The UK Competition and Markets Authority is still investigating Xbox's Activision Blizzard deal, with the final report currently set to be published by April 26th. While we've heard plenty about Sony's clear objections to the merger, today the CMA posted new findings relating to other gaming competitors.
The authority says that out of a total of six companies spoken to, three felt that if the deal went through, it "would have a negative impact on competition". Two of the other groups expressed no concerns, while the final participant commented that it was too early to judge how things would shake out.
Who exactly these companies are remains secret for now, so we don't know which company each verdict relates to. The CMA does detail some of what each of them talked about though.
One third party labelled Call of Duty a "driver of console purchase decision-making" and felt that creating a competitor to Call of Duty would cost even more money than developing CoD itself. We're not making guesses as to who that company might be... honest!
One third party also pointed at Xbox's Bethesda moves, and how the Starfield maker's games are becoming exclusive to Microsoft platforms. They feel that similar moves with Activision Blizzard would "harm consumers". Again, the report doesn't say whether any of these arguments are made by the same third party.
Other participants in the investigation aren't quite as dramatic, especially relating to exclusive games. "Some" third parties commented that platform exclusives are "a normal feature of competition in console gaming", perhaps hinting that they wouldn't see ActiBlizz exclusives on Xbox as any different to the norm.
For now, we don't know what impact these six companies and their opinions will have on the final verdict, but the UK CMA is clearly being very thorough in its investigation into Xbox's deal. Unless there's any further delay, we should hear the authority's verdict within the next six weeks.
Do you agree with any of the viewpoints presented here? Leave your thoughts down below.
[source assets.publishing.service.gov.uk]
Comments 45
Why they don't just ask ABK who do they want to be their daddy, Bobby or Phil? 😂
@Kaloudz It's crazy how Microsoft has put it out there that Call of Duty isn't being taken away from competitors. Microsoft has said "as long as there is a PlayStation to release CoD, it will be there". Microsoft has said "To show you were are serious we are offering an unprecedented 10 year commitment to start with. Oh and we're adding Nintendo to the mix".
Yet, it feels like this whole thing is because people said, "What happens after 10 years?" or "I think you're lying". Also, the majority of the backlash is coming from a platform holder that is...well...benefiting from current deals.
Like, if Sony didn't have any stake in Call of Duty, I'd be WAY more inclined to listen to the argument as the argument has no self-serving aspects to it.
Sony should probably be more afraid of what Activision might do if this acquisition can't go through:
Activision loses a buyer it probably needs. Somehow, I sense Sony will lose out on its sweetheart CoD deals after current contracts are over. I mean, an independent Activision can tell Sony to [expletive] off out of spite.
Just because the majority of third-party companies polled have concerns (vs the ones who don’t) doesn’t make them Xbox’s “rivals”….
Who are they and why are they called EA, ubisoft and take-two?
I mean, anyone paying attention to all the stuff we have heard over this time knows the 3 entities are PlayStation, Google and Nvidia.
@grumpypotato Nvidia is the third, they have been quoted to express concerns because they also have a cloud service.
@Banjo- Honestly, and I keep saying this, no one has given a single solitary damn about what the employees of ABK think or want in all of this. The move is arguably the most consequential for them and Kotick has been a nightmare for them.
@Kaloudz You have a few things backwards, couple of corrections.
This is just how the process works in the UK. The CMA flag an issue and request that people or companies with an interest come to them with potential pros and cons. They draw their own conclusions but want to hear others views FIRST to check they haven't missed anything. Obviously not all that will be worthwhile, but that is the process.
Again THEY, the CMA, didn't pick six companies, these would have been the companies with an interest that approached them as part of that process. Most companies are probably ambivalent as it doesn't impact their business positively or negatively.
Like you just want this to be over asap. I expect some concessions, hopefully less about COD and more related to buying up publishers to make their content exclusive in order to boost your market share... that's a bad future.
@Wheatly it's not just acquisitions though. As third party exclusive deals are also harming consumer choices also.
They can "feel" all they want. Facts don't care about feelings.
LOL, "3 anonymous companies object", with one objecting to it's harm in console sales. Soo......Atari?
@GamingFan4Lyf Nah, CMA just hasn't actually caught up to the part where MS talks about the 10 year deal yet. It's government. Give it 5 or 6 years and they'll start asking about Live Gold requirement on 360.
