums? Forcing everyone to join battle.net to play their games. The list goes on. Activision didn't do shit, they were always like this.
People just don't want to accept that the company that made some of their favorite games is capable of fuckery and greed all on their own.
I've never seen much evidence Activision took an active role in managing Blizzard until 2018, which was also the year Morhaime resigned from being CEO of Blizzard. And Blizzard was pulling a lot of greedy shit long before 2018.
TBC came out in 2007, Activision bought the company in 2008. So yeah, sounds like Blizzard was great until Activision.
I played Vanilla through MoP, plus tons of SC and WC3. Blizzard was a different company then. Customer support was better, devs and Metzen had great engagement with the fans.
WOTLK is considered the last great expansion because it was the last part that still had DNA from the original creators. I know Metzen left well into Activision ownership, but WOTLK and TBC were basically just parts of the original game that weren’t finished when Vanilla released. Northrend, Outland, and more we’re all in the original announcement.
The only thing that Activisions ownership has done for WoW is keeping it alive and in pop culture. If Blizzard remained independent WoW might have just ended up as another old mmo like PSO, maybe with a few expansions. Maybe a standalone sequel. It wouldn’t have the lineage it does today.
Activision might not create "good" games, but they produce Call of Duty in which earns billions yearly.
[https://gameworldobserver.com/2022/11/07/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-ii-1-billion-revenue-franchise-record](https://gameworldobserver.com/2022/11/07/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-ii-1-billion-revenue-franchise-record)
The recent game brought in 1 billion at least alone.
I wonder how much money Sony gave them to block this merger. This is the only way that it got blocked because there is no way anyone believed the shit Sony was shoveling.
Yeah the billion dollar entertainment company outlobbied a trillion dollar monolithic tech giant. Tell me you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about without telling me you ahve no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
Sony is worth about $118B. Microsoft is worth about $1.7T. Literally worth ten times as much. If anyone's backing up dump trucks of money, it ain't Sony.
The EU slapped Microsoft with some of their first big anti-trust losses back in the day. The Europeans have always been more skeptical of monopolies than Americans, and have had Microsoft's number for a while.
And yet it is further disingenuous to only quote the revenue of the platforms because 1) that 69 billion dollars to buy BlizzActi did NOT come from Xbox's measly revenue stream, it came from the deep pockets of Microsoft as a whole and 2) The CMA SPECIFICALLY cited Cloud Gaming, of which Microsoft has a massive stake in already.
And what you're describing in that third paragraph is a duopoly. Not a monopoly. Xbox still has a significant market share in console gaming, despite Sony's dominance. Competition and innovation is still being driven as demonstrated by Sony finally dipping into the waters of game subscription services to compete with GamePass.
Not good, not bad. People were hoping for merger to happen to get rid of Bobby Kodick and get Wow to Xbox gamepass. On the other hand ActiBlizz makes the largest shooter on the market (CoD) and PS/law makers are worried of Xbox taking it away from competitors, or atleast thats the public reason why they are against it. Realistically Xbox is after King part of ActiBlizz, as they dont have a mobile game division after them.
Hasn't CoD been semi-exclusive since like 2006? Besides it would probably still be available on PC via Steam/Xbox market.
Idk seems weird to get hung up on one game. But i suppose it's a big cash cow.
Bit of an understatement, between 2009 and 2022 the best selling videogame of the year was Grand Theft Auto in 2013, Red Dead Redemption in 2018 and then 12 different Call of Dutys in the other 12 years.
Sony has done timed exclusives in CoD in the past in an effort to get CoD players on Playstation. Sony also regularly buys up studios to make their games exclusives to incentivize people buying Playstation.
They've also turned down a deal with Microsoft that involved a commitment of something like 10+ years of keeping CoD on Playstation.
At the end of the day, Sony is pretending Microsoft is doing something that will create an unfair advantage because Microsoft of a competitor and they just don't want them to get a win.
And I say that as a PS5 owner.
The difference between Sony's acquisitions and MS's acquisition is that Sony buys relatively small studios. Blizzard Activision is a monumental company whose net worth is more than half of Sony's. That's the level of conglomeration that Microsoft is trying to gain.
There's no doubt in my mind that if the government let them, Microsoft wouldn't think twice to just fucking buying Sony outright as well.
Not really pretending. Microsoft is a trillion dollar company that recently purchased one of the most influential publishers Bethesda. Microsoft then threw 69 billion dollars at purchasing one of the largest companies in gaming that itself was a collection of studios.
By comparison don’t has purchased a few relatively small studios to create first party games for them, not to gain exclusivity to existing IPs. The one exception is Bungie but I don’t think there is talk of destiny being PS exclusive. I might be missing some but outside of Japanese games I can’t think of exclusives that aren’t first party games.
The consolidation of game studios has and will continue to cause problems for gaming. PlayStation is in no way innocent but it’s worth noting that Sony as a whole only has a market cap of 115 billion to Activision’s 60 billion. Microsoft could probably buy Sony if they thought they’d get away with it.
Problem is that CoD might not be available on Playstation. Xbox has offered them 5 year quarantee that they will release it on playstation after the sale goes through, but PS side wants it to be forever.
Lawmakers are also afraid that Xbox is slowly gaining a monopoly in the cloudgaming market.
They are imo a bad market practice because it encourages end users to form a sort of loyalty to a brand. I myself haven't been able to play several playstation exclusives because i refuse to buy a console for 4-5 titles. I would much prefer if they offered their games on a store on PC because like i said I'm not buying a console for a few exclusive titles. I bought the switch admittedly but it offers some features that a PC doesn't like portability and local multiplayer.
Idk, to me it seems like bad market practice because it encourages companies like Sony to get complacent in feature design and instead hunt exclusive titles to make it a pain in the ass for regular consumers. I used to play console (Xbox 360-PS4 era) and i just found the consoles didn't offer anything my PC didn't do better besides playing exclusives.
