
The latest update on the Activision Blizzard deal has arrived this Wednesday courtesy of a report from Bloomberg, along with some comments from Microsoft President Brad Smith at the Microsoft Annual Shareholders Meeting 2022.
According to the report, Microsoft offered to sign a legally binding consent decree to make Call of Duty available to rivals for 10 years, but the Federal Trade Commission "shrugged off" the proposal. This supposedly took place prior to the FTC announcing its intention to file a suit against the acquisition.
Microsoft's Brad Smith revealed that he was "disappointed" about this at the Shareholders Meeting this week, stating that "the FTC didn’t give us the opportunity to even sit down with the staff to even talk about our proposal".
Here's the full quote:
"The thing that probably disappoints me is not that we will have to present this case to a judge in a court because this is a case in which I have great confidence..."
"I’m disappointed that the FTC didn’t give us the opportunity to even sit down with the staff to even talk about our proposal to even see if there was a solution there."
Even if the FTC isn't interested in the 10-year offer for Call of Duty across various platforms, Microsoft has already confirmed that it has entered into a "commitment" to bring the franchise to Nintendo and Steam over the next decade.
Sony has yet to respond, however, even despite a report suggesting that Microsoft might be willing to offer Call of Duty on PlayStation Plus after the acquisition goes through.
Any thoughts on this? Let us know down in the comments section below.
Comments 64
Still no official mention of that ps plus offer
This will eventually go through but will probably be 2024 or later now. I don't think it'll happen next year.
I'm not sure about the FTC, but it just occurred to me Sony might actually not want this CoD 10-year-offer because it would mean putting the games on a competitor's platform, the Nintendo Switch, where currently they aren't available. In other words, Sony might believe they can compete well enough against Xbox with CoD but not the Switch (or its sucessor) with CoD.
@Chaudy One has to wonder if that means yet another year of MS trying to downplay its plans and anything that'd make them look successful or powerful.
One of the weirder aspects of this situation has been watching both Xbox and Playstation go to great lengths to insist that they're the weaker party.
After Microsoft wins this court case, I hope they take COD of PlayStation out of spite for rejecting all the offers Xbox has put on the table.
Classic example of American politics. The group made a self serving decision the second the deal was announced and has since looked to find a reasoning for the conclusion they had already come to. They refuse to budge even when they have the weakest possible argument. Claiming Nintendo is not a serious player in the console market is a peak level of ignorance only seen in the political space.
@101Force Nah this ain't got nothing to do with Nintendo. This is definitely about Xbox and CoD.
Hang on it East Enders time again or for our fellow American gamers and episode of Friends 😂
@Rafie : I edited my post to be a bit more clear, but it was the CoD 10-year-offer I was referring to. If it was just a matter of Xbox and CoD you'd think that offer would be considered a fair deal, but that offer is made to "various platforms" which actually isn't what Sony is competing with now and could very well be what they've got a problem with.
pretty sure its more than just CoD regulators looking at.
the MS best pay pay its PR teams a good bonus.
@GhanaViking
people so naive. its Sony job to oppose it.
if it was Sony trying to buy ABK, you think MS would wave the deal through?
MS wont take it from Sony, too much $$
It's getting rediculous. At this point I just feel like one-upping that nonsense. Let's see ... Ah, yes, cancel the deal, buy Sony stocks instead ... !
It’s a Fair Trade Commission, not a Let’s Talk it Out Privately and Let a Corporation do Sly Deals Under The Table Commission.
Rather obviously, the FTC would shrug off assurances and promises by Microsoft at this stage. Microsoft (and their non-profitable arm Xbox), is trying to assure companies like Sony and Nintendo, and even Value, regarding an IP they don’t yet own.
Just let the commissions do their job, then blab about what you’re going to do. And unless asked, shut the F up about your “plans”, “wishes” and whatever else.
I’m sick to the back teeth of hearing this nonsense. If it’s due to have its day in court, let that be the platform for which you state your case. Otherwise every company involved looks incredibly naive to the industry they’re in.
