FTC Files Lawsuit To Block Microsoft's Takeover Of Activision Blizzard

I hate when The Game Awards announcements get leaked early.

Geoff Keighley: "I'd like to welcome Lina Khan to the stage for the next announcement"
Lina Khan: (walks on stage) "I have a lawsuit to announce..."

I mentioned this on Pushsquare but I think it's important to let those not in the United States know that this is nothing more than politics. The 3 who voted for the lawsuit are Democrats assigned by presidents who have pushed for higher scrutiny on tech firms. The one who didn't is a Republican. All this does is send it to the courts which are heavily conservative right now and have a precedence of approving deals like these. No matter if you want it to succeed or fail all this is doing is trying to win back points for a President who just denied union members to go on strike.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/ftc-moves-to-block-69-billion-microsoft-activision-deal/ar-AA153FeR?PC=EMM

Microsoft have broken anti trust laws in the past and got done for bribes, plus the mentioned lies to the European anti trust body about Bethesda's games, so I'm not surprised the FTC are going all out to stop the deal. But the FTC don't have the best track record for winning cases in court, though they have won against Nvidia and Amazon before so it's 50/50 for me.

FTC on their own may lose against the courts but this time its slightly different to their previous cases as they would possibly have the CMA backing them up and possibly the European anti trust authorities.

One thing for certain though, this deal won't be done any time soon and could possibly take longer than another 12-18 months. Hopefully Microsoft can make some deal with Activision to get some games onto gamepass anyway in the mean time, even if it's just the previous call of duty games as I wouldn't mind doing all the campaigns.

@themightyant more concessions like what? Only one that would pass would be a written guarantee that all future Activision games remain multiplatform and not just call of duty, and I can't see Microsoft wanting that. All this talk about call of duty every week has let all the other games they do go un mentioned which I think is wrong. Overwatch, diablo and crash are massive sellers and the former two also bring in a lot of money via micro transactions.

Funny how they made themselves look irrelevant after the Valve/Nintendo announcement. More grandstanding.

It’s likely still going to go through considering MS is open to concessions and the US court system has a habit of crippling these FTC moves. Also everyone over at Push Square seriously seems to hold the opinion that Xbox having two Bethesda exclusives is the crime of the century while Sony is free to do the same without consequence and cripple third party showings on other platforms. Even a staff member making “haha fanboy tears” comments. It’s wild.

@RedShirtRod Yup, the whole FTC situation is a very political one right now, and it might cost some people high up in the FTC their careers when this likely fails. They have actually been split on the decision 2 to 2 but the head of the FTC went ahead with it regardless, which they usually shouldn't do, not a good look.

@GunValkyrian I think it's also worth noting how Sony literally bought their way into the industry when Playstation was getting established, and nobody was complaining about how they eliminated Sega with their divide and conquer approach.

“Microsoft decided to make several of Bethesda's titles including Starfield and Redfall Microsoft exclusives despite assurances it had given to European antitrust authorities that it had no incentive to withhold games from rival consoles”
Didn’t Xbox promise to keep making existing IP available on all platforms they currently are on? They also added the verbiage, “case by case”… Starfield and Redfall are brand new IP. Additionally, they allowed PlayStation to continue to have deathloop and ghostwire for a full year before coming to Xbox. So far, they haven’t lied about anything with regards to that deal that I’m aware of.

I think that many who are still complaining about this deal going forward are entirely under estimating Microsoft’s power if this doesn’t go through now. They’ll have billions of dollars to do whatever with….what’s to stop them from throwing a billion at 30 different games to be exclusive (or timed) to Xbox/Gamepass. Or even announce they are opening new studios and looking to hire experienced fps and adventure game creators to create brand new IP (*cough cough COD studios).

And just to be clear, I’m not anti-PS, I love their games too. I’m just very pro this acquisition. I think it benefits all types of gamers. But to each their own.

weird sony is okay to have exclusivity with famous IPs like Spiderman, Wolverine, Final Fantasy (VII Remake, Rebirth, XIV, XVI), Star Wars KOTOR Remake, MLB (now multiplat though but had been exclusive for more than two decades)
and xbox making Starfield & Redfall are bad for the industry? super double standard

Am sure the FTC will lose this lawsuit, but man, am I looking forward to the discovery process. I doubt Sony will be able to avoid being part of discovery given they are the only opposing party, and the points used seem to come from recent Sony lobbying.

My eyes are more on the EU and UK, but MS tone makes me much more positive that should things stall in the UK or EU, Microsoft will go to court.

Thing to note (and I might be a bit off here) the FTC needs to sue to stop the deal. They don’t just say “denied”. This is why it’s the FTC filing the lawsuit. In the UK and EU, I think they make the call and it would be Microsoft that would have to sue to revert that decision.

I’ve been tempted by the Series X, but as a company, I don’t trust MS as far as I could throw Master Chief. Their history of contempt for their customer base and for consumer protection laws left a real bad taste in my mouth.

Corporations are consolidating far too much power. Bad scene.

@themightyant there is no more room for “concessions”, at least with the FTC. With a lawsuit filed, now the only thing that matters is the law. If the court does not dismiss the lawsuit alright (this filing already has lies/mistake in that MS ever promised the EU Bethesda games would remain multi-plat, MS was very public that it would be on a case by case basis) they will jump into a discovery process that will be able to demand relevant information even from companies that are not parties. That means Sony secret business practices will be exposed.

@JayJ the decision was 3 to 1, there was one democrat on the fence but it’s obvious leadership managed to sway them to vote to go ahead with the lawsuit.

So no call of duty games on the switch. Now I don’t need to feel bad about my 4 late night Facebook marketplace Xbox one x purchases for the lan room.

@rhyno_888 After all the gloating and bragging about how Sony has all the best exclusives and have been dominating the industry, they suddenly have a complete 180 on that entire mentality the second Microsoft tries to do something.

@Nancyboy It's hard to act like Microsoft are the industry bad guys when we literally have Sony acting like this, trying to deny COD to Nintendo fans all over, just so they can get 1up on the competition, trying to control property they don't own.

I don’t see this stopping Microsoft. The FTC has lost some big cases in the past, there’s too much in favor of Microsoft getting this acquisition. The FTC is trying to make an example out of a big tech company.

This is what happens when you have a ultra progressive with an agenda running the show at the FTC. I am still in shock that she was appointed and confirmed.

@cburg Well she's soon to be out thanks to this. I think she has really overstepped her boundaries this time.

@RedShirtRod glad you mentioned that. That's a critical point that the majority of posters here in the UK will miss. I'd mentioned this earlier in one if the other thread as well. In the US all government actions are politically motivated, and a vote like this along party lines generally means it's one of those cases, with the 3 commissioners in the democrat party making a show of a party objective. Which is pretty standard for any such agency here.

However the courts through the appeals remain highly unlikely to actually rule in the FTCs favor. It first is tried in the ftc internal court, then can be appealed to federal court, then appealed again, then appealed to SCOTUS. It will go through. But Sons win is successfully tying this up for years. And I would not be surprised punitive actions from Ms or Activision won't happen. I don't think Sony is getting their marketing deal renewed even if Activision it's still in limbo that's for sure.

