The UK Competition and Markets Authority is currently conducting a "Phase 2" investigation into Microsoft's attempted acquisition of Activision Blizzard, and you may remember that a couple of months ago, the authority also began asking the general public for their views on the takeover.
Well, those results are now in, and the CMA has found that around 75% of the feedback has been in favour of the acquisition going ahead. Lots of different types of views have been expressed, pointing out all the reasons why the deal would be beneficial for the games industry.
Here are a few examples:
"(b) the Merger will not harm rival consoles because Microsoft has made public and private commitments to keep Activision content, including Call of Duty, non-exclusive. The availability of Minecraft on rival consoles shows that Microsoft’s commercial strategy is not to make games exclusive."
"(e) the Merger will push Sony to innovate, such as by improving its subscription service or creating more games to compete with Call of Duty."
"(g) Microsoft’s plans to add Call of Duty to Game Pass are pro-competitive and will lower the price of accessing games for consumers."
"(I) the Merger is pro-competitive in the mobile segment because it will create new options for mobile gamers and allow Microsoft to compete against Google and Apple, which are the two dominant mobile platforms."
As for the negative feedback, some have suggested that Microsoft would be able to deteriorate the quality of Call of Duty on PlayStation in the future, the acquisition could raise barriers to entry for indie developers, and it could also "set a harmful precedent in the gaming industry of acquiring large publishers rather than encouraging organic growth".
Even though the majority of feedback here is on Microsoft's side, the authority has advised that its publication of this summary "does not in any way represent an endorsement by the CMA of these views". In other words, this public feedback will definitely be taken into account by the CMA, but it's also not a final verdict of any kind.
In fact, it looks like we could still be waiting until around late February before the UK authority finally reaches an official decision on its Phase 2 investigation, so we'll have to sit tight for another few weeks yet.
What are your thoughts on this? Tell us down in the comments below.
[source assets.publishing.service.gov.uk]
Comments 55
I wish the narrative focused on what ABK employees feel would be the best. Those folks have been through Hell.
More favorable then what I was expecting to be honest which is a good sign. Hopefully the CMA will use common sense and let it go through. Jim Ryan however has been crying and saying all sorts of rubbish to them, so who knows.
Not long to find out the outcome don't want to wait for another court case and lawsuit.
again it will go through, with concessions.
Sony is literally doing its job by opposing the deal.
if the shoe was on the other foot. MS would do EXACTLY the same.
@stvevan I remember a bunch of commentors on here saying Sony fanboys will be writing in droves looks like what's actually happened is the opposite lol
@Brue that wouldn't happen as they'd surely want kotick & the like prosecuted not given a golden parachute
So both sides had sad fanboys write in 😂
Tbf I agree with all the points made in favor apart from this one
"(b) the Merger will not harm rival consoles because Microsoft has made public and private commitments to keep Activision content, including Call of Duty, non-exclusive. The availability of Minecraft on rival consoles shows that Microsoft’s commercial strategy is not to make games exclusive."
Nothing has been said about any other Activision game staying on sony consoles, and saying Microsofts strategy is not to make games exclusive is also very wrong, with Bethesda and Obsidian as some examples, Ninja Theory another.
The PS5 has more than 2 million consoles sold in UK and less than 3 thousand wrote to the CMA sharing their views on the acquisition?? So, the vast majority are either unaware or simply not bothered how this will affect the platform they game on....
@Sol4ris many casuals buy playstation just for a few games such as fifa and call of duty, or parents buying it for their kids, so I wouldn't expect those groups of gamers to either know about this or care too much. Many wouldn't even think about who actually makes call of duty, so even if they have read somewhere that Microsoft have bought Activision it probably hasn't clicked on in their heads that it means Microsoft own call of duty. I know some one from work who claims to love God of war, yet I mention santa Monica and he was like who's that? 😂 The kind of people who don't pay attention to all the logos when a game loads.
@UltimateOtaku91 "(e) the Merger will push Sony to innovate, such as by improving its subscription service or creating more games to compete with Call of Duty."I don't agree with that one improving their subscription service (ps plus essential is actually better than xbox live gold if you care about the monthly games , I do agree that premium is shockingly bad though & their commitment to legacy games is a complete joke) & creating a cod clone wouldn't be 'innovating' at all lol
@UltimateOtaku91
Microsofts strategy is not to make games exclusive is also very wrong, with Bethesda and Obsidian as some examples, Ninja Theory another
Obsidian and Ninja Theory, even InXile are not the best examples to use, since those are just former independent games studios that Microsoft bought. Not dissimilar to Insomniac or Housemarque Bungie etc.
Bethesda are definitely a different beast, yes.