They plead on like it’s a human rights case, it’s literally a case of which mainly rich slightly overweight white men get to become richer. That’s it. It’s not for me the customer, it’s not for the good of the industry. It’s just so tiring.
This is what happens when you nominate an unqualified, biased progressive to the FTC. The head of the FTC was just a professor before becoming nominated and always had it out for big tech as evidenced by her thesis. I am actually surprised she was confirmed by the Senate. Her agenda is not to look at real monopolies that harm consumers but to make a wave/statement in challenging vertical mergers and tech companies in general. In fact what she is doing is anti-consumer. Her far, far left views of the world have blinded her ability to offer a rational judgement. She has no knowledge of the gaming world or the real world for that matter. There can be no fairness when politically motivated. Think about this for a second. MS has agreed to let the studios unionize (along with Zenimax), they are removing the head of Activision that has created the ultimate toxic culture and have agreed to keep COD on all platforms with ridiculous 10 year deals. And this is a vertical merger! It is her way (meaning I hate big tech) or we sue you. I think MS has a strong case. The question is do they want this to drag on for a few more years.
Great now how about u get to releasing 1 game from your own teams
What if the deal doesn’t go through?
Xbox might buy EA and pull all sports games from Sony’s platform out of spite. Or even Take Two for GTA, Capcom for RE or Street Fighter, or Square Enix for Final Fantasy…
And Activision Blizzard might not close any deal with Sony afterwards out of spite since they will probably lose a lot of value on the stock market.
Btw… microsoft and AB game publishing revenue combined doesn’t even reach Sony’s revenue. Seriously… what is Sony smoking….? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_publisher
Bureaucracy at its finest... An unquenchable thirst for power and control.
@Friendly Sony is being business smart and playing dirty politics. Disingenuous, unethical, and hypocritical? Most definitely. But it is good for their business to act this way sadly. What is the FTC smoking is the problem. They are enabling this bad behavior of Sony by kowtowing to them. Such a useless group on unelected officials...
@Trmn8r they probably all have a playstation at home, or received one recently.
@TheElectroFunky Activision/Blizzard games on Game Pass would sure be good for my consuming. But yes, trot out the usual identity tropes for your weak argument defending the FTC.
@Trmn8r Good Lord, you’re going to attack a fellow Xbox user just because my comments about rich white men who struggle with their waistline got you personally somehow?
If you want to carry on defending a multibillion dollar enterprise, that won’t attend your funeral, by all means go ahead.
Oh, and it’s not a trope to refer to Phil Spencer as overweight, wealthy and white.
Because, he’s overweight, wealthy and white. And he likely thinks more of his next meal than he does of you, his loyal consumerist.
@Friendly "Btw… microsoft and AB combined doesn’t even reach Sony’s revenue"
You can't be serious? Microsofts revenue dwarfs sonys....
Unless its just the gaming sector only then sony are infront yes but once Microsoft buy Activision they will be neck and neck.
@Friendly : If the deal doesn't go through I think Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, and (to a lesser degree) Tencent will refrain from large studio acquisitions and focus on acquiring smaller studios with only one or two games that have franchise potential, in addition to IPs that haven't been adapted for video games at all yet. Microsoft will also probably criticize Sony's exclusivity deals, which under certain circumstances could breach FTC regulations, in a formal capacity as well.
@Savage_Joe : Two years ago people would have said the same thing about the (excellent) game Control, but here we are.
@UltimateOtaku91 : I think you'd have a hard time arguing Microsoft's enterprise and IT services are relevant in comparing Xbox to PlayStation, the issue is really only in the competition between their gaming divisions.
@TheElectroFunky Lol Phil is not fat! Maybe try actually googling for 2 seconds before saying dumb things. And why do any of those 4 descriptors have any application to (or reason to be brought into) this situation? Because you are bought into identity politics instead of addressing the actual issue. Oh man is it a boring trope... Come up with something new in the class warfare battle please.