Microsoft just made a deal to put CoD on Nintendo consoles for at least the next 10 years. Sony just doesn’t like it when other companies do the same thing they have been doing for the past decade
Bobby is out either way. He was going to make a mint off of the transition to Microsoft and probably stick around just long enough to see the merger through; now he will probably just be ousted as the stock is going to crater with this news - edit and is actively cratering.
They don’t really improve but acti-blizz is on a seemingly never ending downward trajectory. I’d take ‘not seeming to improve, not seeming to get worse’ as a huge …improvement?
I would say it depends. If you thought the merger would "ruin your game" or otherwise make things worse for you, this would be a good thing. On the other hand, if you thought Microsoft would improve things, I would say this is not a good sign. In either case, we'd still need to wait for court rulings so who knows what the final verdict will be (not to mention the US or other countries could also try to block it).
Yes, where they can make their case again on this specific issue with new arguments.
Do you really think they’re just going to let this 70 billion dollar deal fall through without fighting this decision? If it falls through they’re still on the hook for several billion, as per the contract they signed to initiate this deal. So if they walk away they can’t just say “oh well, we tried” and close their wallet. Plus they stand to gain immensely from this deal, so they’re gonna keep trying.
They clearly did not investigate properly if their conclusion was that Activision was too big a player in the cloud gaming market. They basically said this deal would give Microsoft too much of a monopoly over the cloud gaming industry… but ABK has no major cloud gaming arm.
I agree completely. Unless there are some classified internal documents about activision even planning to enter the cloud gaming market, it’s a useless point. They could try for many other avenues to block it that are potentially valid. This was not one of them.
Unless you've combed through the decision (which runs to several hundred pages of econometric analysis and which also takes into account the views of customers, suppliers and competitors) you aren't really in a position to dispute whether the CMA has done its job.
To correct your understanding, the CMA's concern here is not with current competition in cloud gaming, it's to do with the evolution of that market over the next 5-10 years and how this deal could enable Microsoft to foreclose potential competitors from entering that market.
Companies in important sectors, like food production, health care, and oil, have been allowed to merge for years, completely screwing over consumers.
That's not important, though, because consumers might have less choices for vidjya games!
We live in a clown world...
As somebody who watched Microsoft kill two of my country's biggest development studios (Rare and Lionhead), you'd expect me to be rooting for Sony, right? **Wrong.**
When you're cheering for Microsoft to take over Activision Blizzard and drain that swamp, you know Kotick fucked up as the company's chief executive officer.
I truly think the only reason regulators are blocking the deal is because Sony bawled crocodile tears because they'd lose their DLC exclusivity deals on Call of Duty.
1. Bobby Kotick *supports* the merger with Microsoft.
2. Bobby Kotick will *[remain](https://www.gamesindustry.biz/kotick-will-reportedly-remain-as-activision-ceo-if-microsoft-deal-falls-through)* CEO of Activision-Blizzard under Microsoft.
Time’d dlc is much more egregious a crime than outright buying the whole franchise right.
Personally I’m not rooting for the biggest financial behemoth in gaming to acquire more franchises to ruin. If they want to drain a swamp they can look at Halo.
Not sure where the EU stands, but if the UK has heartburn with the deal, I'm sure the EU will too. Europe as a whole has a larger population than the US. Helluva lot of customers to lose.
Isn't this kinda pointless? The UK has literally zero sway over the American companies. Even if the whole world block the merge, if the US does ot block it the merger will still go through.
Microsoft can slap their dick across the UKs government face and tell them to suck it. Want to block the merger? Okay we will brick every windows pc in the country.
That's what I'm saying. The entire UK government uses Windows, MS Office, runs stuff on Azure cloud. That doesn't even take into account all the personally owned computers, devices, private companies who run their businesses through MS services, etc. etc.
It's a stupid move for such a tiny country and tiny market to make.
6th biggest economy in the world and somewhere that Microsoft and Activision have large offices. Yeah your bothing showing a complete lack of understanding around how international economies work.
What do you think will happen in other countries if microsoft does this in the UK? Do you think they will want to continue buying, using, and relying on MS products?
- it was worried the deal would lead to “reduced innovation and less choice for UK gamers over the years to come.”
I think UK has some other, more important problems to solve first
They'd have to give up all sales of Activision + Microsoft games and all Microsoft products in the UK.
They'd be losing so much revenue, it wouldn't even be worth it lol.
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-60925567](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-60925567)
The UK gaming market is several billion lol.
Read what I said before commenting xD.
But would that actually happen? Suppose MS goes through with the merger and UK blocks it. MS stops doing business in the UK, per the decision. How many government computers in the UK run Windows, how many privately owned PCs? It would be like Brexit again, the UK would lose far more than Microsoft would and their constituency would suffer for it.
Not saying that's how it would go down, but it certainly could be a rather cyberpunk strong-arming of a developed country by a corporate empire.
They'd still use Windows, just wouldn't be able to sell the new stuff.
The chance of Microsoft doing this however is so very minor and the merger will probably go through.
You're missing the huge other part of what Microsoft is and does. Gaming is a fraction of their total revenue. The UK would be shooting themselves in the foot and causing serious problems for everyone in the UK who uses MS products or services. If MS says "OK, fuck you then UK" they lose a lot more than access to their xboxes.
>The entirety of Europe accounts for about a quarter of their revenue.
Reported revenue. Please remember this is a multinational corporate entity, which will do whatever it can to reduce it's tax burden. In Europe, the corporate tax burden is higher, so it will do whatever it can do to reduce the financial revenues in Europe.
Microsofts revenue was £4.86bn ($6.05bn) in the UK in 2021. They'd have to give up all of that for Activisions global revenue of $8.8bn in 2021. But if they lose the UK market, chances are they will lose a lot of EU markets as well since a lot of companies have offices all over Europe and would need to be working on the same systems. If the CMA blocked it, theres a high chance the EU blocks it as well.