@JayJ as far as I understand FTC commissioner appointments are 7 years long and only removable via impeachment or voluntary action.

Whom served as the chairman can change, but the chairman does not have as much power as you might think. It took 3 votes for for this to proceed. Whatever political opinions you might have of the chairman, it wasn’t a unilateral call.

I disagree with the call, but have zero expectation this will lead to the chairman position being moved to a different commissioner. I don’t even think it’s a reason (although if she keeps pushing for lawsuits that end up all failing, that might eventually happen.)

@themightyant this actually nulls concessions. No longer needed. That was a peace offering to appease ftc to not go this route. Now the courts decide if it creates a trust or doesn't. No concessions, just case law. It all goes Microsoft's way or doesn't. And blocking it would be a new issue for all industries and create a higher level government showdown with big business during a looming recession. Welcome back Carter!

@cburg I'm not even against unraveling big tech and half the mergers of the past 25 years never should have been allowed. The idea isn't even a bad one. The problem is they've whiffed every attempt to block any actually problematic acquisition that actually damaged industries (Amazon, Google, meta, etc) and now want to make a show of an innocuous one in a still competitive market, just up score easy political points and look useful after continuous failure when it mattered. And are using broken claims in their filling to do it. As amateur as Sony arguments.

@themightyant I think the current concessions address the concerns that have been expressed so far. I know some might care about non-CoD games, but Sony (the only party that has shown any concern) does not care about anything but Call of Duty.

@themightyant that's a possibility. A bit of a gamble then, idk that eu will approve while us is litigating. Otoh can't see eu block if us approves. But that will be years now.

@NEStalgia

The problem is they've whiffed every attempt to block any actually problematic acquisition that actually damaged industries (Amazon, Google, meta, etc) and now want to make a show of an innocuous one in a still competitive market

I disagree with this assessment. It is simply different administrations, with different mindsets on how to do things (tangent: reason why it is important that Phil’s promises are also in legally binding contracts, not just spoken.)

I obviously don’t agree with this mindset. I do feel they are a bit too far on the sue/block mindset, but it’s not about making a show of this particular case, it’s the way the FTC is acting the last year. I feel there is a bit of a middle ground between just signing off on everything as previous managements have done, and try to sue every single large acquisition.

@NEStalgia I agree that if the deal doesn't go through or it stays in limbo Activision-Blizzard will take it out on Sony. They want it just as bad as Microsoft and I could even see them threatening to remove marketing or delay releases for Sony if they don't get their way. Microsoft on the other hand will still play nice. They still have plans for acquisitions later down the line and won't want to make new deals impossible to pass.

@Tharsman I do also think this backfires more than Sony thinks. They won a battle but invited a war. It's not Sony suing, and ftc isn't suing for their arguments. If it goes to discovery as you say, Sony gets exposed and the industry gets exposed. The exclusives bribes get exposed. And I'm certain Ms is eager to fully present all the dirty laundry they have on that. And they have all of it because their codefendant is Activision, one of the most involved in the process.

@themightyant it had points about game pass but they all are around CoD and how CoD would give Game Pass an unfair advantage.

@NEStalgia I in particular look forward to confirmation that Sony threatens retaliatory action to big games that give Xbox shows exclusive reveal rights. I heard plenty of rumors Battlefield in particular was hit by Sony for being part of, I think, the XSX reveal.

@Tharsman disagree there. These are political activities with political capital. Ms is a easy political victory because of their past, the size of the transaction, and the fact that they're not politically of value in political vogue at the moment at a time when elections are revving up. First rule of Washington is everything is political.

It would be nice if these commissions were not partisan appointments, but that's how it is. So long as they are, it's political always.

But re Sony oh yes this is going to be entertaining. They have a lot of dirt that they've kept hidden a long time. And now it all gets dragged out in a public court. The game industry will be better either way!

I am looking forward to this, the FTC is run by a women who is obsessed with damaging big tech companies. They have lost several court cases this year due to going beyond their remit chasing this obsession. Microsoft I think will embarrass the FTC, win its case and could end up not owing Sony a thing! The FTC will have to argue Microsoft brining COD to Nintendo for 10 years is anti competitive 😂🤣😂🤣

@RedShirtRod exactly right! Ms is good cop here, they have to be. But Activision can basically publically make a show of screwing Sony even if it costs sales because Sony has proved to be a bad faith partner harming the interests of share holders. Ms May get the game on gp early.

@Brue I wouldn’t worry, there is ssooooo much salt with Sony fans after Elden Ring won game of the year tonight it’s hilarious.

@NEStalgia if Kotick remains CEO, all he cares is about money to buy a bigger yacht. When money is flashed on his face, he will take it, it’s all about who waves more money (that still might be Microsoft in the future.)

If he is removed, I am sure a lot of people are going to remember how much money they lost because of Sony, and they might act accordingly.

@Tharsman I'm sure Microsoft has a huge golden parachute waiting for him and he knows it. As for business, investors won't be pleased with Sony at all. And ms will indeed be waving money. After all it'll be laundered back to them if they win, and helps harm Sony by third party hit if they don't.

@NEStalgia I meant, if the deal does not go through, and Kotick remains in charge, there is still a chance Sony feels able to continue our-bidding MS for marketing and exclusive modes rights for years to come regardless how upsets stockholders be.

@Tharsman honestly I don't think kotick would remain in charge. He's half the massive liability that caused them to seek buyers to begin with. I think he'd be out. I'm not even sure they'll keep him in during a years long appeals process. My impression was they kept him as an interim lame duck executive until things smoothly transfer but if they're operating independent a few more years I'm not sure they'll keep him all that time even if the deal goes through eventually. I don't think they can retain enough employees to operate another few years in limbo. He's a liability in general.

If it's not ms they still need to find a new buyer. He's not going to make that more attractive. Pretty sure Comcast and Disney wouldn't touch him with a hundred foot pole. Tencent China surely wouldn't.

@JayJ I am not sure how old you are but yes many people were unhappy with the Sega and Sony situation. Sega had commercial failures in the second half of the decade with the 32X, Saturn, and Dreamcast, as the company's market strategy changed and console newcomer Sony became dominant with the PlayStation. The entire industry was worth less than 20 billion dollars. There are no "good" vs "bad" guys. It's all PR marketing and attempts to gain a market position from two massive corporations. Not worth any emotional investment.

@Nancyboy Worst company around has always been Sony, good thing they are over $2 trillion in debt and increasing fast. The faster they disappear the better.

Well this locks down the chance of the merger happening for a Yr or so. It's very interesting to see them highlight that MS has lied to European oversight about not making games exclusive, I believe this will hold weight but I also feel that games like Deathloop etc shows that MS won't renegade on deals already struck but once they have passed then it's up to them which I guess can be argued in court in favourable terms or negative depending on who says what. I think overall this has just been ugly from the start for everyone involved and I don't think this has done any company any good really, it's a hell of alot of PR talk but we don't truly know what's going on. Will be interesting to see where it goes from here but I believe it will still go through but with more concessions, one's that we're not privy to until it's done.