@UltimateOtaku91 He should've said Xbox, not Microsoft yes. He is 100% correct when it comes to Xbox gaming market share. And if this is about fair trade in the gaming market, that's what should be focused on. Google Stadia wasn't a threat to the gaming market even though Google is much larger than Nintendo and Sony. And you are proving the point of this being a non-issue if it brings parity with the competition (Sony will still have majority but it'll be competitive at least).
@101Force I agree, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the FTC power grabs this and cancels the deal, then Microsoft has every right to push against Sony's exclusionary business practices and the FTC should shut that down as well.
@101Force You speak a lot of sense, like what you wrote! Also thanks for mentioning Control, I still need to play that! 😂
@UltimateOtaku91 it’s game publishing revenue, indeed.
I also didn’t take Sony’s hardware sales other than the PS5 into account.
@Trmn8r I totally agree with the gaming market being even if this goes through, maybe FTC are looking at more than that though? Maybe they are looking at Sony and Microsoft as a whole in this deal and believe Microsofts deep pockets are a concern compared to the competition. Also thought Microsoft would be way closer to Sony now in the gaming market with the Bethesda acquisition or maybe we're not seeing that yet as they didn't release much in 2021.
@UltimateOtaku91 sony has incredibly deep pockets too. ~90.000 billion (total, complete company) vs microsofts ~160.000 billion. Compare that to Nintendo’s ~15.000 billion and by FTC’s logic both Sony and Microsoft shouldn’t be allowed to even buy a hotdog-stand in front of their main headquarters anymore.
@Friendly where you getting those figures from? I know sony is worth 100 billion compared to Microsofts 1.8 trillion, there's a huge difference in wealth compared to those figures you mentioned, if sony had 90 billion free to spend I'm pretty certain they would.
https://www.thetealmango.com/featured/richest-companies-in-the-world/
I guess we should change the meaning of FTC to Failure To Comprehend....
@UltimateOtaku91 Total net worth comparisons aren't really useful though. Sure MS may be worth 1.8 trillions but that's not liquidity, and it's not like they can liquidate massive assets like datacenters for spending cash. Sony on the other hand has their factories and some real estate, but a lot of their assets are either liquid or securitized in their financial business. No question MS and big tech are the wealthier companies, but those raw valuations never take into account how much of that is tied up in vital assets.
Zenimax games wouldn't move that needle in sales. The first party game sales make up the tiniest fraction of either company's revenues. It's the 3rd party game sales, services, and digital content that make up the bottom line. The only reason the Activision purchase would even get them close is based primarily on CoD all-platform sales and largely King's revenue on mobile. Which highlights how ridiculous the idea of CoD exclusivity would have been unless it was a huge gambit expected to massively shift market to Xb.
Even from Activision's own financials, even with CoD, King is really the big money maker when you subtract CoD opex.
And it also puts further into perspective that in order to even get close to Sony's nearly-all-console-based gaming revenue, MS's ABK based catch-up game comes up substantially from the foray into mobile, not console. That's how far ahead in console revenue Sony is. While they run around to the governments of the world pretending to be helpless and one bandicoot away from bankruptcy. Tencent OTOH builds their fortunes from mobile. And the CCP, but that's another story.
@cburg I forget which news publication I read that cited her as "the young legal prodigy". Prodigy? She has a string of failed frivolous lawsuits behind her and this particular case is the weakest possible standing. If that's a legal prodigy, I'd hate to see what a failure is. Save the "prodigy" talk for if she were actually successful in dismantling big tech through her clever lawsuits. Kicking the can so the case fails in court rather than approving it herself it doesn't count as par excellence.
@EvenStephen7 So true. Since the case started it's been:
Sony: PS Plus sucks, Game Pass is awesome!
MS: Xbox doesn't sell, everyone buys a PlayStation!
Nintendo: Yes, yes!
@Friendly MS is a 2trillion dollar company, around 15x the size of Sony.
@Trmn8r #27 so how is MS using 69bil, from outside Xbox dept fair in the gaming market
The FTC are being clowns. Time for them to lose another lawsuit and get some new people running the show.