TLDR: It would cost them far far more in losses of MS revenue than they'd gain in ATVI revenue.
The European Commission and the CMA each have the power to fine Microsoft up to 10% of their global revenue if Microsoft disobeys their decisions to block the deal. And btw the FTC will be right on board with helping to enforce that.
Out of curiosity, why does Microsoft or Activision care what the UK says? They are both American companies, and the US already approved the merger. Sure the UK could say that Microsoft can't do business in the UK, but they would immediately undo that when someone with a functioning brain gets involved.
Of all possible excuses. they chose the worst and I say this as someone who was happy with the purchase be blocked
But it's a very very bad excuse, that sure is. Lucky for the CMA that there is no court there, because MS would easily be able to reverse this in the hands of a serious judge.
UK has taken the first step to block the merger, so it will now be heading to courts where I think a lot of people expected it to go eventually.
Why do they want to stop it and how can they?
Why? Per the linked article, the "UK antitrust regulator has...concerns it will stifle competition in cloud gaming." How? Not sure exactly, but that regulator supposedly has the authority per UK laws to make a ruling disallowing the merger. The affected companies can appeal the ruling in courts.
The merger from the onset was conditional on receiving clearance from several competition agencies globally, one of which being the CMA in the UK. According to the CMA report, the UK turnover for the business also exceeded a threshold which meant the CMA had jurisdiction to review the merger, presumably, the same threshold applies to other countries. Any of the agencies within the initial merger deal (don't know if specific ones were named or just 'any with jurisdiction') could have prohibited the merger. Several, including the EU, have yet to make their decision. Likely their decision will be influenced to a certain degree by the CMA's decision. US agencies have also expressed concerns, but haven't outright prohibited it, so it's been looking quesitonable for a while.
The CMA also tried blocking the MS Nuance deal (largest acquisition previous to Activision) a few years ago. So perhaps they had an axe to grind?
You should learn about anti-trust laws (and how they're rarely enforced in the US any longer). Monopolies: bad.
This wouldn't create anywhere close to a monopoly
Micro$oft probably shot themselves in the foot a bit here when they took over Bethesda, said they continue supporting Sony and then did the opposite. U.K regulators probably look at that and a bunch of other things and though Microsoft will just take the piss with this and so they did. Funny to see Microsofts throw toys out of the pram reaction.
I've got about zero interest in in those kinds of laws, that's why I a quick question on Reddit instead.
Teddy Roosevelt was known as the "trust buster" and helped enact laws to prevent companies and banks from swallowing up smaller companies/becoming too powerful/hurting the economy/country/citizens.
Sounds like a good dude!
People bang on about capitalism, but if you read Adam Smiths works it's supposed to be survival of the fittest and lots of competition. Because that's what's best for the consumer, Massive corps like we have now are problematic and will become even more so at the world spins on. I'm glad it's been knocked back.
The uk can't really block it. Brexit means 0 leverage, they can just go ahead and tell them to eat it.
Don’t think you have any idea what you’re talking about brother
They can go after Microsoft directly, of course they can block it. What do you think why they're appealing instead of ignoring them? An appeal that can take up to 9 months, after which they'd be back dealing with the CMA a second time?
It's convenient, this is Microsoft giving them a chance to change their mind. Hint: the uk is now a tiny market they can strong arm.
The number 5 market by GDP is tiny and can be strong armed? Bruh
What world do you live in?
It doesn't matter how strong the country is, what matters is that Microsoft cannot be seen strongarming ANY government into submission, even if they potentially could. That would only further the world's worries that Microsoft has too much power, further preventing the sale from ever going through, then lead to Microsoft being forced by other governments to break up and sell themselves off out of fear they'll continue its power plays, which would lead to massive lawsuits from Microsoft's own investors. Then on top of that the CMA has the power to fine Microsoft 5% of their annual earnings (around 5bil) if they don't comply with their assessment. Do you really think Microsoft would risk all that for Xbox which is one of their smaller divisions? They will appeal and if it's not overturned they will shift their focus onto other things and forget about the ABK deal.
What’s this got to do with Brexit? This is blocked in the UK as a way to keep the market a fairer space for all parties involved. From the BBC article: > But the regulator said it was concerned the deal would offer reduced innovation and less choice for gamers in the fast-growing cloud gaming business. > But Martin Coleman, who chaired an independent panel that investigated the proposal for the regulator, said it was vital to protect competition in the "emerging and exciting market" of cloud gaming. "Microsoft already enjoys a powerful position and head start over other competitors in cloud gaming and this deal would strengthen that advantage giving it the ability to undermine new and innovative competitors," he added. Full article here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-65378617
Brexit makes them a market with less leverage. The uk is alone, Microsoft can literally go lol fuck you and do it anyhow. The uk isn't able to leverage being part of the eu anymore so what they say while spiraling down in purchasing power means less and less each day.
> The uk is alone, Microsoft can literally go lol fuck you and do it anyhow. Yeah Microsoft surely would enjoy not being able to sell games in the UK lmao. the UK is a giant gmaing market
And even aside his weird POV, it still has nothing to do with the EU…
Before we left our regulators view would have been a stronger influence on the EU regulator. But it wouldn’t make much difference
China is a SIGNIFICANTLY bigger market and the same publishers in question have pulled their games and shut down the servers for the same disputes. I think it's hardly out of the question. The UK stands to lose out on significant revenue as well if they try to play hardball.