@Arthur_Morgan A lot can be said, but the fact remains that Sony dominated utilizing the same strategy they're criticizing right now. It was just different for them back then because they were the big money giant at the time.

Unfortunately for MS, having promised regulators in Europe they had no incentive to withhold games from competing platforms, followed by then doing exactly that , is a smoking gun. What you actually do is far more important that all Phils press briefings, which mean nothing, and they have shown they are buying these studios to secure exclusive content - which means taking it away from multiplatform status.
Whatever happens now, this is a huge blow for the deal and the FTC make a pretty compelling case.

What is even more sad to me, is that some people are using this to 'vilify the opposition' and make them an enemy. In this day and age where so many things are turned into black and white arguments, its sad to see gamers showing the same traits. I guess its why there so much war, the tribal instinct is too strong.

Having watched MS chew up whole business sectors and stomp on choice since the 80's, I was always concerned by their moves to buy whole publishers and not just expand their studios with the odd studio acquisition. Ultimately I find merit in the FTC's argument, and it does sadden me that in some people eyes that means I'm 'their enemy'. What a sad way to think.

@JayJ 'trying to deny COD to Nintendo fans all over' , you do know Activision are perfectly capable of making call of duty games for nintendos consoles they don't need uncle Phil to swoop in & show them how 🤣

@NEStalgia 'I don't think Sony is getting their marketing deal renewed even if Activision it's still in limbo that's for sure.' , Microsoft would've outbid them regardless

@Sebatrox you mean Jeffrey Epsteins mate...

Good to see that some of these regulatory commissions actually are doing their jobs. Sony is a bigger game company, but the solution to having large companies controlling an industry isn't to have MORE large companies.

Were Sony to make moves to acquire EA or something I'd hope the same thing would happen.

@Would_you_kindly Okay so why haven't they made any sort of deal before? They have a deal now, didn't before, and who is to say they will without Microsoft.

@PhileasFragg So your argument is that big corporations shouldn't have competition if they get a big enough presence?

That makes no sense at all from the standpoint of opposing this deal for any legitimate reasons.

@JayJ because Activisions games are multiplatform they don't need to sign deals that say they'll put games on certain platforms the only reason Nintendo switch doesn't get modern cod titles is because the hardware is outdated & getting them to run acceptably on the system would be an investment that they obviously don't feel would be worth it

@UltimateOtaku91 Sorry Jim, 50/50? Dream on geordie.

@JayJ No. That industries shouldn't be controlled by a handful of big companies, and so allowing large companies to merge into larger companies is bad for consumers.

@PhileasFragg Yet you're being really selective about that, where only one particular company suddenly needs to face such a standard. That's the problem here, because lawsuits like this cannot be selective.

@Would_you_kindly Well now you're making up your own excuses and selective reasoning to justify Nintendo not getting any Call of Duty support. That the same thing Sony has tried to do, and it's purely anti-competitive behavior, basically them saying Nintendo shouldn't deserve such a deal, only Sony, which is ridiculous.

@sixrings you have a room just for Ians???? Fancy

@JayJ I'm not making up excuses you can't say one second we want these big next gen games & don't want PS4 & Xbox one holding them back & the next start saying publishers are obliged to release there games on nintendos inferior hardware

@bjs5667 I'm not going to get into the whole argument, but in regards to them letting PlayStation still have Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo, they pretty much had to. Bethesda had already signed a deal with Sony to have those be exclusive to the PS5 for a year before they got acquired by Microsoft.

@JayJ Not at all. Sony, Nintendo, Tencent, etc. should all be under the same scrutiny. It's just that in the case of this acquisition legally requires this scrutiny, and regulators have more power.

@bjs5667 if i was MS and this deal didnt go through, id cripple sony, wouldnt be hard when you have 10x the cash on hand, and they wouldnt even have to go after games, you call amd up and say hey i want exclusive rights to your tech for the next gen, and dump a ***** ton of money on them, that would F over sony on their next system, i would go after all the big names for memory as well... id cut the price of my system, and games maybe even ditch live gold and make it free to play online...id go scorched earth and lose money to put them out...they should go after sony on every front.... and id go one step further, if i won this ftc case id take COD and not put it on sony system since they wouldnt sign the 10 year deal that nintendo and steam both did just to try and stop this purchase all together....

@KilloWertz they dont have to do anything, they could break the contract and then pay sony the fine for breaking contract.... honestly i probably would have, wasnt a good look for the xbox when the damn system has had what 2 games all year, and your making 2 games for the competitions system that your own system wouldnt have for a year.... i would have just said F that cancel the PS exclusivity at the bare minimum and pesonally i wouldnt support my competitions platform at all... i mean look at it from the consumers position, why would tyou buy a xbox if all the games will be on the competitors but none of theirs will be on your system? seems to me this is a major reason why the ps5 is outselling the xbox....outside of gamepass what does the xbox have that the ps5 doesnt? and MS keeps releasing games they make on sonys system why should one keep a xbox? point is MS buys a company they should do what they want with their company they own!!!! these regulators i believe are bored and needed something to do.

@Titntin What smoking gun? IIRC MS released an official statement called "Our commitments for ZeniMax" which said that PC is included and would take other consoles on a case-by-case basis.

Found the full statement:
https://twitter.com/Romudeth/status/1601010326878945280/photo/1

For people who don't already know YT Hoeg Law (Virtual legality) concerning the law on this deal, is always an interesting watch!

@KilloWertz my business law is a little rusty, but I don’t think that’s entirely true…in any acquisition or merger there are rules and obligations surrounding existing contracts and agreements. None of which has an easy transfer button to the new owner. Xbox could have easily walked away from those agreements after that. Might have had to pay a small fine or make concessions that they won’t make those game Xbox exclusive now, but they could’ve walked away from the agreements.

@Pusher2021 I refer you to post #63.
Irrespective of what you think, the regulators sure see that as a breech of trust, so why trust anything that Phil has said this time?

@Titntin I don’t have a backlog of all Microsoft acquisitions, so I can’t agree or disagree with your remarks about “chewing up business and stomping on choice,” but how can we possibility say that Microsoft owning Activision/blizzard stomps choice? Gamepass allows you the options to play game virtually anywhere on many different screens. They have agreed to bring existing IP to Nintendo which hasn’t been there in years and agreed to continue bringing games to other pc game stores.
We can’t look at the Bethesda acquisition as a sign of what Xbox will do with Activision existing IP, because even Bethesda has not released any existing IP for any platform since the acquisition. All Bethesda games since acquisition have been NEW IP. Ghostwire and Deathloop were both timed exclusive for PlayStation with a minimum of a year (still no official word on ghostwire) and Starfield and red fall are Xbox exclusive. And to add, elder scrolls online had a new expansion which is available everywhere the game is. It’d be one thing if Xbox withheld a new fallout, doom, elder scrolls, etc…but so far, everything has been brand new IP.
I think much of the confusion is around what Xbox should/will do with their new IP. You don’t buy all of these teams to just to keep creating the same games over and over for your competitors. You also want them to innovate and create new adventures for your brand as well. That’s how they differentiate, which is what leads to competition needing to do the same. So while I understand concerns about this purchase being anti-competitive, we also need to acknowledge that other competitors absolutely have the ability to build new IP for their brand as well or compete in different markets such as cloud gaming.