@Wheatly I think from the jaded gamer perspective, ABK is what you're left with AFTER the M&A has already ruined the business. Blizzard's ruined, Acti is ruined, the smaller companies absorbed into them like Sierra is gone/ruined, most of the IP is abandoned/ruined, and then there's King just to make sure we hate it. What's another merger atop that?
@darkswabber Take Two maybe. EA and Ubi, nah, they'd don't have any special affiliation with PS, EA arguably has more affiliation with MS, and neither are at this point affected by anything ABK. If anything, CoD belonging to a partner (MS) works out better for them than it belonging to a direct competitor (independent.) Gives them more breathing room from trying to compete directly with it, and gives them more opportunity to see special arrangements with PS to compete with it as a partner. Those two wouldn't have any objections. Plus, EA was already looking to Sell, maybe Ubi will too, and this going through bodes well for their own plans, and it being blocked will put obstacles in front of their own plans. They're likely rallying for it to go through.
@Brue That's the serious meaning of my comment, indeed.
Why is it a problem that Starfield is exclusive?
Afaik Spiderman is Exclusive, right? And so is Wolverine? And other games made by studios gobbled up by Sony?…
@Friendly Probably because a PlayStation version WAS in development before the acquisition and then development of that version ceased.
Not saying it's right or wrong, but that's the difference. Wolverine probably didn't start development until after Sony acquisition of Insomniac. Spider-Man as well.
I really wish Microsoft would do an exclusive Deadpool game that does nothing but make fun of gaming culture (and heavily mock Spider-Man and Wolverine games as Sony exclusives).
I was laughing my rear off at Sony when this all began. Not a legal leg to stand on. What they've achieved with some fancy lawyers, loads of crying & whining + Jim air miles, is quite frankly astonishing. The letter of law and regulation no longer seems to count for anything at all. Hats off to them, seriously.
Kaloudz wrote:
Me too!!! Hopefully this is all done soon.
These objections against this ABK deal are great to see. I don't want anything against Sony PlayStation.
@NeutronBomb What exactly did they achieve with all that, if it goes through anyway though? All they really get is a 10 year deal they probably didn't actually need in writing to get to begin with, and somehow managed to get Nintendo the same deal they get when they otherwise wouldn't have had to deal with that. They pulled off some successful tort but the end result is mostly that they somehow gave the real market leader one of their own advantages they previously lacked....
@Wheatly Yeah, exactly. I mean back then even "Bethesda" was just "Bethesda"....just Todd & Co. id was just the Carmacks, McGee, Willits & Co. Blizzard, by itself, was basically considered a bunch of corporate sellouts. The "big business" side of gaming. The idea one day that would all be rolled into an ABK and a Zenimax was unimaginable. That that would then all be rolled into MS itself is unthinkable. We come from a world were a "big gaming company" meant a dozen people, that sold a few hundred thousand units tops. And that was a "large business."
@Snake_V5 All I can say is that's super self-defeating. It's asking to return the Atari era of the early 80's, or the situation in the US with Nintendo in the late 80s (EU/UK never had the Nintendo-monopoly. We did. It sucked. That's why the Genesis vs SNES wars, then PSX vs N64 war mattered so much.) That's bad for players, bad for developers. Bad for everybody but a room full of executives. PS without MS would suck badly (think PS3 launch.) XB without Sony would suck badly (think X1 launch.) Players and developers need them both to be at each other's throats at all times to keep each other in line.
Ironically, the Atari monopoly is the reason Activision exists (it was spun out of Atari by unhappy executives.)
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
@Friendly what’s interesting about wolverine and Spider-Man is it is pretty much expected those will be exclusive, and nobody bats an eye. But I still see chatter that Indiana Jones better be multiplat or else (even though it literally just started real production after the purchase was announced and only a couple months before it was complete). So if @Gamingfan4Lyf is correct and some people feel justified to complain about Starfield because there was a PS version in the works, then the fact that people have/will complain about Indiana Jones exclusivity has no real justification. To me, Spider-Man and Wolverine show the Sony hypocrisy within complaints about future Bethesda games like Indiana Jones.
@BrilliantBill I agree.
I only want this deal to go through because I am cheap and want Blizzard IPs to drop on Game Pass. I couldn't care less about Call of Duty.
@Snake_V5 Be careful what you wish for. Leaving Sony unchecked is BAD for the industry, too.
I love Sony's first-party output; but it was clear that Sony's handling of cross-gen was a last-ditch effort in response to Microsoft's efforts.