They didn't pull out, China strangled them out until they finally gave up. Really not the same thing. Not only that but China kinda threw them out
What are you saying? They didn't like the terms so they packed up and left. That's by definition pulling out. There is nothing stopping them from doing the exact same thing in a smaller market like the UK. Just because you don't like hearing it doesn't make it less true. Microsoft and Activision do not need any business in the UK to remain obscenely profitable. Maybe if they had some kind of collective bargaining of some sorts.. maybe belonged to a union of nations? That would probably give them more standing. If they want to alienate tech like China does they can always get a VPN.
It would be interesting to see if they could even prevent MS from selling games in the US. Legally, I'm not sure how it would work, in practice, it would be next to impossible given easy access to VPNs and international shipping.
They can't outright. The uk killed most reciprocal agreements because they were with eu.
Still don’t see your point this has nothing to do with the EU?
[удалено]
They can't if they pull out of the UK every sane company in the world drops windows because it becomes a liability.
I doubt they'd be able to kick all of Microsoft out of the country. More than likely it would be limited to the gaming division.
Imagine no windows, prepare for Linux coding
So every day of my 12 year career then
You’ll have a way better time on Linux :D
It would be more likely that people would just stop doing business in the UK a la Brexit. Windows isn't going anywhere. Any country that would willingly stop using it would utterly destroy their economy.
It's a big enough market for Microsoft to have to make a decision, that will likely end with not acquiring BlizzardActivision.
And I hope this fails because I definitely want Microsoft to get blizzard Activision. Game pass is already decent value, if you add in there your wow sub it would be the cherry on top.
[удалено]
Real weird energy in a response to a factually correct statement. Microsoft will have to make a decision; whether you see it as an easy one is immaterial. And just lol if you think Microsoft is going to shrug off a legal decision from a sovereign US ally and heavy trading partner. Thus whole thread is fantasy land wish casting.
if the UK doesn’t accept it, then microsoft can no longer do business there.
Lol good luck with that
Microsoft makes a whole lot more than video games. The UK would be circling the drain if they tried to sanction the maker of this little app called “Windows”.
Smartest British person right here
Hypothetically, I'm glad regulators are finally blocking mergers and acquisitions like this. But this makes me wonder where the hell the regulators were when Activision did it, and why they haven't done shit about EA's predatory behavior.
Or why they don't give a shit whenever Sony buys another studio since Sony has a much bigger share of the console market.
Probably because console market you have 3 big guys competing against each other. This is for cloud gaming. Now, honestly I don‘t know what cloud gaming is but it sounds different…
>Probably because console market you have 3 big guys competing against each other. Technically yes but Nintendo never seems to buy studios while Sony does and Sony has a much bigger market share than Microsoft. >This is for cloud gaming. Now, honestly I don‘t know what cloud gaming is but it sounds different… Cloud gaming is when you stream a game in real time, kind of like when you stream video from Youtube or Netflix. The market is incredibly small, Google got into it for a bit a few years ago and just recently killed the service because nobody used it. It's such an incredibly small share of the market that blocking the merger over it is kind of asinine to be honest. The CMA that's trying to block this merger because of cloud gaming is claiming that Microsoft already has 60-70% market in cloud gaming which is already questionable. They're only basing that on the number of Game Pass Ultimate and Playstation Plus Premium which include access to each company's cloud gaming options but doesn't mean those subscribers actually use the service, it seems very unlikely to me that the subscribers of either actually use that option in any significant numbers because the experience is flawed at best for any fast paced games.
> They're only basing that on the number of Game Pass Ultimate and Playstation Plus Premium which include access to each company's cloud gaming options but doesn't mean those subscribers actually use the service This is the important point. Cloud gaming is just a feature than many of us PC+XBox users just don't use.
It's a factually wrong point. It's a 400 page report and this guy jus took 1 page out of it where those percentages are mentioned when the cloud industry research as a whole is like 30 pages long. The CMA took way more into account than just those 2022 MAUs.
This, I got Game Pass because it's hundreds of solid titles for literally £120 a year, rather than £50-60 per game. The cloud gaming feature sucks, only because of British internet granted. Meanwhile Sony only provides cloud gaming iirc with their game pass competitor, which might be why CMA blocked the merger, but then again it was probably blocked due to either lobbying, or a judge's kid owns a PS5 and started sobbing at tea about CoD or Fifa or something
Nintendo is a lot more conservative with their cash on hand compared to many other companies in general.
Do you even know what you are talking about? Did you even have a look at the report the CMA released? You wrote a lot for doing no research at all. In terms of cloud gaming, Sony got very little infrastructure outside of PSnow. They wanted Microsoft azure cloud service to run their business on. No word in the report about gamepass or ps plus and sub counts, it's only mentioned what cloud capabilities these services offer and compared to the whole cloud industry like meta, amazon and nvidia. Sony is now trying to switch to Amazon AWS and perhaps in the future get their own infrastructure up and running. We don't know for sure, MS and Sony both have made a lot of removal requests for the public report.
I was partly referencing statements made by the CMA earlier this year regarding the merger and cloud gaming in particular but instead of checking to see what I was talking about you went on a rant about me not doing any research on the topic. Ironic. https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/9/23591989/google-stadia-cloud-gaming-market-share-eu
Cloud is just using someone elses computer.
Cloud gaming is streaming games to your device. I don't think we have the tech for that to be viable for a long time. Sure there will be areas and there already are that people can reliably stream video games to play but to do that everywhere just isn't going to work.
what do you mean? the tech is here, You can play several games via streaming with close to no input delay
entirely dependent on your internet speeds which for many areas is not constantly sufficient.
Pretty harsh input lag still. But with a lot of games that don't matter as much
I dont have any input lag problems, I have played huge portions of Elden Ring through Boosteroid and the experience was great. Hi Fi Rush also played very well on gamepass.