At the end of the day Microsoft is a Department of Defense contractor.

Sony is not.

That pretty much tells you everything about how this is gonna go.

Microsoft's handling of Mojang Studios with Minecraft being on more platforms than when they acquired it should shine light on Microsoft keeping their word in this situation. This just looks like some Sony fanboy in the FTC is throwing a tantrum.

@JayJ yeah, I will respectfully disagree. The reason that this is such a point of contention is due to the scale of the merger nothing more. The bethesda deal went through and at the time that was the largest and still is in history. Should you agree with Sony's points or not I personally mostly don't however if I was in their position, of course, I would move heaven and earth to block the deal. The video game landscape is very different from the PS1 days, PS2 where Sony was unchallenged as Xbox was finding its feet, 360 vs PS3 where Xbox came into its own and PS4 vs Xbox one was over before it even began thanks to a haphazard launch. MS brought a load of Studios as did Sony. However, never has anyone attempted such a large acquisition the size of which was never going to go through without scrutiny. You can argue Sony has used tactics you disagreed with in the past however it's an objective fact this is an unprecedented deal and will set the status quo, on mergers going forward.

@bjs5667 Microsofts anti trust lawsuits and abhorrent behaviour to smaller business are a matter for the history books, if you wanted to see how they conduct business you could easily do so. I'm an old man working in Tech (I was working for IBM before becoming a dev) and watched them doing it.

Games that are currently available to all format holders would be restricted to the ones Microsoft decides, how can you not see that restricting choice? They have agreed nothing except making one game they don't own to Nintendo, who don't care, for the express purpose of fooling people like you. It wont work on regulators.
What they do with Bethusda IP has been clearly spelt out when they stated 'You don't buy these IP's to put them on competitive platforms', and they will ringfence that to their own platforms despite their insistence that wouldn't happen to the regulators. They have stated as much when talking about Doom and Elder Scrolls - they will not be multi plat games.

Whilst I'm glad in one sentence you see the concerns that this is anti-competitive, you spend the rest of the time trying to defend it or pretending its not.
If Microsoft went into the business of selling apples, would it be OK if they then bought all the orchards in the world so they had control of it all? Of course not, though using your arguments you could say 'well the other business would just have to make new orchards' its a daft argument. So there has to be a limit set on how much of the market they can buy, and that's why regulators are looking - its their job.

I'm not hugely bothered one way or the other, but I certainly don't trust MS for good reason and I'm glad that the authorities trusted with looking at these issues are doing the job. I don't have the relevant information to hand or the experience to decide what's competitive or not, so I couldn't call it one way or the other, but I do believe a deal of this magnitude needs to be properly scrutinized.

@PhileasFragg I agree, but that leads to a new problem. Now that we HAVE nearly every industry locked by a duopoly of unshakable giants, on a planet-wide scale, blocking additional merges to make them even bigger is basically legally enforcing stagnant status quo of permanent economic blocks carved and assigned to each entity like a reborn USSR forever and ever and ever, and halting competition.

As with all things, the ACTUAL solution was to prevent this situation from ever happening 50 years ago, and once it's allowed to happen it becomes nearly impossible to fix it short of imploding it all and starting from scratch. The problem is, who wants to greenlight intentionally creating the Second Great Depression to "fix" half a century of political failure that allowed global corporations that are more powerful than most governments to control all business?

Don't get me wrong, I 100% agree with you in principle. And I agree in principle with this FTC's desire to crack down on consolidation in the economy at large, including tech. In principle. The problem is they don't ACTUALLY have the authority to do anything like that, and selectively doing it on future cases does nothing to fix the underlying problem. What's already there needs to be ripped down, and that can't happen without an unprecidented amount of power handed to government, which would be amazingly dangerous, and few would ever support that to begin with. Selectively striking down a thing here or a thing there is just theater for political brownie points to look like they're "doing something" about problems that are rooted far too deeply for them to be able to "do something" about, and instead is the same-old, of enforcing the status quo and taking the bribe money from whoever lobbies to be the good guy at the moment. That's the sad part. I agree with what FTC says they WANT to accomplish. But any attempt they make to show they're accomplishing it is necessarily a pageant. The real problem is well outside their purview. It's political theater.

Beyond all that, this particular acquisition doesn't even approach creating a trust. They're grasping at straws targeting an easily publicly disliked company because the real trust building they can't touch.

@Would_you_kindly I think MS was planning to have ownership by the time Sony's marketing contract expired, but, in the hypothetical that Activision was never going to be for sale at all, I don't think MS would have tried to outbid Sony for CoD. That's something they easily could have done for the past 10 years, but didn't. I think Sony got the first deal when X1 failed and XB was no longer the default CoD console, and it worked so it just renewed. MS didn't seem to care much until Activision was selling.

This is one of those sleeping giant moments. MS was pretty laid back in terms of dealing with Sony, and coexisting without going out of their way to treat them like a hostile competitor. Once the lawsuit is done and they don't have to pretend to play nice anymore, I think we're going to see MS going after Sony the way Sony went after Sega. If PS6 is $750, XSZ will be $399 and include a free box of puppies. XSZ2 will just be a mid-tower for $3k.

@Titntin Just too vague after reading "Our commitments for ZeniMax". It's all about interpretation + MS can't behave like in the old days. Sony once tried to backstab Nintendo (aka Nintendo PlayStation console) so they are the trusted one? They are big compagnies and need to make money but they can be pro-consumer while doing so.

• Sony's arguments are a bit hypocrite too, no? FTC has a job to do but they need to be careful. Starting with giving solutions/expectations (not how MS needs to make money for Sony). At the end it is about the consumer and not about some competitor who seems to feel/act privileged. I get it to some point. But not by throwing others like EA, Nintendo or even their own devs under the bus in saying that they are not being able to make something like COD.

The whole narrative feels weird when saying MS is anti-competitive & Sony is not. The fact regulators are more listening to Sony's arguments - the leader in the gaming industry (+ after watching the GA doing more than fine 1st & 3rd party EXCLUSIVE) - is a bigger breech than what MS has been showing the last couple of years. Doesn't mean they need to be trusted blindly but the effort is there & regulators can build some legal stuff in so MS doesn't start acting evil after a couple of years.

At the end of the day Sony is not better than MS! Sony keeps a lot of games from MS and that trend is still going! I'm a multi-platform gamer so I like exclusives because I see they are the better (+more funded) games overall. But giving one a free pass for having those exclusives but the other one is evil for trying to get some? That's just wrong imo

The only thing that would make sense in this case:

All ABK games become multi-plat?
All Sony exclusives become multi-plat.

• thinking that blocking the deal is the best solution? Sorry, but that's being naive ...

@Pusher2021 Whos talking about Sony? I haven't mentioned them once, but Sony haven't been going around buying multiplatform publishing houses have they?