@Would_you_kindly sony would have to buy EA, or Respawn from them to make a game rival call of duty. The developers sony currently have dont have the best expertise on creating good online games apart from bunjie who have already said will stay multiplatform. So yeah if sony do lose call of duty then they will need to whip out the big bucks as they aren't making a rival themselves.
@UltimateOtaku91 even if Sony could afford EA I don't think they would sell besides they have a deal with Microsoft to have EA included as part of game pass ultimate I don't know how long that contract is for though or the terms of the agreement & weather or not there's something that says EA can't make a deal with Sony to include it as a part of ps plus
The 75% are Xbox fans only.
@Would_you_kindly
they have a deal with Microsoft to have EA included as part of game pass ultimate I don't know how long that contract is for though or the terms of the agreement & weather or not there's something that says EA can't make a deal with Sony to include it as a part of ps plus
I'm quite sure Microsofts is paying EA handsomely to have EA Access as part of GamePass Ultimate, its not happening for charitable reasons. EA Access was a thing on Xbox before GamePass and at the time Sony were directing s**t at it with statements like - the service doesn't provide value to our customers, therefore we don't want EA Access on PlayStation, blah blah 😅.
@UltimateOtaku91 That is because the oii t of contention is Call of Duty. None of the other IPs are ever discussed because, let's face it, Activision has nothing going for it except cod.
@Would_you_kindly Well EA are rubbing their hands at the prospect of sony coming to them, pretty sure they mentioned it not long ago, also if (big if) sony did acquire them then they would just stop the deal for EA access on gamepass or let the current deal run up before making Battlefield or Titanfall (or both) exclusive, to me that's the only way sony can rival call of duty.
@Would_you_kindly “ps plus essential is actually better than xbox live gold”
TBH I forgot that Xbox Live gold was even a thing still. I doubt there are very few people left who has gold and haven’t upgraded to game pass. Which is probably what people are comparing Sony’s subscription service to.
@InterceptorAlpha surely overwatch 3 and Diablo 5 would be (future) massive games.
@UltimateOtaku91 While Diablo 5 and Overwatch 3 are massive games. I have a feeling that the majority of those games player base is on PC… So those games leaving PlayStation isn’t near as bad. Where as CoD fan base is literally only on consoles.
@Floki people that are only interested in accessing online multiplayer for certain games use it playstations success hasn't prompted Xbox to improve that subscription based service though
@Would_you_kindly "PlayStation success hasn't prompted Xbox to improve that subscription-based service"
Well yeah, Live Gold is basically a legacy service at this point that they are basically forcing everyone away from. So you're talking about a very tiny subset of people at this point... Especially when consider that Live is not required for F2P online games anymore which makes up the bulk of the major multiplayer games (Fortnite, Warzone, Overwatch, Destiny, Halo...etc), and anyone with common sense or like straight better value would have grab gamepass for like a $1.
@UltimateOtaku91 Overwatch 2 is simply Overwatch changed to a free to play battle pass format. Id be impressed to see anything compelling from an Overwatch 3.
With how awful handled Diablo 3 was, and their failure to re-release Diablo 2 Resurrected in working form, again, I see no reason to be excited for Diablo 5.
As another stated, both of those player bases are predominantly PC and are unaffected by this either way.
@Would_you_kindly EA is already up for sale already and we're in talks for Comcast-Universal to buy them but it fell through according to reports. I'm sure they'd love a Sony buyout, though I'm not sure Sony could comfortably afford it though.
@Brue The CWA union endorsed the merger and argued that it should be approved. Activision employees have been trying to join the union and Bobby& co. Keep blocking them while Microsoft would allow and signed a union neutrality agreement, so the employees are definitely in.
@Floki I don't think forcing people to pay for gamepass if they just want to play online in games that aren't FTP is very pro consumer
I still don't understand this whole "deterioration of quality" on a rival platform.
Is there any precedent for that?!
I mean, I know Switch gets shafted by EA with Legacy Editions for FIFA, but even that platform gets solid attempts at ports given the hardware.
Like, why would any developer consume work hour cycles to purposefully gimp the game on another platform? That just makes zero sense to me.
The merger should go through, on the basis that ActiBlizz games are going to be exclusive to the xbone. So in that sense, it will definitely make Sony more Pro-exclusise to its own games and even third party games. Meaning better competition. I just want to point out Microsoft getting the deal is good FOR xbox players not the whole community. With Microsoft proving that Bethesda games will be exclusive moving forward I assume most other games will too.
(Except for; COD, Tony Hawk, WoW, and Overwatch because why lose on easy money).