There would have been no "upgrade paths" or "save file transfers". That goes from third-party developers as well - I think Smart Delivery saved cross-gen transitions across the industry.
Sony would have been happy making people double dip and the rest of industry would have followed had the company gone unchecked. People with your mentality would just take it.
@Friendly because they bought starfield while it was in active development for Xbox pc & playstation then shut down development of the playstation version as soon as they acquired them , Spider-Man was offered to Microsoft who declined then offered to insomniac who agreed , 2 completely different scenarios
@Would_you_kindly take it you aren't aware that before Microsoft bought Bethesda, Sony were trying to make Starfield a timed exclusive. Just like Deathloop & Ghostwire Tokyo so stop with the whole victim card. It's probably why Microsoft bought them in the first place.
@GamingFan4Lyf Sony tried to make Starfield a timed exclusive before Microsoft bought Bethesda & if they had succeeded Xbox users could have had to wait one year, two years or like Final Fantasy 7 remake & probably 16 not a tall so stop.
@Would_you_kindly deathloop and ghostwire was timed exclusive without dates on xbox... And ps doesnt even own bathesda
... Ao what about project eve
@cragis0001 & you've seen documents showing that Sony was asking for timed exclusivity of this highly anticipated game that would cost a fortune to get have you ?
@Gamingforlife theres a big difference between a years timed exclusivity & buying a publisher & completely cancelling a release on another platform & project eve or stellar blade as it is now called was funded by Sony that's why they're the publisher of the game
Oh boo hoo, rival businesses take offense to their competition making big deals, who would have guessed, it's almost like this what capitalism is all about.
@NEStalgia @Snake_V5 no it’s a Xbox Site that enjoys Xbox and maybe PS and Switch and wants to see all 3 do well. LOL at Microsoft will quit gaming, they just bought Bethesda and said even after the ABK deal they are looking for more studios. Have plenty enjoy fans to have a strong brand and don’t need to outsell Sony to be a successful brand, Pepsi isn’t going out of business and they take a good size back seat to Coke products. It’s people like you that make Sony annoying for us PS fans. I love my PS5 but the fan’s that want to see its competitor’s go out of business while in first in sales is just ignorant to the industry and show’s that truly they fear competition, even when beating that said competition, cause the fear of being in second place will give you less bragging rights online, it won’t make PS go away or stop making great games.
@Green-Bandit Definitely will not quit gaming, likely the Xbox branding and highly likely the box too. Just to keep brand recognition easier. with just a 'Microsoft Game Pass App' alot easier to market.
@Snake_V5 XB isn't going to shut down because an acquisition was blocked by government. Especially when the whole point of governments doing so would be because a company is too powerful in an industry. They almost closed before because they had few customers, no studios, no IP and no strategy. The choice was just cut losses and leave or make it a core business. They did the latter. You don't buy a dozen companies, get told you can't buy another then just sell off everything you just bought
But that's good news no matter what one you prefer. Any product without competition gets worse and worse. Instead of 2 good platforms we'd end up with 1 bad one. Like I said before, if you actually want that to happen, that is very self defeating. It's a different way of saying "I want an overpriced playstation from a Sony that doesn't even bother trying anymore." You remember the PS3 launch right? Or the terrible PS Now at extreme prices until GP forced them to get serious? Or the obvious intent to not have bc until xb pressured them to have to?
Or the big one. Matricks whole digital only, no resale plan was Sony's too. They reversed course in response to Ms taking the heat for it. PS5 is great, but MS helped make it great. And conversely, PS helps make XB have to be better too. Players, and devs benefit.
Heck, if GP weren't flogging indies, you think PS would even be bothering with indies instead of their aaa partnerships?
Just thinking about a one sided industry like that should send a shiver down any player, publisher, or studios spine. That would be a nightmare!
Fortunately that's not a realistic result of any abk outcome. If anything they'd more aggressively pursue different strategies to more directly challenge Sony.
Plus, for an example of what a competitive Sony looks like vs one without competition, look how they're handling vr2. The pricing, the approach to the whole product. Why? Because they're not the market leader, Facebook/meta is, and apple might be right behind. So they're fighting. And it shows
@PsBoxSwitchOwner Xbox Hardware for next Gen has already been slightly hinted at and Spencer said that as long as gamers are buying consoles, xbox will be in that spot, but it’s smart that if for some reasons in the future it goes cloud, mobile and PC, who’s sitting the best to thrive there? MS, they will have ton’s of IP’s, like the other 2, but have the infrastructure that those stream and play from. So they are here for a long long time, and anytime someone plays budget analysis or CEO of a company they are 75-90% wrong. Not trying to be a jerk or nothing, just saying all signs points to xbox and MS being around wherever gamers are playing at.