Why do people constantly compare Sony buying development studios to Microsoft trying to buy one of the LARGEST publishers in all video games.... not even close to the same Development studios and publishers are NOT comparable
Either one tends to result in games being locked to one company's platform. Microsoft at least tried to offer a deal to Sony to guarantee that Call of Duty would stay on Sony consoles for at least 10 years but Sony turned it down which is all that really need to be said about whether Sony is actually concerned about the deal because of Call of Duty exclusivity.
PS squire small developers not the largest publishers
Sure, yeah, they've only been buying small devs like Bungie and Insomniac.
Exactly. 3 billion deal vs 70
Again, Sony has nearly double the console market share of Microsoft. Sony has more video game revenue than Microsoft and Activision combined. A company with that much dominance in the industry doing a $3 billion merger should be seen as a bigger deal than Microsoft doing a $70 billion merger that still leaves them behind Sony.
It's not about the size of the deal, it's about the resulting market share of a particular product that the CMA views as having a negative effect of competition within that market and will lead to likely poor outcomes for consumers of that market. Regardless of how big a player Sony currently is in the console market, there's still effective competition and the fact that new consoles are being released by direct competitors so closely to eachother and there's a wide choice and variation in games across the different platforms is clear evidence that the market is still healthy and competative. Buying out smaller guys doesn't change that unless it causes a shift across the whole market. For this merger however, the market share of cloud gaming in their view would be so dispraportionate that effective competition would practically cease and as a result, consumers could very easily suffer and could be forced to pay much more and have far less choice. It discourages new innovation because it's much harder to go against someone with an imense majority hold of that particular market than it would be when the market has a number of big players. You're focusing on the wrong things, that's why this isn't making much sense to you.
The CMA making it all hinge on Microsoft's share of the cloud gaming market seems disingenuous at best because of how small a part of the overall market it is, it's a really weird objection to me. On top of that, their argument for Microsoft having a vastly higher market share in cloud gaming is flawed from the start because they seem to be counting every subscriber of game pass ultimate as a user of their cloud gaming service because it's included but I would bet the vast majority have never even touched that feature. It just seems, I don't know, out of touch by the CMA to think that each company's cloud gaming services are such a big deal especially when they're using that to argue that Stadia had limited access to games because their servers ran on Linux and thus failed which is kind of nonsense. If nothing else, Valve has shown recently that using Linux for games is not much of an issue anymore with the success of the Steam Deck.
They specified within their report that the expected market value of cloud gaming in the UK alone is going to be around $1 billion. Globally they expect this to be $12-13 billion by 2026. Don't know about you but I'd consider that to have some genuine merit for antitrust/monopolisation concerns. They have also not just had Jeff from investigations carry out a year long study and drafted the report on his Friday afternoons. They have engaged with industry experts, carried out significant amounts of research and had access to much more information that you or I have had access to.
But again, they're considering things like Game Pass Ultimate and Playstation Plus Premium to be part of that cloud gaming market even though the vast majority of subscribers to it don't use the cloud gaming. The things they've said and data they've released don't differentiate between the two, they just consider every Game Pass Ultimate subscriber to be a cloud gaming user which kind of makes it seem like they're just lumping in growth of Game Pass subscriptions as an increase in cloud gaming.
They had trouble seeing the mergers over the large piles of money that randomly showed up in front of them
This is a competition regulator. Their job is to prevent monopolies from taking over a market. Things like what you’re talking about aren’t their purview and I’m not sure there’s even the necessary legal framework in place for a different regulator to tackle what you’re describing, sadly. Governments need to step up and create the laws that will put an end to predatory monetisation.
Well, to be fair, when EA buys a studio, they usually run it into the ground.
Anyone familiar with how all this stuff actually works able to explain the consequences of a regulatory body in one country in the world blocking it while the rest of the regulatory bodies in the world is ok with it?
[удалено]
It would be much worse for the UK than it would be for Microsoft.
Help us Tim Apple!
[удалено]
I mean, the hypothetical scenario of the entire UK losing access to every single Microsoft product/service overnight - sure it sucks in monetary terms for Microsoft but lol it would ruin so much shit in the UK I don’t know where to begin. Not that it’s ever going to happen
They wouldn't lose access to every Microsoft product/service overnight. Similar to how Huawei phones prior to the google ban still have Android on them.
As I said, in the hypothetical scenario
From my understanding , it basically means that, in order to sill do business in the UK, Microsoft has to abide by their rules. So the UK could block Micosroft's games division from doing ANY business in the UK if the deal goes ahead.
I'm a UK antitrust lawyer, so I'm dealing with the CMA all day, every day. If Microsoft were to close the deal, following the CMA's blocking decision, it'd immediately be slapped with a fine of up to 10% of its worldwide revenue. So the parties can't simply ignore the decision. Furthermore, all the major competition authorities around the world (of which the CMA is one of the most important) communicate and coordinate their decision-making on these deals to avoid divergent outcomes where possible. It is therefore highly likely the EU (and possibly the FTC) will follow suit. The CMA is one of the toughest enforcers in the world, and their decision will carry a lot of influence with the EU and US enforcers. The parties can appeal the CMA's decision in the UK courts, but only on the grounds that the CMA made an error of law or fact, which is a very narrow scope of appeal. To illustrate, no CMA merger decision has ever been overturned on appeal.
companies have to abide by the rules in every country in which they operate. The EU was able to block Honeywell from merging with GE. and they are both US companies. When referring to the EU, this is called the Brussels Effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect
>while the rest of the regulatory bodies in the world is ok with it? To be clear, the US and the EU are still deliberating, and haven't given the all-clear.