All that playground nonsense about ' well they did this..' is absolutely irrelevant and should be reserved for little children.
Sony have not bought a big publisher. Anything else they have done is irrelevant in this context and trying to compare them shows you have no idea of the scale of the conversation here.

If you cant see the difference between a 70 billion pound deal for one of the largest publishing houses, and a few exclusivity deals, then there no point in having a conversation.

@Kaloudz That's normal. Built-in government tort. Basically they can choose to play kangaroo court and declare it a trust, adding 6-12 months to the process. But then it can be appealed into federal court. Then the appeal can be appealed to another federal court, and then THAT appeal can be appealed to supreme court (Which if it went that far would almost guaranteed approve, based on leaning and precident, and if so create a new standard that basically neuters the FTC's authority for a long time.

@themightyant That's not quite how that set of clauses breaks down out of legalese:

107: Incentive to continue making ZeniMax games available (does not say ALL.) This part has not been breached.

108, 109, 110: Highlight low likelihood of profitability via exclusivity strategy dependent upon lost profits from sale on rival platforms vs profits from increased customers on XB (note that this document was from the XBOX ONE period, and Xbox customers have increased considerably since then), however it notably does not say they would not do so, it simply identifies what conditions would make it profitable and contends it to be unlikely. No breach because it is no direct claim, merely a forecast.

111: Contends that even if they DO make games exclusive it would not foreclose rivals because (reduced from legalese to a commonly understood gamer term) Xbox can be a second console while leaving the rival platform as consumer's primary library. This clause contends that due to the possibility of consumers buying an Xbox specifically for Zenimax games only without interfering with other purchases through rivals.

THIS is critical. Because it addresses that if they DO make games exclusive, meaning they did not say that they would not, 110 identifies that many would not due to cost, and 111 identifies that it would not constitute foreclosure on rivals because purchasing an Xbox as a second console to play exclusive Zenimax titles without impacting the existing library on the rival console does not impede the rival ecosystems. As this was approved, this language and argument were accepted. Were it to be challenged, it could easily be proven that the same strategy is employed by both relevant rival platforms (Sony and Nintendo) for their own exclusive titles.

114: "Microsoft would not have the incentive to cease or limit making ZeniMax games available for purchase on rival consoles." It does not state ALL Zenimax titles. It states they would not cease or limit ZeniMax titles on rival consoles. It also does not say ALL rival consoles, it says rival consoles. There are plenty of Zenimax games still for sale on Switch and PlayStation. They did not cease. The majority of current Zenimax games are on PS, one was exclusively on PS until recently. One still is. Only two are not.

115: The EC determined MS would not have incentive to engage in an input foreclosure strategy. Not that they would not make any games exclusive. It is factual that MS has not (to date) engaged in an input foreclosure strategy regarding ZeniMax titles as the majority of ZeniMax titles remain available on rival platforms.

If this is the linchpin of what FTC is filing, this is the weakest possible grounds disproved with a hand wave. This is either a willful show of politics (in the US even the mail delivery is subject to shows of politics), an attempt to stall proceedings (money/favors traded?), or a bold display of incompetence (expected for bureaucrats.)

MS will not be pleased at the lost money and the sabotage of their product strategy. But boy are they going to have fun using this opportunity to drag their competitors skeletons out of the dark shadows with a giant media megaphone to do it. This argument wouldn't survive the first appeal. I'm stunned they would grasp at such thin straws as that. In government-ese this says "we could find nothing, but wanted to either stall this or look like we're making good on political promises, so we'll file something." But this will reverberate beyond video games. This will set some interesting, probably bad, things in motion in broader business.

There's really no basis to call this particular acquisition trust-building. DOES MS have a trust? Probably. Less so than the other tech giants but there's a fair argument that Office or Windows constitutes a trust creation. But the ABK acquisition is unrelated to their trust activities. There's no real solid argument to make that there is one. But of all the doomed legal claims they could make....THIS is the one they picked?! There's doomed, and then there's frivolous. They chose the latter.

@Titntin 70B is the biggest deal in gaming history. Well, Sony seems to be a big part of it, clearly. They made it so & they are part of the conversation. MS is trying to compete and has the money to invest in publishers. If Sony could, they would've done the same? Something never been done before = so it can't exist? If Sony would've bought a publisher before it would be fine? That is irrelevant and not how the world works! You live too much in the past. There is no reverse card for companies like MS, Apple, FB/Meta, Amazon, ...

@Titntin Firstly, I could probably spend all day debating this with you. I fully understand the scrutiny behind this deal and governments questioning. I’m not a fool because I’ve read one part of a headline as an end all be all. I could debate the entirety of this deal being 100% bad for game’s industry as well if I wanted too. I have the capacity to see both sides. But I’m not going to type a dissertation on this in the comments of an article.
I defended one side because at heart I believe it’s great for gamers because I think the competitive landscape improves. Sure, I will concede that over the next few years that xbox would likely begin to capture more market power and eventually be number 1. BUT, that wouldn’t happen overnight. AND, why is it BAD if Xbox becomes number 1 in gaming? Buying Activision/Blizzard won’t launch them into a stratosphere vastly above everyone. There’s too many studios and publishers out there today. Where this could become bad is where you’ve stated, Xbox withholds IP.
Restricting IP is 100% a possibility. But so far with regards to XBOX related acquisitions (not all Microsoft related acquisitions), they have not yet removed ANY EXISTING IP from other platforms that I’m aware of. It is entirely possible that in the future they withhold popular games, but I choose to believe that it wouldn’t be in their best interest to remove those due to the major hit they would take. The cost of switching is too high at the moment for those that prefer one platform to another. And the availability of high end consoles is bare, but getting better. Also, I don’t have a law degree, but I’m pretty sure the FTC could still sue them post acquisition for anti-competitive behaviors such as restricting consumers choice. If Xbox became the overwhelming favorite, they would likely open a case against them.
I just worry that many (not saying you) are missing the point of what happens if this doesn’t go through now. That’s a much scarier scenario in my opinion, because if everyone thinks this is anti-competitive; what’s it going to be when they throw those billions at studios and companies for rights to whatever they want.

So, the issue is that they deceived the EU, not that the purchase violates anti-trust? Lol, k...

@themightyant Guess they found a way to "achieve X results". They didn't breech anything. EU and FTC were just morons for not seeing the obvious door left open in that statement.

It’s wild how much they’re focusing on CoD when Microsoft biggest gain is candy crush…

@Kaloudz It's just one of those procedure things. It's kind of ridiculous there IS a special arbitration court at the FTC. It defeats the entire point of the process. But it's there as a formality. It pretty much always goes to first appeal (federal court) regardless. There's likely some administrative aspect to it as well regarding time and costs, as once it goes to federal court, it's an actual suit they have to go through full legal procedure for themselves and present a full case to a judge.

Not seeking the prelim is also kind of boilerplate. They could go through the motions to stop any further proceedings on the merge until the court verdict, but then companies usually don't continue with the merge until verdict anyway because then they'd have to UNDO everything they've done which is harder (or impossible) vs just waiting. And internally they didn't have a unanimous vote against. And a court would have to approve the prelim which would then see them arguing among themselves in court.