@stvevan Same argument could have been made about Sony when they entered the console market. Compared to rivals they were an absolute giant in the electronics industry, and used their big money to buy their way into the industry with big deals and acquisitions. Heck it got so bad that they effectively eliminated one of their biggest competitors (Sega) who couldn't compete with the vast resources that Sony had over them. Heck Nintendo would have probably gone bust with the Gamecube if it wasn't for their handheld market propping them up and the later success of the Wii.
It's funny how nobody cared about Sega or Nintendo back when Sony was dominating with their money, but now that Sony is under threat from an even bigger company, suddenly their strategy that made them a success becomes a bad thing that must be stopped.
Let's ignore the numbers for a moment and consider what this means for the FTC's case. The FTC want to present a case of that big, mean Microsoft is planning to screw the entire industry by hoarding game after game after game to ensure that everyone buys Windows, buys XBOX and buys... Oh wait, Do they still do Windows Mobile?
Where was I? Oh yes, A consumer buys only Microsoft products on Microsoft-backed systems and Microsoft uses its considerable PC market share and unparalleled buying power to shut down Sony (and Tencent) and be a monopoly on the gaming market.
Deals like the one they rejected don't fit that storyline. Microsoft are openly negotiating to make a deal that would offer more people the games they want to play on the system they want to play. Microsoft are on good terms with Nintendo and Valve...
I could see the FTC, or a Sony handler, putting forward the 'kind' offer to end the lawsuit entirely of Microsoft making a reduced bid for Blizzard and King, with Sony itself being allowed to make a bid on the Activision portion.
There we are, everyone's happy, Sony's bigger, Microsoft's bigger, and that poison clause in the Sony contract with Activision doesn't need to get brought up in court.
So what if it means Microsoft may well lose Call of Duty entirely? They managed to negotiate a way for the merger to go ahead that is going to avoid that nasty monopoly Sony told them about.
JayJ wrote:
There’s some truth in this but people always vastly overplay Sony’s role in Sega’s demise. It wasn’t down to any one factor, or company, and the writing had been on the wall since before Sony even got into gaming.
The reality is Sega had a long string of failures well before PS1 even came to market, from MegaCD to 32X to Nomad. All of which left them weak and in serious financial strife.
Then the Saturn and Dreamcast had various flaws that made them fail by comparison including lack of third party games, lack of dual analogue sticks, lack of dvd playback, terrible marketing and more. Many gamers were hesitant to buy another costly Sega console that would just fail once again, it had been a long time since their last real success.
Sony coming in and undercutting them on price and performance, with a better games catalogue was just the final nail In the coffin sadly.
(Edit) I guess my point is while there are a few similarities in the approach, with Microsoft strong arming, the situation is VERY different. Sony is the current market leader, Sega’s console business was already failing.
Look at the devs Sony own, look at the games they released before Sony bought them, then look at the games they released after Sony bought them! Then look at Bethesda an Activision!! You see the difference??? Sony buy little known devs, invest an turn them in to masters of their trade. Microsoft are simply throwing their wallet about buying already huge, established devs with multi platform games. There’s a big difference!! Bethesda were making Starfield, a huge, multi platform game. MS buy Bethesda an make Starfield exclusive. Starfield isn’t an Xbox game, MS have done nothing towards Starfield!!
@UltimateOtaku91 it’s the revenue for last year for the companies, as pointed out in each of the respective company’s last year results. Those reports are all online to see for everybody.
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
This is hilarious! Microsoft sounds like a kid who's parents won't let them go to their friend's house or something- whining, "But whyyyyyy mommm?!!!" and the FTC is like their mom going, "because I said so - that's why!" lmao
@EvenStephen7 it's been hilarious but unfortunate for game releases
@Rmg0731 seriously!! They don't need Activision to put out games - they have like almost 30 studios and put out some kids in the backyard game and a virtual art history lesson...
@TheElectroFunky seriously - not one person here can name one 69 billion dollar acquisition that was good for the consumer... I think people forget Microsoft is bigger than both Nintendo and Sony..
@Bluphoenicks Yep, I think people conflate and thus confuse my complaining of massively rich companies using their power, as my somehow hating playing on PlayStation or Xbox etc.