@Would_you_kindly the fact that when the rumour leaked Todd Howard was asked & he didn't deny it speaks volumes. Maybe the papers Microsoft are asking for from Sony could include there dealings with Bethesda. Plus you just have to look at the amount of money Sony has spent to pretty much snap up the Final Fantasy 7 remake trilogy & 16. I bet they were more expensive than what Bethesda would have asked for Starfield.
@Would_you_kindly so your happy for Sony to jump in & buy an IP Stellar Blade which was essentially originally a multiplatform game but complain about Microsoft turning a multiplatform exclusive 🤣🤣🤣 which again Sony was rumoured & never denied to be doing with Starfield for 1 year, 2 years or like FF7 remake may never release on xbox.
@Would_you_kindly why should i care if publisher or studios whats important for me is games i cant ply on xbox because of shady deals... Not buying publishers? They buy studios and games... Are we really ganna go into this were i name all 3rd party games sony buy as permanent exclsuives or timed or i say how sony is making cotract with devs to not put their games on GP... Conversations with people like you is worthless publishers bull*** hell sony is screwing MS however they can he yeah if they got the money to they will not only buy publishers they will buy nuclear missle to blow up xbox HQ...
Your so blind
Such a fun topic, will be a far more fun topic wise if it doesn’t go through, to see what Microsoft do.
They could go bye bye, as obviously buying studios is a big part of their strategy moving forward. Xbox is a bit of pocket money for them really.
I do feel their Gamepass strategy and selling consoles strategy is not really working and we know why games, so buying studios is a big part of that.
Will they ever fire on all four cylinders again with Xbox? I can’t see it at the moment, but I hope so in the future.
Looks like Sony is going to lose in the end ether way. They lose (according to Sony) if M$ buys out AB.
Sony will also lose if this deal fails to go through. There's no WAY things can go back to normal after all the damage Sony will end up doing to hurt their relations with M$ and AB.
The fact that EU has not even brought up Nintendo into the picture, which M$ said many times Nintendo would get CoD as well just goes to show how skewed EU is towards Sony. If EU really cared about competition equality then they would also be considering Nintendo right now as their system has zero CoD games, which Microsoft would change if they buy out AB.
This is nothing new. Competition bureaus are supposed to go out and get thoughts from rivals. And you will never get all rivals to say, "Ya, that is great, we can't wait for our competition to get stronger".
These bureaus are just political engines for the most part. I do like their intention but to me, it is more about talking to consumers rather than companies. If consumers have complaints that is understandable, if the competition complains I am not sure how valid that is.
Only one thing is bigger that Sony's hypocrisy, Sony fanboys' hypocrisy.
As you all can see, the same people justifying that Xbox don't get certain games not because of exclusion agreements but because Xbox is some kind of unsuccessful and alien machine and that you should buy other systems to play those games, are the people complaining about the ABK acquisition.
@cragis0001 stellar blade was never multiplatform...
@Would_you_kindly Stellar Blade Formerly known as Project EVE, its official publishing title was revealed on September 13th, 2022. Producer Jackie Lee informing the press that there has been "a lot of progress on the title" since the initial announcement on April 3rd, 2019. It was announced for PC (Steam), PS4 and Xbox One in 2019, but was recently advertised as a PS5 console exclusive on September 13th, 2022.
So yes it was once a multiplatform game before becoming a PS5 exclusive.
@cragis0001 yeah just checked you're right it was initially coming to Xbox & last gen consoles but they obviously changed that & with it being published by Sony I'd say they probably provided alot of money to get the game finished
I don't really care that much if the deal goes ahead or not. It'd be interesting to know how they interviewed "rivals". I mean...if you pretty much throw open question to these, with no need for any sort of business case that supports your stance then no surprise they actually say "this is bad for industry". If they are actually rivals, then clearly they are biased. Agree with other people's position that you'd think these government organisations would be equipped to come up with their own fully independent view. I'm guessing when you know the full story these interviews and surveys make sense, but without knowing more it sounds really dodgy.
@Would_you_kindly aye maybe had financial issues & Sony is allowing the game to get finished. We'll probably never know but hope it turns out well.
i'm confident the deal will go through.
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...