@Would_you_kindly I don't think forcing people to pay for Live Gold if they just want to play online in games that aren't FTP is very pro consumer either, but here we are.
@stvevan Nah, if roles were reversed Microsoft wouldn’t say a thing, they’d just buy another publisher or several publishers 🤣
@UltimateOtaku91 I honestly doubt there will be an "Overwatch 2", and if there is one it will again be numbered in name only. Overwatch 2 as it stands is simply an evolution of what was already there, with some content depreciated.
Diablo 5, sure that might eventually be Xbox/PC only, when it releases in 2033...
Bunch of Muppets. None of these agency's seem interested in the consumers but rather simply focused on the narrative of "We must stop big tech".
Crazy to see three-fourths of the public asked being in favor knowing Xboxes are as of the last time I checked, the least owned of the current gen consoles. And it WOULD force Sony to innovate and maybe actually do something with the two dozen dead IPs they own. Microsoft's IPs before they started buying studios used to be pretty much just Halo, Gears, Forza, Fable, & Crackdown (I guess?) in order of 'you know it' to 'oh yeah that's a thing'. Meanwhile Sony in their long history have Sly Cooper, Ratchet & Clank, Jak and Daxter, inFAMOUS, Killzone, Ape Escape, Twisted Metal, Resistance, God of War and so many others. But while a few maybe get a new game once every console gen, the rest have been rotting since the PS3 or longer. And it makes me so mad that they're willing to put so much money & effort into something they don't and never will own, and that will always sell well on PS no matter what, instead of putting that money into stuff they already own.
It won’t surprise many of you to know I wrote them a long detailed response. What may surprise you is I was pretty 50/50 showing there were both pros and cons to the aquisition.
Pros included ABK staff, Microsoft being more competitive across the whole console games market, potential for Sony to do better, and more.
But ultimately ended with 2 key points that needed to be covered if the deal was to be approved:
1) safeguards and binding assurances to prevent most ABK games, that aren’t COD, going exclusive like Bethesda. No one should be able to buy whole publishers, with decades of beloved IP, and make them exclusive, as that isn’t pro-consumer. Microsoft have proven via their actions, with Zenimax, that words simply aren’t enough.
2) safeguards and assurances to prevent Game Pass becoming virtually untouchable by undercutting the market in a below-price / predatory pricing strategy. While it’s good for a subsection of gamers short term, it’s not pro-consumer long term to have one company dominating a whole new business model and then able to control that section of the market.
Additionally we don’t yet know the long term implications of this type of model, it hasn’t been good for music or movies.
@UltimateOtaku91 agreed. 3 of the quotes shown are fair, but the first one is demonstrably false and have made no assurances about non-COD games. Microsoft have proven by their actions that they will take games off other platforms, counter to what they said initially to get the Zenimax deal through.
Actions matter more than words.
2100 samples is hardly representative of the millions of gamers who could be affected by the deal.
Just saying, this means almost nothing. But its another story to get people airing their ire's, so of course its here
@themightyant
While it’s good for a subsection of gamers short term, it’s not pro-consumer long term to have one company dominating a whole new business model and then able to control that section of the market
Sony are dominating the traditional console gaming section and they absolutely make sure gamers know it, by using their market leader position as bargaining power to sign third-party exclusive deals for years / or full exclusivity. This whole company A can be dominant while B shouldn,'t depending on console allegiances is becoming all too predictable...
Microsoft are pursuing a different route via subscription services, Sony do not for(likely)a variety of reasons...And, let me make this very clear: -I'm absolutely for the deal being scrutinised and concessions should be attached to it, otherwise it should not proceed.
@Sol4ris I agree Sony have used their position. But this isn't about Sony. It is about Microsoft and ABK. Bringing Sony into is really a distraction. It's a separate, if related, argument that also needs to be discussed, but not really as part of this MS + ABK acquisition.
Also agree that there needs to be concessions.
@themightyant I think there also needs to be more assurances on the staff side of things, especially given the reports on Undead Labs (an Xbox Game Studio) earlier in the year. Union neutrality is a good start but Microsoft need to do more to fix the horrific state of Activision like getting rid of Kotick and getting rid of the annual new CoD cycle. The expectation for Activision under Microsoft should be a massively better experience than Activision on its own, not just a slightly better experience that's accepted because of how dire things actually are.
Reducing the frequency of CoD would be challenging given how Sony would likely see it as CoD being taken away from Playstation (decreasing the frequency gradually until it's gone completely) but allowing the devs to work on something else and with less pressure would naturally be a good thing.
That makes sense because if you look at the 'current' situation with CoD, ONLY those with PS hardware get ALL the content and other 'bonuses' so all those who 'prefer' to game on Xbox, PC and/or Switch (or any other Platforms) get screwed over so the deal would be 'beneficial' to more gamers than it would harm.