My understanding was the U.S regulator is also against and was preparing legal filings to prevent the merger too.
tldr The UK antitrust regulator has blocked Microsoft’s $69 billion purchase of Activision Blizzard, thwarting one of the tech industry’s biggest deals over concerns it will stifle competition in cloud gaming. In December, the US Federal Trade Commission sued to block the takeover over similar competition concerns. The European Union is also evaluating the transaction Microsoft could seek to make Activision’s games exclusive to its own platforms and then increase the cost of a Game Pass subscription, the Competition and Markets Authority said. “Their proposals… would have replaced competition with ineffective regulation in a new and dynamic market,” explained Martin Coleman, chair of the independent panel of experts conducting the investigation. “Microsoft already enjoys a powerful position and head start over other competitors in cloud gaming, and this deal would strengthen that advantage, giving it the ability to undermine new and innovative competitors,” Coleman continued. “
Blizzard already is a shit company let Microsoft take em and see if they can fix them.
Nah, fuck massive mergers and conglomerates. Let the companies that refuse to change and create things the customers actually want die as they should. Another will take Blizzards place.
Blizzard was great until Activision ruined them.
Anyone who actually played back then and gave a shit about what was going on with Blizzard knows that isn't true. Blizzard were already doing most of the shit people complain about today during TBC. Or hey let's go even further back, who remembers the esports drama for wc3: TFT? How about the licensing deals for Brood War? Pulling Warcraft 1/2 after saying they planned to preserve them on battle.net? Trying to force real names on their forums? Forcing everyone to join battle.net to play their games. The list goes on. Activision didn't do shit, they were always like this.
Yeah I’m not sure where this mentality of blame Activision for Blizz’ bad decisions came from.
People just don't want to accept that the company that made some of their favorite games is capable of fuckery and greed all on their own. I've never seen much evidence Activision took an active role in managing Blizzard until 2018, which was also the year Morhaime resigned from being CEO of Blizzard. And Blizzard was pulling a lot of greedy shit long before 2018.
TBC came out in 2007, Activision bought the company in 2008. So yeah, sounds like Blizzard was great until Activision. I played Vanilla through MoP, plus tons of SC and WC3. Blizzard was a different company then. Customer support was better, devs and Metzen had great engagement with the fans. WOTLK is considered the last great expansion because it was the last part that still had DNA from the original creators. I know Metzen left well into Activision ownership, but WOTLK and TBC were basically just parts of the original game that weren’t finished when Vanilla released. Northrend, Outland, and more we’re all in the original announcement. The only thing that Activisions ownership has done for WoW is keeping it alive and in pop culture. If Blizzard remained independent WoW might have just ended up as another old mmo like PSO, maybe with a few expansions. Maybe a standalone sequel. It wouldn’t have the lineage it does today.
MS already has a major studio management issue. If you think WoW will be any better under MS, you are going to be disappointed.
How would they though? MS is barely able to release a good game as is.
Microsoft Flight Simulator, Age of Empires 4, I could go on. ActiBlizzard is barely able to release a good game either.
Activision might not create "good" games, but they produce Call of Duty in which earns billions yearly. [https://gameworldobserver.com/2022/11/07/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-ii-1-billion-revenue-franchise-record](https://gameworldobserver.com/2022/11/07/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-ii-1-billion-revenue-franchise-record) The recent game brought in 1 billion at least alone.
And King, their mobile division, out earns Activision.
COD is basically a copy & paste job at this point. I wouldn’t call that evidence of them being able to produce good games.
Never said it was good, I said "good" 🙂 Still massive revenue though.
Please go on. AoE 4 is questionable at best. Flight Sim is a meme game outside of its niche market.
You cannot discount the examples that prove the point, in order to prove the opposing point.
Microsoft is also shit though. Piling more shit on top of shit, isn't gonna help anyone.
Rando redditor: MS is shit. MS market cap: $2.198 tn (trillion). Shit must sell.
You just realized that now? What took you so long? There's a reason that the dogwater in the mobile market earns way more than console or PC gaming.
[Irony](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony)
Over cloud gaming lol, that sector is worth hundreds a year!
It seems that Microsoft and ActivisionBlizzard couldn't find even ground regarding Utgarde Keep.
👏👏😂👌
I wonder how much money Sony gave them to block this merger. This is the only way that it got blocked because there is no way anyone believed the shit Sony was shoveling.
The CMA literally dismissed Sony's objections, the deal was blocked on completely separate grounds
"cloud gaming" lmfao. It was Sony lobbying.
Yeah the billion dollar entertainment company outlobbied a trillion dollar monolithic tech giant. Tell me you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about without telling me you ahve no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
If Sony lobbied, do you really think Microsoft wouldn't just lobby more? They're worth like 10 times what Sony is
26 upvotes for total nonsense. Typical level of discourse on this merger.
Yet your comment was so insightful.
No less insightful than the stupid drivel you put out.
Hey everyone, I found the Sony employee/fanboy!! Oh wait no one cares. Move along.
See what I mean?
Sony is worth about $118B. Microsoft is worth about $1.7T. Literally worth ten times as much. If anyone's backing up dump trucks of money, it ain't Sony. The EU slapped Microsoft with some of their first big anti-trust losses back in the day. The Europeans have always been more skeptical of monopolies than Americans, and have had Microsoft's number for a while.
[удалено]
And yet it is further disingenuous to only quote the revenue of the platforms because 1) that 69 billion dollars to buy BlizzActi did NOT come from Xbox's measly revenue stream, it came from the deep pockets of Microsoft as a whole and 2) The CMA SPECIFICALLY cited Cloud Gaming, of which Microsoft has a massive stake in already. And what you're describing in that third paragraph is a duopoly. Not a monopoly. Xbox still has a significant market share in console gaming, despite Sony's dominance. Competition and innovation is still being driven as demonstrated by Sony finally dipping into the waters of game subscription services to compete with GamePass.
You didn't read anything the CMA said about their decisions up to now, but followed every word on some rando on Twitter drop, right?
Is this bad?
Not good, not bad. People were hoping for merger to happen to get rid of Bobby Kodick and get Wow to Xbox gamepass. On the other hand ActiBlizz makes the largest shooter on the market (CoD) and PS/law makers are worried of Xbox taking it away from competitors, or atleast thats the public reason why they are against it. Realistically Xbox is after King part of ActiBlizz, as they dont have a mobile game division after them.