Using the bethesda thing as as the principal argument is....I don't know if it's incompetence or tortious. The actual statements to the EU Re Zenimax are not in breach as written. I'm not sure if they're reading things between lines that the written statements do not say, or if they're reading summaries prepared for them by the Sony complaint and just running with it. But the actual document mightyant linked to is pretty concise. The arguments were about the unlikely profitability an exclusivity strategy, but expressed the huge caveat that even if they did go exclusive, because people could buy an Xbox and keep their existing competing console and library, it would not represent a foreclosure strategy. And EU said they concur. And to date MS has not witheld MOST Zenimax games. Somehow FTC says this is a breach, while it is very demonstrably not.

(The mentioned foreclosure strategy means basically shutting a company out of the market by forcing consumers to have to chose one product over another by withholding vital capability under your control from their product for the purpose of damaging them. Microsoft's argument here is that since consumers that do not own an xbox can ALSO buy an xbox with no impact to the rival platform owned, MS is unable to execute a foreclosure strategy on competitors by withholding games.

A more real world foreclosure strategy would be when Amazon purchased the only companies that make warehouse automation robotics specifically to control who can buy them and thus prevent competitors from having access to the same warehouse efficiency they could enjoy, purely by having the money to buy it out and control the ownership of the technology. There was no choice, competitors simply lost access to automation because Amazon paid enough to take it away from the industry, and thus the competitors could no longer remain competitive, collapsing them. Yet FTC did not block that. Current commissioners would point and say "the republicans did that!" But that's the problem we don't have policies or even a cultural guideline, we have this weird dipole ideological schism, and "policy" is based on which sect controls the group for the year, one extreme or the other.

@bjs5667 Well thanks for politely inviting me to debate further, but im getting tired of these articles and its clear that most people only see what they want to see, so Im doing my best to refrain!
I will just point out though, as the regulators already have, before the zenimax buyout, both redfall and starfield were already in development for ps. As soon as the buyout concluded microsoft pulled those sku's, so the whole 'it hasnt affected any zenimax titles yet' line is a demonstrably false narritive.
Have a great day!

@themightyant Still means nothing to the legality of the case. FTC is being petty. None of this creates a monopoly. "Intentions" don't mean crap this isn't a murder trial.

@FraserG No worries! I hope everyone on the staff recovers soon!

@Trmn8r So the FTC is actually trying to use this case to expand their own powers. Judging by what they are citing which isn’t the normal law/ACT used but a different provision. It really isn’t about MS/Video Games/Sony or anything else. They aren’t going to want concessions either.

They want to expand what powers they have and they are hoping MS drops the case. Which would kind of defacto give them the authority. The only choice I think MS has is go to court and whether they want to or not is the question.

@mousieone I completely agree. FTC and EU are flexing hard in this one. They are making this about them and not about the legality of the purchase.

@themightyant LOL

I get your point, but, I don't think they "fooled" anyone with Zenimax. Yes, it's slippery, it's legal documents it's always slippery. But that original claim included, to trim the legal fat, "if we make things exclusive you can buy two consoles, so problem solved." And considering that's industry standard among competitors, it's a strong argument. Even if it's not "consumer friendly" the FTC's mandate isn't about what's consumer friendly, it's about what's a trust violation.

And they also released as someone else mentioned a public statement about exactly what to expect regarding Zenimax titles, particularly around existing multiplatform IP vs new IP. Which is a reasonable outline, that so far, they have not deviated from (they haven't actually had any OPPORTUNITY to deviate from it, but that's beside the point, since the courts can't go on what MIGHT happen )

There was surprisingly not a lot of slipperiness in any of this, just people reading what they want to read, both fans, and regulators. It doesn't help that the regulators knowledge of video games probably doesn't extend beyond Candy Crush, so they have no working knowledge of industry norms, good and bad, or really what the business model between the competitors even is, yet read dramatic claims by each with no understanding what it really means.

But there's no question, that particular line of argument doesn't stand 10 minutes in the first federal appeal. There's not an argument there. They could have chosen Game Pass, future cloud services, CoD even. But they chose this. Even if MS were to withold Spyro and Diablo, it would far from break competitors. Only CoD could even be in that conversation. And they already committed to contracts preventing that. Just a weird thing all around. And if it goes to real arguments in that direction....then they get to talk about FF7, CoD extra modes, etc.

@Trmn8r yeah but I think the EC is willing to take concessions and even the CMA. They just want larger ones than MS has offered like COD on PS+ or something. The FTC wants blood in the water to send a message.

Of course Ms has a fantastic case against a republic Supreme Court so ..

@mousieone The current supreme court should actually prove better for Microsoft. But, I don't think it'll even need to go near that far. This should likely be settled in a lesser court.

@Trmn8r you’d think but Lina Khan wants to change her own powers. So if the court rules in MSs favor. They as in the FTC can over til that decision. Then it goes to federal courts.

Also there is a case in the supreme court to change how this process works. In which case that might get MS another boon in court.

Really this is Lina Khan using tax payer money to bring up these lawsuits. I really hope she gets ousted soon. And I’m not republican by a long shot. But using tax payer money to try to extend your own powers and a position that said tax payers have very little control over? Yeah no.

@Moby The FTC blocking has no solid grounds and is largely conjecture. "The purchase may allow Microsoft to lure customers away from other consoles towards Xbox." WTF? Yee...eesss..? LOL

They might as well block on the grounds that, "We suspect Microsoft wants to make more money."

Next it will be, "We fear Microsoft may embed virus software in the Call Of Duty software released on competing platforms." 🙄

The FTC regulators blocked the deal to make a name for themselves in government. The courts have to behave much more rationally.

Well there’s more to the story:

In an unexpected turn of events, the EU dissents with the FTC's main and misleading argument to block the merger.

EU: "Microsoft didn't make any commitments to EU regulators not to release Xbox-exclusive content following its takeover of ZeniMax Media".

Xbox didn’t lie to EU regulators and the FTC are taking MS to court with no basis 🤣

@Blessed_Koz why are you so angry at Sony??? Microsoft have clearly. Decided they can’t make Xbox compete with Playstation as is. Playstation devs make far better games so Microsoft have tried to take a new approach an simply fling their cash about and buy ip huge, already established devs. Competition is good for the industry. If Microsoft crushed Playstation as you say this would be bad for Xbox. They could release any old ***** an people would have to make do.

@themightyant The details of proceedings are different from UK law, but they're much more the same than they are different, and the larger differences are more for criminal court proceedings than civil or business law. I haven't seen a full text copy of the filing, so we have only the media excerpts to go on for now, so it depends on exactly what the complaint is stated to be in the filing as to how broad questioning can get. I assume the filing is as vague as "will acquire independent publisher and use content to harm competitors" in some vague form or another. Which could allow for broad questioning, however, they are the ones that will be presenting the case, and it is the same reasoning echoed by the opinion in ruling by the commissioners and the "competition" department in defense of the claim that MS has demonstrated that they can and will hold content from competitors to damage them. Seemingly unaware that that is the standard practice in the industry not at all unique to MS or this aquisition. The implication to me is they were much more interested in "stop Microsoft from getting bigger" than they were in actually researching the actual acquisition and how that business actually operates. Their actions seem to be finding square pegs to whittle to fit a round hole of "Microsoft is too powerful" instead of actually looking at the Xbox division and the workings of this specific merger. And that's core to how it has no chance to stand up in court. Their arguments to not fit the actual topic, but are a wider rebuke on a "big tech" company's other operations. If this were about Microsoft buying an OS vendor or major productivity suite vendor, the arguments would fit.