@Brue The A/B staff unanimously backed the deal and want it to happen for numerous reasons. If it does go to court, you can't imagine that MS wouldn't use that as 'evidence' in support of their buyout - along with ALL the other supporting evidence they have to ensure they'll be successful.
Any 'efforts' to sue are more out of desperation to disrupt the process as far as I can tell. Sony's deal with A/B is due to expire 'soon' and they cannot negotiate with A/B to extend it whilst there is a potential buyout, so if they 'succeed' in blocking, MS could step in and buy up 'exclusivity' on CoD from A/B to get 'CoD' back and keep it from Sony as retribution for blocking the deal...
@themightyant
But this isn't about Sony. It is about Microsoft and ABK. Bringing Sony into is really a distraction
I thought you would said that since you used that line of debate before. In the context of one company already dominating a business model its a valid question. However let us agree to disagree on this...👍
@Grumblevolcano What were "the reports on Undead Labs"? missed this story entirely and google not bringing up much.
@Sol4ris Yes we won't see eye-to-eye on this one. Still always nice to discuss these things.
@themightyant https://www.purexbox.com/news/2022/04/damning-report-takes-aim-at-xboxs-state-of-decay-3-studio
I wrote in saying I was broadly supportive as long as certain conditions were met. First, that a legally binding deal was signed keeping COD on PlayStation, and that this was for a certain number of releases rather than a period of time. Second, the board of ABK were removed and the staff allowed to Unionise. Third, a moratorium was placed on any further purchases of publishers by MS above a certain value. Fourth, the Switch got some sort of COD presence.
@Snake_V5
Not necessarily. Could be a lot of multi-format and PC gamers.
@Titntin
Actually it means a lot. Those 2100 that wrote in are the only ones whose opinions have reached the regulator. They can assume that nobody else is bothered. This is far more relevant than most debates about the subject.
@themightyant
Sony are very relevant to it. The regulator is looking at how this deal will affect competition and consumers. Sony are the dominant entity in one of the market sectors affected, and it’s impossible to judge any impact on competition or consumers without knowing what the market currently looks like.
@electrolite77
"They can assume that nobody else is bothered."
Of course they can't - are you for real with that statement?
If you are, then you have never worked in public service or ever had to make legal decisions...
@Grumblevolcano Thanks.
@electrolite77 I didn't mean Sony aren't relevant in the deal at all, that's taken out of context, of course regulators need to look at the current landscape and competition.
But the original context was about bringing up Sony's handful of paid third party exclusives (which i'm not a fan of btw), but these have little bearing on whether the MS + ABK M&A should go ahead. Hence it's a distraction to THIS deal.
Outside that it's absolutely an issue that should be discussed.
Kinda shocking that they only had 2100 replies. The amount of outrage online would suggest the feedback amount would be way higher. It’s shocking that someone who feels strongly either way about the deal would take the time to tweet or post a comment on a story like this - but. It actually drop a message to where it might actually do some good. And yes, I did contact the CMA. Lol.
@Titntin
I’ve been involved in a few public consultations, specifically around Airspace Design and Noise routings. If somebody doesn’t make the effort to make a submission their opinion will not count. Its impossible for any body making a decision to take into account the opinions of people who haven’t shared their opinions with that body.
@themightyant
Ah I see, you’re right I misunderstood the context.
@Sol4ris 'Sony are dominating the traditional console gaming section and they absolutely make sure gamers know it' .. are they really 'dominating' though Nintendo are doing exceptionally well considering how far behind their tech / online infrastructure & game budgets are
@electrolite77 With respect, the consultations over planning and aerospace noise are a completly different consideration to those of the cma.
The cma have a duty to consider all those in the market, not the statisticaly insignificant few who bothered to write in.
@Sol4ris The company dominating a buisness model are clearly nintendo with 70% of the market. MS and Sony are fighting for a distant second place.
@Titntin
It’s pretty similar actually. Bear in mind I’m talking about the general public because that’s what this article is about, not necessarily other businesses in the market. They have a separate mechanism for making their views known (as do Airlines, Airports, ANSPs etc in the Aviation process). All I mean is if someone is complaining on here, and on Twitter, but hasn’t made the effort to write to the CMA their opinion won’t count in the CMAs eyes.
It’s perfectly likely that there are more people against the takeover than is represented here, but tough luck. If they didn’t contact the CMA when asked they’ve lost their opportunity to have a say.
@UltimateOtaku91 They could buy EA, but would need to borrow heavily. Big risk on their part. Sony corps net worth is only $95bn total.
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...