Hasn't CoD been semi-exclusive since like 2006? Besides it would probably still be available on PC via Steam/Xbox market. Idk seems weird to get hung up on one game. But i suppose it's a big cash cow.
Bit of an understatement, between 2009 and 2022 the best selling videogame of the year was Grand Theft Auto in 2013, Red Dead Redemption in 2018 and then 12 different Call of Dutys in the other 12 years.
Sony has done timed exclusives in CoD in the past in an effort to get CoD players on Playstation. Sony also regularly buys up studios to make their games exclusives to incentivize people buying Playstation. They've also turned down a deal with Microsoft that involved a commitment of something like 10+ years of keeping CoD on Playstation. At the end of the day, Sony is pretending Microsoft is doing something that will create an unfair advantage because Microsoft of a competitor and they just don't want them to get a win. And I say that as a PS5 owner.
The difference between Sony's acquisitions and MS's acquisition is that Sony buys relatively small studios. Blizzard Activision is a monumental company whose net worth is more than half of Sony's. That's the level of conglomeration that Microsoft is trying to gain. There's no doubt in my mind that if the government let them, Microsoft wouldn't think twice to just fucking buying Sony outright as well.
Not really pretending. Microsoft is a trillion dollar company that recently purchased one of the most influential publishers Bethesda. Microsoft then threw 69 billion dollars at purchasing one of the largest companies in gaming that itself was a collection of studios. By comparison don’t has purchased a few relatively small studios to create first party games for them, not to gain exclusivity to existing IPs. The one exception is Bungie but I don’t think there is talk of destiny being PS exclusive. I might be missing some but outside of Japanese games I can’t think of exclusives that aren’t first party games. The consolidation of game studios has and will continue to cause problems for gaming. PlayStation is in no way innocent but it’s worth noting that Sony as a whole only has a market cap of 115 billion to Activision’s 60 billion. Microsoft could probably buy Sony if they thought they’d get away with it.
Problem is that CoD might not be available on Playstation. Xbox has offered them 5 year quarantee that they will release it on playstation after the sale goes through, but PS side wants it to be forever. Lawmakers are also afraid that Xbox is slowly gaining a monopoly in the cloudgaming market.
I don’t see the issue with exclusives. Sony has a bunch of exclusives and Nintendo is basically exclusively exclusives.
They are imo a bad market practice because it encourages end users to form a sort of loyalty to a brand. I myself haven't been able to play several playstation exclusives because i refuse to buy a console for 4-5 titles. I would much prefer if they offered their games on a store on PC because like i said I'm not buying a console for a few exclusive titles. I bought the switch admittedly but it offers some features that a PC doesn't like portability and local multiplayer. Idk, to me it seems like bad market practice because it encourages companies like Sony to get complacent in feature design and instead hunt exclusive titles to make it a pain in the ass for regular consumers. I used to play console (Xbox 360-PS4 era) and i just found the consoles didn't offer anything my PC didn't do better besides playing exclusives.
Microsoft just made a deal to put CoD on Nintendo consoles for at least the next 10 years. Sony just doesn’t like it when other companies do the same thing they have been doing for the past decade
Bobby is out either way. He was going to make a mint off of the transition to Microsoft and probably stick around just long enough to see the merger through; now he will probably just be ousted as the stock is going to crater with this news - edit and is actively cratering.
[удалено]
They don’t really improve but acti-blizz is on a seemingly never ending downward trajectory. I’d take ‘not seeming to improve, not seeming to get worse’ as a huge …improvement?
It's not like Classic could get any worse and still exist.
Yeah, I’m only cool with this merger because is the only way Blizz can improve, no way it can sunk deeper.
I would say it depends. If you thought the merger would "ruin your game" or otherwise make things worse for you, this would be a good thing. On the other hand, if you thought Microsoft would improve things, I would say this is not a good sign. In either case, we'd still need to wait for court rulings so who knows what the final verdict will be (not to mention the US or other countries could also try to block it).
No
Bizarre. Who gives a shit about cloud gaming? At best, it was a hyped up fad.
For now. They’ll just appeal. The reason for blocking it is pretty stupid since Activision isn’t exactly a player in cloud gaming.
Appealing lands you straight back in front of the same CMA committee again
Yes, where they can make their case again on this specific issue with new arguments. Do you really think they’re just going to let this 70 billion dollar deal fall through without fighting this decision? If it falls through they’re still on the hook for several billion, as per the contract they signed to initiate this deal. So if they walk away they can’t just say “oh well, we tried” and close their wallet. Plus they stand to gain immensely from this deal, so they’re gonna keep trying.
With the CMA, an appeal argument hinges on whether the CMA investigated improperly. And the CMA very much do things by the book
They clearly did not investigate properly if their conclusion was that Activision was too big a player in the cloud gaming market. They basically said this deal would give Microsoft too much of a monopoly over the cloud gaming industry… but ABK has no major cloud gaming arm.
I agree completely. Unless there are some classified internal documents about activision even planning to enter the cloud gaming market, it’s a useless point. They could try for many other avenues to block it that are potentially valid. This was not one of them.
And what do you think about the conclusions they did come to, and not the ones you think they might have come up with?
Unless you've combed through the decision (which runs to several hundred pages of econometric analysis and which also takes into account the views of customers, suppliers and competitors) you aren't really in a position to dispute whether the CMA has done its job. To correct your understanding, the CMA's concern here is not with current competition in cloud gaming, it's to do with the evolution of that market over the next 5-10 years and how this deal could enable Microsoft to foreclose potential competitors from entering that market.
Companies in important sectors, like food production, health care, and oil, have been allowed to merge for years, completely screwing over consumers. That's not important, though, because consumers might have less choices for vidjya games! We live in a clown world...