I love my consoles, as in I love gaming, but I sure as hell ain’t going to give any corporation with the wealth of a small island my blind faith.
I know emotions run high with these message boards, I just want people to know it is possible to think large corporations don’t care about us and screw industries over long term, and yet still enjoy their product/s.
You couldn't have said it better - and yes absolutely I can still love my ps5 and series x and switch and have these opinions about these conglomerates
@jordan1992 You do realize the relationship Microsoft has had with Bethesda over the years, right? Bethesda only worked on PC games and then had several exclusives with earlier Xbox generations. Microsoft pumped money behind Bethesda as Sony did with many of the studios they acquired over the years. Your point has no merit about Bethesda. In regards to Activision, Microsoft really wants King for mobile, so again your point has no merit. Why is there this notion out there that only Sony buys developers they cultivated and groomed and brought along? That is such a crock.
@jordan1992 And also, we will see if they have done nothing with Starfield. Being an exclusive will make it easier to work with one platform as Todd Howard already said. Are you on the right sight or just here to flame?
@stvevan Xbox is a separate branch with a separate budget. And it's called "market share". Look into that one.
The FTC is a joke these days, no opposition to far bigger mergers, but this is the hill they want to die on. They need new people running it.
@Bluphoenicks That is actually nothing compared to some of the deals that the FTC apparently had no problem with.
@jordan1992 Bethesda never announced the platforms Starfield was going to be on before the merger. After the merger, Todd Howard came out and said that it was great only having to program for one platform. For all we know, it was MS exclusive from the start.
@cburg IDK why people overlook the relationship between Bethesda and MS over the years. A assume console-only gamers that just don't know any history of PC gaming and younger gamers that just weren't around for it, in both cases knowing nothing of Bethesda's existence prior to the dodgy FO3 and Oblivion PS releases. Heck I remember when Zenimax was a second rate publisher that published a lot of weird Russian games that today would be called "indie." The narrative of Sony only grooming studios to buy probably comes from the fact that they had a number of "second party" studios that mostly only made things for PS to even buy. In a perfect world, MS would have bought Bioware, Mistwalker, - they did buy Bungie, then spun them independent, then they became Activision contracted, then Sony bought them.... they let all their opportunities pass by.
@HunterRose Bethesda is a PC studio that happens to also make (questionable) console ports. With where Starfield was in development at the time, it's likely only the PC version had any work done on it to that point. My impression is they mostly finish PC first, then port that to consoles, so neither an Xbox nor PS version probably had any work started yet when MS acquired.
@JayJ Based on their alleged argument, I get the impression FTC never even went over the details of this acquisition and never intended to. They saw "Microsoft" on the brief and decided their result at that point, then found tenuous reasons to back it, without understanding the actual purchase.
@cburg it is a fact Sony devs released AAA GOTY style games after Sony bought them, not before. It is a fact Microsoft have given up trying to compete with Sony by making like wise exclusives and are now simply trying to buy up already successful, 3rd party games. Doesn’t matter how ya try to spin it, this is a fact!!
@HunterRose it wasn’t an ya know it wasn’t. Why would it be? From a business point of view if it were to be exclusive Playstation exclusive would be the better choice. Playstation sell more consoles and more games. Biggest selling PS exclusive has about 28 million sales. Biggest selling Xbox exclusive has about 8 million!!
@cburg i’m not on any side. I’m a gaming fanboy! I enjoy the best games which up to now have always been on Playstation. I really hope Starfield lives up to the hype an can rival some of Playstation’s exclusives. Like ya said, we’ll have to wait an see.
@jordan1992 You think Activision has been releasing "GOTY" style games? Fact is your double standards are on display, as is your obvious biases. I mean you have a Playstation character as your profile image, you clearly came here from PushSquare just to shill for Sony.
@JayJ Call of Duty is one of the biggest selling yearly games. That’s the main reason Microsoft wanna buy them. Everything i say is fact. Joel is one of characters from my absolute number 1 game. Wat difference does my profile pic make? If a Microsoft dev made The Last of Us it would still be my absolute number 1 game.
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...