It's worth mentioning that while I do personally agree with the overall stance to crack down on mergers, the FTC itself has no real authority to do so, this case doesn't fit the framework for what is causing a problem, and Congress would need to be involved to so something major about that. As it happens, Congress does have a bill floating for tightening anti-trust. And that bill is all but guaranteed to fail. The actual elected bodies seem to have no politically motivated interest in doing something about trusts (because even though they HAVE irreparably harmed the marketplace, fixing it would cause accute economic pain and large scale economic losses to other countries as we dismantle our own monopolies, so it's politcally unfavorable even if it's a wishful desire.) FTC is taking notes from the executive (presidential administration that appoints them and party guidelines) to basically run roughshod without real legislative backing and going solo on this....which has mostly led to repeated failures because they can roar but have no teeth.

Ultimately in the courts, the only question that matters is: "Does this merger create a trust/monopoly that will be used to irreparably harm competitors in a way they are inhibited from competing against due to the completion of the merger." If the chief argument is Bethesda, the argument lasts minutes. If they do go broader, they can drag it out for a while, but there's not realistically, but the time all the appeals are done, any grounds to answer that question in the affirmative. There are many other publishers, multiple other platforms, including one open market platform MS also competes in, and moving ABK's other than COD of which terms were already offered, has no direct impact on competitors ability to competitively respond. Harming a competitor through competing against them including acquisitions is not the same as creating an noncompetitive marketplace. That's why these mergers rarely ever get shot down in courts. The answer to that question is almost never "yes" as an absolute, unless it is literally down to 2 or 3 total competitors in a market where special concessions are required (Sirius & XM Satellite, AT&T & Sprint, etc.) No matter the arguments presented, at the end of the day, if the courts look into the games industry, they're not going to find that Activision even 100% tied to MS, prevents Nintendo, Amazon, and Sony from operating as competitors with a dozen other major independent publishers. Throw in that Activision was up for sale likely to some other major conglomerate, possibly a foreign, or hostile foreign one, regardless, also will influence the decision. Activision was not going to remain an independent public company under any scenario, their board had chosen to sell.

One major point of US law I believe vs UK is our basis in "case law" - judgements are passed both based on the written letter of the law, and prior precedent of how rulings on the same topic have been made in the past. A sort of "judicial tradition" system. I.E., if there is a law about walking while chewing gum stated in writing, and a defendant is on trial for jogging while chewing gum, the judgement is expected to use prior historical judgements about running while chewing gum, using a bicycle while chewing gum, or even playing CoD while chewing gum as an extension of the written law to decide if jogging while chewing gum is indeed a violation based on past judicial opinion and interpretation. The idea is that the interpretation of law adapts to social norms, buffered by time. To deviate from established case law is itself an impeachable offense which in its own trial could result in disrobing or disbarring a judge. So case law is the law, and to deviate in opinion from it is itself a risk. So in case law, other similar mergers of similar companies in the same industry, etc will be compared in terms of how rulings were made. What other games company mergers or publisher mergers, including book, movie, and music publisher mergers have been blocked? Few that I'm aware of. Even Disney acquired Fox and Lucas among others recently, without complaint. I know Random House and I think Simon & Schuster (book publishers, though S&S were at one point video game publishers as well, the original publishers of Myst if I recall) were blocked from merging at one point, so that could be a relevant case. However I don't believe the specifics of why that was blocked are applicable to this case, but I'm sure it will be reviewed, etc.

There remains very little legal grounds to block it. Buying Apple, Google, a major Linux distribution, Android, Google Docs, etc? Sure there would be some basis for that. Activision? Not really.

@mousieone Yeah that's the thing. FTC wants examples and political cache. The courts, if it ends up appealed all the way to scotus (it won't), they're trying to argue monopoly power in an industry with 3 competitors that make up less than 30% of the industry market with dozens of publisher/producers in their marketplace against a court that just decided it was strong enough to dive face-first into abortion of all things..... good luck with that case, FTC. Each commissioner and Jim Ryan might at least get a 3 year subscription to both Office 365 and Xbox Game Pass Premium as a consolation prize if they ask nicely. Not a bad deal really.

Mark my words, Lina will be running for elected office sooner or later. She's setting up a campaign through her term at FTC.

@theduckofdeath agreed.

@theduckofdeath FTC didn't block anything, they have no power to do so, only the courts can. All they can do is kick the can and attempt to convince judges to block. (This is different from EU/UK where the agencies block it themselves, but the courts can overturn it.) But boy, can they make a political show of it!

@Fenbops @themightyant Oof....well, there we are....did I say that argument will last minutes? I missspoke. It's disproved before the suit is even publicly filed. Who needs Comedy Central when you have CSPAN?

@NEStalgia The issue with the American legal system is that’s it’s lengthy and costly. Most give up. I hope MS doesn’t because I don’t want the FTC’s power expanded just cause they want more power. But eh it’s up to MS and the number crunchers now.

And maybe but her bid for office is goi g to died over this I’m sure. She won’t even know why.

I don't know what drugs the regulators are on....

Crash Team Rumble coming to many platforms
Diablo IV coming to many platforms
CoD on many platforms for at least three years

MS is going to shut out Activision-Blizzard games how? The facts do not line up with the complaint.

@Blessed_Koz Them breaking the contracts for Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo would have made them look pretty bad. It could very well have hurt them even worse than them backtracking on what they initially said about Bethesda games, and we all know how important them buying Activision is to them. It's actually coming off as more important than games, their fanbase, and even just the brand itself.

I'm getting off track here though, so I will just end it by saying those were the last two Bethesda games they had a contract with Sony for. Any games moving forward will be exclusive to Game Pass, I mean Xbox if they choose to do so (and it seems like they will for the most part).

@bjs5667 I'm no expert either, but I would imagine it would have at least hurt them now with the whole Activision buyout. Them going back on what they initially said about Bethesda games seems to be something the FTC has really latched on to, so them doing that would have given them even more ammunition.

Still, focusing just on Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo, they did the right thing. Their pro-consumer image that they had prior to these buyouts and fumbling of their own first party catalog would have been pretty tarnished, and that was basically all they had to work with other than the tremendous value of Game Pass. This isn't me dissing Xbox. It's just a fact at least until 2023, and I have a Series X.

@NeoRatt Those games don't apply aside from CoD. Technically Microsoft doesn't own Activision yet, so if the deal would go through before release (I don't see how at this rate), they could pull the plug on all other releases of the games. I'm not saying they will, but it could happen in theory.

As for Call of Duty, as long as Sony agrees to the 10 year agreement, then that stays. Who's to say Microsoft will extend the offer after those 10 years though? Again, just theoretical.