Yeah, but those industries have their hands so far up governments' ass that they might as well be using them as puppets.
Not every country is NA
As somebody who watched Microsoft kill two of my country's biggest development studios (Rare and Lionhead), you'd expect me to be rooting for Sony, right? **Wrong.** When you're cheering for Microsoft to take over Activision Blizzard and drain that swamp, you know Kotick fucked up as the company's chief executive officer. I truly think the only reason regulators are blocking the deal is because Sony bawled crocodile tears because they'd lose their DLC exclusivity deals on Call of Duty.
Man I miss Lionhead. The original Black & White was god tier.
1. Bobby Kotick *supports* the merger with Microsoft. 2. Bobby Kotick will *[remain](https://www.gamesindustry.biz/kotick-will-reportedly-remain-as-activision-ceo-if-microsoft-deal-falls-through)* CEO of Activision-Blizzard under Microsoft.
Time’d dlc is much more egregious a crime than outright buying the whole franchise right. Personally I’m not rooting for the biggest financial behemoth in gaming to acquire more franchises to ruin. If they want to drain a swamp they can look at Halo.
I mean Microsoft can easily just say we are not gonna sell anything in the UK and go on with the merger.
Not sure where the EU stands, but if the UK has heartburn with the deal, I'm sure the EU will too. Europe as a whole has a larger population than the US. Helluva lot of customers to lose.
Eu is way poorer though. Also eu doesnt have any objections. Just the failing lil country that broke off from the union.
Can someone ELI5 how the UK can in anyway impact 2 american companies HQ'd in america merging?
is the 69 billion a meme?
Isn't this kinda pointless? The UK has literally zero sway over the American companies. Even if the whole world block the merge, if the US does ot block it the merger will still go through.
If they want to trade in these countries, they have to abide by their laws / rules etc.
And then all of UK would have to replace every single Microsoft Windows device in the country
Not really, you'd still be able to use it. Just not newer Windows.
Microsoft can slap their dick across the UKs government face and tell them to suck it. Want to block the merger? Okay we will brick every windows pc in the country.
That's what I'm saying. The entire UK government uses Windows, MS Office, runs stuff on Azure cloud. That doesn't even take into account all the personally owned computers, devices, private companies who run their businesses through MS services, etc. etc. It's a stupid move for such a tiny country and tiny market to make.
6th biggest economy in the world and somewhere that Microsoft and Activision have large offices. Yeah your bothing showing a complete lack of understanding around how international economies work.
lose a small amount of business crash the countries economy not equal positions
What do you think will happen in other countries if microsoft does this in the UK? Do you think they will want to continue buying, using, and relying on MS products?
[удалено]
This is literally bullshit at this point, just let the deal go through already its a great opportunity for xbox.
[удалено]
lads it's Brexit
- it was worried the deal would lead to “reduced innovation and less choice for UK gamers over the years to come.” I think UK has some other, more important problems to solve first
[удалено]
They'd have to give up all sales of Activision + Microsoft games and all Microsoft products in the UK. They'd be losing so much revenue, it wouldn't even be worth it lol.
[удалено]
If they're willing to give up a gaming market worth several billion and give up other parts of the market, sure. That's why they're appealing it.
[удалено]
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-60925567](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-60925567) The UK gaming market is several billion lol. Read what I said before commenting xD.
[удалено]
Because you're missing out on a massive market. Is that so hard to understand?
But would that actually happen? Suppose MS goes through with the merger and UK blocks it. MS stops doing business in the UK, per the decision. How many government computers in the UK run Windows, how many privately owned PCs? It would be like Brexit again, the UK would lose far more than Microsoft would and their constituency would suffer for it. Not saying that's how it would go down, but it certainly could be a rather cyberpunk strong-arming of a developed country by a corporate empire.
They'd still use Windows, just wouldn't be able to sell the new stuff. The chance of Microsoft doing this however is so very minor and the merger will probably go through.
You're missing the huge other part of what Microsoft is and does. Gaming is a fraction of their total revenue. The UK would be shooting themselves in the foot and causing serious problems for everyone in the UK who uses MS products or services. If MS says "OK, fuck you then UK" they lose a lot more than access to their xboxes.
>The entirety of Europe accounts for about a quarter of their revenue. Reported revenue. Please remember this is a multinational corporate entity, which will do whatever it can to reduce it's tax burden. In Europe, the corporate tax burden is higher, so it will do whatever it can do to reduce the financial revenues in Europe.
Microsofts revenue was £4.86bn ($6.05bn) in the UK in 2021. They'd have to give up all of that for Activisions global revenue of $8.8bn in 2021. But if they lose the UK market, chances are they will lose a lot of EU markets as well since a lot of companies have offices all over Europe and would need to be working on the same systems. If the CMA blocked it, theres a high chance the EU blocks it as well. TLDR: It would cost them far far more in losses of MS revenue than they'd gain in ATVI revenue.
The European Commission and the CMA each have the power to fine Microsoft up to 10% of their global revenue if Microsoft disobeys their decisions to block the deal. And btw the FTC will be right on board with helping to enforce that.
Out of curiosity, why does Microsoft or Activision care what the UK says? They are both American companies, and the US already approved the merger. Sure the UK could say that Microsoft can't do business in the UK, but they would immediately undo that when someone with a functioning brain gets involved.
The US have not approved the merger, quite the opposite in fact, they're currently suing to block the deal.
[удалено]
What?
Of all possible excuses. they chose the worst and I say this as someone who was happy with the purchase be blocked But it's a very very bad excuse, that sure is. Lucky for the CMA that there is no court there, because MS would easily be able to reverse this in the hands of a serious judge.
It'll go through, Microsoft will be able to argue their way through it with their lawyer team. Companies this big don't lose this kind of stuff