Personally I'm not on one side or the other. I could care less as Activision has one active franchise I care about off the top of my head, and that's Diablo.

@mousieone most give up because if costs. Ms has the cash, and the incentive to defend their future expansions sooner than later. They'll keep at it even if they just shut down abk when they get it because tomorrow it could be Symantec they buy.

And yeah... She took on the wrong example on this one without understanding the case. That political career is shot now!

@KilloWertz
There is no ship date for Crash and Diablo is coming out just as the deal is supposed to close.

If MS were to exclusive CoD after 10 years, Sony has 10 years to make a better shooter. They own Bungie. If anyone could make a better CoD game it is Bungie. So is Bungie allowed to take Destiny exclusive but, MS can't take CoD exclusive?

I don't really care either way neither, but I think the scrutiny here on MS is unfair. There was no blinking when Sony took over a bunch of independent studios this year. MS is playing catchup and what better way to catchup then to buy Activision-Blizzard?

@NeoRatt Once again, those games don't apply. No ship date for Crash means it could very well end up being exclusive if Microsoft decides to make it so. That actually hurts your argument that it comes out after the deal may be official, as it leaves the possibility that Microsoft could change their mind when they actually take over. I'm not saying they will, but just because certain games are currently multiplatform does not mean they have to stay that way if Microsoft decides to change things once they finally get in the driver's seat after the deal is made official (if it does become official).

Better doesn't always mean more successful. Killzone and Resistance, especially new versions, could very well be better. It doesn't mean they'll sell anywhere near as many copies on PS5 or PS6 as CoD since it's quite possibly the most popular franchise in gaming right now.

Small indie studios at the time, especially in comparison to Activision, are a lot different than one of (if not) the largest publishers in the world. Some of the franchises they have are enjoyed by millions and millions of people, while Insomniac as an example released games that would have sold far less at the time. That means it effects far less people that buying a mega company like Activision and making those games exclusive. Also, Destiny isn't exclusive to PlayStation. It's still multiplatform, which they said when the deal was announced.

It's not like Sony bought that many studios, so if Xbox is playing catchup, it's because they epically failed on the first party front with the studios they already had aside from a few games. It's not like Xbox just had a few studios at the time.

And the saga continues:

The FTC claimed Microsoft misled the European Commission, but the EU says that the FTC’s complaint is wrong. The EU apparently never asked Microsoft to guarantee ZeniMax games be available on non-Microsoft platforms. Oops.

https://twitter.com/tomwarren/status/1601298430747631618

@KilloWertz
I disagree. The games have been announced as PS games, so they will ship on PS. MS has always been clear and consistent on that with all their acquisitions. Obsidian shipped Outer Worlds a year after they were acquired, inXile shipped Wasteland 3, 2 years after they were acquired, ZeniMax shipped both Deathloop and Ghostwire as exclusives after they were acquired. MS does not go back on any contract in place at acquisition time.

As for Killzone being better then CoD. No not really. Better is subjective and takes into account everything. Game mechanics, sound, environment, graphics quality, atmosphere, pacing, etc. Killzone looked beautiful and was mechanically sound, but its pacing was boring as hell, the sound was dull, the environments were drab. That is what makes CoD so good is they do almost everything right. Lots of gamers say CoD is just a knock off of last year's game every year, and that is true, but the formula appeals to gamers and keeps selling insanely each year because they for the most part get it right every year. (Although I think 2021's Vanguard was one of the worst entries in the franchise).

I disagree with the comparison of buying independents over a publisher. Destiny is probably second to CoD as a shooter. If Sony takes that exclusive, don't say that won't hurt XB. Bungie is a beloved XB developer even after they left MS. There are a lot of hard core Bungie fans amongst gamers.

@JayJ I've said it to PlayStation fans many times as they forget that Sony bought UK Publisher Psygnosis for the same purpose as Microsoft is now buying Activision Blizzard & how there same tactics of 3rd party exclusive deals killed Sega's console business but ignorance is bliss.

@NeoRatt I'm not saying they won't ship them on PlayStation. I'm just saying it's possible, even if it is slim. Just because Activision made them multiplatform doesn't mean the new owner has to abide. Diablo 4 will likely be out before then, but regardless, it hypothetically could happen if a game was set to come out after the acquisition was finalized. Again, I do believe it's a slim chance, but they could argue that there's a chance regardless. Personally, I think those will stay multiplatform, but I'm not arguing their case.

It's all subjective. CoD is crap in plenty of people's minds, mine included. The campaigns are good, but the multiplayer hasn't been for a long time. That obviously hasn't stopped them from being so popular, and that is why it would be horrible for any competitor to lose the series at any point in the future. It's also why just saying that they could make a better shooter isn't a real solution as I say good luck to anybody making an FPS on console that can ever approach their level of popularity since CoD has reached the point where it's so mainstream with the general public that they would buy it if it was Captain Price wiping his butt in the middle of a field. Killzone and Resistance are just examples I used given that they are the only established options Sony use unless they created some completely new FPS IP.

Once again, Destiny is still multiplatform. It will not be exclusive to PlayStation. They've already said that when the acquisition was announced. Sure, they could change their mind years down the road, but so could Microsoft. You also completely ignored everything besides the largest developer they bought, which was solely to help them launch their live service game initiative, not to make exclusives. Everybody else they have bought have been small developers that at the time probably only made one game at a time, not a group of large developers that make several games. Some of those being some of the biggest games in the industry.

@cragis0001 Glad at least someone isn't a sucker for their revisionist history, those of us who lived through that era and were aware of what was going down remember.

@JayJ aye before Microsoft acquired Bethesda & CEO Satya Nadella commited to long term support of Xbox. it could have been a case of history repeating itself. But I think Sony pushed Microsoft's hand when they went after Bethesda timed exclusives Deathloop, Ghostwire & rumoured Starfield as that would be like Microsoft going after a timed exclusive Final Fantasy off of SquareEnix.

@Arthur_Morgan the past value is little consequence. People bring up Sega as it shows the length Sony would go to dominate just like Amazon, Apple, Google & at one time also Microsoft.

@cragis0001 I am not sure you understood my point. Yes, Sony would love to obliterate the market in the same way as Amazon, Apple, Google and MS. All big tech investment is based on investing money into the firm you believe to have the best chance of market dominance. It's the job of marketing and PR teams to "control the message". The sega debacle has had zero effect on Sony's raising to where they are today. Being emotionally charged by big market decisions is a waste of time. There are no good guys or bad guys. They are all competing in the same space for the same thing "dominance". Huge profit making corporations are not our friends. You as the consumer vote with your wallet. Jim Ryan doesn't lose a single moment of sleep that someone maybe unhappy with his statement if that statement has its desired effect. It's that simple.

@Arthur_Morgan I think I understand fully lol but could be wrong 😜. As for the Sega debacle, it definitely did have an effect on how Sony raised to where they are today. I don't loose any sleep either if Jim Ryan isn't happy either as it's just business & I take what I'm given just a bit surprised that the regulators to be fair.

now Sony can buy Activision without any problems and continue console exclusive COD contents...